07/01/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. According to some

researchers, romance begins to wane after two years, six months and 25

days. Three cheers for the coalition, who have vowed last of

that. This afternoon they will in effect renew their coalition bows

with a special event to mark the halfway point of their government.

The Prime Minister and his deputy will outline priorities for the

rest of their term in office including childcare, care for the

elderly and infrastructure investment.

Labour has dismissed it as another relaunch, and not everyone involved

in the marriage appears convinced. We will be grilling some coalition

critics. We have a date of sorts for David

Cameron's long awaited speech on Europe. Apparently he will give

voters a real choice on our future relationship with the EU.

And nasty nanny state or not? We will ask whether politicians should

mess with our food. All that and more coming up and the

next hour. With us for the duration, the Melchior, Caspar and Balthazar

of Westminster. Spot the deliberate mistake! Welcome to the former

Welsh Secretary and Conservative MP Cheryl Gillan, former Culture

Secretary Tessa Jowell of Labour and former Liberal Democrat leader

Ming Campbell. Most of us have reluctantly taken

off our Christmas jumpers and trudged back to work. But the

Government has something to celebrate today as it marks the

halfway point between the start of the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition

and the next election. Hard to believe but it is not much more

than two years to go. In case anyone was wondering how the

parties will keep going until 2015, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are

launching their own January sale today to show they still have

plenty of new ideas in stock. As they open Number Ten for Business,

the PM and his deputy will say the coalition remains steadfast and

United and it still has a sense of shared purpose. Among the big

policies they hope will fly off the shelves include giving parents tax

breaks worth up to �2,000 a year to pay for childcare. There could be

more generous flat-rate state pensions, perhaps worth around �155

a week after 2015. They will try to drum up interest in planning

reforms to encourage home building and more state mortgage guarantees

to help first-time Wilder's -- first-time buyers. There could be a

Freedom Bill to restrict state snooping and also alarming private

firms to build more toll roads. These policies could be best

sellers but many will not come into effect until after 2015. The Lib

Dem minister David Laws, one of the biggest advocates of the coalition,

was speaking about it earlier. will set out new policy areas they

want to develop over the next few weeks on the big public priority

areas like doing more to help working families with childcare

costs, helping the elderly people with serious medical conditions

with the cost of social care, helping people who want to get into

the housing market, maybe young people. We will be setting out

policy directions and making announcements over the next few

weeks. Tessa Jowell, as a minister you

founded the Sure Start scheme, your campaign to make childcare

affordable, do you welcome these new plans? I would welcome anything

that makes it possible for women to work and for their children to be

looked after her in an excellent childcare centre in which they feel

they have confidence. But I had a quick look this morning at the

foreword to the coalition plan, there is a proposal to make

childcare more affordable by, as I understand it, encouraging carers

to look after more children. That is not improving the quality of

child care. Spreading the resources of a childminder or a nursery

worker among a larger number of children. The fact is that you get

this new hardline policy at daytime when sure Start centres are really

under threat and are closing. In the context of these welfare

changes impacting disproportionately on women. The

whole thing is really just a model. The problem is it lacks coherence.

We will come to the regulatory point about childminders later, but

this idea of up to �2,000 per child per year, as I understand, in some

form of tax relief, is that a good idea in principle for working

families? Supporting working families with childcare costs is a

good thing. But look at the contradictions. Today we are seeing

more than a million families losing universal child benefit, which is a

universal benefit to support families in meeting the extra costs

of children. It seems bizarre, why would you with one hand take away

child benefits from families or individuals earning over 60,000,

then giving them what seems to be very generous tax relief on child

care? I think referring to the child benefit changes today, you

need to take that in two Stages. The changes coming into effect save

the Treasury �2 billion and effect only the top 15% of earners in the

country. If you are left with an economic situation that we

inherited when the coalition came in, you have to save money and

spend money better. But then why would you then we spend that

money...? One of the big barriers, as Tessa which no, because we have

both been ministers in Education and Employment, still in 2013, one

of the biggest barriers for women going to work and achieving great

things at work and breaking through the glass ceiling is having

dependable and affordable childcare. This is the Government saying, OK,

we have to make some tough choices, but maybe this is a better way of

spending taxpayers' money and directing it at people who can then

improve their lot and help grow the economy. Do you think that voters

will be confused by the message from the Government with the child

care policy? There was already a childcare voucher scheme in place,

this seems more generous, but it does not sit with what the

Government is doing on child benefit? I don't agree with that. I

take the same view as Cheryl Gillan. If you take money away, that is

effectively what is being done, so long as you use it for a better

purpose then what is wrong with taking it away? The people for whom

it has been taken away and twice the average wage in this country. I

believe in universality, I wish we could leave it, but I also believe

in a stable economy and in using all of the mechanisms at our

disposal to persuade people to go into work. When it comes to the

present level of financial support, it is by no means generous and if

we can increase that and therefore increase the enthusiasm of women,

particularly those who are married with children, to come back to work,

then that is... I think everyone is agreed, but let's come back to the

fairness issue. The child benefit removal is for individuals earning

over �60,000. Starting at �50,000. Starting at 50 but going more to

get at 60 plus. But this new tax break will be universal, so people

earning �1 million will get it. It is that bad? From what I understand,

we are taking money from a particular section, if you like,

and giving it on a universal basis. It seems that is fair, especially

if it has the entirely laudable objective of getting people back

into work and not penalising them. I know people whose child care

almost amounts to the same as their salary. That is not there, we

should do something about it. Labour likes universal benefits,

shouldn't everybody get it? It is a bit like corrective surgery. The

Government reduced the value of the childcare tax credit, there was an

Aviva study last year which showed the first figures, 30,000 women

dropping out of the labour market because they could not afford

childcare. I get letters all the time from constituents who can no

longer afford to the cost of childcare at a sure start centre of.

�2,000 a month for two children. I am sure families will welcome this,

but the question is it is not underpinned by a confidence and a

clear vision about what a comprehensive childcare policy is...

ALL TALK AT ONCE. You are in a very difficult position, you have to try

to oppose what is a very good policy for families and women.

Before we got independent taxation, the tax breaks are most likely to

go, possibly, to women workers. I don't know many women earning I am

not, I assure you! I think the Government is showing the direction

of travel and I think it will help give that security to the Sure

Start centres. Let's move on to benefits in general, why should

they not be capped at 1% when many wages have been frozen for at least

two years? We are talking about people in receipt of income support

and people in work. We are talking was about the working poor and

people on income support, all of whom should be actively in pursuit

of seeking work because those who Walmart are already on alternative

benefits which remove that expectation -- those who are not

are already on alternative benefits which remove that expectation. If

you are in work and get a 2% pay increase and you are on the average

income, it is a bit more than 54p a week, which is the 1% increase for

a 16 to 24 year-old on income support. But people will think

Labour is not getting to grips with the welfare bill. Reports today say

people are not that interested in the detail and hard times, they

just want to know the welfare bill is being tackled. If you are not

prepared to follow the government proposal, it looks like you are

shying away. We are not. The way in which you cut the welfare bill,

which has risen since we were in power, is getting people back in

work. Ed Balls and Liam Burns have been coming up with policies for

the older long-term unemployed. Chancellor does not use the word

shirkers himself, but people who are workshy, most people on

benefits are in work, 60%, which helps make work pay. I don't use

words like shirkers. Should the Chancellor be characterising...?

don't use the metaphor of people asleep with their curtains drawn,

all circumstances are different. There is a test for Labour tomorrow

when the House of Commons, we will have a boat in relation to the 1%

to just described. Labour says we should oppose it, but any time we

oppose anything Labour says no. -- any time we propose anything Labour

says no. I hope that people like Tessa Jowell will start to come

forward saying what they would do as an alternative, rather than just

opposing us. Lord Strathclyde is standing down

from the cabinet with immediate effect. He is the Leader of the

House of Lords for the Conservatives. Your reaction?

think Tom Strathclyde has been a tremendous leader in the House of

Lords, he was chief whip when I was PPS, this is going back into the

90s. I think he will be sadly missed but I understand he will be

looking to pursue a business role and I'm sure that Lord Hill, who is

reputed to be taking his place, will also make an excellent leader

in the House of Lords. But I'm sad to hear that Tom is going. He is a

particular friend of mine and across all parties I think you

would agree he is a good man to having your corn and to do business

with. We have had the whole debacle with the House of Lords reform, now

he is stepping down. There is never any easy time to leave the front

bench. I think he has made his decision for whatever reason and I

wish him the best of luck. He could have gone and the reshuffle and he

could have told David Cameron beforehand? You don't know about

people's personal circumstances, I think it is best to leave it to him

to say why he is going. He has provided great leadership in a very

difficult time. I think he became Chief Whip, he must have been the

youngest Tory Chief Whip in the House of Lords for years and years

and years. He became Chief Whip very early. He has had a pretty

long innings. And he said he was going to go sometime before and

never did. Whatever the future for the

coalition, the last two-and-a-half years has not been plain sailing.

For all the teasing, it seemed a bit like a wedding, a marriage of

political convenience but with roses, a reception, walking to the

altar of media attention and even speeches with jokes. REPORTER: DU

now regrets when once asked what your favourite joke was, you

replied, Nick Clegg? Deputy Prime Minister, what do you say? I am

afraid I did once... LAUGHTER. back!

They are poles apart on so many issues but they have team together

to do what they can. It went better than expected for them, leaving the

Deputy PM Nick Clegg to joke with the PM, David Cameron, after

another joint outing... If we keep doing this, we won't find anything

to disagree on in the TV debate. But government is a fast track to

fall-outs, it furrows the brogue. For Clegg, a bee hit the buffers.

There was awkwardness on Lords reform and constituency boundaries,

Ministerial disagreements, and with the media relentlessly looking for

cracks, at the very least the shine has worn off. Separation is in the

mind of a large number of people. I think in the year ahead we will see

increasing statements by both sides showing how they defer. I think all

coalitions find it difficult at the midterms stage to renew their of

iOS, if you like, to renew their policy agreement. -- to renew their

vows, if you like. We have seen that with the British coalition.

There has been talk of having a coalition to 0.0 agreement which

has been scaled back to a more limited process. Europe is often a

bugbear for the Conservatives, but in coalition with the Europhile Lib

He is deeply concerned about UKIP, and so are the Cabinet. The only

way they can diffuse that time bomb is get on the side of the public

over Europe. It's not all gloom, the sun may have chilled a little

but get the economy right and both parties benefit. Big differences

can be left to 2015 manifestos. They are working on policy still

like banking reforms, and delivery of earlier reforms, and all signals

are that governmentally they are still working relatively well

together. Good strategy say some. Voters cast judgments on

governments, but we know that come up for their competence.

Governments which fall apart in bitter recriminations and arguments

are not ones that can claim a great record of governing competence.

Government is one thing, politics is another. There are two other

coalitions we are not thinking about. The other is the right wing

and hardline view of Conservatives Against the Cameroons. They think

he is too cosy with the Lib Dems. We are trying to hold a coalition

together there. And then, with the Lib Dems think Nick Clegg is a

spent force and cannot win in the next election. They are waiting for

the moment to move against Nick Clegg. So for the next two years,

expect them to still stand together but increasingly look in different

directions. Giles reporting. Well, I'm now

joined from College Green by two of the Coalition's most constructive

critics, the Conservative MP, Peter Bone, and the Liberal Democrat

blogger, Ben Ramm. Her have been New Year.

Peter Bone, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, or renewing their vows, do

you wish them well? Not exactly. I'm just about to break my new

year's resolution, not to criticise the coalition. That lasted a long

time! It seems to me we have to have a planned divorce. It is not

in the interests of the nation or either political party to just

continue for ever. Are we suggesting we go into the next

election as coalition candidates? That is one interpretation of what

is happening, and I am worried about that. We do need to have a

way of ending this in an orderly manner in the next year or so.

have barely come out of the doors of the houses of Parliament to

renew their vows, Peter Bone is saying it is time for divorce. Do

you agree with that? Spike don't think it will happen until 20 I

think 2013 will be a year of consolidation. I think both parties

will be hoping the economy picks up. Many of the measures announced

today depend on the economy improving and both parties being

able to say next year, we have achieved a certain things, we

inherited a bad situation and we have left the country in a better

conditions. If the economy does improve in terms of growth, Peter

Bone, would you not be happy to bump along with the coalition for a

bit longer? No, I agreed with them Ram. Get the economy right, that is

the only reason this coalition came together. It is a huge economic

mess a Labour left the country in. We are on the way to putting those

policies in place. If we can finish the job and put them to bed, these

economic measures, by the end of the year, I think it will be a

sensible time for the coalition to go it separate ways, and for the

Government, under David Cameron, rule as a minority Government for

the rest of the term. Do you think the Liberal Democrats are coming

off worse in his coalition? I think they are, not only have they let

down many of their supporters, and on key issues from which they did

not need to support the Tory programme, particularly on the NHS

Bill, and we are seeing an attempt to do with the social care aspect

which was not addressed last year and upset so million Liberal

Democrat, I think the party has been damaged economic elite. In

terms of cuts, on VAT, we know about tuition fees and the NHS. One

of the reasons the economy is so crucial for the Liberal Democrat

now, they're looking for things with which to demonstrate they have

incredible in Government, and the commitments and sacrifices they

made in 2010 or were worth it. Peter Bone, Lib Dems have been

worse off, so you have had it all your way? That is the most absurd

thing I have heard this year. The Liberal Democrats are loving being

in Government, they are wagging the tale of the dogs. It is ridiculous.

You talk to any of Dem MP, they are happy with the coalition because

they are getting more than they should be getting. What this

renewal of vows should be saying is, we much -- we should have a much

more conservative agenda. That would be good news, if that is what

the Prime Minister is to announce. Happy New Year to both a view on

that. Cheryl Gillan, the Lib Dems are

wagging the tale of the dog and they have had it all their own way?

I am sad about Peter Bone, I thought he would have made the New

year's resolution... He did, he broke it. Let's talk about real

politics instead of this Duke from the two people you had just

interviewed. The two parties came together to solve the major problem

of the economy. They had come up with an agreement and they are

battling ahead and moving the country in the right directions. It

is difficult to work in a coalition. Having set in the cabinet alongside

Lib Dems, their objectives and aims for the economy is just the same as

the Conservatives. Isn't that the point, everyone agrees on deficit-

reduction and fixing the economy, but is there anything else be on

that? There has had to be give and take on both sides. I would argue,

it sometimes does appear the Conservatives have had to given a

little more, and the Lib Dems have taken a little more. But it works

the other way as well. It has to be give and take and a successful

coalition because the future of the UK depends on this. That is then

ran being constructive. I think it might have been a little tongue-in-

cheek. But it is a viewpoint in your party? Let me give you another

demonstration, 57 Liberal-Democrat MPs went into the lobbies to

support the Prime Minister on the question of the European budget. As

substantial number of Conservative MPs went into the opposite lobby

along with the Labour Party. As a result, the Government was defeated.

That was caused by disaffection and an unwillingness to accept the

conditions of the coalition by very substantial part of the

Conservative Party. Let's look ahead. The idea, I understood from

Nick Clegg and others, the differentiation was going to be so.

We have seen Nick Clegg characterised things differently.

But if what we are working for towards now is showing whether

Liberal Democrat have made a difference and Clearing the clear

water between themselves and the Conservatives? Contrary to what has

been said by these two you have interviewed, his coalition will

last until 2015. Because it has to? Yes, there is absolutely no

appetite or enthusiasm for going to the country. I don't believe the

country would welcome it, because the purpose of the coalition was in

the national interest. To go now with PCS -- would be to suggest one

was abandoning the national interest. You have tackled the

Government over game marriage and high-speed rail. And David Cameron

has taught people complaining on the backbenches to shut up. Any

chance of that happening? On high- speed rail, as the other guests

know, it is a problem for me and my constituency. I hope that

Government will think again on it. I don't think this is the right

project, and it does happen to go through... It I will keep

complaining and other backbenchers will keep complaining about Europe?

One of the real things that I think we have got to concentrate on as a

Conservative Party is better communications with those

backbenchers. Each party have had issues and problems with

backbenchers from time to time. We need to improve the level of

communication between the ministers and backbenchers. Ministers seem to

be all signed up, but the grassroots, and MPs are different?

You are right to say the ministers get on well. The noises coming from

the ministry is all very positive. There will always be individual MPs,

I have an argument with the Government for closing and Royal

Air Force station in my constituency. There will always be

individual, constituency issues. Political parties are like

coalitions, and heaven knows the coalition, that it was the Labour

Party in Government could teach us a few things about disagreement.

Now it's time for our daily quiz. Wop does Mr Osborne listened to

when he is jogging? Now, we've been waiting for it for yonks and yonks,

but don't panic because we're told it will finally happen later this

month. What am I talking about? David

Cameron's long awaited speech on Europe of course. The trouble is,

where should he give it? The Rose Garden, perhaps? Or is that just a

tad passe? Here's David. You know what it is like, a big

speech to make, but were to go to set the tone. We are not just here

for the nasty things in life like a shock resignation or disappointing

growth figures, we like to help. So we have been looking for the

perfect venue to set out a plan is still real vision for Europe. If he

wants to throw some red meat to the Euro-sceptics, he could come here.

The food is as British as Yorkshire pudding, and they have been feeding

Tory MPs for centuries. But he has been cosying up to Angela Merkel,

so perhaps coming here might not be a bad idea. Only one tube stop away

from Westminster. If you wanted to build a few bridges with fans, were

better than to come to the French house. They do serve the beer in

French measures, but it does have an upstairs dining room and it is

available for functions. It David wants to turn Europe to

wake up and smell the coffee, than were better than Bar Italia. But

there is one place the Prime Minister should avoid. No matter

how good its menu... A poll for the Mail on Sunday but

the UK Independence Party on 16%, the best ever result following a

by-election in November. Should the Prime Minister be taking the UKIP

threat seriously? Do you regret using fruit cake and closet racists

as terms for UKIP? When you are Prime Minister you have to get used

to the fact that in the middle of a Parliament you have people going

off in different directions. You have to focus on the job in hand.

They are not fruitcakes, are they? I don't know if he was including

Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, but he joins us

now. Are you fruitcake Leone's and closet racists or a bit odd?

Compared to David Cameron, Ed Miliband, I am very odd. I spent 20

years having a job. I am in politics out of conviction, I

believe in things. So by those terms, I am probably pretty odd.

How would you describe members of UKIP? I have to say, I would

probably rely on my ladylike approach and say, I think they are

a bit of a one issue wonder. We are against the high-speed rail, which

your party is not, and that is why we are getting so many votes in

your consistency -- constituency. am with you on that. We have a new

coalition breaking out. UKIP has grown and has tremendous success

over the past 12 months. But they have based their party on an anti-

European stance. It is out of Europe, not in Europe, it is

completely out of Europe. To that extent it is a one issue party.

They are now broadening their base, and you have to take UKIP seriously.

Should David Cameron take them more seriously? All parties should take

16% growth in the polls seriously. There is how you should treat

others political parties. Miliband, the day we had the row in

Rotherham over the fostering case. Ed Miliband said he did not believe

in UKIP, but said we shouldn't be removed. The only person I can see

in mainstream politics abusing UKIP on a regular basis is your leader.

That has been taken out of context and played over and over again. I

did a proper job for 20 years, and I have been 20 years in politics

and I did not get where I am today without being insulted on a regular

basis. You have been plain to the Are you realistically aiming for

Parliament? We don't just talk about Europe, we talk about the

consequences of European Union membership on our lives and economy.

This year we will campaign hard on the fact that on January 1st next

year be open the doors not just for work but for Social Security to 29

billion people -- 29 million people from the poor countries of Romania

and Bulgaria. That is wrong at a time of high youth unemployment.

is irresponsible? And they open their borders to the many people of

Britain will want to stop businesses in these countries, the

many people who choose to live in Spain rather than the UK. Is it a

two-way street in the same way? course. If you are concerned about

workers from what we used to call the Iron Curtain... If you are

concerned about workers from behind the Iron Curtain as we used to call

it, you should look at the hotel and food processing industries. If

we did not have those people working here, the industries would

not be able to operate. They have operated for hundreds of years

without an open door policy. The point is she to be able to come on

day one from Eastern Europe and claim benefits? -- should you be

able to? You can't. You can, if you claim you are self-employed seeking

work, you qualify for jobseeker's allowance on day one. I am not sure

that is the case, if it is, it should it be allowed? I would have

to check the facts on that. But I think a transition period for these

new countries is important. Croatia is joining us this year, and the

presidency is going to love the way near for the second half of the

year. I believe we are stronger together in a form of gripping, but

I also believe that a transition period so you do not have the

temptation of people coming in large numbers. The Labour

government got those numbers very badly wrong. When the first wave of

immigration came from Eastern Europe, when the open-door policy

started, it was a problem to deal with as far as the population here

was concerned? Yes, and regionally it was very difficult. There are

parts of Kent, for instance, who felt the impact of migration...

Labour got that wrong in terms of transitional agreements. But I

agree with Ming Campbell, this is a two-way street and the benefits to

our economy and our service industries... I remember the days

before the free movement when these service industries found it

impossible to recruits. These are the areas in which we have seen

growth over the last 10 or 15 years, because these are mostly young

people, aspirational young people prepared to come and work here.

we need foreign workers or skilled workers, that is fine and we should

welcome them from all over the world, but on a work permit system,

not with the automatic right to settle. I ran the work-permit

scheme in the last Conservative government. When we saw there was a

lot of applications coming from the former Soviet Union we increased

our resources and the amount of people allowed in because they were

the sort of people coming that we wanted in our economy. Let's move

on briefly, Nigel Farage, realistic ambitions the 2015, how many seats?

The first-past-the-post system is pretty brutal to a country like

UKIP. To succeed at Westminster elections we have to do what the

Lib Dems did in the 80s and 90s, where they build up clusters of

district and county councillors and through that won parliamentary

seats. So the May elections are very important stepping stone. I

can't put a number run yet. Coalition, we know you don't want

to work with David Cameron, a coalition with a different leader?

Peter Bone, perhaps! I have always said that I would do a deal with

edit -- with the devil if we could get a free and fair referendum in

this country. What about David Cameron's speech? Mark Field, a

Tory MP, said it was fantasy to think that you could repatriate a

load of powers back from Brussels? I disagree, I think the time has

come to look at our relationship with the European Union. I don't

want to see in an in/out choice because I do not believe in an

empty chair policy in Europe, but I think in terms of social

legislation, Home Office legislation and things like the

working-time directive in employment, I think we should be

making those decisions ourselves, and I think the time is right. The

EU is examining itself closely because it feels its stability is

threatened by what is happening with the Euro and other areas.

one country of the other 26 that is willing to enter into these

negotiations. Quite. Sorry, I was slightly taken aback.

Our membership of Europe is actually coup crucial to our

economy. Don't think we will see economic growth if we start

destabilising confidence in our role in Europe. David Cameron is

driven by one thing alone, the requirements of party management

and not the national interest. will be interesting to hear him.

Thank you, Nigel Farage. As we have heard, this afternoon

David Cameron Nick Clegg will publish a document assessing the

achievement of the coalition government so far and setting out

ambitions for the second half of this Parliament.

Also, the Commons debate corporate tax avoidance.

Tomorrow they debate the capping of benefit rises to 1%.

On Wednesday, the first PMQs of 2013. In the Lords, they will

debate the public service pensions bill.

Thursday is Margaret Thatcher Day and the Falkland Islands,

commemorating her visit in 1983 after victory over Argentina.

And the Planning Minister Nick Boles makes a speech on housing

policy. On Friday, the Lords debate the

Leveson report into press standards. A busy week. Outside Parliament is

Rafael Behr of the New Statesman, and Isabel Hardman of the Spectator.

Rafael Behr, the coalition renewing its bows, what does it mean?

first thing is that most of the time the coalition is discussed and

has been discussed in the last year, it has been because there are

tensions between the parties. The Lib Dems have been afraid of losing

their identity and being submerged, nobody noticing them more caring or

believing they have any in -- influence. David Cameron has come

under pressure to assert a more vigorous and red-blooded Tory

agenda. People I used to discussing whether and when it will fail but

there is two years to go before the election and Cammell and quite

badly need people to think it is a functional working government that

can achieve anything -- and Cameron and Clegg badly need people to

think. It is also about showing that we have real policies and are

working together, so they have to do that mid-term renewal so that

people will talk about something other than how they dislike each

other. Isabel Hardman, we have talked about how the leadership and

ministers genuinely seem to get on in most cases, but be backbenchers

and grassroots MPs, are they as convinced? I think MPs on both

sides would rather there was more of a differentiation policy. Today

is about unity, as well be the next few weeks, because they are

spinning out the different announcements, but we are seeing

differentiation are lots of issues. The Lib Dems have been very vocal

on their desire to see that. Nick Clegg said that he wanted to see

all the bits going into government and a discussion about policy

before they are decided. Cameron has flown kites on welfare and

immigration over the past year and a bit. We will see more and more of

that, both parties are thinking about 2015 already. Rafael Behr,

five weeks since the Leveson report was published, where are we with

the future of press regulation? technical answer is in cross-party

talks. The nature of that is that these parties will culturally not

agree with each other and their positions can be quite polarised.

Labour has invested all their stock in the idea of a Bill before

Parliament which will in some way regulates the press. David Cameron

has insisted he does not want to see that. I think Nick Clegg's role

will be important, he has suggested he prefers the Labour view of its

but he is in collision with the Conservatives and will not want to

disrupt that O'Brien issue that many people will not feel

comfortable -- will not feel passionate about. At one point

either Labour will publish their own bill or David Cameron was say

they will have a royal commission, they don't need a Bill, let's just

do this without bothering Parliament. An interesting

development mentioning Labour, a return to frontline politics for

David Miliband, Isabel Hardman? was quite surprised, but thinking

about it, the feud between the brothers has died down. In the

autumn conference this year it was not all about what David Miliband

thought about Ed's speech or what faces he pulled, he went home

before the speech and it looked a bit precious because nobody really

cared. It is not a bad time for him to come back because people have

forgotten about the warring brothers, Ed has established

himself as leader, particularly with his conference speech. What do

you do with the Balls problem? people and the Labour Party for an

air -- thought that David Miliband would be leader, he is the star

strike and you have to get him on the pitch. But what a job does an

aspiring Prime Minister do in a Shadow Cabinet? The big job would

be Shadow Chancellor, there is not a vacancy and Ed Balls does not

want there to be one. I sense that when the discussion comes up, in

the background a lot of it is people on the Labour side saying,

do we need to have Ed Balls as the lead economic message go there?

Could somebody else do that? It is sometimes a proxy for a discussion

about whether or not Ed Balls should continue. Thank you. Perhaps

David Miliband not for Shadow Transport Secretary, but is he

coming back? I don't know and I don't think he does yet. I think

that he never stops thinking about how Labour can win next time, he

never stops working for the Labour Party. I think there is a bit of

kite-flying in the papers today, but I would not read too much into

it. Would you like him to come back? Well, of course. As Shadow

Chancellor? I would like him to play a key role in helping us to

win the next election, which I think he could do. But I think we

are a long way before getting to that. It would cause a headache,

where would you put him? I think we've had enough IFS and made these

and all the rest of it. We can't get enough of those! -- I think we

have had enough ifs and maybes. But he has his movement for change, his

international work, he is working hard for Labour outside the Shadow

Cabinet. I am sure we will all know in due course when that changes.

You will tell us! A getting the economy the link

seems to be the main focus of the coalition. It is expected back

Clegg and Cameron will announce new infrastructure projects today that

they hope will create jobs. But there is a worry that the UK could

lose its triple-A credit stages and we could be up for a triple death -

- a triple dip recession. If we stand back and look at the

big picture of the British economy, we need a rebalancing, a bigger

private sector, growth more spread more evenly around the country, not

so reliant on finance but manufacturing, export, production

and high-tech kins -- industries. More new companies were set up last

year than in any time in recent history. There are some good signs

but it is hard work, it is hard going. Look around Europe and we

are not alone in facing these And we're joined now by the city

analyst, Louise Cooper. Predictions of a triple dip recession, what do

you think? In tears a strong possibility. About the triple A

rating, one downgrade is almost guaranteed. There is an outside

chance we could be downgraded twice. It is a possibility. How bad would

that be? We do know George Osborne held it as a big prize, holding on

to that report Bay rating. If it goes now, would it be a big blow?

am surprised we have not lost it already. Have we lost it

technically? At in the markets think we have lost it. It is

considered easing that is keeping our borrowing costs down. Last week

we heard from the Federal Reserve in the States, and quantity the

easing in the States may be coming to end next year. As soon as

markets think that's considered easing may be coming to an end in

the UK, that is the point to worry about borrowing costs for the UK.

It is not about whether the Bank of England is buying gilts, it is

whether International inventors will continue to buy them. So, you

do not think that borrowing costs, interest debt payments would go up

from losing our triple A credit rating? Provided considered easing

is still happening. If we get to the end of quantity of ease in ink,

because the capacity has ended, because the bank cannot buy any

more, if we get to the end of considered easing because the

capacity has finished, then that could be very messy. That is pretty

bleak. If we haven't already, it looks like we will lose the credit

rating. George Osborne said it was crucial, is it a big blow if we

lose this? A everybody agrees we are not out of the woods yet. It is

not necessarily all in our own hands as well. What has become

obvious is the effect that both the euro and the European economy, and

the wider world economy, even the state's economy, with what has just

happened with the fiscal cliff, how that affects our economy here. I

think the Chancellor is entering very tricky waters. He has attached

quite a lot to the triple A credit rating. Has he attach too much to

it? I find it hard to judge. I would have agreed with the analysis

that the markets think we have lost it. But we have been a beacon of

light in terms of stability and sticking to the planned. That is

admired universally by third parties around the world. We are

not going to balance the books, we know that and now. Austerity is

going to go on until 2018, a good few years be on what George Osborne

predicted. Predictions of losing the triple A credit rating, we do

not know what will happen to quantity of easing. What has George

Osborne achieved? Sticking to the plan has not report the results has

it? I think he is reaping the results. The triple dip recession?

If you keep the stability of the interest rates. We have got an

economy and that is performing relatively well, compared to other

economies. Even the Chinese economy is showing signs of slowing down. I

think George has positioned as well. However, it is choppy waters, it is

deep-water out there. We need to keep a steady hand on the tiller. I

think that is what George has been providing. Louise has set out

clearly, the interaction of big economies. I think too much of the

Government's rhetoric and policy presumes that somehow we can

develop our economy in a way that is isolated from changes in the

rest of the world, and changes in Europe. The second... Labour said

that, you could have chartered a different course and we would have

been able to override the problems in the eurozone and global economy?

No, what we have argued is the importance of getting growth into

the economy by getting people off unemployment and back into work. It

links back to the discussion we had a little while ago. Jobs are the

key, absolutely. But politicians, I am sorry, are rubbish at creating

jobs, or determining where an economy should grow. We listen to

David Cameron, he talks about rebalancing. Good luck to him,

because that is not how capitalism works. Yes, growth is key, but how

do you create growth? We talk about growth creation, but people don't

have cash, a Government doesn't have cash. The only area that has

cash his businesses. They are not spending because they are terrified

of the world. They're not spending, Ming Campbell, because consumers

are not spending. People on spending because their wages are

frozen and standards of living is being squeezed, so we won't move

out of the situation we are? It is not just about companies holding on

to their cash reserves, it is about banks being reluctant to support

what are perfectly viable alternatives. It is right to state

governments don't create jobs, but we have created more than one

million new jobs in this economy in the last two and a half years. We

have moved from being outside the top 10 of the most competitive

countries in the world, into 8th place. I hate to use the words,

green shoots, but there are events taking place which are consistent

with turning the corner. Louise Cooper, interest rates held at 0.5%,

can you see that continuing? ever. Pretty much. A new governor

of the Bank of England won't be changing that, not that he can on

his own? Know. Now, spare a thought for the Shadow

Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, who's spent the New Year fending

off accusations that he's a cereal killer. No he's not been stalking

the streets of Westminster, knocking off the government, he

just doesn't like certain types of breakfast food. In fact he'd like

some of them to be banned. Mr Burnham isn't the only politician

concerned about our eating habits. This morning the government

Honestly, you lot! What are you putting into your bodies. Let me

show you. Come on, this is the amount of fat in the whole pizza.

17 tubes of sugar in that fizzy drink. Too many hidden nasties can

create dangerous levels of fat in your body which can lead to stroke,

Type 2 diabetes and cancer. Well, the Health Minister, Anna

Sourby is out in the healthy outdoors.

What are your aims with this campaign? It is to provide

information to people, make them aware of some of the stuff that is

in your food which does not do you an awful lot of good if you eat too

much of it. People can make healthier choices, so we can live

longer lives. Or ignore it? Absolutely, it is their choice. It

is not up to politicians to tell people what they should eat. That

is why Andy Burnham got himself into a mess at the weekend. The

responsibility for your diet lies as you as an individual, and you as

a parent. That is the primary responsibility. Businesses, traders,

retailers, also bear responsibility, but the port of call first of all

is ordinary people. We are pointing out to them about the stuff you

have heard in the advert, so they can make better choices when they

shop. It we have to tackle obesity, and you want to make people eat

more healthily, why not do what Andy Burnham suggests, ban the high

sugar content, and high salt content Sea reels? It is a daft

idea. If it was a great idea he would have done it when his party

was in Government. We inherited serious high levels of obesity.

There has not been much changed since 2010. I don't think he did it

because in his heart he knows it is not the sort of ball at he thought

it was. When you introduce legislation aimed at children's

breakfast cereals, the first thing that starts off is defined

Children's breakfast cereals, is he going to have "adult only's cereal

boxes? You take all cereals and say they shouldn't be more than 30%

content of sugar and salt. As soon as you do that, used a 29% is OK.

It is a start. No, people in the real world thing, 20%, 29%, have

three bowlfuls and it won't do you any harm Bostock we want to let --

get people to look at what they eat over the course of a week, a month,

look at the bad stuff, take it out and just eat good, wholesome food,

which you can do on a budget in difficult times. We have recipe

ideas. It is easy for people sometimes to sneer at that. It you

look and what we had done so far with Change4Life, which was done at

2007 with a cost of �80 million, it has begun to influence and make

change. We need to get it across all sections of society. That's why

this campaign on ITV in the Coronation Street break is good,

and it shouldn't be slagged off by Labour.

I've got some Daily Politics own brand favourites here, let's get

our political panel's verdict on their nutritional value. Just

before we do that, do you like the idea of Government recipes? We go

back to the Second World War and have Walton pike. Which consisted

of all of the vegetables nobody light, with pastry on the top.

do have our own brand stuff here. This is dairy Neil. How is he?

is on his way back. How many grams of fat, in 100 grams

do you think is in this? It will be this much, I would think. About

250? 530. Very good. 530 calories. JoCo Pops - per 100g: 387 calories.

The Deep Pan Pizza? Just one piece of that a 100 grams, how many

calories do you think? 250. Very good. I had just lost over two

stone on a lighter like diet. It has worked for me and I believe in

educating people that you are what you eat. Should we ban certain

food? Of course not. We should certainly be looking at what action

has to be taken to tackle obesity. Everyone agrees with that, but

should you go further and start banning? He worked with the food

industry and if it failed, like we did, it took 10 years to get a

proper strategy on banning advertising of cigarettes. These

things take time. It is brave to raise this issue is. And in tandem

with what you eat, the school sport exercise, persuading women that

Jessica Ennis is a role model. about the answer to the quiz. What

does he listened to when he is jogging? Tony Blair. It was in the

papers yesterday Bulls star it is Tony Blair's autobiography.

That is all to date. Thanks to our guests. The news is starting on BBC