03/10/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, amidst chaos in the Department for Transport, should we

re-think the way the railways run in Britain. With the runnaway cost

to the taxpayer of at least �40 million, the award of the west

coast rail franchise is on hold. We ask Government what on earth has

gone wrong. We are joined by the opposition and the train operators

too. Tu,y shells Syria tonight, after a rocket launch from Syria

kills five people. In an exclusive television interview, Kofi Annan

issues a stark warning of where the conflict could go without UN action.

If the security council is not able -- the Security Council not made to

come together and work together, we are in a really hopeless situation.

Also tonight, the man who dreamt up the philosophy of the Red Tory,

launches a massive take on David Cameron's red credentials. Phillip

Blond is here along with former policy adviser to David Cameron.

We're in America hours ahead of the first presidential debate.

Tonight the wonks of Washington, along with 60 million potential

voters, will be tune anything to see their presidential candidate

goes head-to-head, is this Mitt Romney's last chance to prove he is

the man for the job. Good evening, the words "they

couldn't run a piss up in a buffet car" spring 0 mind. Three civil

servants were persuaded today over the West Coast Mainline deal, which

has been scrapped, at a cost of at least �40 million, and the fate of

a further two thirds rail franchises, due before the next

election, are in serious doubt. Is the whole tendering process flawed.

The last time the West Coast Mainline Khan fries was up for

grabs, it was 1996 and we were -- franchise was up for grabs, it was

1996 and we were all trainspotting. The then Government chose Virgin to

operate Britain's most lucrative rail franchise. Speed forward to

the last August, there is a Tory- led Government pulling the levers,

receiving an angry letter from a Richard in the Virgin islands,

saying passengers would suffer if the Westcoast franchise was award

today the First Group, two weeks later the Government did just that,

much to Richard's chargrin. We have heard our bit was ahead of them up

to 2020, and in the last three years, suddenly, they have worked

out that they can give the Government another �2 billion,

completely unIsrael itsic figures for the numbers of -- unrealistic

figures for the numbers of people they will magically get in the last

three years. Even if they doubled fares they wouldn't be able to

afford it. We are completely baffled. The soon to be ex-

Transport Secretary backed the process to the hilt. It is a robust

and fair process, the whole point is to make sure it is not politic

sized and handled fairly for all the bidder. Even when the new

Transport Secretary arrived, the fourth in three years, he too chose

to support his troops. companies went to huge amounts of

effort to try to win that bid. It was judged fairly by the department,

and it is our intention to proceed with the bid that the first of --

that Firs have made, I'm content -- first made, I'm content with the

way the contract was reviewed. Today he was forced to make the

kind of humiliating apology for those self-same civil servants,

rarely seen in British political circumstances. What is what has

happened is unacceptable, deeply regretable, and of course, I

apologise. We have made a big mistake, as far as the department

is concerned, and the people who have put bids in have done nothing

wrong. He has ordered two independent reviews into what went

wrong, the fruits which have will be heard by the end of December.

What actually went wrong during the tendering process? When Virgin

Trains were told they were losing the franchise, they sought a

judicial review. What that did is it forced Government lawyers and

senior civil servants to examine in great detail exactly how the

tendering process had been worked out. What they discovered was

nothing short of a schoolboy error. Inflation had been completely

omitted from the calculation. Over one year it may not be much, but

over the 13-year lifetime of the franchise, it could have amounted

to tens of millions of pounds. So now the whole franchising process,

which was itself overhauled when the coalition came to power, has

been shunted into the sidings, as two urgent and independent reviews

into this shambles get under way. Up to now, companies wishing to run

train services in Britain, were required to set aside a much larger

sum of money to repay the Government if they could no longer

afford to run the franchise. This happened on the Eastcoast line two

years ago. First said it would set aside �155 million, Virgin said it

should be three-times that amount. Apart from making both rich and

poor, what does it mean for the wider structural issues in Britain.

This is bad for a Government who want to make private investor --

investments for the country. These are people who could go anywhere in

the world and invest in any industries in the world. We want to

get them here. They have to trust there is an administration that is

competent that they can deal with. That the policy risks and

regulatory risks are reasonable over the period of the contract,

which is quite a long time. This doesn't help build confidence.

So with one rail line nationalised and four on hold, many people

believe that since the franchise system began, almost 20 years ago,

profits have been privatised, but risk continues to be borne by tax-

payers. There is always the key issue about

whether risk was really transferred to the private sector. The

Transport Committee is in the middle of a major review of the

rail system, you think we will be looking at what options there may

be. It is essential that the public do get value for money, and that

the taxpayer does too. But it is also the case that rail has become

increasingly popular, more people use the rail, more goods travel by

rail, but the cost is too high and the fares are too high. It

certainly is a shambles, a shambles on the West Coast Mainline, and

potentially a shambles for the system. But we do need the results

of those investigations and to question those results, before we

can come to firm conclusions. So, a cash-strapped Government is

now paying out �40 million to all four companies, who bid for the

west -- West Coast franchise, and it could face more claims from

First Group. The passengers will have to wait longer for a change in

services and for the Government's reputation to recover.

Where should the finger of blame be pointed? It is really hard to tell.

Independent analysts I have spoken to say you can't really credible

place the blame at Justine Greening's door, these sums are too

complicated for the Secretary of State to comb through themselves.

They breakdown the cull paability in the Civil Service, --

culpability in the Civil Service, there are three suspended, they may

lose their jobs. If turns out the bidding process was beyond their

capability, then you bring in ministers, the people who devised

the system, then you come to Teresa Villiers, now promoted to Northern

Ireland Secretary. Having said that what is interesting, is you have

Conservative MPs who are saying Justine Greening should take the

blame for it, you have the cabinet responsibility, it was on her watch,

and the discrepancy between the first bid and the Virgin bid, was

so huge, she should have asked for other numbers. We have the Times

front page here, they are running a suggestion, the Times say they

understand, so it is not sourced, they say they understand that

Greening learned of a blow to the bid in the week before the cabinet

reshuffle. We have been talking in the office about this evening, my

sources don't think it is credible. The other things to think about is

Patrick McLoughlin who has her job, went to the Transport Select

Committee last week and kept to her line. Why did he do that. Was she

allowed to do that, if she knew. What damage will this do to the

whole coalition franchising policy, what they did is they changed

existing franchising rules and made a new franchising system? It is one

of the first things when you speak to sources in Government today, it

was one of the first things, that is not going anywhere, franchising

as a philosophy is the only way to do it. They say it was a state

mishap, it was Government civil servants getting it wrong, going

more in-house rather than out-of- house is mad. I would imagine it

will turn up massive bits of fine tuning. There is a problem for the

Government. It is the day after the leader of the opposition has had a

lot of fun saying the Government is incompetent, a shambles is a word

we have heard a lot. Then this happens, it is bad timing and

embarrassing. Earlier I spoke to Simon Burns, a new minister in the

Department of Transport, in fact, after the reshuffle last month,

they are all new ministers at the Department of Transport, bar one

Liberal Democrat minister. Simon Burns, the Government was warned

about this two months ago, it has taken until the day before court to

put your hands up, why? What happened was is Sir Richard Branson,

after the decision of made, sought to pursue judicial review. And at

that point we, obvious low, had had to look at what had happened --

obviously, had to look at what had happened, the franchise, ministers

did this. We were assured everything was done robustly and

correctly. Ministers looked at the figures? No, ministers working with

civil servants, were assured by the civil servants, who did the work,

that everything had been done robustly, had been done in keeping

with the arrangements for the franchising, and so, we took the

view that there was no justification for the judicial

review, initial low. Then, of course, as we a-- initially. Then,

of course, when we approached the time for a court hearing, more work

was done. Work that should have been done earlier? Work done prior

to the announcement of the decision. It was flawed work. It took lawyers

to find out what people in your department should have found out?

Yes, because we did not know it was flawed. All through the long

franchise process, ministers were being advised by civil servants who

were doing the work, ministers kept seeking assurances, that it was

being done in the correct way, that everything was working to the right

arrangements, they received those assurances. On that basis, with the

advice they were given, they then took decisions. We have got, you

know, all the ministers bar one have been shuffled on very

conveniently, if you look at Teresa Villers and Justine Greening is an

accountant, she was saying it was robust. Does the minister not have

a duty to say to civil servants, it is not going to be Virgin, it is

going to be First Group, that is a big change, let me see the figures,

if you are an accountant? I can assure you everything was done,

ministers were constantly seeking assurances and information that

everything was being done to the proper procedures, and those

assurances were given. You have a situation where the Institute of

Government talks about the fact that the Department of Transport

has taken 20% cuts in man power, these are highly complex franchises,

the problem is you have cut the feet from under the civil servants

and now they are taking the rap? don't agree with that. Because we

have some very fine civil servants in the department of the transport,

they work extremely hard. But three of them have been suspended? They

have, in the light of what has now transpired. You have two inquiries

to look at this, if I can give you two names here, Ed Smith, and Sam

Laidlaw, they are leading the inquiry into the flawed process?

They are looking into what happened, what went wrong and why it did.

This is an independent inquiry, but they are non-executive directors on

the Department of Transport board, would they not have signed off on

the deal? No, it was signed off by ministers. So, wait a minute, the

non-executive board of which these two men are members, had absolutely

nothing to do with the signing off, or even looking at who would get

the franchise? The ultimate decision on it was taken by

ministers. One final question, the model for costing for the high-

speed service, you are sure that has been worked out, without flaws,

so there haven't been any civil servant errors in that? What I have

said, is the method, the methodology is not flawed, it is

the way in which it was used. it been flawed in the high-speed

rail? But we have this inquiry, the Brown inquiry to look at the whole

area of franchising, what went wrong, and where we can learn. Of

course, that will cover the whole realm of network and implications.

The high-speed rail, the costings for that, based on that model,

because they may have had a problem with inflation and so forth, they

could be wrong? No, because the methodology was not wrong with the

franchises. In terms of the high- speed rail costs, how do you know

the right figures have been put in? Because I am confident that is the

case, because it has been looked at time and time again, by, not simply

the Department for Transport, but also HS2 itself. Minister, thank

you very much. Here to discuss all this are Tom

Smith, the chairman of the Association of Train Operating

Companies, and veteran of several franchise negotiations mark Wallis

from the Institute of Directors, and from the Labour Party

Conference, we are joined by the shadow Transport Secretary, Maria

Eagle. Maria Eagle, first of all, you heard the minister saying every

check and balance of made by ministers, everything done that

could have been done was done? just don't think it is good enough

to put the blame on civil servants, and there are matters arising now

in the newspapers where there are suggestions that Justine Greening

knew there was a problem with the franchise before the reshuffle. I

think we have to get the facts out there now. We need to hear from

ministers who knew, what, when, was the Prime Minister aware of the

problems before he decided to remove all of the Tory ministers in

the Department for Transport, or was he not. We need to hear from

him and get to the bottom of this, as well as looking at what is

technically going to be done to put this right in future. Let's lock a

bit of that, first of all, from the point of view of the taxpayer, the

taxpayer we know will pony up �40 million to the four different

companies. The Government has shown itself to be less than competent,

how do we know that the taxpayer is not going to have to come up with a

lot more money before this is over? It is a bad error that has been

uncovered today. The Department for Transport has quickly moved to say

they will look into it, and find out what has gone wrong. It is very

important not to get too gloomy about it, because the reality is

Fran chietsing, in which private companies -- franchising, in which

private companies bid for the right to run services, has been very

successful over the years since it has been introduced. It has

overseen improvements in trains and stations, and a growing number of

passengers, to record levels. you buy the ministers point of view

that it is nothing to do with the Government, all to do with civil

servants? That has come to come out of the review that will come out in

the next month. They will look at that in great depth. What decisions

were made and at what level must whab we learn from that. On the

immediate question of what happened on December 9th, the Government can

either put it over and run the service itself or Richard Branson

can do it, what is your preferred option? I'm going to try to look at

it from the point of view of passengers, who use the service.

I'm conscious there is a large on- line petition in support of Virgin,

what it suggests to me is passengers would like continuity

and Virgin running the services rather than an artificial change to

a short-term option. Maria Eagle, would that be your view too?

don't think it is possible, if there is going to be a

refranchising of this, for the department to favour one of the

potential bidders against another. They might open themselves up to

even more litigation. So I think it would be sensible, and we would

support this, for the not for private profit Government-owned

company that currently runs East Coast, and returned last year

almost �200 million to the taxpayer, to step in and run this line whilst

this is sorted out. Is this a stocking horse for

renationalisation, if you were in charge, would it be? With the

amount of money, at least �40 million poured down the drain over

the last evening. We don't want to do something that will make it

likely that even more litigation may succeed against the Government.

It is prudent not to choose one over the other, when there is

potential for this process to be rerun. What does this say for the

whole franchise procurement policy of this Government? It doesn't say

we need to renationalise the railways. The idea the Civil

Service make a mistake, therefore the Government should start running

all the railways, is a bizarre logic. More troubling it says that

actually the skills in Whitehall simply aren't there to negotiate

and properly run these processes, at the moment. And we have seen

these problems, not just in the Department of Transport, but also

in the MoD with commissioning, and the NHS database, and the lessons

still haven't been learned from business yet. If you were looking

to pick up an airport contract, or a nuclear contract in Britain,

would what happened today affect you, do you think, or would you

just think this is a blip, it has been an accounting error, they

forgot inflation and got the passenger numbers too high, it will

be OK? This is undoubtedly something that will impact

negatively on Britain's noble reputation. We already know there

is too much uncertainty on the future of airport xas a nuclear

power stations, we need to raise this money and this will deter

investors. Can I clarify something Maria may have misunderstood. When

I talked about should happen on the 9th of December, I mean it should

be agreement reached with Virgin on a short-term basis until another

competition is held. Clearly there has to be a competition. I don't

think it would be helpful. She was meaning you shouldn't favour one of

the potential bidders by giving them an extension? That bid is over.

The franchise, the services have to continue in some way. Until the new

competition is held. Talking about a complete rebuilding process, for

the West Coast Mainline, we are talking about delaying the next

three franchise options, we are talking about a full examination of

the system, as Mark Wallis says, it doesn't look good for British

industry? It is essential the two reviews are conduct. That it

engages with everyone with a state in franchising, especially our

members who bid and run the franchises, and they come to clear

conclusions that restore confidence in the way the process is run.

Would you be calling for a review of the franchising overall, or

indeed transport generally? Yes, I think that the flawed franchising

process that this Government have designed, and implemented, this was

the first one they tried to tender, it does need to be looked at, in a

wider sense than the review announced by the Transport

Secretary. We need to see what lessons can be learned for the

future, we need better value for money for passengers. I think

ministers and the Prime Minister have got questions to answer here.

The Prime Minister said when he was in opposition that ministers should,

that presided over systematic and serious performance failures in

their department, should be held to account. And they should not seek

to shuffle off responsibility. There is a direct quote, that is

what we seem to be seeing today. They have been reshuffled off?

have been reshuffled off, but the new transport ministers have also

given assurance this was a proper and robust processes. There are

many questions the Prime Minister and ministers, and previous

ministers in the department need to answer. We're not hearing those

answers tonight. In terms of looking at it from a business

perspective, if this drags on, what we are talking about here, Tom

Smith saying they have put in place -- it is impertinent that the two

inquiries proceed quickly. If this drags on and there seems to be

problems with the high-speed rail issue, then what will the damage

be? The damage grows the longer this lasts, and the uncertainty is

the real harm to Britain's reputation. If we are uncertain of

our future, if companies can't be sure when they put in an

application that if they win they win and if they lose they lose,

where will we be in five years to replace more national

infrastructure. NATO ambassadors are meeting tonight, following a

Syrian mortar attack into Turkey that killed five people. In a major

escalation, a few hours ago, Turkey retaliated, firing artillery units

into Syria. Just before we came on air, the US Secretary of State,

Hillary Clinton, gave this statement. We are outraged that the

Syrians have been shooting across the border. We are very regretful

about the loss of life that has occurred on the Turkish side. We

are working with our Turkish friends, I will be speaking with

the Foreign Minister. To discuss what the best way forward would be

I will discuss that later. This also comes down to a regime that is

causing untold suffering to its own people, solely driven by their

desire to stay in power. As Hillary Clinton said, this came as at least

31 people were killed in Aleppo, and dozens more injured in a series

of suicide bombs. I spoke to Kofi Annan earlier today, in an

exclusive TV interview, he told us the conflict coin flame the whole

region, and said, -- could inflame the whole region, and said if the

Security Council didn't pull together the situation could get

much worse. I was speaking to him about his memoir marking his five

decades at the UN. Kofi Annan said he has spent his life seeking peace

across the world. Pressing the flesh with world leaders and

working in intractable conflicts. His work won him the Nobel Prize in

2001, the committee said he received it for a better organised

and more peaceful world. But his career has been punctuated by

failures. The Rwandan genocide that tok place in 1994 was committed

whilst -- took place in 1994 was committed whilst Annan directed

peacekeeping operations, in what was one of the worst genocides in

living memory, 800,000 Tutsis were murdered. Kofi Annan admitted after,

he realised after the genocide that there was more he could have and

should have done to sound the alarm and rally support. He also

described the massacre in veb nieceia in the Bosnian war, derb

Srebrenica, that occurred in the Be Your Own Bossia war was not good

for the United Nations. He look -- Bosnia was not good for the United

Nations. He claimed the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam

Hussein was illegal, and said the decision to invade Iraq should have

been made by the Security Council and not unilaterally. Recently he

has been working to end the bloody war in Syria as UN-Arab League

envoy, he had a six-point plan for Syria intended to bring an end to

the fighting. It was never fully adhered to by either side. He quit

the role saying when the Syrian people needed action there

continues to be finger-pointing and name-calling in the Security

Council. It looks as if the inaction is set to continue in the

UN he leaves behind. This afternoon I met Kofi Annan in

London. What are you most proud of in your

50-year career at the UN? Well, I think making it to the top, without

really expecting to get there. Because no staff member had had

ever made it to the top. The organisation always looked outside

for a leader. But once I was in I was extremely pleased with the work

we did on the millennium goals to fight poverty around the world.

David Cameron addressed the General Assembly, the blood of these

children, and we know again today that there is 31 more dead in

Aleppo, that the blood of these young children, in Syria, is a

terrible stain on the reputation of the United Nations. I hope when

Prime Minister Cameron says it is a blot on the reputation of the UN,

he is saying, in shorthand, it is a blot on our reputation, we have

made mistake, not the bureaucracy that is the UN. With the members of

the Security Council, we know that Russia has been supplying hardware,

ships, engineering parts for Sadek, we understand, we think -- Assad,

we understand, we think the Americans are supporting the

training of the FSA in Turkey. This is the Security Council supposed to

be doing nothing to inflame the situation. If the security is doing

that, why should anyone believe the UN can fix things? You are right

that the divisions in the council really hurt the search for a

solution. That was one of the reasons I resigned, as you know.

But I think the challenge is to overcome those divisions. To get

them working, I tried at the beginning they came together, they

supported the six-point plan, but it was not sustained. If the

Security Council is not made to come together, or find a way of

getting them to work together, then we are in a really, really hopeless

situation. And Syria will descend further into

war? It could get worse, it could get much worse. It could affect the

region. How do we solve the problem? As I have said, my choice

is that it has to be a political settlement. And if the

militarisation or intervention in my judgment will make the situation

much morse, in my opinion. We raise the issue that Syria will not

implode, but possibly explode, and beyond its borders. Bringing in the

whole region. What do you foresee happening if Syria explodes?

think the neighbours will be drawn in. Already we are seeing thousands

of refugees going into Jordan, some are in Lebanon, and they are in

Turkey, Iraq is worried with cross- border Jihadist elements coming in

across the border. So, the whole region could get inflamed. Do you

think now the only solution is for Assad to go? There is no doubt that

he cannot stay, you cannot kill that many people and remain

legitimate. That is not the solution, that is maybe part of the

solution. What happens when he goes? We need to make sure that the

right institutions, the security forces work, that you don't get

into a chaotic collapse, this is part of the problem. But do you

think, with hindsight, that when you took up the role for Syria, you

should have been, as it were less even-handed at the beginning,

should have just said right from the get-go, Mr Assad, you have to

leave? That is not a negotiator's role, I was brought in to try to

bring the parties to the table. As you have yourself indicate, even

the big powers have not been able to do that. For the mediator to

walk in and think he can do that, he would be dreaming. In your book

you talk about the genocide in Rwanda. You say that the world

failed Rwanda. Is there a way you think you yourself failed Rwanda?

Maybe, I could have shouted louder. As I indicate in the book, we made

lots of attempts to get troops we didn't get. Maybe I could have use

the press more. At that time the UN was media shy. In fact, the only

person who spoke to the press was the secretary-general. I was the

under secretary-general, I think we were too timid about engaging the

press. Now I know better how to work with the press. But when

General Delere sent the memo saying it looked as if there was a

massacre ahead, and the memo went back with your signature and saying

do nothing, tell the ambassadors of the other countries. Do you regret

that now? No, there was a situation in the organisation when you put

things in context, we just had the disaster in Somalia, which led to

the withdrawal of thousands of peacekeepers. We were worried that

if they got in there, and they were confronted in the same manner as

Somalia, that would be the end of that mission, and you wouldn't have

troops on the ground to do anything. Is there a danger that nobody

actually can finally take responsibility. It is such a

complicated messy thing. I'm finding you don't want to talk

about him, that he kept everything close to him, and you a different

approach. The point is nobody fess up when there are mistakes? First

of all, there two were two major reports, by, one of them, I

commissioned, the other one, the General Assembly commission, on

Rwanda and Bosnia and Srebrenica, in particular, where we laid out

the failures, our mistakes and others, I apologised on my own

behalf, and on behalf of the entire organisation. Thank you very much

indeed. David Cameron was casting around

for big ideas to kick start a new kind of, and kinder Conservatism,

he alighted on the ideas of Phillip Blond. Red Tory Boy, who gave The

Big Idea society Tory clout, was a One Nation Tory too. Now he is

disillusioned, his plans for relocalising the economy,

recapitalising the poor, and remoralising the market, have

turned to dues dust in the hand of David Cameron, if his words. In an

article for the Guardian tomorrow, he says Ed Miliband is The One Show

man now. -- is the One Nation now.

He said Tories should be Red, being associated with policies normally

associated with the left. Now Phillip Blond claims he is

disappointed and disillusioned with the direction David Cameron has

taken. Disillusionment with the Cameron project from someone like

Phillip Blond, will that worry David Cameron, or is it something

he can shrug off? I don't think he can shrug it off, Phillip Blond was

associated when Cameron was at its peak, as one of the biggest cheer

leaders. He came up with the incredibly potent expression called

Red Toryism, the media found him a fascinating figure, he became an

important part of the Conservative Party for David Cameron was

different and changing. If David Cameron looks like he's losing a

supporter like that, it is not good news. But he was never as central a

figure in the Cameron project as perhaps some presented. So it's far

from a serious or a fatal blow. Big Idea society was David

Cameron's big idea. Introduced rather late in the 2010 election

campaign, that left many baffled. Phillip Blond fears it has been

quietly dropped now as an idea, particularly since its champion

inside Downing Street, Steve Hilton, has left. There were widespread

reports that he was frustrated at being sidelined. Is Phillip Blond

right, has David Cameron abandoned, if you like, his earlier enthusiasm

for devolving power down to communities, and squandering this

opportunity to reshape Conservatives? Not at all, it is

very much happening on the ground. If we lock at what is happening in

Dover, with the people's port project, to take over the port of

Dover, we are expecting a decision in the next month. Schools changed

into academies and being able to control their affairs much more

effectively than through departmentss and local authorities,

and also the experience of the doctors being able to take more

control over the NHS. They know more about their patients than

centralised NHS in Whitehall. I think that is a really positive

thing about this Government, that has been devolving, decentralising

across the board. Phillip Blond believes there is already evidence

that Labour is moving on to this territory, that David Cameron

should be worried, that in his conference speech, yesterday, Ed

Miliband delivered a similar message to the one the Prime

Minister had once articulated. Is that something to worry David

Cameron, if Ed Miliband becomes a convincing voice for this kind of

idea? The Conservative Party cannot afford to be complacent, the

Conservative Party need to ensure it is not just the party of

economics, but also the party of compassion. But I think most people

know the Labour Party has a heart, and Ed Miliband hasn't addressed

the fundamental Labour weaknesses, which people are not sure that

Labour have quite the head, the understanding of how to run an

economy. The understanding how to make things work and repair the

mess that Labour left behind. Ed Miliband gave a good speech this

week, but his problem is not that Labour is seen as caring, but it is

whether they are seen as competent. I have got to know Philip and Hayes

work a little bit over the past few years, while I wouldn't say I agree

with everything he has said or everything he and his think-tank

are going to say. You can say that again. Although the Prime Minister

has more to worry about right now than one disappointed think-tanker.

Phillip Blond's criticisms will be in theed. And ahead of the party

conference next week, will have the capacity to wound.

Phillip Blond is here, along with Sean Worth, former policy adviser

to David Cameron in Downing Street, and who now works at the at this

tank Policy Exchange. Aren't you just acting like a bit of a spurned

roufr? Goodness, what a thought -- Lover? Goodness, what a thought,

not in the slightest. Rather I'm acting for a vision I believe in,

and I think the majority of the British people believe in. And if

we want a Conservative Party that spweeks to the majority, and

doesn't -- speaks to the majority and doesn't do minority politics,

it has to speak to its One Nation tradition and element. The

sacrifice of that appeal will condemn the Conservative Party to a

permanent minority. Conservative Party with a permanent

minority because they didn't follow through? The implication here is

that the Government has some how lost the reforming zeal, the social

vision. That is exact low what Philip is saying in the article? --

exactly what Philip is saying in the article? Look at the policy and

fronts of reform, they are the most radical and far reaching since the

Second World War. That is an objective fact, not just my biased

opinion. In terms of what is popular with the voters. I look at

this, I don't look at this as an issue of dropping a social agenda,

I look at it as a Government in mid-term. This particular period in

the electoral cycle. You focus on issues like jobs, and growth,

because you know that. If you throw it away, Phillip Blond seems to be

seeing, and the expression you are using is re-tokifying the Tory

Party, that is an important point? It is not that I disagree with this,

some of the policies are radical, I would like them to be more radical.

If Dover does get its people's port, brilliant. It is very clear from

the outside and inside that the Government has lost its central

focus and its central focus has to be a vision. You organise your

party and policies. It is OK when you are in opposition, someone like

you in opposition gives them the big overarching report, but then

the reality is they have to get the deficit down, that is what they

have to see as their primary concern? What has happened, this is

a great tragedy, is means have eclipsed ends. Deficit reduction is

a means, but to what end. Until the Government can rearticulate and

give a vision, at the moment they are not offering a positive account

of the type of world we want, and the type of world we need. And the

strength of Ed Miliband's speech as he did that, and the shame is

that's Cameron's territory. What I would like is Cameron to move back

and give us the vision that will give a majority.

First of all, on Ed's speech, it was great, it was a brilliant

speech, probably the best he has delivered. But it didn't have a

great deal behind it. There was a lot of excitement, from a press

pack that want a battle of ideas. You are not going to get policy

this far out? This is my point about where the different parties

are at different parts in the parliamentary cycle, Ed Miliband

needs to communicate vision, and Cameron needs to look at the

voters' top priority, and they have to focus on those things. Of course

there is a social mission. I think, unfortunately, that is completely

wrong. The great shame is that Number Ten has lost the policy

vision. It has surrendered it to departments, the Treasury is more

powerful than Number Ten. believe he's in hock to George

Osborne? I don't believe that, it is surrendering policy issue to the

Treasury. What has happened is what they like is a cacophony of voices

in Number Ten, many different versions, but you can't deliver

like that. Successful Governments need clear principle and need to

ensure that every part of Government follows that principle.

There isn't a clear principle at the moment, what type of

Conservative is David Cameron. We need to hear that, we need it to be

a Conservatism. He's not a red Tory? He needs to be if he wants to

win a majority. Does he? If it is a question about what do people want,

I don't think The Big Idea society was top of the list. Let's be

honest. I'm not opposed to it, I believe in the vision of changing

the nature of the state. I think actually towards the election,

there will not be a stronger focus on the social. What I would say is

that there are really important reform agendas, as I mentioned

earlier, they probably need to be turbo charge that doesn't mean you

have lost sight of any social vision. Incertainly and external

people think the Government has lost its way. It has done that

because we don't have a defining vision from the centre that can

structure the rest of policy and departments. It is not clear what

sort of Conservatism we have. Is it austerity or 20th century poverty.

People don't ask the kind of past you have, they say do you share my

value, are you focusing on the things I care about. Jobs and all

that? The trouble is, Conservatism is now actually creating

economically clash with cash in a huge way. We are creating monoplies

and cartels, let's have a radical Conservatism that distributes power

and property to all. That is what the Prime Minister needs to convey.

In the early hours of the morning on the other side of the Atlantic,

the US presidential election will finally catch fire for millions of

Americans. Denver hosts the first of three live televised 90-minute

presidential debates, for the first time President Obama and Mitt

Romney come face-to-face. Romney goes in trailing in key states, but

the debates can make-or-break a candidate. In this election how

important will these debates be? Very, very important if you are the

host broadcaster, I suspect. CNN is talking like it is Christmas. They

are expecting 60 million viewers for the presidential debate tonight.

And every commentator, everyone you talk to, is saying it is crunch

time and it will be the most important thing. Newt Gingrich has

said this is the most important moment of Mitt Romney's political

career. You have to take a step back and say, for Newsnight viewers,

these aren't exactly debates in the spirit we know them, they are

staged. Here are the commentators talking about having to watch with

reptile brain, people not listening out for content or spotting policy,

these are gaps and things to be talked over for years ahead. People

remember the moment when depush senior glanced at his watch, just -

- George Bush glanced at his watch, when they had gone to see an

unemployed woman. That showed the difference between an engaged

Democrat politician, and someone aloof as if he didn't have time for

it. Those things are important to watch. Really, when you talk to

people, eight out of ten of them said they have already decideded,

they know which candidate they are backing, and they don't. Sorry.

that case, what does Mitt Romney have to do to rescue things?

sense is, if he does badly it is all over. If does OK, it is

probably still all over too. He has to come out, reemerged and

reenergised. In that unfortunate phrase of his wife, he has to come

out unzipped. He has to be more specific, he has a 59-point plan

for the economy and another five- point plan, yet no-one understands

what he would do. He has talked about being anti-Government, and

brought in Paul Ryan, yet there is very little mention about moving

away from we are welfare and Government dependency, when he was

talking in the Florida convention. Has to put the specter of the two

numbers to rest, 47% and 14%. Why did I pick those out? Because 47%

is in the tape, the number of voters who would never vote for

them. 14% is the amount of tax he pays, it isn't a lot at the moment,

but it isn't very presidential. He needs to make people want him.

That's all from Newsnight tonight, I will be back tomorrow, until then

good night. Hello, it will be a cold night

tonight, close to a frost in many rural areas. We start bright and

sunny for the most part in the morning. A scattering of showers

near the west coast, a few wandering inland during the day.

Very hit and miss, not as dry. Not as wet in northern England as it

has been today. Light showers in the afternoon. A God chance of

staying dry, showers not amounting to much in the Midlands, or East

Anglia, south-east should be dry. With the winds lighter not so cold

in the afternoon. The cloud increasing and the sunshine turning

hazy in the afternoon. Not that many showers, most in the morning,

a few may linger around the Bristol Channel, and possibly across Wales

as well. This should be some sunshine too. The showers arriving

in Northern Ireland could be sharp, but they are late in the afternoon,

really, a scattering of showers in Scotland, some sunshine as well.