25/02/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. We've screwed up -

so says the Liberal Democrats' President, Tim Farron, over the

party's handling of allegations that its former Chief Executive,

Lord Rennard, behaved inappropriately towards women. Nick

Clegg insists he has nothing to hide after admitting last night

that his office had been aware of concerns five years ago but hadn't

been given specific allegations, which Lord Rennard denies.

Who's all at sea in Eastleigh? The by-election's on Thursday. We'll be

taking a look at the runners and riders. George Osborne's in the

dock over losing Britain's triple-A credit rating. MPs are expected to

debate the Chancellor's currency later.

And, they're young, some would say they're gifted, but are they our

political future? Giles has been finding out. My problem with people

who start politics from the start... Yes, yes, we all heard this before,

the problem is you think they're weird.

All that in the next hour. With us for the first half of the programme

we're joined by the future of politics, at least that's what it

says here, Rhammel Afflick, from the British Youth Council. Welcome

to the programme. First this morning, let's talk

about special relationships because the new US Secretary of State, John

Kerry, is in town. Yes, he's been let loose for the first time since

taking the job. And Downing Street is his first port of call. Do you

care about the special relationship? I do and I think many

other young people do and if they don't realise yet how important it

is and how much it affects us as a country they soon will realise. For

example, if you look at the UK's relationship with a lot of EU

countries, regarding economy, I mean, if you look at our

relationship with the US in terms of national security it's so

important and it affects everybody within this country, even whether

they don't realise it. In times of globalisation, do you think your

generation is also looking to other parts of the world that perhaps

Britain's focus hasn't been on, although it's beginning to now and

that America's importance is perhaps diminishing in your eyes?

The importance of certain countries has definitely changed and is ever-

changing but I think, you know, we are still looking at the US for a

lot of inspiration in a lot of things we do at the moment and I

think young people recognise that actually there are other countries

that are developing and becoming more important to industries like

technology, when you look to other countries that haven't mentioned

yet. I think that will continue to happen and evolve over time but at

the moment as you can tell, the main focus is on the EU and even

our US relationship, as well. about contacts, do you have

counterparts, equivalents in EU countries and America? The British

Youth Council does have membership to the Youth Forum and we do have a

programme called the UK Young Ambassadors where they look at

their equivalents and Councils that represent other EU countries, as

well. Thank you. Last week, Channel 4 News broadcast

allegations about the senior Liberal Democrat peer Lord Rennard.

They reported that women who worked for the party had complained in the

past that he had behaved inappropriately towards them. Lord

Rennard strongly disputes the allegations, but questions have

been raised about whether Nick Clegg and other senior figures in

the party did enough at the time, and whether they've been completely

open about what they knew. It could hardly have come at a worse time

for the party with a critical by- election in Eastleigh later this

week. Chris Rennard became well known around Westminster in the

1990s as the Liberal Democrats' election supremo - credited with

masterminding a string of by- election victories. Between 2003

and 2009, he served as the party's Chief Executive before standing

down - the party said, for health reasons. On Thursday and Friday

last week, Channel 4 News broadcast allegations that he had acted

inappropriately towards women working for the party - allegations

which he denies. One said she had been left feeling humiliated,

undermined and shameful. Nick Clegg launched an investigation but

issued a statement saying that he hadn't known about the allegations

until Channel 4 contacted the party last week.

Then, last night, he issued another statement saying he had been made

aware of indirect and non-specific concerns about Lord Rennard in 2008.

He says he asked his then Chief of Staff, Danny Alexander, to look

into the matter - the man who now sits in the number two spot in the

Treasury. We also know other Lib Dem MPs, including Jo Swinson - now

a Business Minister - did know about some of the specific

allegations at the time. Party President Tim Farron says they've

screwed up the process of investigating the complaints. But

Nick Clegg insists the inquiries he has set up will get to the truth.

The fact is we had a number of women who subsequently spoken out

with frustration, who now need to be listened to because they clearly

weren't listened to and we need to get to the bottom of the truth.

Until last week the specific allegations where we know which

women were concerned and what events they were allude - alluded

to were not made available to me or my office. The moment they were, we

set up the investigations. We now must allow that due process to play

itself out. Our political correspondent Robin

Brant can tell us the latest. Where are we in terms of Nick Clegg

having said he knew nothing, he has now said he did know something

albeit about so-called unspecific concerns? That change in stance

from the Deputy Prime Minister is probably the most significant

development, certainly over the last 24 hours. As you said, he said

he learned firstly about these allegations when Channel 4

broadcast them late last week. We now know that he was told about

these non-specific general concerns back in 2008. The problem for Mr

Clegg is changing of the stance and also that almost very leagueistic

ambiguous language. People will want to know more about these non-

specific claims. They're described as being general. The party

President said that Nick Clegg's office became aware of rumours.

There will be more questions about exactly what are the detail of

those allegations, how did Nick Clegg's office come to know them?

Secondly, there is a real difference of opinion, certainly at

the top of the party today. It's no secret there are differences

between Tim Farron, the President, and Nick Clegg in terms of how

they're regarded within the party. Tim Farron on The Today programme

saying we screwed up, Nick Clegg refusing to accept that assessment

although he did concede in another BBC interview that he thinks

perhaps once these investigations are under way they may uncover

flaws in the procedures. There are now two inquiries under way. One

into the allegations themselves against Chris Rennard, secondly,

another one into how the party has dealt with them. Nick Clegg in a

difficult position, he has to let due process take place and that's

going to take time. We don't know exactly who is going to be heading

up both inquiries at the moment. In the meantime, he doesn't want to

rush to judgment. The key problem for the Deputy Prime Minister is

his curiosity or perhaps even his incuriosity. It was a label

ascribed to George Entwistle, director general at the BBC for 52

days and the fact he didn't ask various questions is something

being labelled at Nick Clegg. If he didn't know about these allegations,

didn't know details about them back in tweet, -- 2008 and people

weren't coming forward and didn't feel they could approach him then

why was that? Thank you very much.

I'm now joined by Mark Littlewood, who was the Liberal Democrats' Head

of Media when Lord Rennard was the party's Chief Executive. Had you

heard about the allegations? Not a whisper or a sniff or rumour

between 2004 and 2007 when I was there. None of these rumours that

have been circulated you hadn't heard about? Not a sniff of it.

Maybe I was an incredibly unobserveant press officer but

there wasn't even a call from the the journalist during that period.

By about 2008 I started hearing some of these rumours, but, frankly,

very often, certainly in my position, having left the party, I

dismissed them as tittle tattle. The more you hear from different

sources and different events the more you think is there something

in this? What do you think about the way it's been handled by Nick

Clegg so far, particularly this idea he said he knew nothing about

the specific allegations, but now has revealed he also heard rumours,

so far as to get Danny Alexander to talk to Lord Rennard? It's

incredibly confusing. They almost seem to be inventing a new language.

I am not sure what an indirect non- specific complaint is. There seems

to be an indirect non-specific complaint involving behaviour that

was unacceptable, that's apparently what Danny Alexander said to Chris

Rennard, how can something be indirect and non-specific and

totally unacceptable? That seems to be very confusing indeed. What

they've got to get out, apart from the allegations which Chris Rennard

flatly denies entirely, is what processes did they go through? Who

knew what when? And why did they close the file? My understanding is

that no one came forward with a specific complaint at that time.

Once the chat had happened between Danny Alexander and Lord Rennard

there was nowhere to go, what do you say to that? It's clear as well

that Jo Swinson, the Womens and and What did though do, the Chief Whip

and Womens and Equalities Officer? Do you think it's difficult for

them? I would have thought that was her job. She would have been an

obvious go to person, if you were a woman that believed you were unfair

ly treated. She would be high on the list of people to confide in.

Do you think the -- do you agree the party screwed up? What they've

got to set out pretty clearly is who knew what when, what they did

with it and if there was a screw-up where was that and why? Why do you

think the allegations have resurfaced now? The timing is

curious, bearing in mind we are talking about these unspecific

concerns dating back to 2008 and before? You would have to ask the

women who have come forward about that. I have never even met...

don't know either of them? It's possible that I might have bumped

into them once, but I have never spoken to them, to my knowledge.

Why did they come forward? The evidence seems to be that they were

concerned that Chris Rennard was getting involved in the party again.

That seems to be one of the triggers for it. But he's been

involved in the party or has come back in after standing down for

health reasons in the last year. Why only a week do you think before

the Eastleigh by-election? I don't know these women, but what I saw of

them on Channel 4 News, it doesn't seem to they're attempting to

undermine the Liberal Democrat effort in the by-election nor would

Channel 4 News be doing that, I wouldn't have thought, if you have

a story like that and you are the broadcaster, I would think there

are unbelievable Is to dot and legals to go through, it's not

something you hear about on Monday and broadcast on Tuesday. My belief

would be it's taken Channel 4 a long time to put that together

before they were broadcasting and they were going to broadcast when

it was ready. What impact do you think it will have on the by-

election? That's definite to say. - - difficult to say. Although it's a

significant political story it is a Westminster bubble story and it may

be in Eastleigh people are actually more concerned about local issues

than what's going on here. But of course virtually every front front

page of every newspaper will be bad news for the Liberal Democrats. If

the Liberal Democrats now lose the seat, then this could well be the

explanation for that. Do you agree with that? What's important is they

get to the bottom of it and it's investigated properly now they're

aware of - and the specifics are now, - have come to light. That's

what's important about this and reviewing maybe the processes that

they have in place to deal with issues. What about Nick Clegg? It's

difficult for him to be embroiled in this even even accidentally, if

we are being kind to to him? course it's difficult. I don't

think he helped himself much with his statement last night. It's very

difficult to actually pick up a consistent thread of what the

Liberal Democrats were saying over the weekend. That morning Vince

Cable said, you know, he wanted to be absolutely clear that neither he

nor Nick Clegg knew anything. Suddenly we start getting into

highly complex words about general, rather than specific. Indirect

rather than direct. It's all incredibly confusing. Really, rings

of contorted language. He would have been better to tried to get

everything out or at least say when he was going to get absolutely

everything out in full detail about when he knew what ever it was that

he did know. He did also come across as slightly sort of petulant

actually last night. He seemed to be angry as if he was unfairly, he

and his party were unfairly under fire. I don't think that did him

any great favours, either. I am not saying he needs to go through

another so sorry moment, but I think that he probably should have

attempted to come across as being somewhat the more contrite than he

did. Thank you. The re-trial has begun today of

Vicky Pryce, the ex-wife of the former Cabinet Minister, Chris

Huhne. The original trial collapsed last week. Our correspondent is

outside the court. Remind us how we got to this point. This has been a

very, very long process to get to this point of retrial. Just over a

year ago both her and her now former husband, Chris Huhne, were

charged with perverting the course of justice over a very, very minor

matter, a speeding ticket back in 2003, the allegation had been that

Chris Huhne was caught speeding on the motorway back into London from

the airport ap that Vicky Pryce had taken points for him so he could

avoid a driving ban as he was preparing to fight the Eastleigh

seat when he originally entered parliament. A year and a day after

that charge he pleaded guilty here at Southwark Crown Court. He is

awaiting sentencing but the trial of Vicky Pryce continues on the

same offence. She denies it saying she was forced to take the points.

The original trial came to an end in dramatic circumstances last week

when the jury failed to reach a verdict but as these things happen,

the judge restarted this morning with a fresh jury. It's a retrial.

Does that mean they will hear from He told this newly sworn-in jury

that their job was to, "Pool their common sense and experience of life

to come to a true verdict, based on the evidence they will here before

them in court." He told them because of the collapse, it happens,

just to get on with it. Decide to ignore whatever they have heard

about the onlyal jury. The evidence in court will be broadly the same.

This is what happens in retrails. The prosecution will outline the

evidence, they will put their case. The prosecutor has told the jury

that at the heart of this case is a convenient decision between Chris

Huhne and his former wife, for her to take the speeding points, simply

because it was not a good idea for him to lose his license at the time

in 2003. It suited their purposes for Vicky Pryce to take the points.

He said she was not the kind of woman who would do as her husband

told her to do and her defence of marital coercion, that she was

bullied into taking these points does not wash. It is up to this

jury to decide, in the course of the coming week, whether it is the

case or not. Later today in the House of Lords, peers will decide

whether to create a press regulator by the back door. Earlier this week,

their Lordships decided to vote in favour of amendments produced by

Lord Puttnam, which effectively created a Leveson-style press

regulator. If the changes to the bill are passed, the Government has

threatened to throw the bill out, damaging its intention of trying to

reform the libel laws. With us now is Lord Lester of Herne Hill and

former, Charlie Falconer. You spent a lot of time working on this bill

- what was your original intention with this Defamation Bill? It is to

reform entirely the outmooded English law of libel, which is to

restrictive of free speech that President Obama signed a law in

America to prevent it being enforced in the States. No-one

disputes it needs reform. All three parties have worked very well

together in arriving at a bill, which is being looked at across the

common law world as a model. It is an extremely important bill. Is it

at risk of being dropped by a Labour amendment supported by Lord

Falconer to try and push through at the same time a Leveson-style press

regulator? I hope not. The thing about this country is we have a

spirit of compromise. Three political parties need to come to a

sensible view with the press on independent self-regulation, not

state regulation of a free media. Why have you attached these

amendments to the Defamation Bill? It's not me, it's the House of

Lords. The amendment was crafted by four people right across the House,

one being ex-Tory. The bill is excellent. What the amendment does

is it says there should be an arbitration service which people

can use free if they have a complaint against a newspaper, to

give access to justice to everybody and it needs an independent

regulator to determine whether or not it is a fair ash traig service.

What is wrong with that? It should be voted upon in the Commons. If

they don't like it, they should take it out. Why attach it to the

Defamation Bill? It is about defamation-related claims. I do

know that is right. Lord Justice Leveson made it clear

at the beginning of his inquiry that nothing he was doing would

affect the Defamation Bill. The bill is a bill to amend the law of

defamation. It is not on privacy. Leveson was about gross abuses of

privacy. It is all very well saying it was not your fault...

supported it strongly. It is the right thing to do. It is for the

House of Lords to take responsibility. I don't accuse you

of drafting it. You have pleaded not guilty to that. He was cleared

of that, was he? Leveson recommended that newspapers should

be published through punitive damages. Now when Charlie was - I

think he was in 2007. What month are you in? Let's not

worry about that? Now his Government rejected the idea of

extending damages, not once, but twice. And now all these QCs have

written opinions saying so. So there is a problem.... What is

wrong with a free arbitration service? Nothing is wrong...

you in favour? Of course. Why don't you support it? It needs to be done

by self-regulation. That is what the amendment is saying. It says it

is done by the press. Let's come back to the original point. Are you

prepared to pay the price for the Defamation Bill - that is the risk

and it is a risk because the Government is threatening that -

they will drop the bill and then you will have lost... Have they

said that Yes. Of course there'll be plenty of negotiations behind

closed doors. We're talking - cross-party talks are going on...

Shouldn't you wait for those? because the right thing to do is if

we cannot reach agreement at the cross-party talks and we are

desperately trying to, then Parliament should decide.

I think this is a form of bullying, I am afraid. Bullying?! Yes, they

have taken the bill hostage. haven't. You have taken... Wait a

second. You have taken it hostage at the moment. What is very

difficult is this - when it goes to the Commons I have no doubt that it

will be made in the Commons F Labour don't approve of that, there

is a serious risk it will not get through the Commons. There is a

serious risk it stays. If it stays then Mr Cameron... Before war is

declared, or you have declared it, in a very nice Lordship sort of

way! Your impression in terms of Leveson - would you like to see

some sort of statutory underpinning, to use that term, or is self-

regulation enough? It is important that we retain freedom of speech,

as has been mentioned already. It is important that there is

somewhere that people can go - whether it is self-regulated or not.

If they have concerns about the press. One thing that was miss from

the Leveson Inquiry that we campaigned on was actually an

amendment to the editor's code. At the moment it does not include age

as a form of discrimination. As you might know, young people are often

miss represented in the media. I mean, throughout the week f you

look at some of the stories that cover young people, actually how

many young people are actually involved in the stories themselves?

How many young people will be sitting on the sofas, like myself,

giving their opinions on those issues. That is something I was

disappointed not to see. What you are proposing seems to go further

than what was proposed by leve because you are talking about a --

Leveson, because you are talking about a regulatory system which

will mean publishers have to check with the system before they publish

a story.... Leveson suggested in considering what damages to award,

it would be relevant to have regard whether or not, before publishing

something, without going to the subject of the story, the press had

sought advice - that is what it proposed. Free clearance... It is

nothing to do with that. If you are given damages, allowed in the law,

if you have taken advice and they say don't do it without asking the

subject first, surely that is a factor. Max Mosely sought such a

thing. The English courts said no, that violates free speech. I know

of no democracy in the world... Hang on - I know of no system in

the world - it is coercive state regulation. I only know of five out

of 47 in Europe with such a thing. They are all former mens of the

Soviet Union. I am astonished... am astonished by how you have miss

represented that! I am sure you will continue this, fascinating

although it is. It is an odd thing about politics that youthful,

charismatic leaders seem the Holy Grail, whereas older statesmen have

to step down for being too old. Not like our two previous guests. The

eLord Chancelloror rate seem to distrust youngsters who have done

nothing but politics from birth. What do the young have to offer

political debate? Giles has been When it comes to age, politics -

the essence of youth... I think what he really means is that for

centuries, youth has not been allowed to have influence in the

world of politics. Yeah - what she said! You need experience to be

involved in politics. You need to have something you can bring. Some

stand point you represent. Young people is a stand-point. It is

being an experience in itself. Trying to find jobs, understanding

for graduates it is a difficult time at the moment. Young people

are being vilified in the press. That is an experience one can bring

to the political debate. It is just as valuable as any other background.

There are clearly savvy 20- somethings, but an MP at 23 - is

there too young for Westminster? was the most inexperienced,

incapable Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. I learnt very

quickly. 100,000 voters in a town, Margaret Thatcher, Keith Joseph,

Ian mag Greg gor and myself closing the steel works and putting 10,000

people out of work - my God I aged from 27 to 47 in a few months!

It is already for half of you, half of you won't be here in 30-40

years' time! My problem with people who start politics from the start...

Yes, yes, we have heard that before. You think they are younger pith the

younger, Prime Minister in his 20s. William Hague and that speech. All

I can say, is I think it is very judge mental! There is a difference

between being a -- between playing politics and if you are trying to

act like Prime Minister, that is- and-a-half. You have to be involved

in politics if you are young. old grey beards are back in fashion.

The voters want to look at them rather like I look at my solicitor

and my bank manager. I want him to be dull, boring and grey and full

of wisdom. The truth is, us youngsters do have much to learn

about life, but don't underestimate those, who from the start, have

something to say and say it well. have never felt so old!

You still look young though! Regular viewers will be delighted

to hear we have given Giles Dilnot the boot and replaced him with

eight-year-old Olivia. Let's pick up on that last point in the film -

people in politics want a representative who is older and

wiser. I think it's something that we, a lot of people want, but

actually if you look at it in history, there have been amazing

and inspirational people who have been young. I don't see any reason

why a young politician shouldn't become, you shouldn't become an MP

or become a local councillor, or even the Mayor of London. I would

encourage anyone who wanted to do that to do so. What is your

ambition in politics? personally, I am not looking to

become an MP just yet, but in the future, you never know. It may be

something that is I want to do personally. I want to encourage

anybody to think their age should not be a barrier. Which party would

you represent if you become an MP? Probably I would create my own

party and... Very diplomatic! diplomatic way of putting it. I

think there's a lot of change that needs to happen, so the parties are

more reflective of The Views of young people. Do you have any

influence in youth Parliament? Does it really matter? Does it have any

What was that related to in transport? Related to all aspects

of transport, particularly the price of transport and how much it

costs for young people. In London, for example, you get free transport

but there are parts of the UK where you have to pay a full adult fare.

They issued, just like any other Select Committee, you know,

recommendations that they felt the Government should take on. They got

a full Government response just like any other Select Committee

report. I would say they were very influential. It's more than just

playing at politics, what cynical older people, like me, would say

everybody who is interested in politics in their teens and early

20s, and then lose interest. think, you know, just like any

other subject you can lose interest and you can gain interest but what

everybody within the Youth Parliament and British Youth

Council believes is it affects everybody and no matter how much

you get involved it will affect your life. What about voting by

young people? Most people will know the voting turnout for young people

tends to be less. There's proof to show if you engage young people you

will get them to participate. A great example is the UK Youth

Parliament managed to get over a quarter of a million young people

to respond to a survey last year in response to saying what their views

were. If you engage young people you can get them involved. There

will be politicians who will say young people aren't voting enough

in their droves, they can't be that interested in what we are talking

about. Do you think young people are more interested in individual

campaigns than in party politics? Actually that's exactly something I

was going to mention next. Young people are more interested in

issues rather than party politics. That's what the UK Youth Particle

splt based -- Parliament is based on. It's about being passionate for

an issue that you care about which is the roots of politics in general.

I am sure there are a lot of politicians who had one issue that

triggered them to want to be an MP or councillor. Thank you very much

for being our guest and good luck. Thank you very much.

MPs are back at Westminster today after their short recess. I hope

they're well rested because there's plenty on their plate this week.

This afternoon, Labour are pushing for a debate on why we've lost our

triple-A rating and what it all means. And the horsemeat scandal

rumbles on. Ikea meatballs are the latest food implicated. European

Union politicians and officials are in Brussels to agree ways of

keeping horsemeat out of beef products.

Tomorrow, the new Archbishop of Canterbury - Justin Welby - takes

his seat in the House of Lords. And, on Wednesday, it's the weekly

Cameron-Miliband set-to in the Commons - Prime Minister Question

Time. Voters in Eastleigh go to the polls on Thursday to decide who

will replace Chris Huhne, who resigned after admitting he lied

about his speeding points. Well, with me now to discuss all that are

Isabel Hardman from the Spectator and the Mirror's associate editor,

Kevin Maguire. We have just heard the Speaker has granted Ed Balls an

urgent question relating to the Government's economic policy at

3.30pm. Let's talk about the credit rating, does it matter it's been

downgraded? It matters politically because Osbourne set such stall by

it, what's interesting is whether he is confident we can retain the

rating, I asked a spokesman and he wouldn't confirm. It is important.

Also, Tory MPs will start to put pressure on Osbourne to do things

like unfunded tax cuts to bring growth in. What can Labour say? Ed

Balls has said that actually you can't hold that much stock by the

agencies, they gave top billing to subprime mortgages at the time. So

Labour can't come down too heavily on this, surely? No, it's a great

irony of the triple-A rating disappearing so Labour say the

agencies are worth - useless and say now Osbourne's totally

humiliated while Osbourne who made a song and dance about the rating

is trying to brush it off. The truth is he will know, George

Osborne, he has failed on his own terms. His party will know he has

failed on his own terms and I suspect Ed Balls will dust down his

his alternative. In terms of the Budget, the timing I suppose

implicated that actually the credit rating agencies didn't think George

Osborne could do anything that would breed confidence so they cut

it now? Yeah, and one of the tests that rebellious Tory MPs have laid

down for Osbourne is a successful Budget. Another one was keeping the

rating, that's obviously gone. Another one is a successful Budget

and his focus should be as not having another omnishambles, and

having a Budget that doesn't fall apart weeks afterwards. On the base

to say doesn't fall apart -- basis it doesn't fall apart, he can't do

very much, one of the problems now are fears about the currency. The

pound is falling, looking very weak. There was talk at the weekend maybe

exaggerated, of a sterling crisis. Surely that's focusing his mind?

The economy's had no growth in a year, living standards are falling

pretty sharply. On his watch the economy has gone into reverse.

Whatever his excuses or reasons, it's a poor picture. He has to do

something. He might as well go for growth otherwise he will be

remembered as a total failure. He lost the rating, the last Budget

was, well, it crumbled like a pasty and pretty quickly. If he wants to

get growth in that economy, he's got to restore it and if not - for

no other reason he has to do it to give the Conservatives a chance at

the next general election. Self- interest requires George Osborne to

do something. Liberal Democrat woes at the moment with these

allegations surrounding Lord Rennard. How do you think Nick

Clegg and his office have handled it? Not very well. I was speaking

to someone who works in crisis PR yesterday and they were saying they

always get clients saying we can't mention this and that, their

response is to you have to bring the detail out straight away. Using

strange language about indirect non-specific allegations, it's not

helpful to closing down the story. What do you think Nick Clegg needs

to do now? Vanish! This all goes away. It feels as if it would be

easier if those in the party who didn't know anything about these

allegations came forward, because we have Nick Clegg himself, we have

Alexander, Jo Swinson, you have Tim Farron saying he knew, it's become

a terrible, terrible mess. They set up two inquiries. They will take

their course. But at the same time, there's going to be a drip-drip of

allegations, more women may come forward making allegations. I

accept Lord Rennard disputes the allegations made but people are

coming forward nonetheless. Tory and Labour MPs are going to the

police. It's a real mess. Wye have -- I would have put a lot of money

last week on the Liberal Democrats holding Eastleigh and the by-

election, now I am not so sure. that betting note, we will leave

both of you, thank you very much. Joining me for the programme is

the Conservative MP, Priti Patel, the Labour MP, Lisa Nandy, Liberal

Democrat MP, Annette Brooke and UKIP MEP Gerard Batten. Welcome to

you all. Let's talk about the credit rating.

What you failed to highlight is that those same agencies have

pointed to our creditworthiness, which is in good order right now,

which would prevent interest rates from going up. So, the triple-A

rating has gone, we have to accept that and move on. The same has

happened in other international markets, including the US, as well.

But we are still sound in terms of our creditworthiness. It's the

political point that George Osborne held so much stock by it and he

repeatedly insisted it was so important to retain it. Was that a

mistake? I agree that there's been a great deal of political emphasis

placed on that, no one can deny that. The point is it's gone and we

have to move on and look at what we can do in terms of economic growth

and also still in terms of fiscal consolidation. Part of the reason

why our interest rates are low is because there's been a proper

programme and focus on fiscal consolicitor tkoeugs --

consolidation and deficit reduction. Which Labour wouldn't have

undertaken? A Chancellor who can say there are ten benchmarks by

which we should judge the economy and our economic success, the first

of which was the triple-A credit rating, to lose it and say we are

not going to change course seems fairly astonishing. So, actually

it's not a question of business as usual, it's this should be a real

wake-up call to the plan isn't working on his own terms and he

needs to change course. Is Labour really saying the market and the

credit rating agencies would respond more positively to a big

spending splurge or stimulus which is what Labour has outlined in its

plan. The economy would respond more positively to a spending

stimulus. So, Ed Balls announced recently we would use proceeds from

the 4G auction to invest in affordable homes, it's that sort of

thing that's going to get people's confidence back and get the economy

moving because the key test really is can you get people spending and

growth back into the economy? are saying that's more important

than any vote by the credit rating agencies? In other words, it's

really not important it's been downgraded? We always said that we

don't place the same emphasis on the rating agencies as George

Osborne had but it seems quite unbelievable that a Chancellor can

fail his own key test and still be in the job refusing to change

course. Should he still be in the job? He should be. It would be and

sourd to -- absurd to think we should change Chancellor. Even the

markets say this, we have inherited a catastrophe in terms of the state

of the economy and the deficit, as well. You could argue the plan so

far to repair that catastrophe, as you put it, isn't working?

disagree, we have low and stable interest rates and those are

signals... As a result of quantitative easing. Those are

signals we need to make sure we have confidence in the system and

confidence of business, as well. Let's talk about living standards,

but first of all, we know - no growth, debt up and actually

borrowing, we will see if it's up and now downgraded, are you still

happy to be wedded to the Government? George Osborne made the

ratings so high stakes in the debate. As Vince Cable said, it's a

symbolic change but what's important is to get the right focus

following this and in the Budget. There are differences between the

Conservatives and the Lib Dems, we do believe that we have to have

deficit reduction, how we would achieve that would have a different

emphasis. There is a case for mansion tax, for example, to bring

in extra money. We are making our arguments within the coalition. I

want to see that house-building start. We are all agreed that this

would really get things moving. So we are asking within the coalition

for the cap to be lifted on local authority borrowing. I think that's

really important. Our job is to be putting our arguments strongly

forward. You are in the Government, if you don't get those what should

the Lib Dems do? We are going to do the best we can, pushing our

arguments, I don't want to see the poorest in society bearing the

bankrupt of the cuts -- brunt of the cuts. We have to get a really

good agreed package. It's very important the components, but

absolutely we agree not to go down the path of Labour, spin, spin,

speb -- spend, spend, spin. You do agree about a mansion tax? Labour's

come round to our way of thinking. That doesn't make sense. You have

said don't spend but you want local authorities to borrow, why do you

want them to borrow if not to spend to invest? I am saying we make

careful decisions in this, if we are raising some taxes, then those

taxes must be on those with higher income and wealth and that would

give us more man owe sraerability for spending. I don't want to see

is the rash spending, including that in the run-up to the general

election where projects which were going to favour Labour seats were -

projects were being signed off left, right and centre. Would you

thraoeubg see tax cuts -- like to see tax cuts? I am a realist about

the current situation. I believe in a low tax economy, because that

would... Wouldn't that boost growth? Your colleague is putting

it forward and seems to have support? The Chancellor has done a

lot in terms of reducing taxes on business, down to to corporation

tax, small profit rates tax and that has brought in confidence for

businesses to invest. Investment is key to create jobs. Businesses

aren't investing. They're sitting on a massive amount of cash because

they don't feel certain about whether to invest. That's a

sweeping generalisation. There are businesses doing that. The other

side, if you look at the schemes such as funding for for lending,

that's starting to works. When we get a new Governor of the Bank of

England the monetary debate will kick off again on what can be done

to bring money into the economy in How worried are your quairbts about

inflation? -- quairbts about inflation? The cost of living

affects everybody. We have to be mindful and I think the Chancellor

is mindful of the fact that people are hurting. The pound is getting

squeezed through energy costs and fuel prices. What does he do to

help them? He recognises that. At the same time we have to press the

energy companies to keep prices low and to be fair in terms of

competition as well. It is about the pressure we can apply. The last

thing we want to see is sterling come under acute pressure. Of

course that would have a knock-on in terms of food prices. One could

argue it is under pressure. should not create panic about this.

It has been hit over the past week - that was in anticipation of the

credit rating being lost. Let's turn attentions to a story which

has all the drama and intrigue of a soap opera. A former MP facing jail

and a cast of MPs seeking to be elected in Eastleigh.

Flem flem flem has been to Hampshire -- Adam Fleming has been

to Hampshire. Affairs, rivalries and boats - 80s'

TV favourite Howard's Way had it all! It was filmed here in

Eastleigh, which is now in the midst of a by-election of soap

opera proportions. This was a Tory seat until 1994, then the Lib Dems

seized it. Chris Huhne was the MP in 2005. We all know what happened

to that character. If Chris Huhne is the villain, then here is the

man trying to clean up the mess - the Liberal Democrat candidate.

He put his hand up for it. He should be punished. I would like

him to apologise to everyone here. Meet his closest rival and feisty

female - Maria Hutchings who has gone off on her own issues. This is

a fantastic place to live. It deserves somebody who understands

it and will be a good focal force in Parliament, supporting David

Cameron's clear message. Who is this? A mysterious new-comer - John

O 'Farrell. There'll be a general election in two-and-a-half years -

are you committed as-to-a life as MP? If they don't like me after two

years they can kick me out again. I will stand if elected. I am looking

forward to that exciting life. there is the previously minor

character thrust into a major plot line, the UKIP candidate. I have

had questions thrown at me, you know, you have to think on your

feet. Like what? A number of the interviewers were, are you racist?

Are you a bigot? You know - it's amazing that they still trawl that

particular line. And the theme continues at this local pub, where

they have a tribute to the cast of Howard's Way on the wall. Hang on -

that's given me an idea! Which soap opera character are you like in

real life? I heard Joan Tweeted I should be the lead in Borgen. I

don't watch it. I will be one of the Spooks girls. Which one?

Probably one of them they have killed off. One soap opera I

enjoyed watching is an American one - it was the West Wing. If I can be

even a quarter of the man the President was in that, I would be a

very happy man! Bet Lnych, serving pints to the

To be fair to this place, Howard's Way is not that realistic -

Eastleigh is actually an old railway town, but this episode is a

real-life cliffhanger. What will the consequences be? Will Labour

sink and UKIP swim? Stay tuned! Remember, you can see a full list

of candidates on the BBC website. We are joined now by Gerard Batten.

How damaging to Lib Dem prospects is the way the party have handled

allegations that have been denied by Lord Rennard? I found as I was

in the constituency last night at a hustings there was not one question

about it. I had spoken at a constituency dinner on Saturday

night. I spent over an hour on questions and not anybody there

asked me a question about it. It is certainly a big issue in the

Westminster puddle. As far as I am concerned, and I can say quite

categorically, I had never heard of these allegations either first-hand,

second-hand at all. I have been a female MP for 12 years. So, I think

that is very significant. I'm not pleased, as a female, to think

these were not investigated and dealt with properly at the time. I

am straight to the investigations. I think all this speculation, who

said what, where and when is ludicrous. Let's get on with a

proper inquiry. For me, we are looking at culture. Cultural

problem across the Church, the BBC - we could go on and on. What about

the culture in the Lib Dems? As a woman MP, you say you have been

there many years - what is it like? Do you say you are not pleased hu

they dealt with it at the time? culture aspect - was there an

element of an important person going through. Did we have the

right structures in place? If we find we did and they were all there,

why didn't they apparently work properly and therefore we've got to

look at whether people are in the right places. I am confident with

the Chief Whip. A very professional chief executive. Total confidence

in where we are going from here. As a female, I certainly feel that I

want to know why, how and to be able to stand up and say, this will

never happen again in our party. Priti Patel, do you accept that the

Eastleigh by-election result will be a verdict on David Cameron's

leadership and the coalition? don't. By-elections, particularly

mid-term, yes people will vote whichever way they want to vote,

but I don't think any sitting Government should take it as a said

verdict on them because people vote because they are disillusioned,

unhappy about things going on. I have been involved in by-elections

for a long period of time. So, it's flux - yes, there is a lot of that

in by-election. By-elections do play some importance, but more

often than not you will find a local candidate... What about UKIP

in terms of taking away Tory voters and handing the by-election to the

Liberal Democrats? I am not convinced. There is a national

spotlight on by-elections. All the parties will throw everything into

them. They will try and maximise their share of the vote. When it

comes to UKIP claiming they are the only party on Europe, I disagree

with that. Isn't that what you are hearing on

the doorstep - actually, don't worry Mr Batten because the Tories

are giving us what we want, so we will not vote UKIP? I have not

heard that at all. I have heard disillusioned people. People are

coming over to UKIP. We're not just taking votes from the Tories -

that's a myth. We take them from Labour supporters. We take some Lib

Dem votes sometimes. But not often? I don't have a scientific analysis

for you, but we do take, because a lot of Lib Dem votes are protest

votes, in Eastleigh any way. People who have protested by voting for

the Lib Dems no longer feel it is a worthwhile thing to do. The latest

figures is we can be neck and neck with the Tories. The polls out at

the weekend said we are on 21%. They looked at how people's

previous voting - how they voted last time. If you take it out of

the equation, we could be on 25, the Tories on 26. Labour risks

coming behind UKIP in this race? are not complacent about this at

all. An old railway town, this should be a three-way margin, a

four-way margin. People are feeling the squeeze as much as elsewhere.

We are fighting this by-election hard. We are fighting it hard

because it signalled something about Ed Miliband's Labour Party,

which is we are not just interested in Governing for one section of the

population. When he said, we want to be the one nation party, he

meant it. That is why we're on the doorstep, trying to garner support

n a seat we have traditionally not won. Is the candidate taking it

seriously? I think he is taking it seriously. He is a stance believer

in social justice, as am I. He cares about the situation of people

who are seeing their living standards falling as a result of

the disastrous handling of the economy. You see light-hearted

humour from him. In the general circus that Eastleigh seems to have

become I preferred the brand of humour than what is going on at the

moment. Has it turned into a dirty fight? I didn't see that last night.

I have been out on the street as well. I would argue that, at this

stage, the Liberal Democrats are not looking for a protest vote.

What they are looking at is a track record in the town with holding all

26 council seats. They could not have been doing bad things over so

many years - it is remarkable to hold all the seats. A local can r

candidate. As they have some local credentials. He has the track

record. Well, good for him! Stay with us. We are nearly at the end

of the programme. We are joined from Westminster but someone you

will all recognise. Hugh Fearnley- Whittingstall. What is the fishiest

outfith you've had? We've had squid, jellyfish. It's been the most

fantastic carnival atmosphere. We have close to 2,000 people here.

They are here because they share the passion for protecting the

marine environment. We have a very, very loud siren going on behind me.

We are used to it. Battle with it. I don't want to dampen anyone's

enthusiasm here. There is a consultation about marine

conservation. Our Government has asked to hear from us. We want to

see action. You want to see action. Have Government ministers agreed to

meet you? Are you getting anywhere? I have met with our fisheries

minister on several occasions to discuss this issue. It is - fair

play to him - he is engaged. Having set up a period of consultation

over two years which cost �8 million, DEFRA came up with a

proposal for a network of 127 Marine Conservation Zones around

the UK. That is a good, healthy number. The current disappointment

is they have announced they will only look at 31 of them. That is

what we're talking about here today. We want to see a time frame to

extend that number for a proper consultation on the full 127.

will let you go back to your fishy friends. Good luck! That is all for