18/05/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. As if he didn't

have enough on his plate David Cameron wants to help you bring up

your children or at least provide classes to lend you a hand. Has the

champion of the Big Society embraced the nanny state? Now he's

got that out of the way, the Prime Minister is heading to the US for a

meeting of the world's biggest economies, with Greece, Spain and

the euro crisis top of the agenda. We'll have the latest from

Washington and ask UKIP's Nigel Farage and former Europe Minister

Denis MacShane where the EU goes from here. And what happens when a

politician more famous than the party they lead stands down? After

Caroline Lucas steps down as Green Party leader we'll talk one person

parties. How fast do you drive? 60, 70? What about 80 miles per hour?

That's the government's plan for Britain's motorways but road safety

campaigners say it will cost lives. We'll debate whether the planned

new limit is the right one. Treasury whip just received the

steps from a Labour Whip saying Please Please come to the chamber

for the start of the final day of the Queen's Speech today. Ed Balls

is opening for us and really needs his support. Oh dear. We'll explore

the perils of mixing politics with modern technology. All that in the

next hour. And with us for the whole programme today are Anne

McElvoy from the Economist and Steve Richards from the Independent.

Let's start with the Prime Minister's plans to help parents

bring up their children by offering state-funded parenting classes,

some of which will be made available in high street stores.

Here's what he had to say about the idea this morning. Parents want

help, it is in our interests as a society to help people bring up

children. We are taught how to drive so I think it makes perfect

sense to keep -- help people with parenting. I wish I had had more

support. These are practical, sensible tips from midwives,

featuring real families, real information. It is a good thing and

people who say it is the nanny state do not listen to them. David

Cameron speaking this morning. Steve, does this have a hint of the

nanny state? I am a strong supporter of the nanny state, I

think the idea it is a derogatory phrase is part of the problem with

Britain at the moment when any one is too scared to outline clear

rules. I think it is a really good idea, absolutely right but it does

not go far enough. I think parenting classes should be made

binding, not voluntary. My worry is that the kind of people that would

really benefit from these classes like young parents will not take up

the offer. It is not enough, so should be more nannying, not less!

This paranoia about being a nanny state is a real problem. Look at

the smoking ban. Liberating measure. The problem for him is he has

always moaned about the so called nanny state that you support. Is it

just surprising coming from David Cameron, this sort of policy?

because it is not even nannying. It is voluntary, it is Advisory,

offering advice, resources, facilities. It is not nannying. If

you cannot do something like this when a few of his advisers rightly

say we insist on people taking driving instructions but have no

guidelines on parenting, if you cannot do this through fear of

appearing bossy you might as well give up politics because they are

in a position where they can do something about this. The issue is

it is not enough. But are the right people going to take up any of this

advice which can be classed as e- mails, I forget what else. Early

intervention will save money further down the line. Tony Blair

never came up with this idea. Is this going to do the trick? No. The

reason is because they fear being accused of being a nanny state, so

they will not impose the Sony one. -- this on any one. Where actually

the only way you make progress is where people have to do it

otherwise people will not. So I fear it will not reached the people

that will benefit most. Everybody will benefit because nobody knows

how to parent, I wish I had been forced to do it. But I do not think

it will reach the right people. That means becoming more of a nanny

state, then you can. We're used to the eurozone lurching from crisis

to crisis, but the single currency has never looked under greater

threat. After nine days of wrangling party leaders in Greece

this week gave up their attempt to form a government, raising the

prospect of a "Grexit" - Greece crashing out of the euro and

returning to the Drachma. One economist warned that the cost of a

Eurozone breakup could reach as much as one trillion dollars and

would hit the UK hard. With depositors apparently taking their

money out of Greece, we've then heard unconfirmed reports of a run

on banks in Spain. And last night ratings agency Moody's said 16

Spanish banks were being downgraded because of the country's weak

economy. Spain's banking crisis threatens to reach Britain's high

streets, as the UK arm of Santander was also downgraded. Amid the chaos

David Cameron has appealed to the eurozone's leaders to take decisive

action to save the single currency. But will his lectures risk souring

relations with world leaders gathered near Washington for the

annual G8 summit? Well he won't be the only world leader calling for

action, with President Obama urging Europe to stiumulate growth.

Joining us from Washington DC is our political correspondent Norman

Smith. He cannot escape this crisis because it will be top of the

agenda. There is no way round it but what is interesting is that in

a way David Cameron is perhaps calling for the most radical action

at the summit. We know Francois Hollande and Barack Obama won more

pro-growth measure but in Downing Street they are saying the measures

they're arguing for like bringing forward structural funds and credit

easing is not enough, it is far too marginal given the scale of the

economic crisis now. In a funny way, David Cameron finds himself almost

a closet Euro-federalist having to argue a much more radical cause of

action including the creation of greater fiscal integration, a much

higher bail-out fund. So it is not Mr Cameron calling for austerity.

In a funny way he is the one trying to crank up the pressure on the

eurozone and needs to do more. is that why we are getting briefing

saying there is no rift between David Cameron and Francois Hollande,

bearing in mind the rhetoric has been different in the past? At a

personal level it would frankly be bizarre if there was not a slight

coldness between the two. But I think the truth is whatever their

personal differences I think it would be extraordinary if I was

allowed to skew of course there talks later today. It would be like

two neighbours arguing over a hedge when the foundations of the House

are crumbling. They will be focused on the political, the priority. The

real focus, the person who will really come under pressure at this

summit is not David Cameron, not Francois Hollande, certainly not

Barack Obama, in all likelihood it will be the German Chancellor

because all the remedies these men are pushing for, all of them

require stacked loads of money and the only country with a stack loads

of money is Germany. It will be critical. Good luck. So where does

this all meet the European project? -- leave. We're joined by former

Minister for Europe Denis Macshane and UKIP Leader and MEP Nigel

Farage. So after two years of saying we were at a critical point,

his is the critical moment when the two options of Greece going or

Germany doing something dramatic to prevent that? I will give you a

European answer - yes and no. People just look at Britain, read

the Financial Times hearing we are in the worst slump since the 19th

century, that we have cut investment, my firm is ready to go,

build houses, provide catering service, all they want is a nod

from the government so what the rest of Europe is doing and saying

to Britain is Will you help increase demand because we cannot

get ourselves out about crisis if Britain remains locked in

stagnation and slump? Arguably that will not help Greece at this stage,

and it is at that stage where the rest of Europe is looking to. Do

you think the meeting today will be a make or break? No because I think

Barack Obama will knock a few heads together and put his ideas forward.

He needs to knock our view together that the government should not

spend any money together with Chris's 2% of the grease economy,

all the money that has gone to them so far has been recycled back to

banks in Europe, including some in London, which rather than spending

on improving the Greek economy. The Greek primary deficit is 1%, ours

is 8%. So actually Greece has a lot of pain to go through but the

notion Greece will bring Europe down his fantasy. Do you think this

is a critical moment? I sense we may have passed the point of no

return. The run on the banks, the rich people got the money out of

Greece last year, the middle classes and are desperate to get

their money out. But there are not use of people going round the

corner like with Northern Rock. Take Spain, a billion euros I think

we have a bank run going on, and a recognition amongst the electorate

that the north of Europe is not prepared to pay continually to bail

out the South. And the South is starting to vote differently as

well. So you think this is the point at which everyone except

Greece goes? I think they will go quickly. The does not a remote

issue for Britain. If Greece goes the risk of contagion, a trillion

dollars, the cost of a potential break-up, is also huge. The real

problem is Spain because if it goes after Greece with a domino effect...

But with your policy that is more likely isn't it? If these countries

are kept trapped inside the eurozone it could lead to

revolution, violence, Allsorts of awful things so the best thing is

to take the medicine to help these countries get out of the euro and

get our own currencies back. It will be better than staying as we

are with something that is failing. But that amounts to saying to every

Greek rush to your bank today, that would be soon, you would have to be

armed guards outside banks because the money would be under people's

beds. It is not happening in Spain. It is officially denied. Cash

deposits went up 20% increase and they are falling this year.

means people will feel no hope, unable to pay the police, the army,

goodness knows what will happen, they will flood north light in the

Yugoslavian crisis, when our government said it was somebody

else's problem to solve. If we want a million Greeks flooding into the

UK, go down your road, Spain... him defend it. The Greek economy

has contracted by 20% over the last years, it is due to fall 67% this

year, youth unemployment is 57%, we even have neo-Nazi parties winning

seats in Greek parliament. The situation there is desperate. The

only hope they have got us a competitive devaluation, to have a

rebirth in the tourism industry, to give their exports some chance.

Those are the same scenarios that have been on the table for a long

time. Is there any notion at this stage that Germany is going to

finally say OK, we are going to persuade the European Central Bank

to step in, we're going to prevent Greece leaving the euro to save the

currency? Or is it they are working on Greece leaving, then they will

try to save the rest? We might have a clear idea after this weekend.

There are about 25 different elements to this story. We know the

answer to some of them. The Spanish bank situation is frightening but

we know what we need to do because we experience that ourselves and so

did the US in 2008. You need to throw money at these banks. It

Spain are now officially denying it as lies. There are not queues

outside banks to take money out. Spanish banks are solvent, Spanish

debt is manageable so the Spanish state, we have a Prime Minister who

I agree on the British element. It is difficult for David Cameron and

George Osborne to lecture other countries when Britain is part of

the problem with the economic policy it is pursuing. In terms of

Greece and whether it will leave the euro, I haven't a clue. We have

been here about 25 times over the last year. A let me take a look at

the European project, broadly. Denis McShane, you promoted it at

the time. It is now endangering jobs and security for millions. Do

you accept that it has failed? what has endangered jobs and

security is bad banking policies. This is not just me thinking it,

but the most respected commentator in Europe. In Britain, we have the

weakest major economy in the world. But looking at the Eurozone, do you

accept that that has failed? And not at all. I have just come back

from Turkey, which would like to join Europe. If you go to eastern

European countries, even Ireland, the idea that they want to return

to control of their own currencies and their own national economic

policies, Nigel believes in that, but I don't. You are stuck with a

big idea that you believed in for decades. You can't recognise that

it has gone wrong. People of Europe now want a Europe in which we trade

together, but one how own national democracies. The other side of that

argument is that what went wrong was that there was not a closer

political and fiscal union, which might happen now, with a smaller

Europe. In is unlikely. You cannot build a political union without the

political consent inside that union. We tried that with Yugoslavia.

Nobody in Europe has been asked whether they want most of their

laws made by the European Commission. They would reject it

all over Europe. It but Denis MacShane's point, recent programmes

have shown that many in Greece and Ireland do not want to leave the

euro. That is as it was in Argentina ten years ago. The day

before they left, two thirds of people did not want to leave. The

day after, they were delighted. When the opinion polls do not go

your way, they are wrong. It is clearly failing. Nigel Farage, I

know you feel it will not happen, but if Greece does go and maybe

some of the other southern European countries, and there is a small

Europe with Germany at the helm, might Britain not be more isolated?

I thought the Eurozone might work in northern Europe for a time, but

over the last couple of years, the competitiveness gap between France

and Germany is also very wide. The whole thing will break-up. In is

the price of keeping Greece in the euro worth it at whatever cost?

is for the Greeks to decide. We had two elections in 1974. Some people

need more than one election to get where they think they should be

going. A big debate is taking place in Europe. On balance, the idea of

reintroducing capital controls in countries and bringing back the

drachma and the peseta would cause havoc for the 800,000 Brits living

in Spain. They would be the first victims if Spain is affected by the

Greek problem, which almost certainly will happen. We will work

our way through this. We adopt new policies such as those that Obama

and so on are calling for, or we go back into the road of the

Balkanisation of Europe. We have had arguments about austerity and

growth, but let's think about the G8's brief, bringing together,

Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Obama - that will be DG8 on the

phone! So sorry! You are forgiven. The Washington hotline has

contacted me now to say exactly what Merkel is going to do.

they really from such different perspectives? They are, no question.

When David Cameron claims that Hollande is with him in terms of

what needs to be done, that is not what Hollande himself believes. I

know that from conversations he has had with others in Britain. There

are very different ways in which this austerity versus Growth debate

could go. When people look back, they will recognise that the media

reaction in 2008 to the crisis, which was when we entered this new

era, the country's broadly got it right. Obama and Brown, who is not

allowed to be mentioned these days, and others, persuaded Merkel to

introduce a short-term fiscal stimulus. And Sarkozy. But since,

this austerity package within Europe and Britain has stifled the

small amount of growth that surfaced after the 2008 crisis.

Angela Merkel will not be persuaded. She will not go for the euro bonds,

which is David Cameron's idea. big worry is, one reaction in

Greece might be to cancel the arms deal with Germany. That is what

happens when you have the Balkanisation of national economies.

They stop trading with each other. I have to say goodbye to you.

Wiedersehen. British voters have backed UK

membership of the European Union in a referendum, but that was in 1975,

37 years ago. Now the People's Pledge campaign is trying to put

pressure on the Government to hold a new referendum on whether we

should stay in the EU. Claiming Europhile as well as Euro-sceptic

support, backers range from Tory MPs Mark Reckless and Priti Patel

to Caroline Lucas of the Greens and Labour's new policy chief Jon

Cruddas. The group held their own mini referendum on the issue in the

Essex constituency of Thurrock, where 30% of electors returned

ballads and 89% backed the campaign. This morning, they announced plans

to hold prefer the votes in the neighbouring Lib Dem help seeds of

Manchester Withington, Cheadle and Hazel Grove. With the possibility

of a vote on EU membership being taken increasingly seriously by all

the political parties, the politicians will be watching with

interest. We are joined now by the director of communications for the

People's Pledge campaign, Ian Mackenzie. And Anne McElvoy has

also made it. Ian, do you want Britain to leave the EU or stay in?

The People's Pledge does not have a position on that. We have people

from pro Europe and anti-Europe. Personally, I am a Europhile, but I

want to take the politics out of it. The British people should decide on

our relationship with our European neighbours, not the political

parties. It you look at a lot of the polling evidence,

overwhelmingly, people seem to be more Euro-sceptic. Not necessarily.

15% are in favour of staying in without question. 47% in the middle

want to renegotiate on some level. We should clear matters up with a

referendum so that after 37 years, people have the chance of a say.

Looking at the results, in the name, would you accept that the people

who would respond to a referendum like that would be those motivated

by wanting to leave the EU? For at the moment, I can't deny that the

centre of gravity is clearly Euro- sceptic, certainly in therapy. It

depends where you go, of course. But for the last few decades, we

have had Nigel Farage and chaps on the Euro-sceptic wing arguing

against it. And the air time for pro-Europeans barely happens.

you think if there was more of a debate, the Euro-sceptics have

dominated the argument. So you have chosen these three constituencies

next. Why those three? Were looked at different options. Many factors

were involved - the politics of the MPs and the local parties, our

local support, psephology, local statistics. There are all Lib Dem.

No particular reason for that? have a Labour MP and a Conservative

MP launching a campaign. The smart be music to your ears. I agree. The

more people that recognise that that referendum that seven years

ago was not about the European Union. My parents did not vote for

that, they voted to stay part of a Common Market, a very different

thing to what we have today. The more debate there is, the better.

Anne McElvoy, does it test the temperature of people in terms of

wanting a referendum? Bitch should certainly test the temperature. But

I am not clear up what it is a referendum on. When he and talks

about it clarify our relations, if you are going to do that, you could

have done that at many points. The Lisbon Treaty might have been the

moment to do it, but there was not the political will to go ahead. At

the moment, it is hard to say what the EU will be very shortly. So

there is a charity issues that face us this campaign, which is what are

you asking people to vote on? From a Europhile position, you want

people to renegotiate. You can't have a referendum asking if we can

renegotiate. Referendums give you clear and blunt outcomes. You are

muddying the waters if you bring in renegotiation. It is either out or

in on the terms on the table. Firstly, we are not talking about

renegotiating now. We would want to focus on the crisis. The next

Parliament would be the time to do it. A referendum requires a

referendum Act, which needs a referendum bill, and that requires

consent among the parties. That can only happened after a general

election. But that he may look different by then. Let's find out.

But you should find out, because you are putting this before the

people. I have a problem with the principle of referendums. Firstly,

they don't change anything for very long. If you look at the 1975

referendum, by 1979 onwards, Labour were arguing to pull out of the

European Union or the Common Market, as it was. The other thing is, it

is always used in Britain - I know Nigel has been campaigning for it

for a long time - for party political reasons. I bet Labour

will adopt a referendum proposal, but it will be partly to

outmanoeuvre the Tories. It is always done for the wrong reason. I

am a referendum sceptic. They are promised and never held. What would

be the point of UKIP after that? we have a referendum and we vote to

leave the European Union, that will be day one of Britain being able to

renew herself, to fulfil a global role. We are the only party putting

together policies for how Britain could be run them. And the end what

will you do? Get a proper job. are coming to that in a moment.

Now, the leader of the Greens is standing down from the job,

although she will stay on as an MP. Caroline Lucas says she is doing it

so that other members of her party can raise their profiles, but can

the smaller parties ever get over the problem that sometimes their

leaders are bigger than they are? Let's call it the Gulliver dilemma.

What do you do if you are a big political figure, but your party is

a bit small? That question has been posed after the Greens' any MP,

Caroline Lucas, announced that she is standing down as the party's

leader so that others can share the limelight. The problem a lot of

small parties have is that their leader becomes huge in political

terms, and there is a vacuum below them. The danger for the Greens

would be that they became more about Caroline Lucas and not the

rest of the party. It is an opportunity for someone else to

step forward. Sadly for UKIP, when their leader Nigel Farage decided

to stand down, the person who stepped forward was Lord Pearson.

Has he read your manifesto? A course. You don't seem familiar

with it. I had not read it all in detail. He did not come to talk

about your manifesto? I did, but not in the detailed... Of whether I

have talked to some policemen in some car park. Which is why Mr

Farage returned pretty soon afterwards. Although sometimes, it

is help for having a boss who is famous. I have seen you on the

telly. Rob it Kilroy-Silk launched veritas in 2000 and pets five, and

then left. Can you name their current leader? And the referendum

Party of the late '90s may be a gift -- distant memory, but the

high profile of their founder, Sir James Goldsmith, helped them secure

around 800,000 votes at a general election. Celebrity can sometimes

create confusion, though. Many think George Galloway's the leader

of Respect. He is not, he is just a humble MP. It is easy to make fun

of these people who tower over their party. But underestimate them

at your peril. They help set the agenda for the larger parties.

Whereas no one would pretend that UKIP will be a major electoral

force, the influence of UKIP is felt more in terms of how the other

parties react. Ditto with the Greens. They have certainly managed

to ensure that their agenda, albeit from their perspective watered down,

is now a permanent part of the three main parties. There may be

all this talk about the Bishop distracting from the fact that all

parties, no matter what size they are, need enough little people to

do the difficult work, things like knocking on doors. Wheel size

Nigel Farage are still with us. Small parties benefit from having a

larger than life of vocal leader like yourself. More many smaller

parties are founded by somebody, drawn from the top and support

comes up towards the leader and you see this across Europe. In this

country I would argue UKIP is different, the Greens are similar,

where grass roots movement where the support for the party bubbles

up from the bottom. There has never been a dominant figure. What?!

There was briefly with that suntan follow -- fellow. I beg to differ.

You what the dominant figure. -- you are. If I were to fall under a

bus, have a crash, who knows? If I disappeared tomorrow, UKIP would

not disappear. The up we be as successful? For many people you are

UKIP. We are a grassroots organisation, 300 branches in the

country, I might be the dominant figure at the moment but it is

about more than me. But if you were to step aside for whatever reason,

where are the next generation of UKIP leaders? There are a couple of

people that could do the job now actually, people have been elected

to European Parliament, gained political experience. It would not

be easy but it never is. Why did not come into this as a known

celebrity, I came to this as a nobody. I had to work at it.

Hooker takeover now? Can you think of somebody? -- who could takeover

now. I would struggle with that because as you say it is grassroots,

you have good women associated with other things, known for campaigning

on those issues. They are UKIP but not really associated in the public

mind with it. You also have powerful figures who like to stay a

bit behind the scenes. You have funders, grassroots, but what tends

to happen is that somebody emerges who can catch the public

imagination as you have, then it is very difficult when you go. It will

not be easy to say I am moving out of the way for Caroline Lucas and

somebody steps in. But is not how small parties work. What effect

will it have on the greens of Caroline stepping down? Would

smaller parties, although the leader's personality is important,

and you are one of the great media performers in that... We are being

so nice to! Forget about him! issue for the smaller parties is

the issue they are identified with and how salient it is. That was

arranged in question, if Nigel gets this referendum and Britain votes

to stay in the European Union, what role then just for Nigel but for

UKIP? Similarly for the Greens, when Caroline Lucas got that see

the environment was one of the big issues before the recession.

Weather remains as salient in the economic doldrums is a bigger issue

when parties are associated with one particular policy area. I think

their fate is more dependent on the policy area they are associated

with. That may have been true, certainly a few years ago. But over

the last few years we have broadened and people are voting for

us in local elections. No electoral success has not been great. We do

look at our progress in local elections just a couple of weeks

ago people are going out and voting for us for more reasons than just

the European question. A accept that question now was so salient at

the top of the agenda. Let's look as some other nationalist parties.

Look at Alex Salmond, not a small party but does that apply in the

same way? No question. What did they have the referendum in

Scotland and there was a boat to keep the union? I don't think I

agree. I don't think Alex Salmond will go up for something you the

things that will be the outcome, he will shaded towards an endless

progression towards deep Lomax and He will keep pushing for more

Scottish Power's and it does have bass drum and bass in the

electorate. He could miss time it and get the wrong result. I would

be surprised if we went back here and there was some SNP to be

dealing with. The decline may be. We always bring you great political

TV for free. So today we are going to be something Vos. After the

programme go to your nearest computer, go on the internet and

fill in an online survey run by the University of Strathclyde to test

how the nation really feels. Here How was the country feeling? The

question of researchers at Strathclyde University are trying

to answer would their survey. You log on anonymously, say where you

are, answer a few questions and 15 minutes later the website will then

take you where you are on the optimism scale. How do you feel

about the events taking place around due, difficult circumstances,

economic change, constitutional change, political change? How do

they make you feel? Happy, nervous, when do things about pride? We are

trying to get that sense. What you feel, rather than what you think.

The is is the address to go to... We will bring you the result in a

few weeks. Trust me, this is not your average online questionnaire.

We look forward to it. The Web address for back survey is on our

Facebook page. Now, the government are consulting on plans to increase

the speed limit on motorways and some dual carriageways to 80 miles

per hour, up from today's limit of 70. They say the current limit has

been discredited because most drivers routinely exceed it and

also claim it will have economic benefits. Road safety campaigners

take a different view saying the change will inevitably lead to more

fatalities. So, who's right? We're joined by Julie Townsend, Deputy

Chief Executive of Brake and motoring journalist and former Top

Gear presenter Chris Goffey. Julie, what is your worry on this? We are

desperately concerned that if we see motorway speed limit increased

we will see more devastating crashes and casualties on the roads.

We have a range of evidence that indicate even a small increase in

average speeds on our motorways will mean more people being

needlessly and violently killed, more people being injured and this

increases the burden on health and emergency services so it has

economic repercussions and increased emissions as well.

sounds like a terrible idea. A does, doesn't it? You can't argue with

Brake, they're a great charity you have done great work. They were

founded because a lady was killed in her car by a tanker that had did

to -- had defective brakes. Since then they have campaigned for HTVs

to be safer. But this does not affect HTVs, they will keep going

at 56 miles an hour, their limit. But the rest of us are driving

Rotimi at 80 miles an hour, being tolerated by police because our

cars have moved on since 1965 when the limit came in. Sir it would

just formalise what happens anyway, most people drive within that 10

mile per hour grace that is given to them. We have not seen the sort

of thing you have described over the last 10 years. All on the

contrary, our fatalities have come rocketing down. -- on the contrary.

2010 was the best year ever for casualties in the UK. We have seen

casualties fall dramatically, thankfully, in recent decades. Part

of the reason for that is improved compliance with speed limits across

our roads. No. Mo is people flout as 70 mile limit. A lot of people

do. It is only a minority that get up to 80 at any given time. In any

case, we would argue that just because we have people breaking the

law at present does not mean that law is wrong, all we should raise

it. We have this evidence, academic research which shows if we raise

the limits we would see an increase in average speeds and we will

therefore seem more crashes and casualties. What about a bit was

enforced properly at 80 mph, if there was not that ten-mile grace,

you have audit sceptred fatalities have come down, would you be happy

with that? We would like to see improved speed enforcement on the

motorways, we don't want to see that accompanied with an increase

in the maximum speed limit. In fact, there has been a study which looked

at this option of raising the limit and improving enforcement, it

looked at introduced in 100 more average speed cameras across the

network and raising the limit. They still found an increasing

casualties. We would argue we should be coming at this from the

other direction, how to improve safety and speed management and

deliver the economic benefits associated with it. So the economic

benefits that have been talked about, is that a bit overblown,

that if we could drive faster there would be no traffic and the economy

would be doing better? I don't think it is a huge economic

argument, average speed journey times will not come down that much

but it is the practicality of everyday life on the motorway and

the fact that cars are so much safer, the technology has come on

so far since the 70 limit was introduced that we are reasonable

people driving at the sensible cruising speed of our cars. Do you

drive too fast? S certainly did when I came back from living in

Germany where there is effectively no speed limit. I learnt my lesson,

I got my points and I'd learned by lesson. I am sceptical about this

change because what I have seen in Germany is that people will drive

faster, that is the thing I would worry about in Britain, we are used

to that 10% give, fatalities are higher, and if there is a crash the

chance of fatalities becomes much higher. I think that is a

reasonable thing for the state to get involved in trying to keep it

down. I don't see it as an attack on my liberty. Is there a point at

which you say why don't you bring it down to 60, if it is so

dangerous, why stop at 70? You could say let's pitch it at 50. Is

there an ideal point at which the number of deaths are acceptable?

Having made a strong argument for the nanny state earlier in the

programme, I disagree with that, I am quite relaxed about the speed

limit going up. Simply because... You have a fast car. A don't have a

fast car. Whenever I buy a car people say it goes tour hundred and

142 minutes. Obviously cars are more technologically developed

since the 1960s and everybody does it so it really does not bother me

that much if they formalise it. I do not think that will mean people

then go from 80 to 90. Are you so sure about that? Every year in

Germany I drove a bit faster and I really had to rehabilitate myself.

They dread that extraordinary speeds there because there is no

constraint. We are going back to Europe here! No more! Now, have you

ever sent a text or an email to the wrong person? Can be a bit

embarrassing, can't it? Well, how embarrassing depends on who you

send it to and if they pass it on. It happened to Labour whip Lyn

Brown yesterday. Take a look at this. My honourable friend, the

government's Treasury whip, just received this text, a Labour Whip

saying Please Please come to the chamber for the start of the final

day of the Queen's Speech today, Ed Balls is opening for us and really

I'd give way to the lady who said the text! Can I explain to the

honourable gentleman that we have a very different and more effective

way of whipping our benches than he clearly has on his. Finally, to do

with the economy, the Chancellor needs to pay more attention to

detail because that was not the right reading of the text. Indeed,

it was not accurate, just like much else he does. The Labour Party

certainly does have a different whipping operation, they send their

information to the other political party! How best to avoid those

awkward moments? Giles still what With most politicians having some

kind of electronic device, you'd think they would be technologically

savvy, but some don't know their apps from their e-mail. Here is my

guide to using electronic devices. While rallying your backbenchers,

pay attention to the mobile phone number you are texting. A couple of

digits amiss, and you could be handing the opposition a cyber coup.

Why she had the other mobile number is something of a mystery.

When tweeting about leaks to journalists, make sure that hush-

hush info is sent as a private message. Chris Huhne wrote someone

saying that he didn't want his fingerprints all over the story.

Unfortunately, it was posted to thousands of his followers and

retweeted to thousands more. Linger on your lingo before

pressing cent. Former News International executive Rebekah

Brooks reveal to the Leveson inquiry that David Cameron had

signed off text messages aloe well, apparently thinking it meant lots

of love. Don't let the office in turn get

their hands on your Twitter account. An intern in Tom Watson's office

caused consternation by logging on as Tom and using inappropriate and

controversial language. And context, darling, context.

Britain doesn't have any, so do you really want to post that tweet?

Diane Abbott was accused of racism after saying that white people love

playing divide and rule. She was forced to apologise.

We are joined by Labour MP and confirmed Luddite Stephen Pound. Is

that your new title? Embarrassing for Lyn Brown, wasn't it? You can

come a cropper with tweeting, particularly in the Wapping

operation. Were that true, it would be embarrassing, but it is a load

of cobblers. I don't know what the rules about calling MP a lie are

outside the chamber. It is on parliamentary inside the chamber. -

- unparliamentary. Her I happen to have here in my hand - this is what

the word - please come to the chamber for the start of the final

day of the Queen's Speech. Ed Balls has opening for us. We have

dominated so far. It is important to finish with a strong, confident

finish. There is nothing there about "help out poor Ed". Ed was

tearing strips off George Osborne. He was marvellous. He was in

Godzilla mode. Hasn't this exposed the darker arts of whooping and

political spin for what they are? Where there you read that out as

the truth, as you say, or it is paraphrased by George Osborne, it

just shows what goes on behind the scenes. That makes it a dangerous

tool. It is different from the old dark arts of Wapping, which were

more physical than electronic. It was like the last day of the

football season. Everyone was watching their football team and

listening to other matches going on. And in the chamber nowadays, it is

like a group of penitence at prayer. You see these heads bent over these

things, getting information. The other day, suddenly everybody was

talking about Kenny Dalglish. You can't concentrate. Is it a bad

thing in that sense, that you are keeping up so much of the time - I

do it myself - you are inching through the stories as they

happened, and it detracts from what is going on at the time? It becomes

part of what is going on. This is what is weird at the moment. Prime

Minister's Question Time is really interesting, because you see the

press people of Cameron and Miliband looking at their iPads and

phones to see what the Twitter verdicts are on Cameron and

Miliband. So the two leaders know immediately when they leave the

Chamber of whether they have robbed or been a success. I keep getting

messages in real time in PMQs from the teams, pointing out things that

are on Twitter. That has accelerated massively since Stephen

and I started watching. Have you made any terrible faux pas?

remember surprising some so-called followers. It is very dangerous to

do it when you have had a few drinks. That applies to many things.

But with Twitter, you forget that it is a public forum after a vat of

wine or two. I have tweeted in these circumstances. And people

have expressed surprise at the messages. I will not reveal what

they were. We want to know! Then I looked to see if I had any replies,

and they said "rather surprised at that comment, blah, blah, blah". I

was going to explain that I was completely... Plastered. Should it

be avoided? Tony Blair had the right idea. He still wrote with a

quill pen, but he did not send e- mails. He would not have had a

Leveson moment in that sense. but as we saw with the Hutton

Inquiry and many other post-mortems on the Labour government, once

everyone started e-mailing each other, the next step would be that

you did it on Twitter on social networks, so you can't stop it. And

you can make a mistake when you are doing it in a hurry. This was a

slightly pleading tone to the text. It was only intended to be seen by

supporters, but seen from the other side, it is funny, like it was when

I e-mailed my boss and left a list of things. And she said, I don't

think this is for me. It was for the cleaner. Lyn Brown, that is her

style. She does not do robotic tones. That is the danger. That is

the point. I am still trying to work out how Greg got hold of it.

That is for you to find out. I have got Gregg's on my speed dire!

senior politician said to me that in the age of Twitter, nothing is

off the record. Work on the assumption that everything will be

known. That is what they said when e-mail came in. Let's go back to

the quills. If we had a quill, we would give it to you as a parting

gift, but we don't. Thank you very much.

Now, in case you have not been paying attention, time to catch up

on the political Week That Was. Here is Susana Mendonca with the

week in 60 seconds. The new French President might have

wondered whether the thunder was trying to tell him something this

week. First it rained on his victory parade. Then a lightning

bolt struck his plane while he was heading to meet Angela Merkel. The

German Chancellor was trying to steer Francois Hollande in her

direction on growth in the Eurozone. David Cameron had his own advice.

It either has to make up, or it is looking at a break-up. Theresa May

felt the force of the law as she faced police off the beat. Wasn't

that an awkward backdrop? The Hunter became the hunted in the

hacking saga, as Rebekah Brooks and her husband faced charges of

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Unjust, they claimed.

ratchet up the pressure on my wife, who is the subject of a witch-hunt.

Played a seemed to tilt to the left in Ed Miliband's Mini reshuffle.

And David Cameron revealed that his favourite album is Pink Floyd's

backside of the moon. Is that another economic doom metaphor?

That Was the Week That Was. Anne McElvoy, why don't we do a bit on

growth, since you missed the beginning? We were talking about

the rhetoric and everybody commented after David Cameron's

speech that his rhetoric has changed. Is it heartfelt, or is it

just to chime with Francois Hollande's arrival?

government's position has always been more adaptive on this than it

wanted to headline. It wanted to have clear blue water with Labour

by saying "we are the party not afraid to do this austerity cutting

thing properly". And then, as that has become less proven to be

popular, we don't know if it will work in the long run, but at the

moment the fashion is that Francois Hollande has come in on the left.

This has always been a flexible proposition. They did increase

spending and some point, and they also used quantitative easing, but

they put out the message that they were super tough. They did not say

they were super flexible, so we are now seeing that side. People will

be confused. That is one reason why Labour's poll ratings on the

economy have risen in the last week. Labour have pulled ahead in a

significant way now. Some might say it is about time, bearing in mind

what is going on in the economy. It was posed Budget that the big pull

away happened. Is it that, or is it that people just don't believe the

austerity message any more? Bearing in mind that we have been in

difficult times for the last two years, why have Labour pulled

ahead? De events of recent weeks have created a sense that the

coalition and Cameron and Osborne in particular are not as competent

as people thought. When you have doubts about competence, you then

question the fundamental argument about the economic policy. And that

gives them a chance to say, hold on a second, and in some cases turn

back to Labour or least give them a hearing. But I do not think this is

necessarily just a mid-term phenomenon. The local elections

were interesting in their spread of Labour support. They are the only

party now with support around the UK. If they are clever, they could

use that to give themselves a new and credible picture. And it is not

just the public. The timing has also been interesting, coincidental

or not, of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair, who have been quiet since Ed

Miliband became leader of the Labour Party. But now they want to

re-enter the domestic political scene. They believe Ed Miliband

could be a future prime minister? Are I am not sure if they do

believe that, but they think it is a possibility. And they both have

reasons for wanting to get their own profile back up again domestic

kick. -- domestically. These five- year terms are very long. So it is

all right to flounce out for a while. Then you suddenly think,

during year three or four, maybe there are things they want to say.

Mr Blair needs to reconnect with the domestic electorate for the

sake of his own standing. It is true that they would not come back

if Ed Miliband looked like an absolute basket case. Do you think

he could be a future prime minister? When you ask me that

directly, I still have difficulty seeing him on the steps of Number

10. Leadership is his weakness. He is very bright and broad in the way

he handles things. He has a good temperament, but he does not look

like a confident leader. He needs to grab moments such as the great

result in the local elections. Was the speech he gave after the best

speech he could have given? He misses moments. Leaders need to

catch moments. Find a look, look at this and see if you can work out

why Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt is losing it on the floor of the House of

Commons? We will announce our conclusion

shortly. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sorry. Right. Was it something I

said? I hope not. I look forward to hearing the honourable lady.

you spot what happened? If not, here is a second chance from

another angle. Keep your eye on Charles Hendry at the dispatch box

on the left-hand side of the screen. We will announce our conclusion

shortly. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Oh, dear. If you did not spot it,

Charles Hendry, the energy minister, managed to sit down on top of his

boss, Lib Dem climate change Secretary of State Ed Davey. No

wonder Tessa Munt lost it. And Ed Davey will be one of Andrew's

guests this Sunday on the Sunday Politics at noon on BBC One. See