Conference Special Daily Politics

Aternoon folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics, where I'm not lost

for words. In fact today's top story is "punbelievable", because

the battle over who runs the West Coast Main Line has hit the buffers.

The process was derailed after the Government finally admitted that

the bidding process was flawed. Virgin Trains, which had brought a

legal challenge after losing out to First Group in the fight to renew

the franchise, will keep running the service. After that, who knows?

Crime and health dominate the Labour conference today. We'll have

the latest. Good cop, bad cop. Does this chap look like a Police

Commissioner to you? We'll be asking why John Prescott deserves

your vote. If you live in Humberside that is. And is Ed

Miliband posh or not? Does it matter? Adam had the balls to ask.

How do you know he's not posh then? Because he's an MP and MPs aren't

posh. Who is posh if MPs aren't? The Queen. Posh Spice. She's too

young to know about Posh Spice. She's not posh. It was her little

joke. Only after we had made ate number of times and she stopped

crying. All that in the next hour. Public

service broadcast at its finest. It is not a make-over show.

And with us for the duration, former Labour Home Secretary,

Jacqui Smith. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Now, it's the morning

after the afternoon before so lets talk about Ed Miliband's speech

with the perspective of almost 24 hours. Because there was a bit of a

recurring theme. Take a gander at this. Disraeli called it one nation.

One nation. That spirit of one nation. One nation, a country where

everyone plays their part. So we must be a one-nation party, to

become a one-nation Government, to build a one-nation Britain. It must

be about building one nation together. One nation... One nation

economy... My vision of one nation... One nation, a country for

all, with everyone playing their part. A Britain we rebuild together.

Thank you very much. APPLAUSE I think it sounded quite good like

that actually. Was one nation the name of his

comprehensive school? No, it was Haverstock actually. You might have

been foolinged into thinking it was one nation. Ed Miliband used the

phrase one nation over 40 times yesterday. Jacqui Smith, what did

it mean to you? It was quite clever, quite audacious. First of all it is

a vehicle as a critique of the Government. Secondly I think it is

a positioning of Ed on the centre ground. You do? I think it is and I

hope it is. Thirdly, it is an umbrella under which you can begin

to build a policy programme. In many ways I thought there were more

policy it is in yesterday's speech than I expected. Did you? The

general consensus was the style and the delivery was very good. I think

most commentators agreed with, that but it was light on substance.

Let's not forget yesterday before the speech you were talking about

this needed to be all about Ed the person. He needed to convince

people he could be Prime Minister. I would have said on that test he

has very clearly succeeded today. In addition we got policy

announcements on apprenticeship ships and voeckation. Announcements

on banking, -- vocation, announcements on the NHS,

withdrawing the NHS Bill. We got announcements about business

reporting and how that was going to fit within this one-nation umbrella.

This is still two-and-a-half years before an election. It would be

wholly wrong to spell out your policy programme now but there was

enough to flesh out the one nation idea. You said you hoped he's moved

on to the central ground, if you like. Others, I put to you, are

saying that it was a bit of a Trojan horse, the one nation phrase,

for moving the central ground to the left. Because the things you've

just litsst listed there have a more left -- listed there have a

more left-wing feel. What was there about aspiration? He said we have

to be a party that wins in the south as well as the north. That's

electorally obvious, but it is also about as he said being concerned

about the squeezed middle as well as tackling poverty. It is

aspirational to talk about the 50% of young people who don't go to

university, that it doesn't mean that you don't need to aspire and

have the qualifications to enabling you to do that. You do know what Ed

Miliband would do in Government, what that Government would do in

power? To that extent, nobody knows until the point at which Ed gets

into Government or certainly until the point at which the manifesto is

fleshed out. What people do know much more is I think they know more

about Ed Miliband the person. They begin to see him as somebody who

can be a Prime Minister. They know more about the things that he cares

about and the direction he is likely to be taking the Labour

Party, and if successful in the general election, the country. No,

of course we don't know everything yet and nor should we, but we know

considerably more than we knew yesterday. In term of the tests set

for that speech, I think he passed them. You do agree with reverting

to the 50p top rate of tax? I think the Government's reduction of the

top rate of tax at this moment in time says something about their

priorities that it is right to highlight. Personally, I'm not hung

up on a 350p top rate ofta. I don't -- a 50p top rate of tax. If we can

raise more revenue with a rate that's lower than 50p I personally

would be happy with that. Two of Fleet Street's, how can I put this,

more acerbic writers, that is me being polite. Quentin Letts and

Kevin Maguire. When we spoke to them last week they appeared rather

underwhelmed by everything. They are difficult people to please.

Let's find out in things have improved in Manchester. Quentin

Letts, all this reference to Disraeli and one nation must have

had your little heart aflutter yesterday afternoon. You know what,

Andrew, it reminded me of the old days of British Leyland rebranding.

There was a thing called an Allegro Van Den Plas and underneath the oak

veneer it was a rotten car. We loved Ed Miliband on stage this,

constipated figure. But did it mean anything? I'm not sure. Kevin, you

must have rush Todwickpedia and looked up who Benjamin Disraeli

was? I actually knew. He thought he was a Manchester City centre

forward. He played for Chelsea, midfield. He was pretty good, a

good range of passing. No, it is interesting when a Labour leader

goes back to the Victorian period to steal the clothes of a Tory

rather than mentioning Tony Blair, who I think didn't get a look in at

all in this that speech. He would probably have been afraid of a few

boos. The Daily Mirror having to explain to its readerers who Mr

Disraeli or Lord Beaconsfield as he died, about one nation Toryism, how

you do feel about that as a good Labour leftie? I rather left, to --

I rather laugh, to be honest. Gordon pitched himself as one

nation briefly when he was father of the nation for three months,

including the election that never was. Quentin Letts, yesterday I

read out a list of modern politicians that have tried to wrap

themselves in the one nation mantle. They are all at it. Or they call it

the Big Society. That was a great success that one. I've forgotten

about that! The problem for Mr Miliband is he says these cosy

words about Big Society but at the same time you have trade unionists

here calling each other comrades and demanding a restoration of

public spending after the so-called draconian cuts, which haven't been

draconian in the least, arguably. Miliband centralism isn't true.

That is a problem. Regardless of all of that, Quentin Letts, is it

not the case that after Mr Miliband's performance yesterday

the Labour Party leaves Manchester tomorrow united as a party, largely,

and pretty much 100% at the moment behind their leader. It was a

success. In that respect I would agree. I don't think they were that

divided beforehand. I don't think Mr Miliband was facing any sort of

danger beforehand. But undoubtedly it worked for him as a party leader,

terrific. He got a good reception in the hall. He cut through a

little bit on the national news I think. But you do come back to this

basic problem that the message he was producing yesterday just isn't

in tune with the reality of his party's policies. They haven't yet

accepted the economic difficulty and how they are going to address

those. Qev in, you must be hoping that all this one -- Kevin you must

be hoping this one nation talk is going to take the party left of

centre with good left win policies? We'll have to see how it goes, but

he was never the Red Ed that some of his opponents plan to do so

paint him. He a relatively mainstream Social Democrat. If you

look at the policies he's unveiled so far and in rebuilding Britain. I

accept he has only put the foundations, never mind the windows,

doors and roof. Don't get your pension fund ripped off, build more

houses, train your kids and then the banks, David Cameron could have

set that. It will be interesting where he will go. I suspect his

instincts are slightly left of centre. A lot was to be made of

differences between Ed and David Miliband and their policies. They

weren't that great. More people here now think they have got the

right Miliband than when they started meeting on Saturday.

final question to both of you. Either of you can answer it. Other

than the phrase "one nation" what was Benjamin Disraeli's second most

famous phrase? He wrote Cybill... That's not a phrase, that's a book.

That's Fawlty Towers! I thought I would come up with an answer.

Neither of you know. This is our David Letterman moment isn't it!

His second phrase was, "Keep your eye on Paisley." Wow! I want you to

go away and look up why he said that, in the 1880s. We learn a

little and you learn a lot. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Good to see you. Probably see you next week, where

are the Torys? Birmingham. Apologies to Douglas Alexander for

yesterday, not for giling him on his �40,000 stuff, where he

deserves to be grilled. He was right. He said Disraeli, but it was

Asquith. We looked it up. In many ways

Douglas Alexander is right Andrew. And what about Andrew? In a few

ways Andrew is right as well. That's better than I might have

hoped! Or may even be true. Labour historians will tell you the party

has a proud tradition of fighting for the underdog, representing the

oppresses and in the '40s fighting fascism in all its forms. It was

with unease when in Government Labour showed an authoritarian side.

The party find being tough electorally helpful and were

certain potss not just about countering terrorism? We locked

jils in a detention cell to think it over P -- Giles.

There may come a time in the future where a Government of any party

insists we are all IDed and identified, that our DNA is

recorded, whatever we may or may not have done, that we can be put

inside somewhere without trial or without having done something. But

wait a second. One Government has tried to do this and it was Labour

Government. The provisions in this Bill have always been about

protecting the British people. Protecting them from the serious

threat that we face from terrorism. Ever since 9/11 the Labour

Government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown introduced in the name of

fighting terror new concepts to us. 90 and later 42-day detention

without charge. Personal ID cards. DNA and other databases. CCTV

expansion and control orders. This from a party that had a tradition

of being anti-authoritarian and defending individual rights and

liberty from the state. Lots of very, very dangerous short-term

decisions were made. Lots of terrible things were done in the

name of freedom that actually I think there was something that

people felt we've done the Human Rights Act and all the civil

liberties are protected and it doesn't really matter what we do.

There's no doubt, as 7/7 proved, there was a threat. It did and does

exist. But, hold on, was this circumstance or was it politics?

you're positioned in response appropriately to the threat level

at the time and at the same time between those who want maximum

liberties and those who want minimal liberties or the other way

around, you are roughly right. opposition, some expected the

leadership to row back from the policies they felt hadn't been true

Labour values. They were disappointed. The prevailing

science of the rest of the party, the fact that they don't feel that

they can now resile from that agenda, that somehow they would be

showing themselves up, that's very worrying. The trick is whether

Labour can stop apologising for the mistakes of the past and start

being a decent opposition, taking on encroachments into civil

liberties under a new government. All of which we should consider

very carefully for the future. Someone let me out of here now.

Anyone? Is there anybody there? I hope someone has let him out Yvette

Cooper addressed conference earlier and began by paying tribute to PC

Nicola Hughes and her colleague, PC Fiona Bone who died last month.

police have gathered from across the country and so have we, so we

join them and the people of Manchester, the Prime Minister, the

Home Secretary and the whole country in paying tribute to those

brave officers, to all of our emergency services and we bid those

officers farewell. APPLAUSE

Yvette Cooper joins us now from Manchester. Before we get to your

brief, you were talking there about the death of the two police

officers. The city of Manchester will be pausing no doubt to reflect

on the fact that those two young women were killed in the line of

duty and the funeral of Nicola Hughes is in fact taking place

within the hour at Manchester cathedral. Give us your thoughts.

think it just shows huge number of people from Manchester, but also

police officers from across the country, who have come to pay

tribute, because police officers do take risks every day of their lives

and we should never take that for granted. They were killed in a

brutal act. It's right that the whole country and we and the Prime

Minister join the people of Manchester in paying tribute to

them. I understand that people are lining the streets. We'll move on

to some of the specifics. We heard a lot about one nation from Ed

Miliband. What, in your view, is one-nation policing? I think it's

going back to the principles that Robert Peel set out when he founded

the British police, that the police are the public and the public are

the police and they police not through coercion but consent. They

have to have the confidence of the public to do their job. That means

they have to have respect from the public as well. You still believe,

though, like the coalition, although to a lesser degree, in

quite a high level of cuts to the police force and reforms that

should be carried out, despite what you've just said? Well, the level

of cuts that we supported would have protected the number of police

officers across the country, so yes, we supported 12%, but the

Government went for 20% and that's why all the independent expert

evidence shows they are losing 15,000 officers across the country.

I think that's cutting too far, too deep. It's the wrong thing. We just

saw in that film talking about civil liberties. Would you say the

Labour Party is now an authoritarian party? No, I think

the whole point is to have a strong police, but also strong checks and

balances. If you have the police embedded in the communities that

they serve then that's the best way to fight crime, to be tough on the

causes as well as crime itself, but also to have checks and balances

for when things go wrong, which is why I set out proposals for a new

Police Authority, because I don't believe that the Independent Police

Complaints Commission is sufficient to deal properly with problems and

they have to deal with problems. Why is Labour now not an

authoritarian party, if you say so? Labour tried to introduce 42-day

detention of terror suspects without charge and identity cards

and failed. You did introduce control orders. That's an

authoritarian party. I think control orders was the right thing

to do. I think we did do the wrong thing on the 42 and 92 days,

because I don't think that was backed by the evidence. The point

is to respond to the evidence you have. Control orders were right,

because it was about dealing with a very small number of extremely

dangerous people that the courts as well as the Home Secretary, have

agreed are dangerous and do need particular contraipbts in order to

protect the public, because -- contraipbts, in order to protect

the public, because that is the duty of the police. It's

interesting you say there wasn't the evidence for 42-day detention.

What's the evidence backing control orders? I think there was detailed

analysis from the security services and the police. Interestingly, it

was the assessment of the courts was important. If you ensure that

the evidence can go before the courts, the judges themselves have

said in some of the cases it is right for example to put further

restrictions on people or to to keep them out of London if there

might be a terror threat to London. The Government has actually watered

down some of those powers. I don't think that was a very wise thing to

do and that's putting further strains on the police who have to

carry out greater surveillance. still think that the threat is

great enough to infringe people's civil liberties in the waim that

Shami Chakrabarti chabg outlined. - - in the way that Shami Chakrabarti

outlined. Hasn't it changed so we don't need that sort of control?

think in the end this is a judgment that has to be einformed by

intelligence, but also involves decisions by the courts. In a

system like ours we do depend on proper justice on the decisions of

the courts and not simply the decisions of the Home Secretary.

That's the right thing and I think that's also part of one-nation

tradition. What do you say to people like Shami Chakrabarti, are

they being too soft? Well, no, there are areas where Shami

Chakrabarti and I simply disagree and I think that it is important to

make sure that there is sufficient protection and it is important to

make sure that you prevent very serious crimes happening, because

with something like terrorism you can't simply wait for a terrible

event to happen and then clamp down after and prosecute and make sure

people are punished. You have to also make sure you do everything

you can to prevent the loss of life and the terrible things that can

happen. That is the right thing to do. Of course, it's a balance, but

it's a sensible approach to take. Are the principals behind --

principles behind ID cards still a good idea, even though you failed

to bring them in? No, I think the debate has moved on from then. I

think that it's not something that's on the cards or something we

are promoting, but what we are doing is saying there are areas

where we should be cracking down on crime. For example, I talked this

morning about taking further action on economic crime, also on

organised criminals, who I think are getting away with stark away

too much of the money they get through extortion and violence. We

should change the law in both those areas. Do you support all the

information being held on a centrally trond database? Well, I

think you must be talk -- controlled database that? Well, I

think you are talking about the internet and surveillance. We are

waiting for a report from the cross-party committee that is

looking at the detail of these proposals. We have to be quite

cautious about the proposals put forward. Of course, the police need

to be able to keep up with rising technology and increasing

technology and new ways of communicating in the hunt for

dangerous criminals, but there have to be proper safeguards, the checks

and balances that I talked about earlier. You have to make sure

there are limits in place and I'm not sure we have seen enough on the

details to be sure the Government has the balance right. Before we

let you go, the response that the lawyers for Abu Hamza have returned

to the High Court in the last attempt to stay his deportation for

health reasons. Your reaction? think this process has been going

on long enough. I think there have been far too long delays and

serious problems with the European courts on this. I think that Abu

Hamza should be extradited. That is the decision of the courts and I

think we should just get on with it. Thank you very much. We'll let you

go back to the confrens. -- conference. We talked about some of

the authoritarian responses. Was that what's what it was or because

it was popular? I don't think it was either. It was about saying one

of the top responsibilities in government is to protect people, to

protect them in their homes and borders and against terrorism. Not

only is that a role of Government, but a fundamental role of a Labour

Government, because the people who are least able to protect

themselves from crime by moving or by having security, their own

private security arrangements, are those people who are at the lower

end of the income level, who are the least powerful in society.

Putting yourself on the side of the victims of crime, I believe, is the

right place to be. We heard there from Yvette Cooper that the 42-day

detention was wrong. It wasn't backed up by the evidence. Do you

accept that now? I think at the time it was backed up by the

evidence. I've previously said that I think as a Government we probably

spent too long focusing on that. When I withdrew that proposal I

left in place a draft Bill, which if it were necessary, could be

enacted. I don't have any doubt and I would certainly hope that if that

situation did arise, Theresa May would enact that legislation.

are happy with the 14 days, which is what it now is, vbg come back

from 28 days -- having come back from 28 days? I'm assuming as long

as that's the case, I'm content with the current situation. Did it

benefit Labour, their positioning, to be seen as being that tough on

security? You say it was the right response, but did it help

politically as well? Well, I think people do judge governments on the

basis of how well they deal with the issues that worry them and for

most of the time, before the financial crisis, the issues that

people were most worried about on the doorstep were crime and

immigration. The reason was because there is nothing like being a

victim of crime to make you feel powerless, or make you think there

is something the Government should be doing. I think it's the right

political decision, not tactically, but actually out of the set of

values that we have, to place yourself in the position of victims

and do what you can to protect them. It's not the woman walking home

late at night who is complaining about CCTV cameras. It's someone

sitting rather comfortably in an office that's worrying about them.

It's not the rape victim that is worrying about the DNA database.

It's people who have never been in that position and haven't had to

depend on the police and DNA catching the person that raped them.

Thank you. And now to Police Commissioners. We have one wannabe

Deputy Dawg in Manchester. He's the former Deputy Prime Minister no

less. John Prescott. Welcome. One pleb to another. I can see we

are going to get on! As I understand it, for the Labour

nomination for Police Commissioner you beat division commander Keith

Hunter. In what way do you know more about policing and crime than

him? He knows an awful lot about police work, because he's had 30

years and he's a very experienced man. We had a little bit of

division in the party who should be the candidate. I won the vote, but

his experience is inville uebl and he's immediately lined up with me.

It's -- invaluable and he's immediately lined up with me. It's

the police experience and the community work. We are offering an

opportunity that reflects both those experiences, police work and

our partnership, which has led to the biggest decline in criminal

offences. Do you, when you look at the Humberside police budget in the

current economic climate and Government spending, do you think

that if you become Police Commissioner you are going to have

to preside over cuts in the Humberside budget? Well, we made it

very clear that the Government require us to produce a five-year

plan within five weeks, if I'm elected. I've looked at that plan

that's been prepared on the Government's orders and I'm bound

to say, for example, they are going to reduce the police by 400. The

independent constable Inspectorate has said that that is actually

reducing these resources twice as fast as anywhere else. I say to my

Police Authority that people want police, they don't want to see 400

cut and I'm not prepared to accept them in the new plan that I'm now

proposing. We could be up with a clash between Police Commissioner

Prescott and the Government in London? That's what the Government

-, well that won't be unusual. That isn't the point. The Government

have come along and said, look, there will be a commissioner and

he'll negotiate with the chief of the police and they will organise

the plan between them. But the money and the power is given to the

commissioner and I will be reflecting the community vote. This

is no longer the chief of police talking with the Police Authority.

It's the community telling me as the commissioner to which I'm

accountable, what they want to see as the priority in their five-year

plan and I'll work with the police on that and I'll have the resources

to negotiate with him, but at the end of the day I do think the

policy that Labour had, tough on crime and tough on the causes of

crime, led to the biggest decline in criminal offences. I think most

of my people in Humberside, in east Yorkshire, north Lincolnshire, that

what they want and that's what I'm preparing to put forward on their

Some people regard the Police Service as the last great

unreformed public service. If you take Humberside, back in 2007 this

new Chief Constable came in, to give him his credit, we were at the

bottom of the worst-performing police force. He's turned that

round in the last eight or nine years to now a very good police

force. Reducing crime, working with the community, and now he says and

he's been making changes in line with some of the community, I want

to continue that. It worked for us for 13 years, why shouldn't it work

now, even though it would be made more difficult by the Government

reducing police and resources. I want to find the best deal for the

people I represent. Is there mission I would have done as a

police Commissioner over the last five years that the Police

Authority in Humberside did not do? To be fair, they had a different

remit. The Police Authority discussed with the Chief Constable,

he produced the plan. They talked it over with the community. The

framework is there. The one essential difference which this

Government has decided is basically you negotiate with the Commissioner.

He has to decide where the priority of the resources are. He or she has

a to decide what that partnership scheme was. There are some schemes

I want to give higher priority to. I'm concerned about a number of

drugs in areas and particularly the early stages of school. We have to

deal with this in a tougher way than we are doing at the moment. It

is credential to talk about drugs but the PPC should start the debate

and the priorities he sees after analysis and present it to the

electorate. We have a proper debate and set of priorities. That's what

my plan B will be. OK, I'm glad you have got a plan B. Others are

hoping for another one in different circumstances. They could have a

plan B in one nation. I will come to that in a minutes. I thought

would. Labour were against the creation of police commissioners

but the coalition introduced them and you are standing as a candidate.

If Labour wins the election, should they make you redundant? Well, I

voted against this as well. I don't like the idea quite frankly of a

lot of power in one person's hands. I would like to say I might do it

different from some others. I've got candidates against me who want

to get rid of speed cameras. The personality makes the difference.

Should Labour get rid of them? we've asked the ex-Chief Constable

to review and look how police affects him. What we've got to do

is fight the election and try to prevent the damage that's

inevitably coming from this Government reversing Labour's

successful policy. If we are going to change it, wait until the

election. At the moment, let me get on with the fight Andrew.

understand that, I'm just asking, should Labour in the next election

promise to get rid of police commissioners? We'll look at it.

After two-and-a-half years we'll see whether it is workening. Make

the decision then. Alright. Have you been reading up on your

Benjamin Disraeli? You must be over the Moon that your party leader

supports a 19th century Tory. You know I'm not an int electual. Who

the hell is did Disraeli! I'm just Labour. Traditional values in a

modern setting. What Ed was talking about today was identifying himself

as the leader. A procession of change. Look, I was an MP when he

was born. Things are changing. I'm the old man in this, but I still

think when he talks about the health service, he talks about

getting your people back to work, making the changes, having a go at

the banks. Sounds like traditional values to mem. Robert Blake wrote

the biography of Benjamin Disraeli. You don't fancy a read of that?

Cybill was one of Disraeli's novels, wouldn't that be nice bed-time

reader for a essentialist? I'm a guy that lives by my experience.

That's what I call the roots of my belief. Will it be difficulty for

Ed. He has to stay in the modern times. Traditional values in my

life, modern times change. That's what Ed is changing today. I won't

be back to books. I will live on my experience and judgment. Are you

now a one-nation Labour man? I'm a one-Labour man. One country, one

Labour, one leader. I will remember that. Yeah. I'm not going to come

on that that. I'm one Labour, that's all I am. You know I like to

make you smile. You don't do it too often and I always succeed. Know

the second question behind that one. I have forgotten it! John Prescott,

thank you for joining us from Manchester. Pleasure. Sounds from

what he is saying there, Labour was against him, but police

commissioners are here to stay I guess. Even though not many people

may vote for them or even know who their police commissioners turns

out to be, what do you think? suspect you might be right. My

suspicion of the police Commissioner policy is not that it

is too much democracy and accountability, but too little.

John is the epitome of a big beast. I have no doubt if he is electioned

he will do a good job. What he also identified, he will put himself out

to make sure that what he is doing is talking with and reflecting the

views of the community. It is pretty difficult for one person to

do that. To the extent that the police Commissioner, the elections

are opening up to possibility, it's a good thing. It is an electoral

opportunity for Labour as well. To the important matter of the day.

Does it matter if Ed Miliband is as common as muck or as posh as a

cucumber sandwich? Organic bread only of course. He's been proud to

talk about his comprehensive education, but does it wash with

the great unwashed? We've come to Manchester's Arndale

shopping centre to find out what real people think about Ed Miliband.

Specifically do, they think he's posh or not? Do you know who Ed

Miliband is? That guy with the Red Nose? You could say that. Do you

think he's posh or not? No. He said on the news what school he went to,

so... It was a comprehensive schooling. So no. Put it in the no

slot. Compared to me he is definitely posh, so yeah.

It is and Ed Miliband, the Labour leefrpltsd Not posh. How much --

the Labour leader. Not posh. How do you know he's not posh? Because he

is an MP and MPs aren't posh. is posh if MPs aren't? The Queen.

Posh Spice. He's less posh than his brother.

But didn't they have the same upbringing? They did, but le is

less pretentious than his brother. Who would like to do our BBC

survey? Grab a ball and pop it in the slot. Pot posh compared to the

others. Like who? David Cameron. Nick Clegg. He's not an Eton person

like Cameron. I know he didn't go to private school but you don't

need to go to private school to be posh. How posh is Ed Miliband?

posh, but not too posh. I can relate to him. Half and whatever. I

would say more posh than not, be if I was him I would be disappointed.

Yes? What makes you say that? don't know who he is. Leader of the

Labour Party. I'm not really political. They all mess it up.

Miliband, what do you think? White hair? At the Olympics? No, that is

Boris Johnson! What umbrella would you sell Ed Miliband? No speak

English. Someone just said I think Ed

Miliband is really posh and I don't like him. Waited a second and said,

"You're not him are you?" I'm going to go for the posh one.

Why did you go posh? I think he's not telling us the truth about the

way he is. The way he comes across, the way he walks and talks I think

suggests posh. But because he is Labour he doesn't want to say that.

What has he got going for him? is very good looking, a good

personality. Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party? Yes.

think he's a loser. So after almost two hours we've

discovered that the public in Manchester are almost exactly

evenly split and most people don't seem to matter whether he is posh

or not, so that was worth it wasn't it? I enjoyed the case of mistaken

identity. Adam phlegming is Ed Miliband, clear. We have two of the

country's most renowned social anthropologists, from Liverpool Dr

Derek "Deggsy" Hatton, former leader of Liverpool Council, and

Professor Charles "Charlie" Falconer, the former Lord

Chancellor. Thank you very much indeed. Mo motion indeed. Is Ed

Miliband posh? I don't think he is. The way that posh was being read by

people dropping the balls in the boxes means posh means not like me

or somebody I want to be the leader of a political party. Every crime

seemed to be associated with posh. Derek Hatton, to you what's being

posh. I don't think it is so much what Ed Miliband is, but the way

he's perceived. I think he got away with a lot yesterday in terms of

the way he talked about the threat to the banks and the you turning

and everything else. He got away with the sort of language that

people can believe that Cameron or Osborne would never have got away.

They are perceived as "posh" the whole Eton bit. They are doomed.

The fact that Nadine Dorries said that, I think makes it a truism.

Because that is the case, Ed Miliband has a real chance of

starting to say, hang on a minute, I'm not like that. In the main the

perception is people believe him. So it was right to go on about his

education, because in your view going to Eton makes you posh and

unbelievable. The banks are one of the problems we've got in this

country. When Miliband talks about a threat to the banks, people can

believe that. I think if Cameron or Osborne made a threat to the banks,

nobody would believe him. Does it mean that education, and clearly

that's why Ed Miliband made such a play of his comprehensive education,

but as the girl said, is it doesn't matter where you went to school.

Posh is being used as a surrogate for can you connect with the public,

in the sense do I understands what the public is going through at the

moment? I don't think it matters what your background, is though it

is is a means of expressing your values. Roosevelt did brilliantly

in expressing the travails of people in the recession and he was

very posh, but he did contact. Attlee, the most successful Prime

Minister, went to a private school. He spoke a lot about the values and

yet he was able to connect with people who came back from the war.

Isn't it also about perception? I think you are right but the problem

is if someone's been to Eton, talks the way they do, they will never

really be seen as someone who identifies with ordinary people.

What about Boris Johnson? You could arguably say he is posh and he

connect with ordinary people. has got in as a court jester there.

Is always one court jester who will break the rules, likes of Cameron

and Osborne would never break those rule us. If it starts to go wrong

your poshness is a real barrier to reect canning but if you are

reasoning -- a real barrier to reconnecting. Blair was able to

express what the country wanted and he expressed a degree of aspiration.

Just as Roosevelt was incredibly be the at expressing against the

establishment the views of those in travails during the recession.

were talking yesterday that Ed Miliband may have gone to a

comprehensive school but he did come from an intellectual elite and

did mix with people most voters wouldn't have had the chance to

connect with. He was known as a geek and a pointy head. It's not

what you've done but the way you are perceived. Tony Blair did go to

one of the poshest schools in Scotland but people don't identify

that school as an Eton. They know what Eton is. They know the way

Cameron and Osborne behave. They see that's that public school bit

about them. But Cameron still polls $:/STARTFEED. When they see what it

means, whenever it's true or whether he believes it or not, I

don't know the bloke, but I do know he did a very good job of actually

taking that next step. I agree with that. Did it come across as

authentic? Yes. Because he was apparently speaking about his

background. So background does matter? It matters, but what comes

out of your background is not necessarily because you are posh

being a bad politician. Derek is saying it's about perception and it

can change over time, because I would say one of the things about

David Cameron he was successful at the beginning at looking as if he

could connect, despite his very posh background. Over time, what

he's done has suggested to the British public that actually he is

posh to the extent that he prioritises the rich over families,

that he's willing to accept one of his ministers calling a police

officer a pleb. Those begin to change the way people think. Is it

dangerous for Labour to try to exploit that in a sense, to go for

the sort of anti-toff campaign? It didn't work for them when they did

that. I think what is happening is this is Ed Miliband, this is where

he comes from, this is what he's like, take him or leave him, but

it's authentic and the absence is dangerous. Boris is strong because

these authentic and people can relate. Ed is exposing himself and

it's authentic what we are seeing. The public must now make a judgment,

but inauthentic is non-starting. It's about what people see as the

issue. Jacqui Smith was right when she said it was once immigration

and now it's the economy and the banks. People never believe that

the likes of Osborne or Cameron will take on the banks. They do -

but people are starting to believe that Miliband will. Thank you all

very much. Charlie will be joining me on This Week tomorrow night on

BBC One, along with Michael Portillo. It will be a very posh

programme indeed. Yesterday all the talk was of Ed Miliband's big

speech to Labour conference. But in a daring midnight raid by new

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, the Government

attempted to snatch the headlines away from Labour by announcing that

its decision to award the West Coast main line to FirstGroup

instead of rival Virgin Trains has been derailed, thanks to a series

of deeply regrettable mistakes in the way the Department for

Transport has handled the franchise process. Some may call it a

shambles, other an omnishambles. Jo, bring us up to speed. The West

Coast Main Line, which runs from London to the Midlands, the North

West and Scotland is Britain's most lucrative rail network. It's been

run since privitisation in the 1990s by Sir Richard Branson's

Virgin Rail. But in August this year, Virgin's franchise deal hit

the buffers, when the Department for Transport said Virgin had been

outbid by its arch-rival FirstGroup. There were angry objections from

Virgin, which decided to take the Government to the High Court.

Ministers, however, vowed to press ahead with the new deal, but at

midnight last night Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said

that significant technical flaws had been uncovered in the bid

process, making clear it was the fault of his department.

FirstGroup's contract has now been cancelled and the Government is to

reimburse all four bidders for the line to the tune of �40 million.

They've also suspended all other rail franchsing deals while two

independent inquiries are carried out. It's still unclear whether

Virgin will continue to operate the line when its contract ends in

December or whether it will have to be run by the Government. The

announcement is particularly embarrassing for the Government

because it has repeatedly insisted that the franchise deal had been

properly handled. Here's the last Transport Secretary Justine

Greening and the man who took over from her last month, Patrick

McLoughlin. It's been a very fair and rigorous and robust process. It

was a process that all the bidders bought into. Virgin have now raised

concerns, but it's been a extremely fair process. It's actually so

rigorously structured so it doesn't have political interference, so

that we just get the best deal for the taxpayer and for passengers and

that's the one that we are going with. They were all very carefully

evaluated. We had industry experts involved with the evaluations for

part of that process and I'm confident we have come out with the

right bid. There was the exhaustive procedure that was gone through.

Two companies went to huge amounts of effort to try and win that bid

and it was judged fairly by the department and it is ow intention

to proceed with the bid that the winners made and I'm content with

the way the department exercised its review and I'm satisfied that

due diligence was done by the department and therefore the

intention is to go ahead with the contract when we can. Joining me

now is Kwasi Kwarteng, who sits on the Transport Select Committee and

from Manchester, the Shadow Transport Secretary, Maria Eagle.

Kwasi Kwarteng, you first. You must be great to to Richard Branson for

pursuing litigation against the Government, otherwise we would

never have found out about this cockup? I think he was absolutely

right. I took evidence with other committee members and I think he

gave a good account and identified the risk, which was it was all the

asuplgtss of the FirstGroup were ambitious and -- the asupplementss

of FirstGroup were ambition and it was backended. The Virgin deal gave

the taxpayer more value for money. At the hearings when you accused

Richard Branson of using his prestige and fame to get his own

way, you were wrong? What I said, I carefully put my question, but I

said some people might say. said, "You are resorting to heavy

art tillary ...." If you look at the tape I said people are saying.

You wouldn't have said that unless you sympathised with that view.

job is to be impartial and to ask difficult questions of witnesses.

You don't think you owe him an apology? I can't be a cheerleader

for any other interest. Do you owe him an apology? I don't think I do.

I was doing my job as a member of the committee. Will the Government

lay all the blame on the Civil Servants? I'm not sure how they're

going to deal with it. Should they? I think there should be some

ministerial responsibility. What do you mean by that? I think we should

apologise and say - The Transport Secretary has done that. He's

absolutely right to do that. Marie eagle, it seems that the mistakes

were made by Civil Servants when it came to calculations about the

inflation rate to 2026 and about passenger numbers. Should ministers

be held responsible for detailed mathematical mistakes by Civil

Servants? Ministers have to satisfy themselves that the way in which

this process is run is handled well and there is ministerial

responsibility. If there's wrongdoing and if things are

concealed from ministers, that's something slightly different. We'll

have to get to the bottom of all of this in respect of what happened in

this particular instance, but I think it shows what Ed Miliband was

saying yesterday, we have a Government that is grossly

incompetent. They have redesigned the franchise system, they have set

it out for 13 to 15-year processes and now there are basic issues

wrong and they have to accept responsibility. It's a shambles.

When you were a minister in Government did you check your Civil

Servants and their maths? I did. You did? Obviously, yes. You have

to be careful that you are fully satisfied that processes, which can

result in a serious legal action, which are worth billions of pounds,

are properly handled. It is not apparent to me that they've done

that. We have got incompetence in this Government that goes not only

into Department for Transport, but all the way to the top and that's

quite clear. They have to take responsibility and short this

shambles out. Should alarm bells not have rung, Kwasi Kwarteng, when

- and should your committee - didn't catch that. I've gone back

to Kwasi Kwarteng. Should alarm bells not have rung and should your

committee not have spotted this, that the FirstGroup offer relied on

revenues growing by more than 10% a year? These are questions that were

raised in the committee hearing. When they came in. We asked them.

Why didn't you rumble it? We said they were bold. I said that. My

colleagues on the committee said that. Your committee didn't produce

a report said the Government better look at this again. Maybe we should

have done. We certainly asked the right questions and when you

suggested to me I should apologise to Richard Branson, I think that's

completely inappropriate. I had to be impartial and ask difficult

questions of both sides. You may have asked the right questions, but

didn't come up with the right answer, because you didn't put any

resistance to this deal going ahead. Not you personally, but the

committee? I accept the fact that the committee could have been more

robust in its conclusions. Let me go to Marie eagle. Is it your

position that you want it to be run by the same Government structure

that runs the east coastline? Correct me if I'm wrong about your

policy. Is that a temporary position or a permanent position?

There are short-term and long-term issues here. Give me both.

franchise expires on 9th December and I think it would be very

difficult for the Transport Secretary to enable one or two of

the bidders who are engaged in litigation to continue to run it

making a profit. We would support him in allowing the not-for-

private-profit Government-owned company to run the West Coast Main

Line. That's temporary. What about permanent? In terms of the east

coast -- the East Coast Main Line, which this firm runs returning the

money to the taxpayer that would be shared with shareholders if it were

franchised out, we believe that should stay in the public ownership.

Should the West Coast Main Line return to public ownership? Well, I

think that when the contract expires on 9th December we would

support the Transport Secretary. You have said that. That's

temporary. Should it become permanent? We are going through our

policy review process to come up with the way in which we should

handle Inter city lines in the future. We have a devolution agenda

for local rail. We believe very strongly we should look at getting

better value for taxpayers out of the way in which we run the lines

and we are looking - You haven't got one? Once again you haven't got

a policy? It's not that we haven't got a policy. We are having a

review that looks at the best way of getting best value for money.

This flawed franchise system does not appear to be working well.

Kwasi Kwarteng, if it's a flawed system, which the west line clearly

shows, there are three others coming up, Great Western,

Thameslink, Essex Thames side. Should they go ahead? The problem

wasn't with the system, but the application of their own rules. The

issue with the West Coast Main Line is that the bond that was used to

secure was 200 million and it should have been 600 million.

Should these go ahead or should we not call a halt until we get a root

and branch investigation into this? I think that would be an

overreaction. I think this was a specific problem with this specific

contract. How much do you think FirstGroup will sue your

Government? I don't know. It's up to them. 30 seconds to you. Even

without suing, there is �40 million of taxpayers' money that is likely

to be used up on this. They have to give it back. It's Government waste

and incompetence and it's serious for passengers and it plays into

what Ed was saying yesterday. That's it for today. We thank all

of our guests. Thank you to Jacqui Smith for being guest of the day.

The news is starting over on BBC One. Jo will be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big political stories. I won't be back until BBC

One late tomorrow night after Question Time with This Week.