10/01/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, and welcome to The Daily Politics. EU Referendum Bill

is back. Did you miss it? I did. This time, it is a war of attrition

in the House of Lords. There they are, settling in on the red benches

for the debate over the future of Europe and its relationship with the

British public . David Cameron says the floods were down to climate

change. His Environment Secretary does not sound quite so sure. We

will debate the issue. And why is Ayn Rand still so influential on the

right of politics? And the New Year is going from bad to worse for

Francois Hollande. Has he decided to embrace austerity, as well as an

actress, and will it do him any good?

All of that is coming up in the next hour. With me for the generation, to

journalists that I said I would never share the studio with again,

until hell froze over. And I meant it. Unfortunately, the small town of

Hell in Michigan did freeze over this week. So, here they are again,

it is David Wooding and Helen Lewis. Happy New Year.

. Let's start with EU migration. David Cameron began the year talking

about restricting what he called "mass population movements" around

the EU. Yesterday, the Vice President of the European

Commission, Viviane Reding, who has previously called for a United

States of Europe, said there wasn't an invasion of foreigners stealing

jobs and draining welfare. She even said the British Government was

destroying the future of its people. It's not just the Tories thinking

about making it harder to move around the EU, here's Shadow

Business Secretary Chuka Umunna speaking last night. I think low

skill immigration, we believe that there was too much of it from the

European Union, and I think there is one important thing about the

European Union. The founders of the European Union had in mind free

movement of workers, not free movement of job-seekers, and

undoubtedly, we do have to work with our European partners to deal with

that. I met with a number of them this week, are very open to that, if

we constructively engage with them, and say, hey, do what we want, or we

are going to walk. We asked the Labour spokesperson to come onto the

show this morning to tell us more about this policy, was it made on

the hoof, was it a new party policy, what does it mean? We were told, not

surprisingly, that nobody was available. I suppose there are still

working out what it means. Alan, are British politicians on the right and

the left, having never read the Treaty of Rome -- Helen? That was

the David Dimbleby question, can you rewrite the Treaty of Rome at 11

o'clock on BBC One? You can't, but it is difficult, because at the

moment, you can move somewhere and start a business, for example. If

this was reciprocated, Britain has the fourth largest amounts of

emigrants in the EU, and they would be affected as much as people coming

into Britain. I am not sure that he was right that the Treaty of Rome

was basically mainly arranged for workers to be able to move across

borders. It is about the movement of people. It is about the movement of

people and the other interesting thing is that when the treatment was

signed, there were 28 countries and this has extended. What we voted for

in the original referendum back in the 1970s was a small handful of

Western European countries. I think what he is doing, what Chuka Umunna

is doing, is trying to get Labour more on the side of public opinion

on this. He's not going as far as David Cameron, by saying we want to

have some controls, he's showing that Labour is serious about doing

something about immigration. There were a lot of apologies about the

transitional controls, about Polish people coming in, and that is

something you hear a lot. Gordon Brown famously talked about British

jobs for British workers at one stage, and then Ed Balls has kind of

implied, in 2010, he was talking about European leaders revisiting

the freedom of movement directive. Yvette Cooper has raised similar

concerns, in March of last year. It is a theme that Labour bangles at

every so often but it is very hard Yes, you are right. Yes, you are

right, they are just showing a bit of leg. It is difficult ground for

them. Ed Miliband is always the best looking at the data and public

attitudes about immigration are essentially out of kilter about what

is happening, but how do you tell the voters they are wrong? It is

hard. And David Cameron can always throw back at Labour that they are

the people who open the floodgates in the first place. You can be in or

out of the EU, that is straightforward, but if you are in

it, it involves the movement of people across borders. That is one

of the basic club rules. Chuka Umunna did make a good point about

the high and low skills, it is ridiculous that people are working

copy shop say when they have a Masters degree, that is not good for

the origin country or here. That is a society. Yes, the way the cookie

crumbles. The one piece of good news for the Government is may have been

attacked by the vice president of the European Commission, Viviane

Reding, and when an unknown official attacks the country, that is when

they will get some support. All she has done is shown have out of touch

the European institutions are with public opinion over here. She's

basically saying it is been stoked by politicians for their own ends,

but there is no need for them to do that, they should be hiding it under

the carpet. Labour are not in a good place under immigration and David

Cameron has a big problem with it, they are not stoking it up, it is

public opinion. Viviane Reding, if you are watching in Brussels, come

onto the Daily Politics and have a word about these things. Being a

European official, you would like to be held accountable. Now, if you

would like to have a vote on staying in or coming out of the European

Union in the next couple of years, time is not on your side. The EU

Referendum Bill is being discussed in the Lords today, although whether

it will get much further is another matter. It's not a Government bill,

because the Tories couldn't get the Lib Dems to agree. So they drafted

the legislation themselves and let the backbencher James Wharton

introduce it in the Commons. Now it is the turn of Tory Peer Michael

Dobbs to steering through the House of Lords. The proposed legislation

requires a referendum to be held in December 2017 at the latest.

However, like most Private Members Bills, there is the risk of running

out of time and suspicions that Labour and Lib Dem peers will try

quietly to kill it off. And if those appears that oppose the plans

managed to pile on the amendments, it will keep the bill stuck in the

Lords until the end of February and the bill just dies and the Tories

will have to start all over again. If they have the stomach for it.

Joining me now from the House of Lords is Labour Peer Donald

Anderson. Welcome to the Daily Politics, is the plan to filibuster

this bill? No, I have had very clear instructions from our chief whip not

to filibuster, but we have to do what is the traditional role of the

House of Lords, to give any bill proper scrutiny and clearly, this

has not been given proper or sufficient scrutiny in the House of

Commons. It cannot be steam-rollered through the second chamber. Is it

your view that the House of Lords would like the British people to

have a vote on European membership? I don't think the Lords would want

this bill but at some stage, if it be necessary, for example if there

were some substantial change, and that is already under the referendum

Act, then there is a very strong case for a referendum, but I see no

reason at all for saying now and trying to bind the Government which

will be elected in 2015, there will be a referendum. Because no

Government can bind its successor. It can only lead and the

Conservative Party I do think they will not win the election or that

they have no trust in Mr Cameron to honour his commitments, or both.

Just as we have been talking about the freedom of movement of people

across Europe as a foundation stone of the Treaty of Rome, is it's not a

foundation stone of our Constitution that this Parliament cannot bind

another parliament --is it not? Absolutely, which is why it is

absurd. The only motive behind this bill is that the Conservatives have

looked over their shoulder, seen the threat from UKIP and have moved in

that direction. They will not win the UKIP voters that way. They will

be blown up in the flames and consume themselves, because the UKIP

voters will demand the real thing. Are you out to amend the bill? I

think it does deserve an amendment, it deserves serious scrutiny. For

example the map on the question on whether the electrical -- on the

question of whether the electoral commission, examining questions like

this, said they were not happy with the question. The electorate needs

to be looked at, and a whole series of other questions, otherwise it

will be recklessly pushed through by the Government and that is against

our Constitution. It purports to be a Private Members Bill but it is

actually a conservative bill, three line whip, by the Conservative Party

in the Commons. Is there not something a little bit Gilbert and

Sullivan about an unelected chamber trying to deny the rest of us an

election? I am not denying an election. The Government claimed

that there will not be a referendum in any account until 2017. And that

will depend on the negotiations. That is a long way down the road.

Europe may change, our Government may change, and therefore there are

so many uncertainties. It may well be that there is a case but we don't

know. The timetable of 2017 is wholly unrealistic. Anyone who knows

Europe will know that to have full negotiations and a ratification by

all countries simply cannot be achieved within that period up to

2017, said the only question possible during that time is do you

think your Government should continue with negotiations. It is

absurd. Donald Anderson stick with us. We are joined now by the former

leader of the House of Lords under the Conservatives, Tom Strathclyde.

What is this all about in the end, other than a party political move by

the Tories? Because you cannot bind, as everyone agrees, the next

Parliament. I think this is a tremendous symbol and a signal to

the electorate that this Parliament is serious about giving people their

say about the future of Europe and whether or not we should continue

down the path of an ever closer union, which we have developed over

the course of the last 40 years. And the public, I think, are very

uncertain about our role in Europe. They now have an opportunity, if

this bill goes through, to prepare themselves for a referendum which

will take place before the end of 2017, four campaigns to get going

for and us remaining in the EU -- the campaigns. This gives us plenty

of time to resolve the difficulties and uncertainties so that we get a

clear result. But it could be all over by the end of the next

Parliament? And one of the reasons to get it in statute before the

General Election is to give the parties that will be standing at the

election the opportunity to say loud and clear to the people of this

country whether they intend to continue with this legislation or to

scrap it if they get elected. You could get the same result by asking

people if they would support a referendum or not. But over the

course of the last 20 years, there have been countless examples of

where politicians have promised a referendum before general elections

and not delivered them. Most recently, it was Tony Blair who

promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but when it came about, he

said it wasn't what he intended it to be and therefore we didn't need a

referendum. Wasn't it David Cameron that promised us a cast-iron

guarantee on a referendum? Only if this treaty has not been ratified.

It was common sense. What you're saying is you need this legislation,

because basically, we, the voters, do not trust you, that is what

you're saying. Lets keep the parties honest on this hugely important

issue -- let's keep. And on this issue, we are reaching beyond

politicians and politics and appealing directly to the people of

the country and saying you are directly responsible for making this

decision and we should not decide, over to you. This is a Private

Members Bill. Could you use the Parliament Act to get it through? In

theory. I really hope that does not apply and I made the point early on

that it is ridiculous for an appointed house to stand not just

against the will of the regulated House of Commons that has passed the

bill, but also on a bill that is over all of our heads and says to

the people of the country, you must have your say. Of what you say to

that, Donald Anderson? I think it is absurd. The truth is they would not

be a referendum in any event until 2017. Lord Strathclyde said it is a

signal, only of Tory divisions and the Tories retreating before UKIP.

Two years ago, David Cameron and William Hague ruled out and in-out

referendum and if we were to vote out, where would we be? We do not

know if we want a Norwegian president, if we want to somehow

Seagate new deal with the Commonwealth -- seek out. We would

be in insurgency, and there would be four years of uncertainty that is

going to put off foreign investment. We have seen this with Nissan,

Hitachi, the Japanese Government and CBI all saying that it would be

contrary to our national interest. They got all of what you say may

well be true and a strong argument, but that is an argument are having a

referendum. That is not in arguing for or against. If you believe in

these arguments, and many people do, then have the referendum and

argue it out and let people decide. But the timing is absolutely

crucial. There may or may not be a case for a referendum, there will be

several questions, but we will not know about it, certainly Give us

your best guess, what will happen to this bill in the Lords? I think

there is a possibility that this will run into the sands, and then it

will be a matter for the electorate in 2015 to vote or not to vote for a

party which has a referendum at an appropriate time in its manifesto.

Would you advise Ed Miliband not to go down this referendum route, not

to have this in the Labour manifesto? I would say that the

appropriate stance for the Labour Party in 2015 is to say, look, we

already have a referendum act, having a referendum if there are

substantial changes, new powers, to the European Union. That may or may

not -- there may or may not be a case for an in-out referendum. That

depends completely on the circumstances at the time. What is

planned be, Lord Strathclyde? I am not in the government, so I do not

know what it is, or indeed if there should be one. What we need to do

now is to make sure that this bill... He has just said that his

advice to the Labour Party is not to concede the principle of a

referendum to the people of this country. He is saying to the leader

of the Labour Party, you must not go down this route. I think that is

complete madness. It is a clear position. It is a clear position

from Donnell, but not from the leadership my feeling has been that

because Ed Miliband's narrative is such as it is, that he will not go

down the referendum route. I am seeing less and less reasons we

could have a referendum on anything, whether David Cameron should go to

see a hairdresser. But the trouble about this is that it becomes more

and more clear as this bill goes through its endless, tortuous stages

that this is a Tory obsession, it is not a national obsession. I did not

go home at Christmas, with my family clinging to my leg, saying, when,

oh, when are we going to have this referendum on Europe? That is the

point, that it is not an issue which is gripping the nation, it is

gripping a small portion of the Tory party. Well, it is and it isn't,

because the issue of in or out may not grip the nation, but it is

inextricably linked with the question of immigration.

Immigration, welfare, all of those are inextricably linked with Europe.

A lot of the problems we have are related to Europe. Labour let the

cat out of the bag today when Lord Mandelson said it is a lottery, if

we have a referendum, in other words, we do not trust the people. I

think what Labour are doing is trying to keep their options open. I

do not think they want a referendum, but they are not going to say so

just yet. We will leave it there. Thank you for joining us on The

Daily Politics. Now, earlier this morning, a police

person who falsely claimed to have seen Andrew Mitchell arguing with

officers outside Downing Street has pleaded guilty to misconduct in

public office. It revolves around what was said at the gates of

Downing Street as Mr Mitchell tried to go through on his bike. While we

have been on air, he has responded to this development, and told the

press Association, I am pleased that justice has been done in the

criminal court today. It is very sad and worrying for all of us that a

serving police officer should have behaved in this way, and there

remains many questions unanswered, in particular, why the PC wrote this

e-mail, and who else was involved in this process.

We will bring you any further developments on that if they happen

while we are on air. When you woke up this morning, did you think, we

have got some extreme weather, caused by climate change? Well, this

week, David Cameron told MPs he very much suspects the recent floods are

linked to climate change. His Environment Secretary has taken

something of a different view. In our entirely unscientific

contribution to the debate, Adam has taken his balls out for the first

time in 2014 to see which way the wind is blowing. It has finally

stopped raining, which means we can bring out The Daily Politics mood

box to ask the public what they think is to blame for the extreme

weather. Is it mostly climate change, or is it just the weather?

With the wind, the heavy rain and the flooding, I think it is climate

change. It is not something we have had before. A bit of uncertainty,

just like in the real world. This is going to affect you in about 20

years! Short answer, climate change, it is the melting of the

icebergs. We have got about 25 tourists from Arkansas. How cold is

it back home? It is very cold. They are all going for just the weather,

which I think is the opposite of what President Obama thinks. It is

the weather, it cycles in and it cycles out. So, do you think all of

the people who voted for just the weather are wrong? Yes. You could

plot the weather on your scarf. I know. As the strange weather been

affect finger painting and decorating business? Yes, on the

outside, it has, yes. -- has it been affecting the painting and

decorating business? Thank you very much. There is actually no evidence

since 1997 that the planet is warming up. It hasn't been, and I

think it is just an opportunity for a lot of people do make a lot of

money out of climate change. -- to make. You have been talking about it

for about ten minutes. Yes, week believe it could be a meteorite

disturbance in outer space. Well, it is true what they say, British

people do love talking about the weather and the climate, although

after all that, it is kind of 50-50. Certainly no warming here, I am

absolutely freezing! They also think Adam is a lizard. The jury is open

on that one. I am joined now by the leader of the Green Party, Natalie

Bennett, and by the journalist and conservative here Matt Ridley. Is

climate change to blame for the stormy weather? Of course, any

individual event of weather is just that, weather. But what we are

seeing around the world at the moment is an awful lot of what what

we might call, in quotation marks, weather. In Australia, we have had

thousands of bats falling from the trees, we have had records broken

since Christmas. We have got the storms in the US, we have the

cyclone in the Philippines. We have a situation where what we can expect

is more extreme weather, and more of it. Therefore what we have got fits

with that pattern for climate change. So, whatever happens with

the weather, if it is really warm, or really cold, or really flooding

in Britain, it is all down to global warming? If it is extreme weather,

and we are seeing more of it, that is a result of climate change. We

have had extreme weather before the idea of global warming. We have

indeed, but what we are seeing is more of it. It is really quite

simple, in terms of the rain we are seeing at the moment, we all know

the basic frigates? -- physics, that if you have higher temperatures, you

are going to get more evaporation and therefore more rain. Why did we

think we were going to get limited precipitation this winter? Kos our

weather predictions are still limited. But the Met Office is all

part of the holy Grail, isn't it, they are completely informed by

global warming, aren't they? The holy Grail, as you put it, is as

backed by 97% of climate scientists, by the IPCC report, the most

scrutinised science report in history. Let's just go to that

report. It concludes, we have low confidence that flooding events are

being caused by global warming. And we can go to the response from Ban

Ki-Moon on this. He said, in response to that report, that the

heat is on... The IPCC report says they have low confidence that

flooding is being caused by climate change. That is the report! What

this demonstrates, and I was on one of the last trains to Oxford before

the line was stopped by flooding, and lots of people on the train were

looking out the window at seems like we have behind us. Quite a lot of

people were going, well, that is amazing. And there was fear and

surprise. So your answer to the science of the IPCC report is a

train journey to Oxford? All of our human life, our ability to feed

ourselves, how is ourselves, live safely, is dependent on the climate.

When you look around, there is something happening. We may not be

able to explain it, but Natalie Bennett is right, everywhere you

look, there are extreme weather events taking place. There was a

report in the paper this morning that the Thames has reached a record

level, since 2003. So, that record is only ten years old. If you look

at all of these storms, lots of bad weather, they are all the worst for

20 years, 40 years, 100 years. But what was happening then? Was that

climate change? Of course not. Australia seems to be hotter than

ever. Yes, but categorically, it is impossible to say that this is due

to climate change. We had a cold, calm winter last year, we are having

a mild, stormy winter this year. It happens. You're going to get these

kinds of weather events whether the climate is warming or not. We should

not worry so much about the trend. But the IPCC report does say, the

frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events overland wheel

likely increase on average in the near-term. It also says, confidence

in the trends regarding tropical cyclones since 1900 is low. The IPCC

say they have got 95% confidence that this climate change is

happening. You have got a plane, there is a 95% risk it is going to

crash, are you going to get on that plane? I do not think so. So

therefore, we have to take action against climate change to secure the

future of the planet of the human race. The question is, is action

against carbon emissions the most effective way of preventing bad

weather? The answer is clearly no. All sorts of other things are

affecting plants, like development, house-building, on flood plains.

Let's deal with that. That effectively is what David Cameron

said. He said, whatever your views, you should be doing as much as

possible to mitigate and plan for floods and storms, which is quite

right. Is their agreement on that? Entirely. One thing we need to do,

and he might agree with me, is that we are not doing nearly enough to

conserve energy, too insulated our homes. Doing that would create up to

200,000 jobs, drastically cut fuel poverty and cut carbon emissions but

we could also not charge people too much for their electricity because

of renewables. And of course the fault of the rising prices of bills

is because of the rising price of gas, not because of renewables. 95%

of the increase is due to gas. Not in the future, it is but I think

your probability of dying as a result of extreme weather is down by

98% since the 1920s globally. That is not because the weather got less

dangerous, that is because we have got better housing, communication

and transport, which makes storms more survivable. That is what we

should be focusing on. So, for a good example, we should not be

cutting the coastguard. Well, the amount of investment that the

Government is putting into floods is actually a record. I think there has

been a lot of debate about this, but the independent analysts say

spending is going down in real terms. That is not my

understanding, I understand there is a record amount being spent on flood

mitigation. Whatever it is, the Environment Agency in this country

actually has a gigantic budget and staff compared to most countries.

But not go down the coastguard route, is it your contention that

there is not really an increase in extreme weather events, and that

global warming has nothing to do with these events to mark -- these

events? Natalie is right that you will see more precipitation and

there are benefits to that, droughts have shrunk in intensity as well.

That is not true. It is. But in terms of her against... They cannot

find a trend in 30 years in the frequency of hurricanes, typhoons

and tornadoes hit a 30 year low in America. One-year's weather.

Absolutely, but we are seeing very low trends in the last 30 or 40

years for any of these weather events and the IPCC says that, there

is no detectable incidence of global warming on extreme weather and there

will not be possibly for the whole of this century, they said that in

2011 in a report. I think we can come back to the survey that you

started with a note sure -- and I am sure we all understand it is a piece

of fun but three quarters of the British public say they believe that

human caused climate change is happening now and we need to act. It

is the wisdom of crowds and the wisdom of climate scientists. Just

on the politics of this, the Tories are now in a strange position. As

part of the rebranding of getting away from the cuddly party, the

nasty party, to becoming a cuddly party and not a nasty party, Mister

Cameron signed the Tories up to the whole global warming agenda, and so

he keeps on blaming Ed Miliband for the 2008 climate change act and he

voted for every clause in it, so did his party, but he actually leads a

party that most of them don't believe in it. I know, those poor

huskies. There is an issue here, the three main party leaders all believe

the same thing on climate change, but there is a big proportion of the

Tory party that is not signed up to that, and a big proportion of the

country, so there is a danger of it being a Westminster consensus that

does not include the rest of the country. It will be interesting to

see what the Tory attitude to this will be, because Labour and the Lib

Dems will stick with this, that is part of their approach to life but

it will be interesting to see what the Tory manifesto says. The big war

is not about climate change itself, it is about energy bells and what

the punter is paying to heat their homes -- energy bills. We have what

Labour have promised and the action by the Conservatives, that is where

they will focus and I think they will cut the green rubbish, if I can

use that word... You can use the word rubbish but you cannot use the

word that David Cameron said. Why I think some of this green stuff is

now being viewed more sceptically, I think it has been over spun by the

climate change lobby. We talk about global warming, that word warming

has gone because we are now actually freezing, and because it has over

spun, more and more people are beginning to viewed sceptically. In

the same way that the health lobby tellers to drink fewer units of wine

every day and then we are told, actually, you can have a glass. I

think the media has a problem with it, it is a huge, complicated issue.

It is not just the media, because in 2008, Al Gore, based on climate

science, told us the ice would be gone in the Arctic in 2013. Last

time I looked, it was higher than it was for six or seven years and

certainly hadn't gone. You are absolutely right, there is a

consensus among climate scientists that the planet is warming. There is

a consensus that man is playing a part in that, but there are huge

arguments over what the actual impact would be on temperature,

exactly how important man is compared to other issues and what of

the policy should be to combat it. On that, there is no settled view.

But it is worth thinking back about human history. The human race, we

have developed the whole of civilisation through one of the most

stable periods of the world's climate that we know about. We are

dependent on that, to grow our crops, to house ourselves, to stay

safe. We have no option but to live within the climate we have. But the

point I was trying to get you to address and we will have to move on

is that if you oversell the consequences, if you tell us the

Arctic ice will disappear by 2013 and it hasn't, if you send ships out

because you think there is no sea ice in the Antarctic and it turns

out there is so much you get stuck, if you tell us that the Himalayan

glacial as will disappear and they haven't, and even on current trends

will not for 200 years... The fundamental case may be right but if

you make hyperbolic predictions, you undermined your own case, is the

point I am making. The point I would make is the case is there, the

evidence is overwhelming and we have to act now. Al Gore and the

scientists were wrong? Speaking they got wrong on the details. Hold on,

it wasn't the detail but they would be no ice by 2013, it was an

apocalyptic prediction. We have record low levels of ice, we are

heading towards no ice. It is worth remembering that the Antarctic ice

is... It is very good to see you both, thank you. Now, if there is

one book every true libertarian likes a cosy up with on a cold

January night, it is the novel Atlas Shrugged. You think they should get

out a bit more. It was written by writer calmer who claimed to have

invented a new code of morality based on reason alone -- it was

written by Ayn Rand. Here is Charlie Wolf talking about Ayn Rand.

These days, there is a huge market for books about unleashing the power

of the self, the potential of the individual, and that is essentially

the philosophy of the American author Ayn Rand. I have come to

Borough market in London to meet a commentator and broadcaster who says

he can explain her philosophy through the medium of letters. --

lettuce. So, Charlie, why do you like Ayn Rand and what does she have

to do with lettuce? The Fountainhead was a book that changed my life, it

was a book I could not put down but as for lettuce, my father was a

greengrocer and maybe you have had it happened when a parent says

something that seems so innocuous but holds great meaning. He was

stacking lettuce one day in a shop and said, do you know why I made a

pyramid? Because I can. I am my own boss, nobody tells me how to stack

the lettuce. So that simple act of stacking the lettuce was so like Ayn

Rand, in that he was the author of his own destiny, no one told him how

to. That was a pyramid of lettuce, let's take you to a pyramid of glass

and steel, the Shark, which also has a lot to do with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand

was a Russian emigre, fiercely anti-Communist and unconventional in

her lives. Even her fans than her tricky but Doctor Elisabeth Fraser

of Oxford University say that her books were powerful. -- found her

tricky. She is inspirational. Her view of free society has inspired so

many people. A very, very controversial but if there were a

prize for the author who has got the most people saying, I read this book

and it changed my life, she would win it. We are now surrounded by the

most incredible view from the restaurant in The Shard in London. I

was just wondering, what was Ayn Rand's worldview? Her worldview

would be that the people who built this view who built The Shard, and

heroic amount of vision and in this building in particular, it is a

cathedral. Not to God, she was an atheist, but a cathedral to the

powers of mankind. Men were heard gods. She tended to present

philosophical ideas as though they were her own invention, and that is

strange to serious thinkers and politicians as well -- estranged. It

was extraordinary that she refused to cooperate politically. Including

with people who really liked her ideas and would have liked her to be

a figurehead for a new conservatism in the 20th century. She was very

sectarian and capable of being very nasty. However nasty, though, how

many other political philosophers have had their books turned into a

movie, with its enigmatic catchphrase, who is John Galt? It is

us who rule the world. Atlas Shrugged is all about railways,

steel and building a bridge, but not like the one we are standing next,

which is a ugly and grubby. But people think the philosophy of Ayn

Rand is the same, supremely selfish. Is that fair? Not if you

define it the way that Ayn Rand did, it is about being true to

yourself, taking care of yourself first and foremost. Not living off

the state or off others and it is a noble way. If you can do that, think

of how the roles of welfare would shrivel up, how society would be

better off. It is a far better philosophy than living off the

state. It is not just that many would not agree with that but in

October 2011, some were prepared to camp out on the streets in front of

Saint Pauls Cathedral to demonstrate their opposition to such views. But

actually, pain Rand -- Ayn Rand predicted all of that. We went to

The Shard, but here is Saint Paul's. She would not have gone in,

she was an atheist. There is a cathedral to man, the stock exchange

over there, but something here happened recently that you think

makes Ayn Rand River that readily to relevant to today. This is where the

protest as well and she described in her books this dystopian state, the

welfare state, the moochers, the one who want the money for

entitlement's sake and leeches, who demanded that on a moral imperative,

companies and the churches paid more money, being altruistic with other

people's many. This was a dystopian welfare state, collectivism that she

hated. But she also did say it is trade, it is, is, it is jobs. That

is what lifts people out of poverty, not giving them money. That is why

Ayn Rand is relevant to today. Either way, who is John Galt?

Charlie Wolf joins us in the studio now. What is the answer to the

question? Who is John Galt, that is the question? This is the man who

stopped the engine of the world in the book, went on strike and took

his capital with him and showed that as much as people make derisory

comments about the movers and shakers of the world, Starbucks and

Amazons and Bill Gates, these are the guys that, for want of profit,

are making the economy move and we need them and they are very

beneficial. The whole premise of their book is what if all of these

people took their property and their assets and just went on strike,

where would the rest of us be? It would be a dystopian state. But what

would they do? In the book, they will go to a magic island, it is a

bit of a science-fiction novel. It could be VI love white. It could

have been. -- it could have been the Isle of Wight. If you are on the

right, you look at Ayn Rand's critique of collectivism and Marxism

and people on the right thing, she got that absolutely right but when

she comes herself to say what kind of society we should have, it seems

a bit extreme. Funnily enough, when Atlas Shrugged came out, it was

hated on the left and the right. There were articles commissioned

against the book, saying she was godless on the right and the left

saying she was selfish. So there are extremities but I take it for what

it is worth, extremities in objectivism. Extremities in

objectivism? I think she was making, in the extreme positions,

and ideology. I don't believe in her atheism, her position on abortion...

Say she is not an icon of the social conservative right in America? No,

she is the libertarian icon. When she was alive, she didn't have much

time for libertarianism. Don't ask me why. But she wrote, "trade is the

only proper basis of any relationship" . Adam Smith said

roughly the same, that it is not from the munificence of the butcher

or the bread-maker, he does it because he wants to make a profit,

and you get it, but then she adds, including relationships with members

of our families! Smith would never have said that. Probably not, but if

you look again in Atlas Shrugged, Hank Reardon, his family was

mooching off him, but I agree. There is a lot of Ayn Rand that were

ironic streams and you take what was important. The important thing for

me, as the Fountainhead explained, we have the power within us to

accomplish anything. Her heroes were heroes and her villains were

villains because they were socialists. How much was she

influenced by the fact that her family's pharmacy business was

confiscated by the Bolsheviks? Probably a lot. She hated anything

to do with the communist state. The only thing she took with her, which

again I find hard to understand, from the commonest estate, was her

atheism. In a sense, you are almost in the mirror image position of Owen

Jones, when we had him on the programme, as he came on, talking

about Karl Marx, and of course he was not endorsing Marxism in its

entirety, but he said there are things we can learn from him. And

you have also taken a rather extreme ideology, the polar opposite to

Marxism, and said, I do not buy it all, but there are bits of it... It

is interesting you mentioned Owen Jones, because yes, we have gone

from left to right. But the problem with Owen Jones legal theory is that

it is unequivocally wrong. It does not work. Let me just explain why. A

very good experiment happened when the Pilgrims first came to Plymouth.

They practised collectivism when they first got there, and they

starved after 2.5 years. They have this theory that everybody would

take an equal portion. Nobody worked. Finally, after 2.5 years,

the governor got rid of it, and said, this theory of the community

does not work. And this is what Thatcher said. I understand that,

but it comes back to the Rand criticism of collectors is, it is

what she would have had in its place which I was asking you about, which

seems to me to be just as weak in its way as Marxism out to be. --

criticism of collectivism. Is it under your pillow every night?

Everything I have learned about Ayn Rand I have found out from a

computer game. It is a city built under the sea, which actually

finally enough, quite a lot of Silicon Valley enthusiast 's want to

actually build. But it is all the winners of society, going and making

a society together. But the problem is, there is no family loyalty,

there is no altruism, everybody is purely therefore themselves. The

problem I have with Rand is the same problem I have with Marxism. They

are extremes. From what I know of Rand, she is Margaret Thatcher on

speed. She almost makes it cool to be selfish. One of the quotes today

was, before you can say I love you, you have to think of I. Then she

says, there are three key places in an argument, one is right, what is

wrong, and the other is the middle. -- the other is evil. People having

22 kids on welfare is selfish, but they rely on the generosity of

others, which is somewhere in the middle. You can watch the rest of

our series on political thinkers on our website. And thanks to Derek

Wilkinson, who has just tweeted to me and given a very useful section

on the Treaty of Rome, article three C, which calls for free movement for

persons. Not workers, not job-seekers. So, if you are

watching, Chuka Umunna, there you go. It is not unusual at this time

of year to try to change direction in life, you might give up smoking,

go to the gym, find a new job, or promise never to miss The Daily

Politics for a year. One person has made it his New Year 's resolution

to become more pro-business. The Socialist leader of France has

hinted that he might cut labour costs in exchange for firms hiring

more workers. Here he is. TRANSLATION: I propose a

responsibility packed with business, it is based on a simple principle,

lower labour charges and fewer restrictions on their activity, in

return for more workers and more dialogue with trade unions. First of

all, I want to reduce public spending. We have to make savings

wherever possible. I am sure we can do more by spending less. We have to

spend less to reduce our deficit, also to eventually lower taxes.

That's fiscal reform, which we are committed to. I myself take on the

responsible to four following this savings programme for the length of

this Parliament. Now, I am joined by Axelle Lemaire, a member of the

French parliament, representing northern Europe, and a member of

Francois Hollande's socialist party, and a friend of The Daily Politics.

We welcome you back. What is it like to be supporting the most unpopular

president in the history of the fifth Republic? I suppose I keep

thinking, well, if it is that bad, why don't we take risks? Which is

what we are doing. It gives us, we have local elections coming, but we

still have until 2017... You will be thumped in the local elections.

Let's talk about that when it comes because I am not convinced. We are

ahead in the mayoral elections, the departments, everywhere in France.

You run all the departments. But even if things were going well, you

would be losing some. Yes. But over the past 25 years, only Italy has

grown slower than France. Your budget deficit is bigger than that

of Italy, you have the largest current-account deficit in the

Eurozone. Since 1999, GDP per head in Germany has grown 25% more than

in France, your unit labour costs are now higher than Germany, and you

are on the brink of another recession. Where is the good news?

Wow! Like that, it does sound very, very bad. I am surprised you did not

mention the United Kingdom, because that is what we are usually compared

with, and that is what Mr Cameron compared his country with. But we

are still the fifth biggest economy, number two in Europe, behind not the

United Kingdom but Germany. We topped number one in the global 500

index of innovative companies. We have a low inflation rate, we have

reduced the public deficit, and currently we are at 3.8% of GDP in

France. I think here it is 6.4%. It is easier for a country which can

print its own currency, though. The levels of debt, public and private,

because people do not take loans to buy cars, to buy a house. Are we

going through what we saw with the last socialist president, President

Mitterrand, who came in with a very socialist agenda, and within less

than two years, the whole place had gone belly up, it was a disaster,

and he rushed for the centre, so is that what M Hollande is now doing,

when he is being nice to business and talking about cutting spending?

Not at all. The number one priority in his programme, as a candidate,

was competitiveness of companies. This is how it is seen abroad, that

it is a U-turn, it is a pro-business U-turn, but he has always been

pro-business. We passed a deal with companies in March last year, and I

voted for it as an MP last year, to help them reduce labour costs for

employees when times are hard, a bit like Germany did at the beginning of

this century. We are doing many things. Do you think it really was a

good way of encouraging foreign direct investment into France, of

which France needs a lot, for the unions to kidnap the boss of good

year? I do not think so, that gave us extremely bad publicity. That was

a decision made by local union leaders, which was immediately

condemned by the government, by the minister in charge of that case.

They were soon released after that. But no, of course, it gave us bad

publicity. But that does not reflect the reality. I understand, but you

do not see this as a change of course? I see it as a continuation

of what we have been trying to do to promote business and attract foreign

investors, and it is working. We are doing clearly better. The level of

unemployment is still high, but it has been continually decreasing

since we got in power. Unemployment has gone up. Since we arrived in

power, little by little, we are decreasing it. You are decreasing

the rate of increase. But will it help M Hollande's popularity that he

now seems to have indulged in the time-honoured French President's

tradition of having a mistress? This sounds very French, doesn't it?

Except that this time we know, Mitterrand managed to hide them

away. It is difficult to do that with Twitter! We also have a

different tradition, which is, we want to respect privacy. I notice

that his criticism was not that it is not true, it was, you have

invaded my privacy. I remember when Palmerston, at the age of 60 odd,

did it in this country, the Tories wanted to cover it up because it

would make him more popular. Thanks for joining us. Next, the most

efficient round-up of the week's news, in only 62 seconds. Much of

southern Britain was underwater, as there was yet more heavy range

effort but the Tory MP Penny Morden will be getting even wetter. She is

going to star in a TV diving show. Boris Johnson made a splash on the

airwaves again, this time knocking Nick Clegg. He has that very

important ceremonial function as David Cameron's lapdog come

protection device. There was less knock-about in the Commons, as PMQs

went all proper, following Ed Miliband's concerns that it was

getting too rowdy. One Labour MP called for an end to slogans like

these. I would say the big society is an enormous opportunity.

Christmas is a distant memory, but some reckon Scrooge is still hanging

around, as the Chancellor announced another ?25 billion of cuts, much of

it in welfare. 2014 is the year of hard truths.

The year of hard truths, who writes that stuff?! Give me a thought, what

is going to happen this year that will surprise us? I hope that there

will be a lot about young people. We heard about housing benefit getting

taken away from the under-25s. I do not see if you are under 30 watts

any of the big parties can offer you. The older people tend to own

their houses. That is one thing I would like to see more of. For you?

Scottish referendum, that is going to be big. European elections in

May. But I think the overarching thing will be the decoupling of the

coalition. Interesting, you heard it here first! That is it for today. I

will be back with The Sunday Politics on BBC One, on Sunday, at

11 o'clock. Until then, have a good weekend.