15/06/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. As dark economic

clouds gather over Madrid, Rome and Athens, in good old Blighty, the

Chancellor decides it is time for some pre-emptive action. We can

deploy new firepower to defend our economy from the crisis on our

doorstep. We will assess just how close the eurozone is to the brink

and ask whether George and made in's plants can really save the day

at home. It's been another of those

difficult weeks for the coalition. Dave and Nick fall-out over Jeremy.

Given all of the time they spend arguing, how does the coalition

government actually work? It has been a star studded week at

the Leveson Inquiry. In case you missed them, we will have the best

bits from the big hitters. Could you stand up in front of your

workmates and say this? I was visited by an obsessive compulsive

disorder. Over the past 31 years, it has played a fairly significant

part in my life. We will talk to one of the MPs who were opened

their hearts on mental health in So, all of that is coming up in the

next hour. With us for the duration, Andrew Pierce of the Daily Mail and

political commentator Gaby Hinsliff. Welcome to you both.

Let's start once again with the euro crisis. Chancellor George

Osborne and Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King last night

announced new liquidity and lending measures designed to protect

Britain from the DEC storm that is gathering across the Channel. The

Government assessment of economic prospects was especially gloomy.

The other effect of the crisis has been to create a large black cloud

of uncertainty hanging over not only the euro area but our economy

and, indeed, the world economy as a whole. Complete uncertainty means

that the risks that will yield returns in five years' time are

impossible to quantify. The black cloud has dampened spirits so that

businesses and households are battening down the hatches to

prepare for the storms ahead. The result is that lower spending leads

to lower incomes and a self- reinforcing weaker picture for

growth. There is none so cheery as a

central bank governor these days(!) We have been tottering on the brink

of the abyss for some time, the apocalypse just around the corner.

It never quite happens. The Chancellor and the Governor would

not be proposing �400 billion worth of extra liquidity for our banks if

they didn't feel that something horrible was about to happen. With

Greece's second election coming on Sunday and interest rates on ten-

year bonds hitting 10% in Spain, which is unsustainable. We are

joined by Allister Heath from City AM. They think something bad is

about to happen, don't they? Clearly something is very wrong in

the eurozone. First you have the Greek elections, if they vote for

and against a pro-austerity party, and we don't know, because there

are no polls, then we will leave the euro very quickly indeed. That

is a major event. A lot of people believe it will be a Lehman

Brothers style event, triggering intense disruption. The second

problem is Spain. Spain is spiralling out of control. Its bail

out failed miserably. In fact, it caused more problems than it solved,

interest rates have gone up. Although Greece is a small economy,

even if they do leave the eurozone as a result of the elections, or

other matters, the firewall that was meant to be in place to stop

the contagion spreading into Spain and Italy is not there, and they

are both incredibly vulnerable? Absolutely. That is why they tried

to bail-out Spain a week ago. To show they are strong, they have a

plan of action and a workable firewall. Within a few minutes, or

at least a few hours, the markets basically call their bluff. They

say this is not a proper firewall, you're making the situation worse.

What happens if Greece leaves the euro? Nobody has a clue. That is

why central bankers are preparing all sorts of measures to pump

liquidity into the system if things go wrong. We are all paying more

attention to what comes out of Berlin these days because of what

we have just been talking about. Has it not been remarkable this

week, the radio silence from Berlin? They are not really saying

anything. Absolutely. That suggests to me that they are starting to

lose patience with the whole system. Quite clearly, they did not want to

underwrite the entire risks of the eurozone. Something very

interesting has been happening. The interest-rate on German bonds has

actually started to go up. The reason for that is, yes, Germany is

a very strong economy. But even they cannot take on the entire debt

of all of the banks and all the countries of the eurozone. We are

running out of time here. This is economics. Economics is a

constraint. You cannot go any further, really. George Osborne has

now indicated twice, hinted, that Greece will probably have to leave

before the Germans will get around to sorting out the remains of the

eurozone. If it were to leave, it could have a sense that you lose

control over. Do you get the impression that in London, now, the

view is that Greece is going to go and, by the way, it should go?

think that is the consensus, generally speaking. A lot of multi-

national countries accept that. There were stories of a large

French company preparing to pull out of Greece. I think that is

definitely the most likely outcome. The problem is, how are they going

to react? What measures are the European authorities going to put

into place when Greece does leave? There were some people against the

whole formation of the eurozone. They were widely ridiculed by the

establishment commentators at the time. But even the critics never

thought that the eurozone would unravel in such a way that it

threatens everybody? Yes. The Cassandras are all saying, you did

not listen to us and we were right. They have every right to say that,

although they didn't necessarily foresee this kind of unravelling.

We never saw this scenario. People didn't see the crash coming and

didn't see that would lead to where we are now. Rather than scrapping

over who was right or wrong to start with, the worry now is that

the grown-ups are not in charge, even now. Reading that speech, the

Mansion House speech, you kind of feel like a passenger on a plane

weather cap hundred and is saying, the bad news is that we are going

to crash into the side of the mountain, but the good news is that

the sandwiches are on us. When 100 billion euros bail outs, as Spain

got, barely buys you 18 hours in the markets, you get the impression

that the European policy elite don't know what to do? It was a

sign that they were still desperate to try to preserve the idea that

the single currency can still work. The deal unravelled within hours.

It was on more generous terms to the Spanish deal, which could have

an impact on Sunday. Clearly, the financial package announced by the

Governor of the Bank of England was to pre-empt, I think, the collapse

of Greece in the eurozone, which I think cannot come quick enough.

Stick with us. In the face of this doom and gloom, what are Mervyn

King and George Osborne doing? Last night, they announced a new scheme

that has brought funding for lending. The Bank of England has

agreed with the Government to provide billions of pounds,

probably up to 80, of cheap credit to bags if they then lend to

companies, small businesses and so on to buy houses. It would increase

overall bank lending by about 5%. In addition, the Bank of England is

also starting, or enhancing, a bank liquidity scheme. This was already

put in place last year. It is entirely separate from the first

thing. It has a catchy title, extended collateral term repo

facility. What it really means is that it will make it easy and

cheaper for banks themselves to borrow at least �5 billion every

month to cover any shortfalls in the wholesale market between banks.

It gives them cash. At the weekend, George Osborne claimed that the

crisis was killing off the UK recovery. Last night he claimed

there was still action that he there was still action that he

could take. We are not powerless in the face of the eurozone debt storm.

Together, we can deploy new firepower to defend our economy

from the crisis on our doorstep. Funding for lending to the family

aspiring to own their own home and the business that wants to expand.

Liquidity for our high-street banks. So, will these latest measures work

when previous ones have not quite seemed to, given the way the

economy has flatlined in a double- dip recession? Joining me now is

the shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie and, from Cambridge, the

Conservative MP Matthew Hancock. He used to be an adviser to the

Chancellor before he got demoted and became an MP. Allister Heath is

Batty Hancock, what makes you think that these measures will get some

growth into the economy when they had and �25 million of quantitative

easing, the interest rates, a 20 billion loan guarantee scheme

haven't? As you say, we have got very loose monetary policy, both

quantitative easing and low interest rates. But that is not

being passed on into the real economy. This morning I was talking

to stable lads in Newmarket, not particularly well paid, and they

were saying that their mortgage rates have gone up in recent months,

even though official rates have stayed flat. The proposal, which I

think was a very good and timely one yesterday, was to make sure

that there's very low official rates, that we have because up the

credibility we have as a government to clear our debts, that those are

passed on to people with mortgages and people that are running

businesses. Therefore, to support them. We have got this very heavily

indebted economy. Keeping rates down for people who have got those

debts is an important way of making sure people have money in their

pockets. If you're stable lads are complaining about the level of

interest rates for mortgages, are you arguing that as a result of its

measure mortgage rates are going to come down? Well, I hope that will

be one of the consequences. Really?! I think if a bank can

borrow more cheaply in the money markets, then they can pass on some

of that lower interest rate on to their customers. One of the things

we have discussed on this programme, Andrew, has been how mortgage rates

have been creeping up. I hope that this liquidity support will put a

stop to that. Also, I am sure it would put a stop to that if it

wasn't for the second reason, also. We know there is this great debt

storm in Europe, it appears to be coming to a head. I don't think

they can solve that without radical structural reform, which means they

are essentially have one economic policy across the eurozone. I think

the reason the Spanish bail out that you were talking about didn't

work was because if you throw money without a structural change to make

sure that they are going to live within their means as a currency,

they have got to do that and it is a huge change. We take it that

things are terrible in the eurozone, we are trying to work out if the

measures of your government are going to help us get through any

storm. Let me bring Chris Leslie in. Do you welcome these monetary

measures? Well, anything that provides some stimulus to the

economy, I think, has to be welcomed. We have sort of been here

before, as you were mentioning, as he went through the list of efforts

on the Monetary Policy side that the Governor of the Bank of England

has taken. The Governor of the Bank of England is, as some papers are

reporting, is blinking now. He is saying, gosh, we have got to do

something. The problem is that we have a Chancellor fixated on this

austerity ideology. It really betrays the fact that I do they

have fundamentally got wrong the analysis of why the economy is back

in recession, all this is some sort of political device to show they

have a different fiscal policy. But they really have to change course

now. The Chancellor in particular has to change course. You want them

to change course on fiscal policy? As a number of measures to

stimulate the economy. Since I have been through this endlessly with

Labour politicians, from Ed Balls down, you cannot tell us even the

size of the fiscal stimulus you would want. That is not fair, in a

sense. Well, tell us! If you want us to reel through Labour's 5 point

plant... No, what with the fiscal stimulus be? If you look at what

happened when VAT was first reduced by Alastair Darling, the Institute

of Fiscal Studies talked about the positive stimulus that provided at

that time. We believe that there is a case, not the only thing we

should do, but a temporary VAT cut would help rebuild confidence.

going to interrupt you because you're not answering my question. I

know what you're matches would be. What I am saying is, since you are

now saying this is not enough, we need to move on fiscal policy,

perfectly respectable position to take, I am asking you to tell us by

what volume would your fiscal policy be different from Mr

All we can do is learn from the past. You can't answer my question?

I'm trying to. We can't crystal- ball gazers and guess how many

millions. Why not? There was an appreciable stimulus effective in

at 2009. Looking at the bank bonus levy, helping small businesses,

youth unemployment. I will try one more time. I will give you the same

answer. Just give me a figure. If you were in power today, where you

are at the moment, how much extra would you borrow in this financial

year? We have put a figure on a reduction of 2.5% in VAT

temporarily. What is your overall borrowing figure? A 12 billion

pound cost. 12 billion pound more? You have to recognise, it you can't

deal with a fundamental failures in our economy, the recession, to

stimulate growth and job creation, all the talk about money or

loosening policy will not do it. Isn't the hard fact, Alastair, the

fact that the Alastair Darling fiscal policy being implemented by

the government, you could barely get a cigarette paper between them.

They are the same. I agree. One want to borrow 130 billion, the

others 140 bn. That's a small difference, not even 1%. It won't

have an effect on anything, so we need to think about, is there a

difference at policies? The Government is obsessed with

lowering the cost of credit. I'm not sure how much of a difference

it will make. We will end up cutting the cost of borrowing by

0.2% for people with mortgages and so on the Falls of how much of a

difference will that make? Do you believe Mr Hancock when he says

mortgage rates could come down? possibly by 0.2%. The problem is,

does the simple reason why the cost of mortgages and loans have gone up.

New regulations imposed by the Government, to force banks to hold

more liquid capital. In a recession, they push up the cost of credit and

reduce the availability. If you see mortgage rates coming down by 0.1%,

that's going to help them? course. If you put 100 pound in the

pocket every month of a stable lad, you would get more spending in the

economy. What is interesting is that... Where does �100 come from

if you cut mortgage rates by 0.1%? Alastair thinks it will be 0.1% but

I hope it will be more than bad. I was talking to a stable lad this

morning whose mortgage had gone up by 100 pound a month and I want to

stop that happening by making sure banks have got liquidity but in the

studio you have somebody saying the Government must cut faster and

somebody saying the Government must cut slower, so the Government is

probably in the right place. We couldn't do these things and get

the low interest rates passed through if we didn't have a

credible plan and be prepared to official rates at 7%, imagine

watching this programme with a mortgage, imagine what that would

mean? Matthews analysis is totally wrong. He's trying to claim the

Chancellor's fiscal strategy is the reason for all the good things we

could point 2. It's the factory have sovereignty, we were not in

the euro, which has given us some degree of opportunity because of

the funding costs and capital costs, but what is holding us back is the

tax rises and cuts the Chancellor made which took confident about,

reduced demand, long before we got into the eurozone crisis. They

weakened our defences when we need a strong economy. I'm going to

bring in Gavin here. The Government is clearly in difficulty. It's also

interesting are the Labour argument that we are in a crisis caused by

too much borrowing so we should borrow more. You almost have both

sides are doing now. The Chancellor said last night the answer to debt

is no more debt, and that's the basis of the austerity plan. It's

more of us about having mortgages, being able to borrow, which is fine

if you are borrowing for growth but I don't see there's going to be a

huge demand from companies wanting to expand now. This money is going

to be sought after by companies who fear they going to the wall and

maybe that's a good thing. I don't think we should pretend it's going

to stimulate growth. I just hope if this money comes, it goes from the

banks to the small businesses if they want to expand and cheaper

mortgages and does not get used by the banks to reduce the bankers

debts and pay bonuses. In effect, this is the Bank of England putting

money directly into the private sector. It's quite a dangerous move

because what's going to happen is the Bank of England will end up

with vast amounts of private sector debt on its balance sheet, so will

take on quite a lot of public and private sector debt, corporate debt,

mortgage debt, credit card debt and so on. It will do that with some

safeguards to make sure it doesn't have too much risk, but if the

economy tanks, and a lot of these loans go bad, the taxpayer would

indirectly pick up the money. There is a big risk here. There is a risk

the banks make riskier loans and are less prudent with their lending

because they know they could pass on this debt to the Bank of England.

I think there is a real risk here, and we have seen such a prime

lending in the past, and that's not a good idea, either. Matthew

Hancock, what evidence is there that small companies and households

on mass are desperate to borrow more? Many people I speak to are

paying off their debts, fed up with debt. They've had too much. They

are tightening their belts, as small companies and individuals.

It's easy for you to generalise. Some companies and households...

There are first-time buyers who want to get on the housing ladder

and buy houses. This business is expanding and find it difficult to

access credit, so in an economy, like this, some people are doing

what you said that others do want to expand. Its basic economics. If

you make the supply of credit easier, you will have a lower price

for the. The or a European banking crisis. The point that was made

which said it's very important this gets of banks' balance sheets and

into the real economy, that crucial, and that has got to be designed in

a way to make sure that it gets into the real economy. It's about

getting his official rates. Not just into the banks. It's the

astonishing lack of grip on economic history which for most

scary thing that from the Government. The reason is, if you

look of the 1930s, when they had these cuts in expenditure and

faster tax rises, as you know, in Japan, the balance sheet... In the

1930s, the economy grew very fast. It did. The British economy came

out of depression in the Thirties bought the it took a shorter time

For the Ed Balls told us this morning, in the 1930s, the Treasury

said we have to cut and that's why we stayed in depression. By the

mid- 1930s, the British economy was growing by 4%. We will trade blogs

online. There is a very strong rebound. Not now, though, is there?

People confuse US history where there was a depression. The OK we

will leave it there. Gentle man, thank you very much. Everybody else

go back to their day jobs. Well, the European economy might be

merrily trundling off to hell in a handcart, but at Westminster's

equivalent of the X Factor, the Leveson Inquiry, it's been an

exciting week, with a line up of political stars strutting their

stuff before the Inquiry's very own Simon Cowell, Robert Jay QC. So, in

case you missed them, here are the big hitters' best bits.

Were your aides involved in using the media to force Mr Blair's

resignation? I would hope not. they involved? I would hope not. I

have no evidence of that. In the dinner, it became apparent in

discussion that Mr Murdoch said that he really didn't like our

European policies. This was no surprise to me. He didn't like our

European policies and he wished me to change European policies. If we

couldn't change them, his papers could not and would not support the

Conservative government. As I recall, he used the word we weren't

referring to his newspapers. He didn't make the usual mob towards

editorial independence. There was a dinner with Rebekah Brooks. Just

the four of you? No, a large number of people were there. I was at the

very end of the table. By the children, so to speak. I only had a

very fleeting interchanges with Rupert Murdoch before the dinner

and I said goodbye at the end. I felt I was an observer more than

anything else. This idea that somehow the Conservative Party and

News International got together and said, you give us your support and

we will way through this merger, which, by the way, we didn't even

know about at that stage, it's nonsense. It was sent by Rebekah

Brooks to you, 4:45pm. I understand the issue with the Times newspaper.

Let's discuss over country supper soon. I'm rooting for you tomorrow.

Not just as a personal friend, but because professionally we are

definitely in this together. Speech of your life? Yes, he can. When you

are at your constituency at weekends, did you see her every

weekend or most weekends? 2008, 2009? Not every weekend. Most

weekends? Mrs Cameron keeps a better weekend Diary record than I

do. She reckons we probably didn't see them more than on average once

every six weeks. That is a better answer than the one I was able to

give you earlier. Did we learn anything this week? We learned what

we already knew. Gordon Brown won't admit to briefing his people. John

Major was quite a decent bloke but not really in control. The boat had

a grudge matches against the media and thought they had been badly

treated by the media so they turned up to put the boot in, fair enough.

I think Gordon Brown is trying to rewrite the narrative that it lost

the election because he was hopeless and very unpopular. He's

now trying to say it was because the Murdoch press had a vendetta

against him, and it simply not true. I would be recalling these

witnesses if I was Lord Everson, because her were glaring

differences. Rebekah Brooks says she got confirmation to run the

story about Gordon Brown's child. Gordon Brown said it didn't take

place, the phone call with Rupert Murdoch. One of them is lying.

David Cameron seem to be doing pretty well. He was handling it,

like an opening batsman. Pretty useless medium-paced bowling, I

would say. Then came at Rebekah Brooks and it fell apart. But it

was just embarrassing. The Prime Minister, he's on those terms with

the newspaper editor. And also, a newspaper chief-executive kowtows

to a Prime Minister like that. is the kind of relationship the

Murdoch people had built up with Tony Blair, his people in the late

1990s and the early part of the 21st century. Despite what Mr Brown

says, they continued with him. David Cameron said he wasn't going

to go that way. He ended up in many ways, even closer than they had

been. They didn't fly halfway around the world to Australia and

couldn't remember quite how that happened, actually. Presumably he

got on a plane. It was a private jet, as I recall. That's why he

conveniently can remember. He suffered amnesia 22 times. David

Cameron was not making headway in the polls, not convincing his own

party so decided to embrace the Murdoch family and he's now paying

the consequences because he got far too close. Lord Everson was

supposed that the press in the dock but I think he has put him in the

dock. Where does that leave the The Prime Minister made it clear

that he doesn't want such regulation. So what are they will

implement it or not, I don't know. Only the British could come up with

a system where the Prime Minister appoints someone to work out how to

regulate the press, and this guy then turns to the Prime Minister

and says, how would you like me to regulate the press? Incredible,

quite extraordinary. But I've never understood the point of the Leveson

Inquiry in the first place. There are criminal sanctions for

journalists that hack into phones, they have been used before and can

be used again. It's, if the over- the-top, nobody is under both...

The police investigation is going to settle this. Exactly, it should

have been left to the police. We knew there was good to be a

regulatory system anyway. There are still more hearings to go on. But

it is party conference time. Got you, there! Relax, you haven't

missed the Olympics. George Galloway's Respect party is so

unconventional that they hold their conference in July. Where better

than sunny Bradford, where Gorgeous George sensationally won the by-

election back in March? Is that trying for the start of something

big or just one of these many periodic flashes in the

parliamentary pan? Len Tingle has been to Bradford to find out.

the most sensational result in British by-election history, bar

none, represents the Bradford spring. But it has been a much

slower journey towards that Bradford spring. Within hours of

his by-election victory, George Galloway boasted that Respect

candidates would flood the upcoming local council elections, seizing

the balance of power from a Labour group just two short of a majority.

In the event, just 12 candidates came forward, did reasonably well,

winning five seats, one of them hitting the headlines by toppling

veteran Labour council leader from his seat. But it wasn't quite

enough to make a difference inside City Hall. As Respect grabbed the

headlines, Labour grabbed a few seats of their own, largely from

the Liberal Democrat and Conservatives in different parts of

the city. That left them with fortified councillors -- 45

councillors, exactly half of those on the authority. With three greens

supporting them, that gives them an automatic majority leaving

Respect's 5 council has not holding the balance of power but out in the

cold. It leaves them in the same position as a number of parties in

Bradford, just short of the Liberal Democrats. We will listen to their

point or Huw, but I will be concentrating on delivering for the

people of Bradford and delivering on the manifesto. It was a

disappointment that we didn't have more councillors. But I think what

we can do is ask the awkward questions, really raise the issues

that our constituents are saying to us. The awkward squad's success is

having an effect. This was Ed Miliband in Bradford just last

weekend, addressing Labour's regional spring conference. We lost

the by-election. We made gains overall in the council elections,

but it was a struggle for us. A struggle against Respect. We need

to learn the lessons of that. Tomorrow, George Galloway steps up

on the platform at his party conference. His message, as far as

he is concerned Respect's journey Now, it has been a difficult week

for the coalition with Nick Clegg refusing to back David Cameron or

his decision to spare Jeremy Hunt and investigation into whether he

breached the Ministerial Code. It is just another example of the

tensions that ebb and flow around the coalition as they head towards

the halfway point in the parliamentary term. So, what do we

know about how the coalition functions and how it will develop

as the next election is? We are joined by Peter Riddell, the man

behind the Institute for the Government's report into war of

this. We are almost at the mid-term. There are obviously tensions. We

are not used to coalitions in peace time in this country. Has it

worked? That is the key point. We are not used to them. A lot of

politicians, people in the media, commentators, they still there soon

we will be backed where majority. Most countries are soon that

coalitions are the norm. There was a lot of experience from overseas

and Scotland, which used to have coalitions, on how to work it. It

is quite normal, or it is normal for single-party governments to run

into trouble mid-term, but it is also normal for coalitions.

Coalitions have formal agreements. A lot of the boxes were ticked. Not

all, but most of them. How do you move onto an election when the

constituent parties are going to fight each other? What we are due

in our report, A Game of Two Hearts, is that you have to think about it

now. There is not the political will there to go into it as a

coalition, but the Government has to go on as problems emerge.

Although the coalition agreement has, in a sense, run out of steam,

in that a lot of the things they have agreed have either been done

or kicked into the long grass, there is not the political will

within the coalition to come up with a Mark two coalition agreement

to see them through to the next election? Not a big agreement. When

you say it has not been achieved, it has been achieved legislatively.

The key is implementation. They passed a reform bill, but we are a

long way from seeing Universal credit. The Health Bill has been

passed, a long wait to go until implementation. Even in that the

agreement, there is a lot of legislation still in the Queen's

speech. There is still a lot to be done. What I do argue is, at this

stage, you're not going to get wildly radical new areas emerging.

There is still a lot to do on implementation. Isn't there also

pressure from the Lib Dems and the Tory backbenchers that as the next

election approaches, far from having a marked tour agreement,

they should start to go their separate ways? We had an event with

Jack McConnell, First Minister of Scotland. He has an interesting

take on this. He said, yes, you're bound to have people fighting each

other. But you have got to balance that with what is necessary to make

government work. To produce a growth agenda, respond to difficult

events, that has got to be done. You recognise that you cannot do

really controversial things that will divide them. You can't to

another health plan. What you can do is get a little win for either

party. That is crucial. Recognise you are going to have more

differentiation, but try to have the internal self discipline. The

real problem is the big challenges like on spending. Can you take

difficult decisions that will last after the election? But that is one

thing they have stuck by. Although Nick Clegg may not want to support

Jeremy Hunt, there is then leaked half of the budget, all of the rest

of it, one thing in his coalition where it has been difficult to see

any unity has been on deficit reduction. You can argue that shows

the success of the coalition. That is the big thing. From the Lib Dem

point of view, they can say, we stuck to it, it was vitally

necessary... That might be the only thing they agree on. Look at Greece

and Spain, so on. We are probably going to have another spending

review before the election. The paid on public spending is far from

over. Has this coalition done better or worse than you would have

expected? Well, I take Peter's point. We are not used to coalition

and we didn't know what to expect. I actually thought it would only

last a year. Now I am convinced that there go the whole course.

Vince Cable talking about disengagement before the election,

maybe they will break up six months before. A lot of the troops low

Do so it would wind-up if he got Whether the Lib Dems de wave runner

six or nine months before the next election, we may have to get used

to coalitions. As the polls stand at the moment, looking at what

happens as elections approach, the most likely outcome is a hung

parliament? That would be extremely difficult for the Conservative

Party to swallow. The assumption was that we will put up with it,

everything has to be focused on winning a majority in 2015. Much of

the tension between Cameron and the troops comes from a feeling on the

right of the party that he doesn't really want an outright victory, it

quite suits him to be in coalition, and he will not be what is

necessary to secure an outright Conservative victory. At the moment,

we are a long way away, but at the moment the likely outcome is Labour

will be the largest party after the next election. They could form a

coalition with the Lib Dems. This is one of the reasons why people

did not like continental politics. No matter what the election result

is, the balance of power is always held by the same folk, even if they

do badly? This is produced by first past the post. It doesn't matter

what the system is. Will people take kindly to the Lib Dems, after

being in bed for five years with the Tories, saying, we got enough

of you, now we are getting a bed with Labour? If that is how the

electorate votes, we have to cope with that. It is what will happen

in closed rooms after the vote. the electorate did not produce a

majority government last time. This scenario is perfectly reasonable.

We have to make the best of it. Even if the Lib Dems lose 20 seats

at the next election, but Labour gets about 300, the Lib Dems will

still be in power? Not necessarily. It doesn't matter how the Lib Dems

do, they still end up with power? As Andrew was saying, what we might

see, a remote possibility, is a minority government... Up which is

what we thought was going to happen at the last election? If it did

happen, effectively, in 1974. That could happen again. We have learned

from this experience. We spent our lives with majority governments.

You've got to learn the lessons from abroad, you have to plan. The

social services have a plan, the politicians have a plan for

scenarios which may be unpalatable. But that is the card that the

Politicians get plenty of criticism. Not on this programme, obviously,

but I am told it does happen on others. There are occasions where

parliamentarians make headlines for all of the right reasons.

Yesterday's debate of mental health was such a case. In 1996, I

suffered quite a deep depression. It was related to work issues and

other things going on in my life. That is the first time I have ever

spoken to anybody about it. Like a lot of men, what do you do is try

to deal with it yourself. You do not talk to people. I just hope you

realise what I am saying is very difficult for me now. I thought

very long and hard. I didn't make the decision until I put my notes

down to do it. It is hard because you do not recognise, first of all,

that it creeps up on you very slowly. Also, in politics, we are

designed to think that somehow if you admit fault or fail to eat you

are going to be -- or failure, you're going to be looked upon in a

disparaging way in terms of the electorate and your peers. Whether

this naked admission means any future ministerial career is

blighted forever, I was a minister in the last government and I think

most people thought I did a reasonable job on both sides of a

house. I think we have got to talk about mental health in this place,

and people who have got an experience of it personally in this

house. I am delighted to say that I have been a practising fruitcake

for 31 years. It was 13 years ago, at St John's Wood tube station and

I remember it vividly, that I was visited by the obsessive compulsive

disorder. Over the past 31 years, it has played a fairly significant

part in my life. On occasions, it is manageable. On occasions, it

becomes quite difficult. It takes you to some quite dark places. But

I operate to the rule of four. I have to do everything even. I have

to wash my hands four times. I have to go in and out of a room four

times. My wife and children say I resemble an extra from Riverdance

aside bounce in and out of the run. Switching lights of four times. Woe

betide me if I switch off a lie to five times, then I have to do it

another three times. One in four people to experience mental illness

at some point in their lives. I also have experience of severe

depression, at the happiest time of mind -- my life, I experienced

postnatal depressing. I am sure many people in this House will know

exactly what it feels like to feel that your family were genuinely

better off without you. Two experienced the paralysis that can

come with severe depression. I have been pretty healthy for five years.

When you let your guard down, this aggressive friend comes and smacks

you ride in the face. I was on holiday and I took a beautiful

photograph of my son carrying a fishing rod. There was my beautiful

son, carrying a fishing rod. I was glowing with pride. Then the voice

starts, if you do not get rid of that photograph, your child will

dive. You fight those voices for a couple of hours. You know you

should not give in to them because they should not be there. And it

ain't going to happen. In the end, you're not going to risk it so you

give in to the voices and then you Charles Walker joins me now.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Kevin Jones said he found it

difficult to do what he did in the Commons yesterday though he was

glad he did. I heard you say you didn't find it difficult. When I

decided to do it, I didn't find it difficult but liberating, to be

honest. It's a bit like Crocodile Dundee when I ask him, what do you

do when you have a problem? Well, we tell Wally and everybody tells

everybody else and is not a problem. It may go on being part of my life,

and I'm just very relieved. I'm the same person as I was yesterday. I'm

just more honest. What brought this about? How do these remarkable

speech is take place? I can only speak for myself. Since I answered

Parliament seven years ago, I have campaigned on mental health and

spoken about issues. I'm a chairman of the All Party Mental Health

Group, and we are changing the mood at the moment. The mood of the

country can change of course, and we have a very active all-party

group. There is a bill coming for the to end the discrimination

against MPs, serving on company boards, so the time is right. We

had a backbench debate yesterday and the time seemed right to give

up some momentum and both Kevin and I have received extraordinary

number of e-mails. Tell me about the response. Overwhelming. It has

been quite emotional, as well. People from all walks of life,

doing all sorts of jobs saying thank you for giving us a voice

because they feel frightened, excluded, ashamed. And we can't

have that any more. We can have the NHS doing great things but we have

to have society embracing these people. It couldn't have happened

20 years ago, could it? You had a very sympathetic press this morning

but I look back at some of the old Press, and bonkers Bruno locked up

a from of the Sun newspaper. In times gone by, the press would have

been more hostile. They would have been. We criticise other press a

lot. But let me say, the press are getting their act together on this.

In the last four years, the press have decided to approach this in a

responsible way and real improvements are being seen. We

could all do more but the press is now beginning to play its part.

Hard to see this taking place in a newspaper office. Yes, it would be

hard to admit to. I admire everybody for coming out with it in

public and I hope it's a sign that times are changing and I think it

started with Alastair Campbell talking about his depression.

Suddenly, a dam broke in a certain way, but there are still industries

in the City, for example, where it's very hard to admit to any kind

of mental frailty. I just hope people who suffer with the same

illnesses feel encouraged. I agree and it's fantastic that MPs

speaking out like that has put mental health at the centre of

debate. Normally, it never gets mentioned. I think it's great and I

congratulate you, Charles. Can I just say, very quickly, my mental

health problems have given me great personal strength and that's the

interesting part. A lot of people are doing extraordinary jobs in our

mental health problems but it made the more capable. We are going to

get behind Gavin Barwell's Bill, because that will give momentum

over the next year. I hope the collective front benchers of

recognise something important is happening here. Mental health has

not had people to speak out for it. When the cuts come, it always the

mental health services to get the biggest cuts. People 10 to make

less noise, but we are making noise now. It is new territory, like

jumping into a cold swimming pool. But I really hope that Kevin and I

are reaching out to one of the people out there and there could be

some hope about their bad things are going to get better. In five

years' time, things will be better for me than they are now in 10

years' time, much better and I think that would be a real

achievement. Some think politics could be proud of one at this time

we are struggling. Let's hope the media continues to grow. Thank you

for coming in and speaking to us today and for yesterday's

contribution in the Commons. Right, it's time now to look back at the

political week gone by in 60 It's been a bit of a 1 draw Week in

politics with plenty of PMT, pre- match tension, but no last minute

winner. Robert Jay, he faced a flat back four of George Osborne, David

Cameron, John Major and Gordon Brown. Nick Clegg refused to back

the coalition's Culture Secretary. Elsewhere, there will be a

referendum for Falkland Islanders on staying British, penguins will

not get a boat but here is a picture of them anyway. -- a vote.

More pain for Spain and a message for the Church of England on its

row over gay marriage. Once again, their talk about the things which

obsesses them, sex. Despite that, the Government is seldom on, as, we

hope, will England. -- sold on. a soldier on Nov.

As we've heard, the argument over gay marriage rages on, with the

Church of England warning that government promises to exempt

religious organisations from carrying out same-sex marriages

will not survive challenges in the European Courts. One supporter of a

change in the law is former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris who joins

us now. Welcome to the programme. One critic of the plans is our

guest Andrew Pierce. We just bought a people with incredible forward

planning. Andrew, you are gay. You wrote a piece in the Daily Mail are

doing against gay marriage. Why it wouldn't you just want a simple

quality? This is an argument about the word, marriage, because every

gay person I know Ynysybwl partnership regarded as a marriage,

and what we are going to see is an incredible battle with the Church

because the genie is out of the bottle. The Prime Minister's

parliamentary private secretary said a religious premises will just

have to accept that gay marriages can take place on their territory.

I don't think it is for politicians to tell the Church who they can and

can't marry on their premises. I don't agree with a Catholic

Church's teaching on homosexuality, of course I don't. Nor the Anglian

church who allows the because to be gay as long as they don't practise.

How the Archbishop of Canterbury and forces that, I'm yet to be told.

I think we're in a good position as gay men and women, with a civil

party should and heterosexual can't. What is your response? It and he

doesn't want to get married to his partner, then don't get married,

but you shouldn't be are doing, unless you have a bit more of an

argument against it, for that right to be available to other people.

Organisations that represent gay people including some that you

support, say there is a demand for gay people to have the same access

to civil marriage, as everybody else. And obviously, there are

positions against that for the not had a sexual positions, but

conservative positions. Many Conservatives oppose the idea

because there is a marriage is special and different from civil

partnerships and therefore should not be available to same-sex

couples. You can't have it both ways, Conservatives. You can't say

it is special and therefore should not be available and then say it's

the same as civil partnership and why can't you be happy? It's not

about being a Conservative but how I see it. I just always believed

when this will publish its legislation came around, when Jack

Straw said it's different marriage, marriage is a man and woman, Jack

Straw is not on the record changing his position of course,... Is that

your position? The Iping civil partnership is a fantastic

invention. It's not marriage. it's not. That's what you think the

don't close it down for everybody else for the stone wall were not

campaigning for this. It wasn't in the manifestos. It wasn't in the

Liberal Democrats gain manifesto. Liberal Democrats, I admit...

of the parties did. You did not put it in the manifesto puts up we put

the proposal to our conference in 20th September 10. Six months after

the election. We have led the way. Polls show that there is broad

support for this but the only argument Andrew made against the

proposition, and that is the ridiculous idea that religions

would be forced to do civil marriages. This is about civil

marriage. The Government are not proposing to allow an opt-in by

religious organisations who are happy to do it. No religious

organisation has been forced to do civil partnerships against its will

and they don't accept for a moment this self-serving argument you

mentioned that they will be forced by human rights. It absolutely

wrong. If the only argument they have, but they will be forced to in

a civil marriage. Crispin Blunt said this week that would has

premises will be required to do so. He says civil marriages. The if you

find people saying one thing is to back up Godwin, that's fine but if

What he is saying is that this only affects a civil marriages and the

Church is not forced to do do civil marriages so why would it be forced

to do gays civil marriages? There is a point, the there is an overlap

between the Church of England in particular and marriage because of

the links between the Church and State in this country but you can

separate but it it was needed without it impinging on

establishment or religious freedom, so I'm very keen on a religious

freedoms and if people don't want to do religious services, they

don't have to. It's different from the adoption argument you made.

you be the voice of reason? I think we should grow up and get over the

whole thing. I cannot understand the argument is undermines marriage

of. The churches are doing it. cannot understand the argument that

vicars may or may not personally wish to marry gay couples, fine of

four for that's not going to be necessary. I don't see why it has

to occupy the time and space it does. Do we have any evidence that

it of England and Catholic Church actually speak for their

congregations? Their congregations are dwindling, of course. Is it

right for the state to interfere? They are free to do their own thing

and should not have a veto on civil marriages. That's our businesses.

The Church of England doesn't allow its own clergy to be properly gay,

so how on earth, be involved in same-sex marriage? We have to leave

it there. Thank you. That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The

One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now. I'll be back on BBC