21/07/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

David Cameron pushes for tougher sanctions against Russia

over the passenger jet crash in Ukraine and calls on other EU

countries to restrict the export of defence equipment to Moscow.

Labour party bigwigs agree the basis for their next election

manifesto, insisting the plans are for big reforms not big spending.

The former environment secretary Owen Paterson takes to Twitter after

Could fallen Tories cause a few headaches for the Prime Minister?

And we'll hear from the man who really runs the House of Commons .

I am the corporate officer, which means I own all the property and it

also means I am the person liable if anything goes wrong.

All that in the next hour and with us

for the whole programme today is the lord mayor of London, Fiona Woolf.

Thank you. David Cameron appears to have made peace with Jean Claude

Juncker. They were pictured at the EU summit greeting each other with a

high five. Jean Claude Juncker was all smiles to Pike -- despite David

Cameron's attempt to prevent him getting the job, but never to have

to get down to business, and in a concession to the UK, Jean Claude

Juncker says he is not opposed to repatriation of powers from

Brussels, a key demand of David Cameron. Yesterday the new Foreign

Secretary Philip Hammond said he would still vote to leave the

European Union and Leicester were significant reform in Brussels. Here

he is, speaking to Andrew Marr -- unless there were significant

reform. I am preparing for the renegotiation over the next nine or

ten months, and then we will carry out the renegotiation, and when we

get to the end of the process and we see what is on offer, what is on the

table, we will make our recommendations. Let's be clear. Two

years ago you thought if you did not get the renegotiation, you should

leave. Have you changed your mind? I have not changed my mind. If there

is no change at all in the way Europe is governed, and no change in

the balance of competencies between the nation states and the European

Union, and no resolution of the challenge of how the Eurozone can

succeed and coexist with countries outside the Eurozone, that is not a

Europe that can work for Britain in the future, so there must be change.

The Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, sticking to his guns. We

have been joined by the UKIP financial affairs spokesman, Stephen

Moore. Fiona, first to you. How helpful as it do here in

intervention for the Foreign Secretary that he would vote to

leave as it stands now -- is it to here? The city is pro-Europe, but it

is also pro-reform and it would like to see more focus on the growth in

jobs agenda, completion of the single market, less red tape. I

think it is helpful to be focused on reform, but of course, you have to

understand the city has a lot of headquarters of foreign companies

that are here because we are in Europe. And for them, access to the

single market is important. Is it helpful to the debate to almost

threaten that the UK will leave the EU if those powers are not

repatriated to Brussels -- from Brussels to the UK? It increases the

uncertainty in people's minds, obviously. And that might have some

sort of chilling effect on investment and doing business with

the city. You have heard Fiona saying that the Cities pro-EU, and

they should know that they are a centre of finance globally, so they

will know what is best for finance for jobs and business. I think they

are certainly the one that knows what is best for finance and for

jobs in the City but I don't agree that the city is pro-the EU. I think

it is pro-European in terms of trading with European partners but

if you look at recent polls you will see that the majority of business

leaders are saying that they do not want to be part of the European

Union and they want a referendum, and that is a widespread view. And

there are many individuals in the city who have said if we jump out of

the European Union we would have an economy that grows faster than Hong

Kong or Singapore. Are you wrong to say that the city is pro-EU? We can

argue over the stats and facts. Our surveys have come in at 84%, and the

CBI have come in at roughly the same sort of level. And again more recent

surveys say that 90% see it as an advantage to be part of the single

market. We are not here to debate the stats and facts, but I am sure

there are grounds for agreement about the reforms. What reforms

would you like to see primarily? Which powers would you like to see

brought back from Brussels to the UK? What we have put into the

balance of competencies review has focused on the powers, and the

conclusion has been more about overregulation, red tape, about the

nature of the decision-making being slow and cumbersome. About the

ability of the European commission to make up agendas that are not on

the growth in jobs. Perhaps looking for short-term is. So if those were

achieved, to some extent, business leaders would be happy and they can

do that without leaving the EU. We all want growth and greater in

Europe -- greater employment, but being in the European Parliament for

a short time, it has confirmed my view that they are opposed to the

Anglo-Saxon method of trading on the way we look at the City. And the way

we consider the influences really concerning. You see a socialist in

charge as the president, a socialist vice presidency, and the majority of

the committee I work to the financial services sector which is

essential for the country near to succeed because of the millions of

jobs we have in the amount of money in there. What you don't see, the

important part, is the lack of influence we have in the Council of

ministers where the major decisions have been made since 1973, we have

gone from over 20% to below 8%. We have no influence. Stephen claims we

have no influence but you would disagree with that. How important

would a free-trade deal with America be? It would be extremely important

and useful if especially financial services were part of it. That is

really all about achieving much more regulatory coherence on either side

of the pond. And you would agree with that but that would never

happen if Britain was not part of the EU? We would not be part of the

deal. Here is where I fundamentally agree with Fiona, that we need to

have a free-trade arrangements with the US but we also need one with

other countries. Could we get that with the US if we were not part of

the EU? Absolutely. Really? Iceland has a free-trade arrangement with

China, so why the six largest trading nation -- six largest

trading nation on the globe could not have one with the US is beyond

me? I'm not sure that the US would bother to get on to a serious

conversation about regulatory coherence with us, and financial

services, if they were only dealing with us and not the rest of the EU.

But they have negotiations with the grams 20, and we work with them at a

national level. You are using anecdotal evidence that there could

be some corporate -- sort of agreements made at that you're

convinced it would not happen, Fiona? You can never be convinced of

anything in life. But there is a bigger prize on both sides for an EU

and US trade agreement. What about a referendum? Would you like to see an

in and out referendum? What I would really like to see is substantial

progress on the sorts of reforms that we are all agreed on. It's not

just that we agree amongst ourselves on reform, but we talk to the

industry bilaterally, and all the other countries, wherever we go. We

have had conversations with all of them in the last year or so. And

they agree that we need a growth in jobs agenda. It's a fairly

straightforward agenda we can agree on. And the amount of representation

we have in the EU has halved over the last ten years, so we are not

punching the right way. We only have 4% of influence in the commission,

which says it all. You can see the way they are treating Lord Hill and

there is a suggestion he would be the only Commissioner, and that

shows a lack of influence the UK has in the European Union.

We'll give you the correct answer at the end of the show .

David Cameron is pushing for tougher sanctions against Russia

over its response to the crash of the Malaysia Airlines jet

EU foreign ministers meet tomorrow to try to agree new sanctions.S

So far the EU has imposed travel bans and asset freezes on

Only last week President Obama approved a new round of sanctions to

target Russian defence companies, banks, and energy companies.

David Cameron, who will make a statement to MPs

later today, is calling on other EU leaders "to consider further

The Government thinks EU sanctions ought to include companies

and banks that are seen to facilitate the conflict in Ukraine.

But there is more reticence in other parts

Energy imports from Russia to Germany, for example,

The Chancellor, George Osborne, warned that fresh sanctions could

have an impact on the UK's economy but "

We are getting together with other European countries to discuss

further sanctions. Of course, sanctions could have an economic

impact, but the economic impact of not having respected international

borders and economic impact of what you see with the terrible tragedy

with the airline, these are greater things. We are doing this to protect

our economic security as well as our physical and national security.

We can talk now to our political correspondent Ben Wright.

Lots of tough sounding talk, but will David Cameron persuade his EU

colleagues and counterparts? There has been a lot of talk about

sanctions for months and the prospect of toughening them up.

Britain has actually been one of the most vociferous in arguing that

sanctions should be tougher on Russia over several weeks, but it

now feels that this is a different moment. Even before this disaster,

last Wednesday, the European Council agreed to widen the legal framework

underpinning possible sanctions and agreed, in principle, that they

could start to attack companies and individuals close to Vladimir Putin

and the Kremlin, not just those directly involved in what is

happening in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. In principle, it took a

step last week and that the meeting in Brussels what we will see is

Britain urging other countries to nail down the names of companies and

individuals, cronies close to Vladimir Putin. The question is

whether they can sign that off as soon as tomorrow. We talked about a

frank exchange, frank conversation with Vladimir Putin, that is a

euphemism in diplomatic speak for David Cameron being angry. How angry

is he? Britain is not alone in being angry and exasperated with the way

Moscow has approached this over the last three or four days. There was a

similar tone to the reading out of discussions between the French, the

German, the Australian governments. People are infuriated at the

reluctance by Moscow to put pressure on the rebel separatists where the

plane went down, to allow the site to be secured, to allow proper

investigations to begin, and, of course, to allow access to the

bodies and the repatriation process to begin. There is fury and

discussed the way Moscow have gone about it and it's interesting that

this morning there was the statement issued by Vladimir Putin, a video

statement, where he seemed to soften his stance quite a lot and said that

he wanted to seek a UN led investigation up and running as soon

as possible and for the site to be secured. He got quite a rollicking

from other leaders over the weekend and it feels like he may have

responded to some of that pressure. With us now is the former

Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne, and joining us from our

Bristol studios is David Clark, who chairs the Russia Foundation and was

formerly a special advisor to Robin We have seen militia picking over

the crash site and independent investigators still don't have

access, just more evidence that Russia is acting with impunity? I

think so, clearly they want to cover their tracks. They know they are in

a bad position. It is imperative that the international immunity is

clear and united in its resolve to ensure access to the site and that

there is a proper investigation, and responsibility is appropriately

allocated. But it needs to continue, the international community has to

be very firm in making it clear to Vladimir Putin that they have to

enter the activities they have been sponsoring inside western Ukraine,

co-operate in bringing stability to the country and to stop meddling.

It's absolutely essential that everyone understands this is not a

domestic Ukrainian insurgency, not a civil war, it is a funded and armed

intervention by Russia and they bear direct responsibility for what

happened on Thursday even if they didn't mean to shoot down this

particular aircraft. They certainly met to shoot something down and they

knew lives would be lost. They are the instigators, they are the people

who need to stop and there has to be a step change in the western and

European response. The inference that the West just has not been

tough enough with Vladimir Putin and here we are. I agree with everything

David said and I agree with the position the government has taken.

We in Britain have been leading the push for a robust response to what

the Russians are doing in Ukraine. A lot of other European leaders have

shown inadequate leadership. We hear a lot that the European union is a

great forced magnifier around the world and it gives us greater clout

in global affairs. That is potentially true but it doesn't mean

anything if when we have incidents like this European leaders are not

willing to put their name to something forceful and I am hoping

that is what they will do. Do you blame the British public for being

cynical? They may have thought this is the sort of tough talk that

should have been in play months ago. I think it should have been in play

months ago. It is a source of regret that a lot of European leaders...

No, I think we have been at the forefront of pushing for something

robust, but others have been looking for stimulation because they are

reliant for Russia on energy supplies, and we have put ourselves

in a good position of being less reliant on the Russians than some

other countries. Let's talk about specific sanctions. How much tougher

would they be? David Cameron has talked the talk, but how much

tougher would they be in reality if they are agreed by the EU? The

current proposals, the previous proposals for restrictions on a

handful of people travelling were inadequate so they could be

extended. It is important that we don't just think of it on an EU

level. The Japanese, South Koreans and others would give it greater

bite if they were to participate in a wider co-ordinated set of

sanctions. Do you think that will have an effect? If tougher sanctions

are agreed, and there is no guarantee that they will be when

they meet, in Brussels, but do you think that would have a meaningful

impact on Vladimir Putin? I think it would, provided the European Union

will move beyond symbolic wrist slapping, asset freezes and travel

bans against a handful of individuals... That is not going to

work, we need to move beyond that and have sanctions against

particular companies, banks and entire sectors of the Russian

economy is necessary to get the message across. Russia is very

dependent on its place in the world, its international linkages, it is

very embedded in the process of globalisation. It is not an economy

that can shut itself off. They need investment very badly, capital

flows, they need trade access. The West is in a position to deny them

that I shutting them out of the international financial system, for

example, that would be damaging. Russia is already teetering on the

brink of recession. If Latimer Putin thought there would be a serious

economic downturn as a result of this, and it would affect his mystic

popularity, which it would, he would think twice. -- mystic policies. Do

you think they should be sidelined from the international financial

centre? It's through that Russia has become something of a hub for trade

investment. Do you regret that? In a sense, we are what we are. We don't

regret the trade and investment that comes from wherever it comes from.

We are not in a position to stop it because we are in a market,

international market. We never thought of asking for special

treatment to protect the city's interests. Would you be prepared...

? It is a matter for our government, European governments to get together

and devised a scheme that we have been talking about. Bearing in mind

what has happened, Fiona Woolf, have you or any of your colleague ever

lobbied ministers or civil servants against the imposition of financial

sanctions against Russia? Absolutely not. Don't forget, the market has

voted with its feet. The reports we are getting from our Moscow

offices, this situation has had a chilling effect on trade and

investment already. And many plans for investment have simply gone on

hold. Do you think the City of London is too close the Russian

financial interests? Do you think they have allowed too much Russian

money to come into London? Not necessarily. It depends what you

mean by too much Russian money. Is the relationship to close? People

are accusing Russia of being a rogue state. City of London is arguably

the pre-eminent global hub, we are going to trade with people right

around the world. We are not going to just trade with the nine liberal

governments. But it is important that the Russians understand there

has to be some sort of order. -- benign liberal governments. They are

actively intervening in Ukrainian affairs in a way that is not just

damaging to the Ukraine, but as we see with this plane shot down,

damaging the people across Europe and the world who have had friends

and relatives killed in this deliberate attempt to shoot down a

plane. We do have to be mindful of that, and as the Chancellor said

yesterday on television, there may be some economic consequences to us

of having serious sanctions but there are economic consequences of

having a country as large and powerful as Russia acting with

impunity in world affairs. Do you think the City of London has

embraced Russian money and Russian financial interest in a way they

shouldn't have done in recent months? I do. The way that we

allowed oil assets to be floated on the stock exchange, the way in which

flows of personal wealth come into this country to buy up property and

inflate the London housing market in a way that is very harmful to

Londoners, apart from anything else... We haven't been

discriminating enough. The lesson that Vladimir Putin and others have

drawn from this is that when it comes to dealing with his corrupt

and authoritarian model of governance, the West puts its own

financial interests before its values. They see us as bribe a

ball. When Russia gets into a tight spot, they will always be able to

buy their way out of it. The message has to be that that is no longer the

case. -- they see us as bribeable. The financial interests and the

values are a huge hot topic in the City of London anyway. Whether it is

possible in a fast transaction, global market to look behind every

transaction and stop it... Isn't that your responsibility? It's

dealing with it as a whole. You can argue this anyway that you like, but

the fact is, as you said yourself, there are no particular measures

that you can apply when you actually stop something. It's really

important that London is the global financial centre... Not at any

price. We are seen to run a discriminate ship as regards to some

of our values, and if we lose sight of that with our dealings with

Russia, China or others, and we don't have self-confidence in our

own values as a country, we become diminished not just ourselves but in

the eyes of the world as well. Jeremy and David, thank you very

much. Powerful, wealthy and representing

the interests of the powerful and wealthy, the Corporation of London -

the body that runs the City - But what is its role,

what does it do, and can it help rebuild the reputation of

its financial giants in the face of Giles has donned

his pinstripe to find out. Explaining the oddities of the City

of London to a stranger to the city that IS London might send

them a bit blurry. It's run by a corporation, but not

in the sense of the word that In the modern sense.

It's a City inside a city. It's not a local authority

but it has many of their powers. The Lord Mayor of London ISN'T

the Mayor of London. It's only a square mile of land

but it runs Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath and the animal

reception centre at Heathrow. So to shed some light on this,

from the ancient seat of the Corporation's power, the man

who helps run things explains. The corporation is a very odd body,

you would not invent it today, it goes back 800 years but it is not

bound by tradition. It wouldn't still be around a bit stuck with the

past. The work we do to promote London as an international business

centre benefits the whole economy. That might sound peculiar

when it celebrates for example the Car registration

for the times before cars. But driving the interests

of 8,000 residents and 300,000 workers who daily come

into the Square Mile's financial There is still a impression that

financial services is about people who work in shiny towns in Canary

Wharf or the City of London. Most financial services are around the

whole UK, or bury people in every town and high street looking after

the needs of customers, individuals or small businesses. -- ordinary

people in every town. The message we have to get across is that the city

brings wealth into the country but it does not stay in the city, it

moves across the whole UK, powering the economy and helping businesses

to grow. Well, that may well be so, but over

the last five years the reputational damage to this sector, over banking

scandals, executive pay, bonuses, mis-selling and market manipulation,

has tarnished the industry which in the UK is, by any standards,

a global leader. We have got a lot of scandals still

coming. We need to draw a line under the past. The important thing is to

recognise the importance that financial services have, we have to

make sure the banking system works for us, not just for the great

invisible imports that come to the City of London and other parts of

the UK because of global finance, but of course we also need an

opportunity for small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit

from what banks should be doing, which is lending money. We need to

get that right. The Corporation has deep pockets,

it sponsors the Barbican, runs schools and housing, covered a chunk

of Cross Rail and other ventures. But its corporate focus draws

criticism that it's a closed shop, We have no wish to be secretive. I

am told we have secret bank accounts but they are so secretive no-one has

told me about them. We have no wish be secretive.

Nonetheless, it might be some time before

the public see the City as anything more than greedy grey-suited hims,

Markfield, Conservative MP, saying there are still scandals the

service. -- surface. Are there? There are still investigations going

on. This is something that is taking a while to get to the bottom of. We

can't condone activity... Certainly that pushes into the criminal

field. We can't begin to condone that. This stuff is not helpful for

me in my role, which is promoting financial and business services, and

London as a place in which to do business. How difficult has it been

since the financial crash? As you know, public anger was at its site

and has been over the last few years, and the city's reputation was

trashed to a certain extent. Has the culture in the City of London, in

the banking world, changed in your mind? They are working on it. They

are very sensitive about it. There are a lot of initiatives going on

from the professional bodies bringing in ethical training and

standards, Sir Richard Lambert's banking standards review commission

is now being established at high speed. So they are wanting to make

the world a better place. How would you describe the role of the City of

London in modern Britain? It is there to be a good force, using

heritage and a dowry, and making people pay to cross their bridges

for centuries. But my role as Lord Mayor of London is not one about

presiding at council meetings, although I do do that, it is

actually getting out and about to attract trade and investment and

jobs to Britain, and to promote exports and taking people with me.

In fact, I think I am here because in the 1990s I travelled with the

Lord Mayors overseas visits for their door opening powers, and

disabled -- enabled me to export my firm all over the world. So more

than just a pressure group are high finance, which is what critics would

say, that you use the lobbying power and money to promote your interest

to that end? Well, I'm not really in a hugely lobbying role. Maybe a

little bit of soft power around the edges, but it's really more about

making it easy for people to do business, and particularly I receive

as many inward visits which takes up as much time as my overseas travel,

and I will be away for 100 days per year. Fiona, thank you very much.

There's an end of term feel to things as MPs get ready to head back

to their constituencies for the summer recess.

Here's what's coming up in the week ahead.

The Commons rises tomorrow for the summer recess.

MPs will not be expected back until the 1st of September.

It's also the final cabinet before the summer break.

On Wednesday the Commonwealth Games will begin and David Cameron is

expected to attend the opening ceremony at Glasgow's Celtic Park.

And on Friday the latest GDP figures will be released.

Will this leave the Chancellor in a good mood for his holidays?

So, to give their end of term assessments I'm joined now

by Laura Pitel of The Times and by Tamara Cohen of the Daily Mail.

Tamara, where do you think the parties are placed as we stand here

almost at the end of term? It's interesting. It's been a very

eventful year but we are in a similar position to last summer. The

Tories are full of confidence since the budget and they have a top team

in place and the economy has recovered better than they could

have expected, yet they are still three or four points behind Labour

in the polls, so they will hope over the summer that they can hammer home

their messages about the economy, about welfare, about Europe and by

the time of the party conference they can hopefully take the lead.

Labour will be on the attack over the summer. They are ahead in the

polls but people are not sure that Ed Miliband is in the right place to

be Prime Minister. So they will spend the summer having pushed the

Shadow Cabinet out and about to improve their standing. Laura,

looking at it now, will anything changed dramatically between now and

the election in terms of the polling, or will it go on as it is?

That is the big question. The Tories will be hoping to overtake Labour in

the polls sometime between now and the autumn and if that does not

happen you wonder that they might get more jittery. We will be in a

holding position over the summer and then they will make some new

announcement. There's only two months to go, so it's a huge focus

of attention by both parties and it's obviously a difficult one for

the Conservatives. They only have one MP in Scotland and it will be

making his annual trip to Balmoral as well as attending the

Commonwealth Games. He will try to make the emotional argument about

Scottish independence. We have heard a lot from the Better Together

campaign about the economic arguments, about jobs and oil

revenues, but I think both parties will be keen to go up there and make

the emotional argument, and I'm sure Alex Salmond will be using every

opportunity he can to make capital from that. What about the Liberal

Democrats? We expect the reshuffle from them when we come back in

September. Yes, there has been some speculation that Joe Swinson, one of

the up-and-coming female stars might swap places with the Scotland

Secretary after the Scottish referendum -- Jo Swinson. They will

want to bed down, and it was described as every man for himself

by one MP, and they will wonder if there will be any Liberal Democrat

MPs left to form a coalition. Do you think that the lines on the economy

will stay very much the same, that you will hear from the coalition

that unemployment continues to come down, that they are battling against

the deficit and growth has returned, and these are promising

economic foundations, and the Labour Party will still, against that, talk

about the cost of living and the fact that not everyone is feeling

the recovery. I think so. Labour has had some criticism for the cost of

living argument is that as the economy grows, people will feel

better off and by the time of the election it could be a lot less

persuasive, but they will have to stick with it. They are hoping that

the Tory party will continue to talk about the long-term economic plan

and jobs, and having the fastest growing economy in the G-7. Labour

can make a good argument around things like rail fares and energy

prices and they talked at the National policy Forum about some of

the offerings they would make the party conference. But the key

challenge for them is to turn it into something. Jon Cruddas said

that the policy perhaps don't add up to a narrative about the country and

that is what Labour need to develop in the coming months. Just finally,

Laura, how the Tory MPs feeling at the end of term after the

reshuffle? Well, the ones who have been sacked feeling OK. One of the

themes of the last few months has been the almost unsettling quiet

amongst Tory MPs after quite a rocky period in the run-up to the European

elections. Things have actually been quite quiet. They will go away

feeling not quietly confident, but OK and they will want to bed down

and hang on in there and see if they can make it happen in May 2015.

David Cameron's big reshuffle last week promoted some new faces to the

Cabinet but he also sacked some people who are now on the

backbenches with more time on their hands and the potential to cause Mr

Cameron one or two headaches. Take for example the former

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson. looking for someone to run my new

office, but I seem to have lost That's a reference to the former

special advisor to Michael Gove, who since leaving the department for

education has very publicly attacked Then there's the former attorney

general, Dominic Grieve. He was asked by Sky yesterday

whether Mr Cameron had sacked him because of his view that Britain

should remain a signatory to the Mr Grieve said,

"It's certainly possible. There's certainly been a lot of

background to this over some time". And Ken Clarke has also

been giving interviews. Talking to The Observer about the

chances of a Conservative majority in the next election, Mr Clarke

said, "I belong to a Conservative Party that used to be able to win

elections", and that winning a majority in May next year is

a "mountain to climb" I have been joined by Diane Abbott

and Margot James and Laura Liebert for the Liberal Democrats. And here

is Diane, who can join us. We were just talking about the big beasts

who have escaped from the confines of ministerial offices, so who are

you most worried about? We have to look positively and see that there

is a new government in terms of people being brought on. I was

pleased to see the number of women brought into the Cabinet and into

government for the first time. Why won't you brought in? There are

always more people than jobs and I have to take it on the chin. I was

disappointed but I've got over it and I'm looking forward to the new

term and helping to see a Conservative majority government

elected next May. What job would you have liked? I have a business

background and I've been working on the trade and investment brief for

three years, so I was hoping to be able to make more of a contribution

on the business side. Or on the foreign affairs and International

development side. But in the meantime I am now free to speak in

those areas where I was before because I was I am now able to make

more of a contribution on the other areas. One of your former

colleagues, Louise Mensch, tweeted over the weekend and said it was

insane not to promote shoot and it must be galling when so many were

promoted -- promote you. I think Mr Cameron missed a trick by not

promoting Margot as she is an excellent Conservative MP. I have

already answered that question. He made a mistake then? I said I was

disappointed and I got over it. You will not be causing trouble on the

backbenches as other colleagues perhaps might. Well, we don't know

what the future holds, but the economy is going very well indeed.

There is a lot of other good news. If we get the right result in the

Scottish referendum, we will be well placed for the next election. Diane,

welcome to the programme, better late than never. Well done for

making it. From the backbenches, you know something about shouting from

the sidelines, so who do you think is the biggest threat from the

departed ministers? He is a very, very nice and gently spoken man, but

I think Dominic Grieve, he is trying to tell them that they cannot

legally and constitutionally do what they want to do, which is step away

from the European Court of Human Rights. He's tried to tell them the

truth is a law officer and they thanked him by sacking him. Although

there might be some short-term political advantage and what they

are doing, they are wrong and Dominic knows it. You were upset

about the departure of Dominic Grieve, and Kenneth Clarke, who

would describe himself as the biggest Europhile in the Tory ranks.

He is quite liberal as well in his views, so we are disappointed to see

him go, as well as Dominic. Of the new appointments, the best gloss I

can put on it is the number of women that he has promoted, some very

talented, sparky women, but this lurch to the right to try and

appease the right wingers who will never ever be appeased because they

will always want more, unfortunately, and that is a shame

he has done that. That's what it looks like two critics and

opponents, that losing both Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve is a sop

to UKIP. It is fear, and trying to reconcile the right of the party. I

don't think that is the case. Ken Clarke, it has been widely trailed

that he has stepped down from his own decision after so many years.

What about Dominic Grieve? I was very sorry to see Dominic go as

well. I think he has been a fine Attorney General changes have be

made. And within time for a general election. But this is just changing

the face, this is a clear signal that they want to move away from

their commitment to the Convention on human rights which is a serious

thing. Does it worry you if there is a move away? Dominic Grieve was seen

as a block on debate about withdrawing from the European

Convention on human rights. Would you be worried about it? I would be

worried if the alternative proposals would not enshrine all the

principles of the Convention on human rights into a British Bill of

Rights. That is the proposal. Yes, I was concerned by what Dominic had to

say yesterday but we will see how that develops. I just think it would

be a complete disaster. Britain has been a flagship for human rights,

and if we withdraw from the European convention on human rights, what is

that going to say to all of the dictators around the world? What

will it say to Vladimir Putin? It's a horrible example to set. It hasn't

happened yet. But that is the way it's going and that's why we are

both anxious about it. Message discipline is always important. And

you said to the leadership that you were probably let go by Ed Miliband

because you weren't quite on message. Could you be recalled if

there is a reshuffle? I was sacked because I was one of the first

people to express opposition to the war on Syria and I don't regret a

thing. Who Ed Miliband has on his front bench is a matter for him.

When he sacked me, he said, do you think I'm doing the right thing? I

said you are, it's your reshuffle. It's always the right thing. I am

happy backbencher. I can say to Margot, she can be a happy

backbencher as well. Leave it there. What's your idea

of a fun summer weekend? How about being cooped up in

a conference room in Milton Keynes, hammering out policy agreements with

200 of your closest colleagues? No? Well,

that's how Ed Miliband and his team spent last weekend, at the Labour

Party's National Policy Forum. Here's what Ed Miliband said

at the event. Britain still has a deficit to deal

with and a debt to pay down, so we commit to balance the books in the

next Parliament. We will deliver a surplus in the current budget. But I

want to say to you today that there is an even bigger reason why we need

a new direction, rooted in Labour values. It comes from our experience

in government. Higher spending is not actually the answer to the

long-term economic crisis that we together have identified over the

last four years. So those on the left, who wanted to

see a bit of old-fashioned anti-austerity tax and spend,

are likely to be disappointed. But the man who delivered New Labour

to office has also had been speaking about Labour's policy direction this

morning. Diane might be upset to know that

the third Way is here to say. It isn't a programme, it is a

philosophy. Its essence does not lie in a particular set of solutions.

But in a way of thinking. For that reason, it's not time-limited, it's

perpetual. But because it is about modernisation, it is, therefore,

also dynamic and not static. Tony Blair, delivering a speech 20 years

since being elected as leader. Higher spending is not necessarily

the answer. Do you agree? Not necessarily. A lot of people will

vote Labour because they are hoping that they will reverse the coalition

cuts. Using the money differently is one thing, but would you like to see

Labour promising to spend more in general on public services?

Train-macro it's not what I would like to see, people -- it's not what

I would like to see, people will vote for us or the Lib Dems because

they want to see some of the spending reversed. Were you

disappointed with what Ed Miliband had to say, that it would be

business as usual, keeping the spending cuts? It doesn't surprise

me that they want to keep within the spending envelope. The question for

us as a party is how do we spend that money? We think we can spend it

better than the Tories. Were you disappointed to hear it? They have a

long way to go. For a start, they have only committed to matching the

plans for a year. They can do a hell of a lot of damage in the four years

after that is up. People would argue you have done damage with the

terrible welfare cuts. We inherited an economy where we were spending ?5

for every ?4 we were earning. You seem to have forgotten about the

collapse and the international financial crisis. The previous

Labour government started borrowing to spend in 2001, years before the

collapse. So the investment was wrong into the National Health

Service and education? A lot of money was basically borrowed and

when the chickens came home to roost and this country was suddenly facing

the same sort of banking crisis as the rest of the world, we were more

exposed than any of the other G-7 countries. That was the legacy we

had to deal with and which we are still dealing with, and there is

more to be done. What Labour have come out with over the weekend is

wholly inadequate. Do you think it is believable? No, they have opposed

every single reduction in our spending that the coalition has had

to settle on. Every single one. Who do you agree with? Is Diane Wright?

Some of the benefits cuts are extremely unpopular. -- is Diane

correcter macro? I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Diane's

position. It seems Ed Miliband is saying, look, we crashed the economy

before but please do trust us because we won't do it again. I

don't see any evidence... You go out there next year campaigning to

defend Tory cuts and see what that does for you. Do you defend the

cuts? Do you defend the idea of more cuts post-2015? Yes, I think we have

to stay solvent as a country. We have found that what happens when we

are on the brink of economic disaster. We have to be sensible. I

have sympathy with the idea of spending differently. Where would

you spend differently? Each party has their priorities. We have

announced there are certain things we want to change. There will be a

whole manifesto... Suddenly discovering it is a bad thing, three

years on... We're not saying the bedroom tax is a bad thing. Are you

calling it a bedroom tax? A spare room subsidy. We are saying the

implementation has not been done successfully and that is why we have

changed it. We still agree with it. Diane, you are looking at Lorely

quizzically, but you could be in coalition. Some of the ideas have

been taken straight out of the Lib Dem manifesto, mansion tax,

localism, devolution, these are all things you agree on. Acting on the

question of free school meals years before Labour discovered it... Why

didn't you do it then? We did it in local authority is where we have the

power to do it, in case you didn't notice. We were not in power so we

couldn't implement it. Yes, many of the things Lib Dems talk about, we

have been talking about for years. There are policy matches between

yourself and the Lib Dems. More than ever. There is always going to be

policy overlap when both parties are vaguely to the left of the Tories.

So there is an overlap. Labour moving closer to the Lib Dems

because they see the only possibility is of a coalition? It

will be in the coalition's hands whether we see a coalition. It is

not for me to second-guess. Ken Clarke has said it would be a

mountain to climb for the Tories to the largest party, never mind have

an overall majority. It's a challenge for any party to get an

overall majority when you see reduced voting for the main two

parties, that is an electoral fact we have to deal with. In addition,

we didn't get the boundary changes through. It still takes a lot more

conservative votes to elect a government than a Labour government.

In terms of our progress on the economy and the polling of the Prime

Minister's support against Ed Miliband's support, which is

massively in favour of the Prime Minister... You are still four

points behind. At this stage. I don't think politicians who have

been three points behind with a year to go... Technically, you have got a

recovery, but it is a vote less recovery because people don't feel

better off. You might have thought it is

the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow -

but you'd be wrong. In fact, the Clerk of the House

of Commons is really in charge. He's also chief executive

of the House of Commons Service. The current holder of the post,

Sir Robert Rogers, is retiring after I popped over

the road to meet him last week. cheering us with his good humour,

Sir Robert has been unfailingly helpful, patient and courteous. He

has brought formidable intellect, his insight and his great sense of

humour. Sir Robert's appearance belies an intellectually adventurous

mind, and a considerable radicalism in terms of this place.

Robert Rogers, you are part of the houses of parliament. One of the

most interesting things about your role, you are the legal owner of all

these amazing buildings. How come? Well, I am the corporate officer,

which means I own all of the house's property and it also means I

am the person liable if anything goes wrong. To preserve something

like this for future generations I think is a really worthwhile

endeavour. It's absolutely amazing. People around the world know it, but

it also looks a bit ecclesiastical and fusty so we have to run a modern

parliament inside that building. One of the most important roles in your

job is to give advice to the Prime Minister and other ministers, but do

they ever take your advice? Giving advice, absolutely partially, to

government, ministers, wherever they are in the house, members of any

party, no party... Of course we advise them, but it is always in

confidence. It is always rigidly impartial and vice. Is this where

you bring ministers and Prime Ministers, to talk to them? Is this

your chambers? If it was the Prime Minister, I would go and talk to

him, although he happens to be two doors down. This is my office. This

is where any member who wants to come and consult me can come and

find me. Lets go and have a look. You the 49th clerk the house. Is it

important to know each individual member? Absolutely vital. I do, and

all of my colleagues do. When I am walking around the estate, I always

greet members individually, stop and talk to them about something they

are doing. The House of Commons is a small community. A newcomer to the

houses of parliament, never been here before, how would you describe

what you do? Two aspects do my job. Principal constitutional adviser to

the house, advise on all its procedure and business. I have a lot

of extremely able people to help with back. The buck on those is used

to stop with me. The other part of the job, which only two or three of

my predecessors would recognise as it is now, is being Chief Executive

of the House of Commons service, which is getting on for 2000 people.

Imagine you are going into the chamber. What would you do just

before you go in? A lot of God to put on. Yes. --

gramsarb. It's a dignified framework of the

chamber. A lot of people outside this place like it. It's a dignified

framework that allows the hurly-burly of politics to go on

within it. I am not worried about signs of times past. History should

be our inspiration, not our jailer. How old is that weaker? Quite old!

We are ready to go. Off we go. Thank you. Sir Robert

Rogers, who has retired. A great character. Did you meet him? Yes, I

did, I went to him for some advice on procedure. He was just the most

charming guy that you could ever wish to meet. I was reflecting on

what he was saying about history being our inspiration, not our

jailer. Perhaps both colleagues... We could have an outbreak of

agreement that we do need some modernisation in the House of

Commons. I just think he would be in the hearts of so many people for a

long time to come. There's just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. The question was:

who is Ed Miliband meeting today? Tony Blair, Barack Obama,

Jean Claude Juncker, Angela Merkel? Diane? Barack Obama? Yes, what could

possibly go wrong! Because it has never gone long before. Can you

describe what the brush buyer will mean? Gordon Brown had to go in the

kitchen and Barack Obama literally brushed by him there. The

scholarly! Do you think that is what they call it? An important moment?

Yes, an important step towards May 2015 when he gets elected... I

shouldn't have given you that opportunity! Thank you to the three

ladies for being my guests. The one o'clock News is starting on BBC1. I

will be here tomorrow with the last daily politics. Goodbye.

Imagine the number of women this industry supports.