15/09/2011 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. The Prime Minister

has arrived in Tripoli, along with the French President. It is the

first visit by world leaders since the fall of Gaddafi. We will have

the latest. MPs are more popular than ever. The expenses scandal may

have faded, but could party funding be the next scandal to hit British

politics? And it is in the midst of the biggest crisis since its

inception. But is loyalty to the European Union a patriotic duty?

And could Aref it nudge be enough, to save hundreds of millions of

pounds of taxpayers' money? We have just saved 100 million,

with that little nudge! Anyway, all of that to come. With us for the

duration, former MP, N e be, and almost as big a star of daytime TV

as some of us, Robert Kilroy-Silk. Yes!. The Prime Minister is in the

Libyan capital, in Tripoli, along with President Sarkozy. They regard

themselves as a couple of victors. It is an important moment for the

new Libyan administration, as it seeks to establish itself. David

Cameron is set to make a number of announcements, including the

deployment of a UK military team to advise the National Transitional

Council on security. He has also vowed to return �500 million worth

of Libyan assets currently held in Britain. The Libyans will regard

that only as a down payment, they're looking for billions and

billions. Obviously, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron

believe they were in the front of this, they will believe they have

been vindicated. Are they a bit premature, going to Tripoli?

Probably, I would think so. What I would like to ask, they have

visited the Transitional Council, has Cameron visited any of our

troops? Because I think that should have been his first port of call.

Well, officially, we do not have any troops in Libya. Not troops, I

meant servicemen and women, on ships. And in the air fields, not

least in Cyprus. I would like to think that his first port of call

would have been to go and talk to them. But leaving that to one side,

was he right to go? I don't know, yes, if it is going to mean that we

get contracts, let's be hard-headed about this. We want to get as much

out of it as we can. Although we also want a democratic Libya. But I

do suspect it is premature. worried that... Do you think he was

right to intervene, and he has been vindicated by events? I think he

has been vindicated, but I would not have wanted to sacrifice one

British life. And we haven't, so far, touch wood. But I think

revolutions have to be built from the bottom up. The Libyans have to

deliver themselves and create their own society. That is the only way

we can have real legitimacy or permanence, to give them help, yes,

I'm in favour of that. But I would not have wanted to sacrifice any

British blood for that. I did not see any Libyan brigade helping us

out in Bosnia or Kuwait or Iraq or Afghanistan. I do not genuinely

feel we have an obligation to actually help any revolution, by

physical force. We made our own revolution in England, the

Americans made their own revolution in America. The security is

apparently incredible for the two of them, and I guess that will

limit their ability to do much other than be there. Have the they

have gone to a hospital. They are now going to give a joint press

conference. Where they will talk about those practical issues.

there are any major developments, we will bring them to you. Now, it

is time for a quiz. It is one for those of you with a literary bent.

We want you to match the political author to their novel. We have got

author to their novel. We have got these ones... Is there a theme

going on here? But who wrote them? The candidates are Iain Duncan

Smith, Ann Widdecombe and Robert Kilroy-Silk. At the end of the show,

we will give you the right answer. I know! Don't tell anybody, they

will all be on Google right now. It is a test of non-intelligence! Last

year's general election brought a record number of new MPs three of

the taint of the expenses scandal. Public confidence in MPs is at an

all-time low, according to a new report from the Committee on

Standards in Public Life. It says that while MPs were already

unpopular, confidence has fallen particularly steeply since 2008.

Then, 46% of people thought MPs were dedicated to doing a good job.

By last year, that figure has fallen to just 26%. It leaves MPs

well below other public servants, such as judges or police officers.

The only profession less trusted his tabloid journalists. So, what

is behind this? The committee says the 2009 expenses scandal

exacerbated the downward trend, and the election of a new government

has not made people any more positive. Are there any rays of

hope? Well, the survey was carried out at the end of last year, before

MPs were seen to be crucial in exposing the malpractices of those

same tabloid journalists. But the survey shows that party funding is

of major concern to the public, with most people convinced that

donations lead to special favours. The committee warns the issue will

not go away. Joining us now from Sheffield, the Labour MP John Mann,

and in the studio, a Conservative MP. Welcome to both of you. I guess,

given that people regarded this scandal as being on such an

industrial scale, one election is industrial scale, one election is

not going to change public perception?

A absolutely not, and I'm not remotely surprised. That episode

did us a great deal of damage. But equally, I don't think a great deal

has changed. People have always generally had a healthy disregard

and disdain for politicians - well, for party politics. There is a kind

of schizophrenia. If you ask people what they think about politicians,

rather like journalists, they will say they are rubbish. But then they

will say, of course, you're all right. There are 650 members of

parliament, most of the working very hard. Locally, that is

recognise, but nationally, it isn't. How long will be expensive scandal

-- expenses scandal overshadowed British politics? Oh, for a long

time to come. Until Parliament gets its act together and is totally

transparent, and shows it is willing to be transparent, it will

go on. This is a cynicism and apathy building up, and that's the

real danger. They treat us with suitable contempt, really. Looking

at the last few years, you cannot blame them. The one politician who,

in the election, claimed to be different, famously unsuccessfully,

was Nick Clegg, and he went in on one big policy, tuition fees, and

then immediately did exactly the opposite. I think that has

reinforced the cynicism, where the public believes that politicians,

you are meant to have cleaned up your act. You have invented all of

these new bodies, expenses online, and all the rest of it - what more

needs to be done, in your view? is a good job that the public is

not taking too much interest. Because if they listen to all the

whingeing in Parliament about the new systems, and having some

transparency and accountability, they will be even more apathetic or

hostile. What we need to be seen to be done is to be fighting for

people, for the things that they regard as important, being there

for them, and talking straight. I think the one big difference is

that politicians should be prepared to give honest answers, regardless

of the consequences. I think that would go a long way to restoring

some faith in the process. It would make my job a lot easier as well.

Are you one of the whingers? there is no point in whingeing,

nobody makes us do it. I'm not whingeing. I will tell you, I will

whinge about John. If we're going to look after people, the House is

sitting today, I chaired a committee this morning to do with

renewable energy. There is a debate going on about poverty in the

Chamber of the House of Commons, and he is in Sheffield. Do you

think what I'm doing in Sheffield? I'm trying to do something about

the care homes that your government has just privatised in my area.

Following that, I have a public meeting on people who have been

charged wrongly for accessing their own homes. So I have got a full day

of campaign activity today. I have also got to catch up on a meeting

on the closure of a doctor's surgery, where I could not be at

the public meeting because those in parliament yesterday. So, that is

the kind of whingeing... Point just made epitomises what people just

like about British politics. He had no knowledge of why you were in

Sheffield, you may have been there for a variety of good reasons. But

he makes that jibe, and it is exactly the kind of thing which

puts people off politics. Let's not be holier than thou about this. We

all know that politicians have to spend a considerable amount of time

in their constituencies. But beating each other up about this,

which is what Mr mam was doing, does not help at all. I'm simply

trying to make a book up. -- make a point. Nobody says you have to

stand for election, we do it because we choose to do it, and

mainly for the right reasons. I believe that out of 650

constituencies, by and large, people have a reasonable amount of

time for their members of parliament. Collectively, they do

not, but then collectively, they do not like bankers or lawyers or

journalists, either. This report seems to bring out a public

distrust of the way the parties are funded. This is deep disquiet about

how Labour is now incredibly dependent on the unions, probably

more so than ever. And there have been stories recently about the

Conservatives changing the planning rules, and there seems to be quite

a bit of money from property developers. Yes, people think that

all the political parties and politicians are so desperate for

money that they will be prepared to be influenced in order to get money

off people or organisations. And that certainly is a problem. It is

a difficult one to solve, and we are nowhere near as bad as, say,

the United States, in relation to that. But there is a problem there.

There is no simple answer to this. Probably what we have got at the

moment is about the least worst. I would not pretend it is ideal.

Members of parliament have to spend quite a lot of time fund-raising to

fight elections. You give me �12,000, which is what I am allowed

to spend on my election, and that's fine, it saves me having to

campaign for it. I thought the taxpayer pays. But there is a limit.

I know that. But you said, you give me... I'm saying, if the taxpayer

pays it, it would relieve me of that burden, but I'm not sure the

taxpayer would welcome that. They would be absolutely incandescent.

Everybody is having to be more careful, people are losing their

jobs, I have had a 20% production in my own private pension in the

last year. You went to do I'm a celebrity, while you were still

being paid to be an MEP. If you want to talk about that, which is

going off the subject... Can I come back to this first? I did not

fiddle any expenses. I did not say that. Like the former Prime

Minister, who found it acceptable that the taxpayer should fund a

summer house for his children. How could he believe that was

acceptable? The present Prime Minister thought it was appropriate

that he should have his flowers pruned by the taxpayer. How could

anybody assume that was right and proper? I do not think the taxpayer

wants to fund political parties. We have run out of time, thank you

very much to all of you. Moving on to a different subject,

Greece is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Confidence in Spain and

Italy is faltering. The euro is in crisis, if you haven't noticed. It

is all grist to the mill for our Euro-sceptic guest of the day,

Robert Kilroy-Silk. But we found a man whose faith in the EU has not

wavered, Liberal Democrat MEP Euro-sceptics from Enoch Powell to

Jimmy Goldsmith to Robert Kilroy- Silk, and their like-minded parties,

have always end live and chat shows and filled the pages of yellow

papers like there's, with their cries of Europe, retreat, retreat!

There's always a conspiracy, but actually it's just part for Britain.

In my mind, real patriots have always believed that Britain should

have a leading role in Europe. I was born in the week in which

Winston Churchill made his famous speech and the United States of

Europe, but since then our capacity to lead has often been undermined

by the Euro-sceptics, or by cowardly nationalists, for neither

understand nor care about Britain's international role or the national

Now, the Conservative Party has forgotten the legacy of Churchill,

Macmillan and Thatcher, and David Cameron's content-free policy,

let's Not I'm on about Europe, is frankly a cover for his shilly-

shallying over the subject and his terror of the right in his own

party, and the right just beyond. Thankfully, the coalition has

forced a level-headed approach to Europe, but one day soon David

Cameron must decisively confront extremists in his own party, the UK

and the tendency. That is in Britain's interest. -- the UKIP

tendency. We are joined from the European Parliament by Edward

McMillan-Scott. Robert Kilroy-Silk is still here. Being patriotic is

to be a good European, and Britain's interests lie at the

heart of the odd. That is tendentious, and I resent that from

someone like Edward. I'm will not allow anyone to dispute my

patriotism, and I do not think it is a measure of patriotism that you

do not want to be governed by an autocratic organisation like

Brussels. My father and brother gave their lives so we can be true.

I'm not a nationalist. I want us to have good relations with Europe, I

want us to trade with Europe, I want us to have free travel, all

the things we do in co-operation. I have a house in Europe, I love you.

What I do not want to do is be governed by then, that is all. I

want to be governed by my own parliament, by my own people.

from the reference about being patriotic, that view that has been

outlined by Robert Kilroy-Silk is now becoming much more mainstream.

It is held by many, many people, and many people in the Conservative

Party also hold that view. Is it just out the window? I think the

problem is that people like David Cameron and the predecessor leaders

of the party, Iain Duncan Smith and so on, failed to lead from the

front. Now that Cameron is in power, he is finding that he has to

accommodate to Europe, do deals with Europe, but of course by

breaking with the mainstream, which he did in 2005, the mainstream PVV

party, he lost his alliance. So he has to do it like cold-calling. I

do not think that is in the national interest, that is my main

point. But also it is a fact that because of people like Robert

pushing from the sidelines, the Tory party has become, essentially

Euro-sceptic. Are they pushing from the sidelines? I am not sure they

are in the way that you describe. Robert Kilroy-Silk. We have

majority opinion behind us. Edward, how can you deny your own Prime

Minister, who has never had a vote on whether or not we should be

members of the European... Anyone under 54 has never been allowed to

have a vote on whether we should be part of this imploding European

Union. How can you deny as a vote? Panos... The vote might go in

favour... Five what good is it to its if it implodes? -- What good is

it too as if it implodes? It would be a disaster for the United

Kingdom. They are incapable of sorting it out! Let him answer.

them get on with it. I believe what will happen is not so much economic

governance but economic government, because what you have now needs is

much more decisive economic management. The euro was set up

basically on false pretences by governments who didn't really

reckon with the reality of the markets. Now they are finding that

the market is pushing it around, and they have destabilise it by

having a tighter and tougher regime at the centre. We may not like it,

but that is what is necessary. that politically palatable? Will

the British people agree to tie Britain's interests closer or even

the eurozone to be tied closer when we have the risk of Greek the vault

around the corner which could lead to contagion and another banking

crisis? If it doesn't affect the UK directly. What affects the UK is

whether the euro gets into trouble. It is our major trading partner. We

need the single market. It is in deep trouble. I cannot give a toss

about the euro... Or why should we want to continue to be part of the

EU if it cannot solve a problem like Greece? As you rightly say, it

is an important problem and it will have an impact upon all of us, but

it is very simple, small, straightforward, it can be sorted

out. The Germans could sort it out tomorrow. Cheshire County Council

could probably give them a loan to sort it out, but they do not have

the political will, the leadership, the strategy, any concept of what

to do. Robert, you are creating a Trefoil cell. They cannot run

themselves! You are creating a Trefoil self. The answer is that

you do not want more Europe, but you are going to get it. We are not

part of it, but it is important to us that it succeeds and continues

to do well. It has managed to hold inflation, create 40 million jobs.

It is in crisis today, we do not dispute that, but I hope it will be

resolved quickly. Looking at the wider questions about Europe, the

single market, environment, trade, transport, all these matters that

have to be worked out between our continental partners, ourselves and

the Irish, these things require a framework, and that is the European

Union. If it did not exist, you would have to invent it. Who should

Euro-sceptic voters back nowadays? The Conservatives? UKIP? That is a

difficult question. If the Conservatives gave a commitment and

meant it and did not remain on their promises, if they gave a

commitment to hold a referendum, and in the absence of that, the

defeat of that, to repatriate sovereign powers, people should

vote Conservative, absolutely, because they can get the deal. But

what is wrong with actually asking people whether we want to be

lumbered with it? Why don't they trust us? Why don't they accept

that it is our country and our community and we have a right to

have a say? People under 54 have never had an opportunity to have a

voice. Can I make it quite clear... Very briefly. I am not opposed to a

referendum, nor is the Liberal Democrat party, but, but, but on

what basis? Maybe it should also be about in and out, aside from the

question of the referendum ballot paper. Thank you very much.

while we were discussing Europe, the new leader of Libya has praised

the brave support of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy for their help

end Libya. There is a report out today from

the Government's behaviour of insight team. -- behavioural. It

sounds vaguely Orwellian. It claims hundreds of millions of pounds can

be saved by nudging us out of our bad habits. Charles has taken to

the psychiatrist's Chair to make sense of it all.

And then of course my mother didn't really understand me. There is a

school of thought that things anyone who thinks psychology can

tell you anything about anything needs their head examining, but

frankly these days they are in a minority. Indeed, behaviour of

insights are now the very stuff of government, with, since July last

year, its own team. So what are they have they? They want to know

just, you know, nudge, minus the wink wink, say no more. The idea is

that to change behaviour without reward on centres, nor with fines

and punishments, but by making us think it was our idea to change in

the first place, persuade us that certain behaviours are simply not

acceptable and that he would feel somehow wrong doing them or better

if you change. Mergers that have worked, and you may have seen,

littering, signs saying, other people do not drop litter here. Tax

demands including explanations that most people had already paid, we do

believe, boosted repayment rates by 15%. Encouraging patients to read

back details of their appointments apparently boosted attendance by

30%. Nudging it as has entered the sphere of organ donation, food

choices and the environment. It is here to stay, although he does have

its critics, and there are those mumbo-jumbo. And there is one

question. If this is the GCap answer to changing the way we are

without being branded the nanny state, bare mind that analogy. The

matter may have changed, but Nanny is still in charge. My appointment

is 3pm next Thursday! The theory being that if you repeat

it, you are more likely to turn up. We are joined by the Government's

adviser on behavioural science. Professor Nick Chater, welcome.

Let's get this right, it is a way of cutting government spending

under the cover of American behavioural psychologist mumbo-

jumbo. Well, I think actually the main objective is not to cut

government spending but to employ what we know about the site of

human behaviour to design policies in a way that interact and

interface better with people. A good example would the road signs,

which we do not feel oppressed by off-field are much to do with

public spending. They are very carefully designed to help us

navigate our way around at the right speed and took part in

organised fashions rather than all around the car park. The general

spirit of that is that it should be applied more broadly in government,

all that is what the behaviour of insights seem things. And if you do

not follow those eyes, you get fined or go to jail! You need to do

research. One of the reasons that these insights are hard to come by

is that you need to try out different approaches and test them

out. The behaviour of Inside Sport inside steam. Insights. You have

got more than one inside? And not be represented to the team, I am an

academic on the board. The whole budget for the team is 500,000 per

year. Why are we smiling? Why are we taking this seriously? If it is

not a huge team. What have you achieved? Half a dozen nurses.

think there are two of three implemented acts, and one is

changing the way that organ donations are registered. When you

get a driving licence, you now have to make an explicit choice whether

you want to be on the register, whereas before you had to actively

say yes. In one case they put someone on without telling her.

is that a nudge and not just a change in the form? It is often

very subtle. One should not take nudges to exhaust everything that

behavioural insights cover, but they are very tiny changes that can

have a big impact. You can raise the number of people the register

by a factor of two earth by a subtle change of that time. We are

waiting to save. What is your view? I do not want somebody standing

over my shoulder nudging me for kicking me under the dinner table

to tell me what I should do or say. I have already got one of those, it

is called a wife. If charming. Leave us alone, please. Let's have

less government. We have only got a few minutes. Professor, has it got

a future? So I certainly, behavioural insights as a topic

have a large feature. Warwick Business School has a growing team

working on this. Every large corporate has a unit working on a

problem. If you take the scale of government in relation to the

amount of research in the corporate sector, we are under loaded in the

amount of behaviour is that we are trying to extract. Nudging you! The