:00:26. > :00:31.Good afternoon, live from the Lib Dem conference here in beautiful
:00:31. > :00:35.downtown Birmingham. The economy is taking centre stage yet again. The
:00:35. > :00:40.eurozone crisis continues to rumble to an uncertain climax, with Italy
:00:40. > :00:44.now firmly in the Cross says. It has joined the growing list of
:00:44. > :00:47.countries whose credit has been downgraded -- in the cross hairs.
:00:47. > :00:53.This is embarrassing for the Lib Dems because this party was once
:00:53. > :00:58.the most enthusiastic of all about joining the euro. We didn't, but we
:00:58. > :01:02.will still suffer from the fall-out. Smiling Vince Cable warned the
:01:02. > :01:07.eurozone crisis could push Britain back over the edge. He told a
:01:07. > :01:13.fringe event that the UK was facing a second financial crisis. He said
:01:13. > :01:18.it was possible we face years of stagnation. Nick Clegg had to spend
:01:18. > :01:21.this morning in his round of interviews defending the
:01:21. > :01:28.Government's's policy of deficit- reduction, despite its impact on
:01:28. > :01:33.growth, which is close to zero at the moment. Will be speaking to Tim
:01:33. > :01:38.Farron who has been busy denying that he wants to be the next leader
:01:38. > :01:44.of the party. We know what that rains. And we will be playing
:01:44. > :01:49.coalition life swap with the Tory backbencher, Peter Bone. It is of
:01:49. > :01:57.the scale, of the planet. I have no idea that they were so completely
:01:57. > :02:01.out of touch with reality. And if that wasn't enough, Jo is in London.
:02:01. > :02:05.Good morning. We are here but we are still talking about the Lib
:02:05. > :02:10.Dems, who are claiming victory in their battle over health reforms in
:02:10. > :02:14.England. Have they really saved the NHS? And the Energy Secretary gets
:02:14. > :02:24.tough with the gas and electricity companies, but will consumers be
:02:24. > :02:26.
:02:26. > :02:32.Thank you. Who better to kick off today's show than two of Her
:02:32. > :02:37.Majesty's finest members of the official press corps. Paul Waugh
:02:37. > :02:40.from Politics Home, that is a website. George Parker from my
:02:40. > :02:48.financial times, that is a newspaper. More Tory bashing, this
:02:48. > :02:53.time from the Tory bashing Chris Huhne. He does specialise in his
:02:53. > :02:58.favourite blood sport of Tory bashing. Is it making any impact in
:02:58. > :03:03.the real world? I suspect it is not. The conference will love everything
:03:03. > :03:08.he has got to say about comparing the right of the Tory party to the
:03:08. > :03:11.tea-party in the States. Chris Huhne has another game to play. He
:03:11. > :03:18.is addressing his remarks to the ball about possible leadership
:03:18. > :03:21.ambitions, who knows? -- to the hall. Positioning, for a meltdown
:03:21. > :03:25.of Mr Clegg? Chris Huhne has been in the running before a couple of
:03:25. > :03:29.times. Does anyone really think that he is going to stand again? I
:03:29. > :03:33.don't think anyone in the party thinks. Maybe Chris Huhne things.
:03:33. > :03:37.Certainly not Tim Farron who is the other on mobilising himself. I
:03:37. > :03:42.think they think there has been too much of this easy Tory bashing at
:03:42. > :03:47.this conference, and they are worried about this mare in wartime
:03:47. > :03:51.phenomenon. Where you are collaborating with the enemy,
:03:51. > :03:55.trying to make things worse than they otherwise would have been. It
:03:55. > :03:59.is dangerous, it looks like they are collaborating with the enemy. I
:04:00. > :04:05.think they want to get back more ownership of the programme. Chris
:04:05. > :04:10.Huhne has already likened the Tories to go balls, so liking them
:04:11. > :04:17.to -- Goebbels, so it likening them to Sarah Palin is probably an easy
:04:17. > :04:21.step. Chris Huhne knows what he's doing. He is one of the most ardent
:04:21. > :04:26.Europhiles in the party but he has had to amend his views. He knows
:04:26. > :04:31.that on the issue of Europe, Lib Dems still firmly have big issue --
:04:31. > :04:36.differences with the Tories. When it comes to European Human Rights,
:04:36. > :04:41.he is going to stand firm on that. It is interesting, because he is
:04:41. > :04:44.putting out these new feelers to the Labour Party. Last night he
:04:44. > :04:49.attended a fringe with John Denham. Next week there will be a reversal
:04:49. > :04:52.of that, he will go to Labour's conference with John Denham. There
:04:52. > :04:57.were over chose last night about not closing of that route for the
:04:57. > :05:01.future. There is no doubt when you speak to the rank and file, here,
:05:01. > :05:05.they may not be representative of Lib Dem voters, because party
:05:05. > :05:08.conferences are not, but most people here, if they had to be in
:05:08. > :05:12.coalition, would rather be in coalition with Labour than the
:05:12. > :05:15.Tories. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Most Lib Dem
:05:15. > :05:18.marginal seats are against the Tories, most people have spent
:05:18. > :05:22.their political lifetime fighting the Tories and would consider
:05:22. > :05:27.themselves a left-leaning party. The fact is, they often don't have
:05:27. > :05:31.a choice when it comes to coalition forming. They did not have a choice
:05:31. > :05:34.in May 2010 and they may not have a prize at the next election. I think
:05:34. > :05:39.that is why Clegg and his entourage do not like we talk about divorced
:05:39. > :05:44.from the Tories. Tim Farron has talked about that, why would you do
:05:44. > :05:47.that? Unless it was political posturing and positioning. It is
:05:47. > :05:51.positioning. The reason for choosing Tim Farron is ditching the
:05:51. > :05:54.coalition with the Conservative Party. He takes on the party when
:05:54. > :05:57.everything goes sour with the Conservatives, or if Nick Clegg
:05:57. > :06:04.finds it impossible to work with the Labour Party. It is looking a
:06:04. > :06:09.long way down the track. There is a dark cloud. The eurozone crisis is
:06:09. > :06:12.a particular problem for this party. Like your newspaper, you and the
:06:12. > :06:17.Lib Dems were enthusiastic supporters of us joining the euro.
:06:17. > :06:22.And it is not a great position in retrospect to have fouled, is it?
:06:22. > :06:26.Indeed. I think that is a fair point about the FT and the Liberal
:06:26. > :06:31.Democrats. The Liberal Democrats are an international party, but at
:06:31. > :06:35.grassroots level there is a lot of scepticism. I am from the West
:06:35. > :06:38.Country and most people in the West Country are probably not aware the
:06:38. > :06:42.Liberal Democrats are pro-European, they don't like to talk about it
:06:42. > :06:47.much and did not at the last election. Something has struck me
:06:47. > :06:51.very much. Vince Cable, you would not mistake for a ray of sunshine.
:06:51. > :06:54.He was very gloomy in his speech yesterday, even more gloomy at the
:06:54. > :06:59.fringe event last night, talking about potentially years of
:06:59. > :07:05.stagnation. It seems to me, this conference hasn't yet thought
:07:05. > :07:09.through the political implications of if he is right. I think that is
:07:09. > :07:12.right. There is a curious disconnect between Nick Clegg's
:07:12. > :07:17.message to the party, reasons to be cheerful is what he was trying to
:07:17. > :07:20.save. We are in government, doing things, delivering. But that is
:07:20. > :07:25.nowhere to be seen on the big issue of the economy. For the next three
:07:25. > :07:28.years, they will have to negotiate how to dig in during these times.
:07:28. > :07:33.If Mr Cable is right and there are years of stagnation ahead, they are
:07:33. > :07:36.close. I think you might be right. They have a real problem put up
:07:36. > :07:40.they were sold this proposition, two years of pain and three years
:07:40. > :07:44.of recovery leading up to growth of about 3% a year by election year,
:07:44. > :07:48.which is not going to happen. The Liberal Democrats trade on optimism
:07:48. > :07:54.will do if you go into the next election in a gloomy economic
:07:54. > :07:56.situation, that is pretty bad politically for them. I don't think
:07:56. > :08:00.they have thought of the consequences. We will leave it
:08:00. > :08:04.there. A pleasure to have you with us. The party has been giving
:08:04. > :08:08.itself a bit of a pat on the back. All parties do that. When they last
:08:08. > :08:12.gathered in March, they were in rebellious mood. They wanted big
:08:12. > :08:17.changes to the government's NHS reform bill, even though they had
:08:17. > :08:20.signed up to it. There was what was called a pause, changes to the Bill
:08:20. > :08:23.and some satisfaction from the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg and his health
:08:23. > :08:30.minister, Paul Burstow, will visit a local hospital in Birmingham
:08:30. > :08:34.today. Have the Lib Dems really got their way? On these NHS reforms?
:08:34. > :08:37.They would like to think so, wouldn't they? Or that the health
:08:38. > :08:41.service in England is safer with the Lib Dems partially in charge.
:08:41. > :08:45.One of the Prime Minister's most eye-catching pre-election pledges
:08:46. > :08:48.was to protect NHS spending in England from the cuts. This was
:08:48. > :08:58.enshrined in the coalition agreement with Lib Dem partners
:08:58. > :08:58.
:08:58. > :09:03.Last year, the Chancellor promised a 0.4% rise in real terms. Rising
:09:03. > :09:08.inflation, even higher rates of health inflation and factors like
:09:08. > :09:12.VAT increase have wiped out this increase. The NHS chief executive
:09:12. > :09:17.has said the service will meet savings of �20 billion by 2014, in
:09:17. > :09:21.order to standstill, representing a 4% cut a year. This money would be
:09:21. > :09:25.used to fund the rising cost of drugs and other cost pressures. The
:09:25. > :09:31.NHS's budget overall will therefore remain essentially flat. In April
:09:31. > :09:34.this year, the health regulation -- regulator, Monitor, said it
:09:34. > :09:38.expected NHS Trusts to make savings of up to 7% each year to balance
:09:38. > :09:42.their books, because of the higher than expected rate of inflation.
:09:42. > :09:47.This means more hospital reorganisation and jobs cuts in the
:09:47. > :09:50.hunt for greater efficiency. The Royal College of Nursing has
:09:50. > :09:55.identified 40,000 posts to be closed, and those calling for
:09:55. > :09:58.radical reform of the NHS see the government's water down health
:09:58. > :10:04.reforms as a missed opportunity to tackle a growing financial crisis.
:10:04. > :10:07.The government again to save �70 billion in the turn of the
:10:07. > :10:11.parliament and nothing has happened in the first two years of
:10:11. > :10:15.government, the savings won't have been made. If we talk about this in
:10:15. > :10:25.year-on-year terms, it is �5 billion a year that the government
:10:25. > :10:29.That is not being saved through efficiency which means it will come
:10:29. > :10:33.in the form of salami-slicing, and probably big shops across the
:10:33. > :10:37.service, which will be very destructive. I caught up with G
:10:37. > :10:41.political adviser to Nick Clegg, Norman Lamb, and asked him if
:10:41. > :10:44.delaying the NHS Bill had meant the creation of far more layers of
:10:44. > :10:49.bureaucracy -- chief political adviser. I don't think so, there
:10:49. > :10:53.are always risks of that. I think we have improved the governance and
:10:53. > :10:57.accountability of the NHS. People want to know that the health
:10:57. > :11:00.services that are provided for the community, that the people
:11:00. > :11:03.providing those services are accountable to that community. I
:11:03. > :11:10.think we have improved that significantly. The big concern that
:11:10. > :11:12.I had was what I saw as a sort of headlong rush to imposing a
:11:13. > :11:22.complete the strobed dream of commissioning across the whole NHS,
:11:23. > :11:24.
:11:24. > :11:28.According to the Royal College of GPs and even the Department of
:11:28. > :11:32.Health, not having that headlong rush, making it evolutionary, is
:11:33. > :11:37.going to cost the NHS. The chairman of the Royal College of GPs says
:11:37. > :11:41.the number of statutory organisations will go from 163, to
:11:41. > :11:49.521, and that the savings from these reforms will be �700 million
:11:49. > :11:55.less. There are more organisations, in that you have smaller groups of
:11:55. > :12:00.clinical commissioners. Which will cost more? Well... I don't think it
:12:00. > :12:05.necessarily well. I think there is a very good case for engaging
:12:05. > :12:09.general practitioners far more closely in the decisions about the
:12:09. > :12:14.care of their patience. At the moment, GPs have no role at all
:12:14. > :12:17.about the cost of the care provided to their patience, and giving them
:12:17. > :12:21.both the power and responsibility and accountability for making those
:12:21. > :12:25.decisions is part of making the NHS more effective and efficient.
:12:25. > :12:29.Improving care, but making the money go further. Why does the
:12:29. > :12:38.chair of the Royal College of GPs say that now we have a new system
:12:38. > :12:42.like spaghetti Junction? That is her view of it. The former head of
:12:42. > :12:46.the Royal College of GPs was the head of the listening exercise that
:12:46. > :12:51.led to the changes that have been made. There are different views
:12:51. > :12:55.within the NHS. I think the overwhelming view, actually, is
:12:55. > :13:03.that we need to stop the endless debate about this bill, get it
:13:03. > :13:08.through and make it work, because the biggest threat to the NHS is
:13:08. > :13:10.achieving the �20 billion of efficiency savings set by Labour.
:13:10. > :13:15.It is necessary, even though we are ring-fencing the NHS, because every
:13:15. > :13:21.year, in every developed country, costs keep writing because an
:13:21. > :13:25.ageing population. You are sticking to that �20 billion worth of
:13:25. > :13:28.savings. Do you think that is now feasible, when the Department of
:13:28. > :13:33.Health impact assessment has said savings from NHS reforms have now
:13:33. > :13:39.gone down by �700 million? Your budget intervention has basically
:13:39. > :13:44.cost the NHS �700 million? reason why I want this debate to
:13:44. > :13:49.end and to get it through... But do you accept the costs have gone up?
:13:49. > :13:53.I don't know what those specific figures are. All I know is that
:13:53. > :13:58.changes to the Bill were necessary to safeguard the NHS. It would have
:13:58. > :14:03.been madness to do this headlong rush to a new system, without any
:14:03. > :14:06.evidence about how it is going to work. Evidence from the United
:14:06. > :14:11.States suggests that you could end up with the commissioning groups
:14:11. > :14:15.going bankrupt. We would not want that, because we have to safeguard
:14:15. > :14:19.patient services. That is critical. We must learn as we go along, on a
:14:19. > :14:23.more evolutionary approach. Do you think it is feasible to make those
:14:23. > :14:30.savings by 2014? It is a very tough challenge, it has never been
:14:30. > :14:34.achieved in the past. So, no? have to focus the entire service on
:14:34. > :14:38.achieving that level of saving and if we don't, it services will be
:14:38. > :14:45.lost. It becomes applet in Paris -- imperative that we focus the
:14:45. > :14:49.service on achieving it. Because of rising inflation, it has all been
:14:49. > :14:56.wiped out, so you have broken a key for edge in terms of money going
:14:56. > :14:59.into the NHS? -- key pledge. alternative offered by Labour was
:14:59. > :15:07.no ring-fencing of the NHS spent at all for we are talking about your
:15:07. > :15:14.You make judgments about the level of spend, on the basis of the level
:15:14. > :15:19.of inflation anticipated at that stage. We have been faced with
:15:19. > :15:25.higher levels of inflation unexpected because of global
:15:25. > :15:27.commodity prices. -- than expected. It reinforces the case for
:15:27. > :15:34.achieving these efficiency savings and getting the whole service
:15:34. > :15:44.focused. Norman Lamb, speaking to me earlier.
:15:44. > :15:44.
:15:44. > :15:48.Back to Andrew in Birmingham. Get your crystal-ball cert, just
:15:48. > :15:52.John Crystal once, I gaze deeply into them, I imagine it is made
:15:52. > :15:57.2015, we had just had a general election, yet again it is a hung
:15:57. > :16:02.parliament! They do not come for years and then two come along at
:16:02. > :16:06.once. Who would the Lib Dems pair up with, their trusted friends, the
:16:06. > :16:11.Conservatives? For what they want to try something new with their old
:16:11. > :16:15.mates, Labour? We send Adam with his mood box to see what the party
:16:15. > :16:19.faithful thought. Come and have a look, it is the
:16:19. > :16:23.famous Daily Politics mood box. For the first quiz of 2011, we are
:16:23. > :16:27.asking people to look forward to the general election of 2015.
:16:27. > :16:30.Imagine Labour and the Tories have the same number of seats and the
:16:30. > :16:38.same share of the vote. We will ask delegates who they would like to go
:16:38. > :16:41.in coalition with. We have got 33 different policies at the moment,
:16:41. > :16:47.and if that trend continues and we see an improvement in the economy,
:16:47. > :16:51.we would stay with the Tories. First Labour voter, why is that?
:16:51. > :16:56.come from a Labour. Bermondsey has been a traditional Labour seat
:16:56. > :17:03.until Simon Hughes took over. We do not have a lot of luck with the
:17:03. > :17:07.Tories, and I am more left than right-wing Tory views. It is a
:17:07. > :17:15.dilemma, because we seem to be working with the Tories, but I do
:17:15. > :17:19.not like their policies. Why do you say the Tories? The Tories we have
:17:19. > :17:23.learned to work with, and this is just a first Parliament. Once you
:17:23. > :17:29.have learned to work with a partner, I think you should not rush to
:17:29. > :17:33.ditch them. I think my heart would like to go Labour, but
:17:33. > :17:40.practicalities, I think it would have to be the Tories. With a heavy
:17:40. > :17:44.heart, you are doing that. Yes. have cancelled each other out,
:17:44. > :17:48.thank you very much! I am not putting my ball in either of those,
:17:48. > :17:53.because I think it is a false question, OK? Are you going to put
:17:53. > :18:03.it back in the basket? It depends entirely on people's manifestos.
:18:03. > :18:12.
:18:12. > :18:19.Thank you very much. Run-a-ball for Why do you say Labour? Because I do
:18:19. > :18:24.not think the Tories should exist at all. Labour? Oh, so you would
:18:24. > :18:29.rather ditch them. I would ditch them tomorrow if I could. We will
:18:29. > :18:33.be seen more of you today. Yes, later on, I've been so. Have you
:18:33. > :18:38.been enjoying it? It has been interesting. We have had quite a
:18:38. > :18:40.lot of people voting with their balls, and it looks like Labour are
:18:41. > :18:48.edging it, that people are not keen and answering the question at this
:18:48. > :18:58.conference. Pop it in the slot, it is 2015, another hung parliament.
:18:58. > :18:58.
:18:58. > :19:04.B is in the middle, but it is rolling towards the Tories. It is a
:19:04. > :19:12.tough dilemma. It is tough! I am not going to do it. A beastly
:19:12. > :19:17.question! It is a beastly business. I am a two-ball person. They say
:19:17. > :19:22.Tessa Munt has got balls, she has. Is it a dilemma, answering a
:19:22. > :19:26.question like this? I think there are good things and all the parties.
:19:26. > :19:30.They all have something to offer. When you look at the final result,
:19:30. > :19:35.the balls do not life, what you think that says about the state of
:19:35. > :19:40.your party today? The Liberal Democrat Laura Heart beats on the
:19:40. > :19:45.left, we all know that. We are radical, progressives. When we come
:19:45. > :19:50.from a social democratic background or a liberal background, most of us
:19:50. > :19:53.are not Conservatives. You know what they say, the balls never lie,
:19:53. > :19:57.and this is the final result, a clear majority of delegates would
:19:57. > :20:03.prefer to go into coalition with Labour in the event of a hung
:20:03. > :20:07.parliament in 2015. Only four years to wait to find out!
:20:07. > :20:11.The interesting to see that Vince Cable rolled towards the Tories! I
:20:11. > :20:15.do not know what it means, but it was interesting. We are joined by
:20:15. > :20:18.the President of the Lib Dems, Tim Farron. Welcome to the Daily
:20:18. > :20:24.Politics Conference special. You have said that as far as the
:20:24. > :20:27.coalition is concerned, divorce is inevitable. Why? It is a fixed-term
:20:27. > :20:35.parliaments to 2015, and the partners will go their separate
:20:35. > :20:40.ways. It could happen, but... is not a divorce, or collisions
:20:40. > :20:46.separate at the election, but you do not rule out coming back. -- for
:20:46. > :20:51.coalitions. I do not rule it out. So why is divorce inevitable and it
:20:51. > :20:54.this is a temporary marriage? are an independent party. We want
:20:54. > :20:58.to win the general election outright. If that does not happen,
:20:58. > :21:03.you have to be big enough to look at the arithmetic. If the next
:21:03. > :21:07.election produces a result with the consent as has the largest party
:21:07. > :21:12.and with your vote can form a government, as they do now, are you
:21:12. > :21:17.ruling out renewing the coalition? Of course not. So it is not
:21:17. > :21:22.divorce! It is not a marriage either, it was a good excuse to
:21:22. > :21:26.tell and Eric Pickles Joe. So the words do not mean anything. It is a
:21:26. > :21:30.temporary arrangement. Whatever happens, whenever the next general
:21:30. > :21:34.election... Five years is not temporary, it is longer than most
:21:34. > :21:39.marriages these days! It is important that it is a full five
:21:39. > :21:43.years. You look in your crystal ball, it is interesting to see what
:21:43. > :21:47.arithmetic you get out of it, but I am certain the British people,
:21:47. > :21:52.whatever my political views, want a stable government to see us through
:21:52. > :21:56.bleak times. I understand that, but when you said divorce is inevitable,
:21:56. > :22:01.you were just plain to the gallery. I was saying that this is not a
:22:01. > :22:06.permanent arrangement, not a merger. Nobody ever said it was a merger.
:22:06. > :22:11.Nobody has ever claimed this was a merger of the parties. Both are of
:22:11. > :22:15.parties tonight there will even be an electoral pact. That is
:22:15. > :22:20.absolutely so. If you look at Polly Toynbee, he will write week after
:22:20. > :22:24.week about how the Lib Dems have changed their politics, that is rot,
:22:24. > :22:30.and it was a crude way of putting it. You say it is wrong, but the
:22:30. > :22:34.last time I looked, Polly Toynbee wrote for the Guardian. I am a
:22:34. > :22:39.Guardian reader, I am. Which means that in your heart are parts, if
:22:39. > :22:44.you had a choice, all things being equal, you would rather share power
:22:44. > :22:47.with Labour than the Conservatives. Admit it! No A. We are an
:22:47. > :22:50.independent party. What I have always found it difficult to
:22:50. > :22:54.understand is that you cannot really trust that the Liberal
:22:54. > :22:59.Democrats are Liberal Democrats. I wanted to join the Labour Party, I
:22:59. > :23:04.would have done. I am saying that there is a Guardian reader, a man
:23:04. > :23:08.on the left, you would rather, all things being equal, share power and
:23:08. > :23:12.be in coalition with Labour. If all things being equal, I would rather
:23:12. > :23:18.win a general election. The bat that is not going to happen.
:23:18. > :23:26.instead, the Said, sort it out. They gave us arithmetic which
:23:26. > :23:30.pointed in just one direction. Am I not being honest? The why can't you
:23:30. > :23:34.just say, I know the reasons we have to be in power with the
:23:34. > :23:40.Tories? All things being equal, I would rather share power with
:23:40. > :23:43.Labour if I had to share power with anyone. Correct? Off no. The bottom
:23:43. > :23:47.line is that you look at the circumstances you are given. I'm
:23:47. > :23:49.sure that we did the right thing going into coalition, and the only
:23:49. > :23:55.option was to go with the Conservative Party. With Labour we
:23:55. > :24:00.would have been short of a majority. The Tories would have won and
:24:00. > :24:02.October general election. I want to look for. The mood box showed that
:24:02. > :24:07.the rank-and-file at this conference would rather be closer
:24:07. > :24:10.to Labour than the Tories. I think your mood box showed that there
:24:10. > :24:19.were lots of people who did not want to put a ball Ni the box.
:24:19. > :24:23.know that! It is a false question. Ming Campbell said that he saw
:24:23. > :24:26.Labour as the most natural coalition party. Paddy Ashdown said
:24:26. > :24:32.that a committee with Labour. Matthew Oakeshott said that the
:24:32. > :24:39.party's heart beats to the left. Why are you saying that black is
:24:39. > :24:42.white? Politics is an axis of horizontal and vertical, and the
:24:42. > :24:46.interventionists and the three market. To say that we are just one
:24:46. > :24:52.place along that line is just inaccurate and incorrect. When all
:24:52. > :24:55.is said and done, I did not expect to have an easy ride with the
:24:55. > :25:00.Liberals, it was not a good career move, but I wanted my politics to
:25:00. > :25:04.prevail. Sometimes you have to go into collision to make that happen.
:25:04. > :25:09.-- coalition. If you have described the Tories as witless and
:25:09. > :25:14.reactionary. Which ones? I referred to some of the remarks made by some
:25:14. > :25:17.Conservative writers in a newspaper's... No, you did not talk
:25:17. > :25:23.about conservative writers. You thought about the Tories. What
:25:23. > :25:28.regards to the riots, some of the responses that were made from
:25:28. > :25:33.people, David Starkey, who support of the Conservative Party. He is
:25:33. > :25:36.not a Conservative MP. I did not say MPs. You will say that there
:25:36. > :25:43.are plenty of people and views expressed by the likes of the Daily
:25:43. > :25:48.Mail, even the Murdoch press have made comments at this time. So has
:25:48. > :25:53.you wriggle out of this, when you describe the Tories as witless and
:25:53. > :25:57.reactionary, you were not describing any Conservative MPs.
:25:57. > :26:01.Let's go back to the riots, six for seven weeks ago. Those were
:26:01. > :26:05.absolutely appalling, and I am certain that I was not certain what
:26:05. > :26:08.the causes were. I'm certain that we have to listen to people to make
:26:08. > :26:14.sure our response is considered and thought for. There are some people
:26:14. > :26:20.on the right, you will have interviewed them... Name names!
:26:20. > :26:24.Starkey, bless him. He is not a Conservative MP. Those people have
:26:24. > :26:29.decided to pour petrol on the flames of discontent by invoking
:26:29. > :26:33.racial stereotypes. Am I not right to bring attention to that? Who are
:26:33. > :26:38.the ideological descendants of people who send children up
:26:38. > :26:42.chimneys? Who are they? Those were Vince's comments yesterday. All of
:26:42. > :26:46.us wants to, I hope, get rid of the red tape that strangles businesses,
:26:46. > :26:49.but we must not get mixed up between that red tape which
:26:49. > :26:52.strangles business and that red tape that actually protects
:26:52. > :26:55.people's basic rights in the workplace. Could you remind us who
:26:55. > :27:03.got rid of children going up chimneys but a marked I imagine it
:27:03. > :27:07.was the Liberals. It was Lord Shaftesbury, a Tory. So there are
:27:07. > :27:11.these ideological descendants, your old Liberal Party? Lots of people
:27:11. > :27:15.would rather get rid of tape, and it is easy to be populist, and it
:27:15. > :27:21.is tempting to say things about red tape, but we are talking about
:27:21. > :27:26.things that protect basic liberties and freedoms. It is a cheap shot
:27:26. > :27:30.that you made, saying it was people who wanted to assess children up
:27:30. > :27:37.chimneys. Vince Cable has said that we could be heading for a prolonged
:27:37. > :27:41.period a stagnation. What are the political consequences of that? If
:27:41. > :27:46.you hit 2015 and we are still in stagnation, and literally, you are
:27:46. > :27:52.toast. We all know that this is a unbelievably difficult period. I
:27:52. > :27:54.have quoted Mervyn King before, he said that whoever took power in
:27:54. > :27:57.2010 would be out of power subsequently because of the
:27:57. > :28:02.horrible decisions they would have to make. The rules are normally
:28:02. > :28:06.have for five generations, so one is a good deal. Whoever is in power
:28:06. > :28:11.has to take horrific decisions. The exit from this or for period, I
:28:11. > :28:16.cannot predict when it is him to be. I believe that it will be in
:28:16. > :28:20.advance of 2015. The consequences of the Liberal Democrats could be
:28:20. > :28:24.very large, but the consequences of this country of ours not been
:28:24. > :28:27.mature and maintaining a stable coalition, despite having
:28:27. > :28:31.disagreements with the Tories, would be much greater, and in that
:28:31. > :28:35.sense we are doing the right thing. Look me in the eye and be honest
:28:35. > :28:39.with me, all this Tory bashing, divorce is inevitable, witless and
:28:39. > :28:43.reactionary. Tories that he cannot name, you are just positioning
:28:43. > :28:48.yourself to pick out the leadership if the coalition goes pear-shaped.
:28:48. > :28:53.No, OK? You do not want to be leader of the Lib Dems? I have no
:28:53. > :28:57.such ambition. Will not accept? Certainly not. You will refuse the
:28:57. > :29:04.leadership? It is not going to come up. Nick Clegg is doing a brilliant
:29:04. > :29:08.job. You would refuse? Yes. Not only is Nick Clegg doing a great
:29:08. > :29:12.job, but he deserves my support. What does Tim Farron wants to be
:29:12. > :29:17.when he grows up? Simon Hughes. that really your ambition? That
:29:17. > :29:22.should be everybody's ambition. That is as far as it goes?
:29:22. > :29:28.should be yours. Would you like this I love the euro that? Would
:29:28. > :29:32.you like to wear that? I will not wear it! All your party manifesto
:29:32. > :29:37.said that he wanted to join. It is in a difficult position at the
:29:37. > :29:42.moment. I love tuition fees! I do not love tuition fees. You voted
:29:42. > :29:50.for them. I did not, I would like to get rid of them. Maybe this is
:29:50. > :29:54.the best on, don't panic. I would say panic constructively. Next!
:29:54. > :29:57.would say calm down to a panic. Thank you for being with us and is
:29:57. > :30:01.thus will show from Birmingham. Last year the Liberal Democrat
:30:01. > :30:06.conference we decided to cause a bit our mischief, it surprised me,
:30:06. > :30:13.too! We brought a Conservative MP along to see what he made of it all,
:30:13. > :30:16.and this year we thought of a better gimmick and we send a former
:30:16. > :30:21.England football manager along. None of them would do it, so we got
:30:21. > :30:31.the next best thing, lookalike Peter Bone, who moonlights in
:30:31. > :30:43.
:30:43. > :30:47.I am sometimes mistaken for a formal England football team
:30:47. > :30:50.manager. One thing you will never mistake me for is a Liberal
:30:50. > :30:54.Democrat. They may be in government but they are certainly not playing
:30:54. > :31:01.for the team. Last week was my wedding
:31:01. > :31:07.anniversary and I forget. Our -- I forgot. I am in the doghouse. What
:31:07. > :31:17.more can I get for Mrs Bone than a Liberal Democrat bear? I'm going to
:31:17. > :31:23.
:31:23. > :31:31.Here we are. Liberal Democrat stand on Europe. No views, no position
:31:31. > :31:37.whatsoever, completely in line with the leadership.... Separate retail
:31:37. > :31:41.and concede a banking must be put in place. -- casino banking.
:31:41. > :31:48.Legislation will start soon and it will be completed within this
:31:48. > :31:54.Parliament. I heard nothing that would help
:31:54. > :32:04.Britain get going. As far as I'm concerned, as far as Vince Cable, I
:32:04. > :32:09.
:32:09. > :32:13.I am sure everybody in here heard a Vince Cable setting it straight.
:32:13. > :32:16.Absolutely outstanding. I wished the whole world was taking notice
:32:16. > :32:24.and listening to every word of that. I think it justified what we are
:32:24. > :32:29.doing. I have just listened to what the priorities for the Liberal
:32:29. > :32:34.Party are for the government. Legalising cannabis, it women
:32:34. > :32:38.shortlists and closer ties with Europe. It is off the scale, off
:32:38. > :32:44.the planet, I had no idea they were so completely out of touch with
:32:44. > :32:48.reality. The Liberal Party as a whole must have a yellow card.
:32:48. > :32:53.Is it worth it, being in government? Absolutely. It means we
:32:53. > :32:56.can get our agenda as government policy, which we are doing. You
:32:56. > :33:00.heard our Deputy Prime Minister say we are punching way above our
:33:00. > :33:04.weight. We did a compromise, which should have been called a graduate
:33:05. > :33:08.tax. That is what it is, in effect. And we get the blame, because we
:33:08. > :33:12.are the ones who said we wouldn't. The others were going to do it
:33:12. > :33:16.anyway. I feel quite bad about that. There are lots of issues that we
:33:16. > :33:22.have put forward. Those are the issues that we wouldn't have been
:33:22. > :33:26.able to have any impact on, if we were not in government. But is it
:33:26. > :33:29.for today, delegates going off. I have been struck by how many of
:33:29. > :33:33.them want to stay in government. They would rather be in government
:33:33. > :33:36.than stick up for their policies. That seemed very strange for me.
:33:36. > :33:39.Many are very happy with what the Conservatives are doing. I should
:33:39. > :33:43.have brought some Conservative membership forms, signed them up
:33:43. > :33:50.and then they could be really part of the Conservative Party, not just
:33:50. > :33:55.in coalition. I am joined by Sven-Goran Eriksson,
:33:55. > :34:00.also known as the Conservative MP, Peter Bone, and by Don Foster, the
:34:00. > :34:04.Lib Dem MP who will be going to the Conservative conference for us in a
:34:04. > :34:08.spirit of mutual coalition liking. Are you having that for lunch?
:34:09. > :34:13.is to get me out of trouble with my wife as I forgot her anniversary.
:34:13. > :34:16.You have already brought your wife in to the interview. She is an
:34:16. > :34:21.important person. I don't know why you don't have her on instead of
:34:21. > :34:24.you. Indeed. What do you make of your coalition buddies? They did
:34:24. > :34:27.not seem to be much Tory bashing when I talked to the
:34:27. > :34:30.representatives. I was amazed how many people want to be in
:34:31. > :34:35.government, they like what the Conservatives are doing. Why don't
:34:35. > :34:39.they become Conservatives? There was nobody with beards and sandals
:34:39. > :34:43.complaining, nobody thought they should not be in the coalition. I
:34:44. > :34:48.was pleasantly surprised. This is not the same Peter Bone who was on
:34:48. > :34:51.Newsnight last night, when he said, you have tainted the Tory brand,
:34:51. > :35:00.you have stop us doing so many things, you are pulling above your
:35:00. > :35:04.weight. You are getting much of your own way. They give you a bear
:35:04. > :35:08.and you changed your tune? I had to pay for it, and they didn't give me
:35:08. > :35:11.the right change, but that is another matter. I think they are
:35:11. > :35:15.pulling above their weight, making government policy worse and the
:35:15. > :35:21.sooner the coalition can end, the better. I am for the divorce that
:35:21. > :35:25.Tim Farron was talking about. is a slight snag because before you
:35:25. > :35:30.can end so coalition, you have to win an overall majority, which is
:35:30. > :35:35.what your party spectacularly failed to do. You have to say it
:35:35. > :35:38.was a pretty impressive result. Really? Coming from behind to be
:35:38. > :35:42.effectively in government. But you are right, we should have done much
:35:42. > :35:47.better. I don't think being in coalition adds to our prospects.
:35:47. > :35:50.Let's get on, become independent parties, argue the case and have a
:35:50. > :35:55.general election. You will become independent parties for the
:35:55. > :35:58.election, no one is arguing that. Do you agree with Tim Farron that
:35:58. > :36:08.the voice is inevitable? When we get to the end of the five-year
:36:08. > :36:09.
:36:10. > :36:13.period, we will go our separate As Tim was saying to you earlier,
:36:13. > :36:16.you look at these circumstances, you look at what the opportunities
:36:16. > :36:21.are to get the maximum Liberal Democrat policies through. That is
:36:21. > :36:24.what we will be following the outcome of the election, if no one
:36:24. > :36:30.party is in overall control. As the government batted -- benefited in
:36:30. > :36:33.any way? One big benefit is that we are working together to solve the
:36:33. > :36:39.economic crisis, that is what the coalition is about. You mean your
:36:39. > :36:46.air-raid shelter? I think they were brave to come in and both parties
:36:46. > :36:50.have taken difficult decisions. We are both suffering in the polls.
:36:50. > :36:56.Once that is done, what is the point of having a false marriage
:36:56. > :36:59.when there is no need for it? is the point? The country needs
:36:59. > :37:03.economic stability at the current time. One of the great things about
:37:03. > :37:07.having the coalition is it has given us that stability and kept
:37:07. > :37:10.interest rates down, so we are not spending on paying off the debt of
:37:10. > :37:15.this country and paying the interest. Anything like many other
:37:15. > :37:21.countries are having to do, because we have got the stability. Are you
:37:21. > :37:31.happy the Lib Dems seem to have moved you away on the euro? It's --
:37:31. > :37:35.
:37:35. > :37:38.moved your way. I am not sure if I think the Liberal Party has one
:37:38. > :37:42.really good policy, to have a referendum of whether we should be
:37:42. > :37:47.in or out of the EU. I don't understand why the Conservatives
:37:47. > :37:51.have not adopted that. It is your party's fault. Absolutely and they
:37:51. > :38:01.need to change their mind. Have you spoken to the wife? She is fully
:38:01. > :38:15.
:38:15. > :38:18.behind that and I think we will John Pugh is co-chair of the bank
:38:18. > :38:23.spent -- the backbench Health Committee. He says these health
:38:23. > :38:28.reforms, even with the changes, are a major strategic mistake. John has
:38:28. > :38:33.been very outspoken from the very beginning. He has played a key role
:38:33. > :38:37.in helping to ensure many of the changes... You are quite right, he
:38:37. > :38:41.has made it clear from the outset that even if we could improve them
:38:41. > :38:45.in the way we have thought, something Peter acknowledged last
:38:45. > :38:50.night again on Newsnight, but John is entitled to his own view.
:38:50. > :38:53.says it is going to damage the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. Well,
:38:53. > :38:57.that is his view. He has been outspoken, he doesn't like the
:38:57. > :39:05.health reforms, he has said that consistently, it voted against them
:39:05. > :39:10.in the House of Commons. He is a Are these health reforms worth the
:39:10. > :39:13.candle now that the Lib Dems have succeeded in watering them down.
:39:13. > :39:17.They have been watered down and I disagree that they have been
:39:17. > :39:22.improved, they have gone in the wrong direction. We are getting rid
:39:22. > :39:25.of PCTs, but if you have had a Tory government, you would have proper
:39:25. > :39:29.reforms. Watering down and compromise is not what the British
:39:29. > :39:32.people want, and that is why we need to default on the coalition.
:39:32. > :39:36.You are accepting that even though you don't like all of it, they are
:39:36. > :39:41.a step in the right direction. They are democratising the health
:39:41. > :39:48.service... Andrew Lansley's proposals, watered down. Would you
:39:48. > :39:54.like a badge? There is none that I would like. What about I love the
:39:54. > :39:58.euro? At the moment, it would be very bad news for us. These badges
:39:58. > :40:01.are not going very well. I can see that. There is still the
:40:01. > :40:04.rest of the week. The Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, is
:40:04. > :40:09.delivering a less than coded warning to Conservative
:40:10. > :40:15.backbenchers, agitating for action on Europe and tax cuts for the rich.
:40:15. > :40:19.He is calling them -- action on tax cuts for the rich. He's calling
:40:19. > :40:23.them the Conservative tea-party. He turned to more everyday concerns
:40:23. > :40:29.like the increasing cost of boiling a kettle. He attacked the gas and
:40:29. > :40:34.electricity companies for stifling competition. World gas and
:40:34. > :40:40.electricity prices have leapt by a third, thanks to Libya and Far
:40:40. > :40:45.Eastern Growth. Global factors. We should surely try to limit our
:40:45. > :40:49.dependence on oil and gas, not increase it, particularly as our
:40:49. > :40:56.own North Sea resources are running down. In the storm-tossed seas we
:40:56. > :41:00.have defile, low carbon energy gives us security, insurance and
:41:00. > :41:09.safety -- we have to sail. British consumers will on average be better
:41:09. > :41:15.off in 2020, thanks to our low off. Because getting off the oil
:41:15. > :41:20.and gas price hook and on to clean, green energy, makes sense. With
:41:20. > :41:26.energy saving, we can offset the effects of higher prices, and end
:41:27. > :41:36.up with lower bills. And in one generation, we will go from fossil
:41:37. > :41:40.
:41:40. > :41:45.fuels smokestack, too low carbon But there is hardship now, and we
:41:45. > :41:49.are determined to help. Higher energy bills hurt, none of us
:41:49. > :41:54.should have to save on warmth in a cold winter. Some of the most
:41:54. > :41:59.vulnerable and elderly will shiver and worse if we do not help. That
:41:59. > :42:03.is why this government is boosting by two-thirds the discounts to help
:42:04. > :42:12.people in fuel poverty. Why our Warm Homes discount is a statutory
:42:12. > :42:16.scheme, not a grace and favour hand out relying on good will. That is
:42:16. > :42:21.also why this government will make those in fuel poverty a top
:42:21. > :42:25.priority for the green deal, helped by our because subsidy. Improving
:42:25. > :42:32.people's homes, after all, cuts fuel poverty for ever, while a
:42:32. > :42:39.discount only cuts fuel poverty for a year. And year after year, fuel
:42:39. > :42:42.poverty rose under Labour. Now we are helping the poor wear label --
:42:42. > :42:52.where Labour flannel, we are acting where Labour talks and we are
:42:52. > :42:54.
:42:54. > :43:00.delivering where Labour failed. It is not just the fuel poor who
:43:00. > :43:05.need help. Today, I can announce a new package to help the hard-
:43:05. > :43:09.pressed consumer this winter and every winter. We are determined to
:43:09. > :43:15.get tough with the Big Six energy companies, to ensure that the
:43:15. > :43:19.consumer gets the best possible deal. We want simpler tariffs
:43:19. > :43:24.requiring energy companies to tell you whether you could buy more
:43:24. > :43:30.cheaply on a another tariff. And you can save real money. Ofgem, the
:43:30. > :43:35.independent regulator, calculates that the average household could
:43:35. > :43:40.save �200 a year by switching to the lowest-cost supplier. But fewer
:43:40. > :43:46.than one in seven households do so. Britain privatised the energy
:43:46. > :43:51.companies, but most consumers never noticed. Contrary to the recent
:43:51. > :43:56.Times report, I neither said nor meant that this was laziness. It is
:43:56. > :44:01.just that consumers still think they face the same bill, whoever
:44:01. > :44:08.they go to. I want to help households save money with simpler
:44:08. > :44:12.charging, clearer bills and quicker switching. I also want consumer
:44:12. > :44:16.friendly firms, co-ops, partnerships, consumer charities,
:44:16. > :44:21.dedicated to doing the shopping around for consumers, to make sure
:44:21. > :44:27.that you are always on the best deal, even if you don't have the
:44:27. > :44:37.time to check yourself. And Ofgem should also have new powers to
:44:37. > :44:42.secure redress for consumers money back for bad behaviour. Ofgem...
:44:42. > :44:46.Ofgem is already stamping out bad doorstep practices that lead to
:44:46. > :44:51.energy and is selling, with the guilty companies suffering
:44:51. > :44:56.swingeing fines. We will stop the energy companies from blocking
:44:56. > :45:01.action by Ofgem, which can delay matters by a year. I remember when
:45:01. > :45:07.I was on the board of Which?, the Consumers' Association, that the
:45:07. > :45:12.best guarantee of a good deal is more competition for your pound. We
:45:12. > :45:16.want to encourage new small companies to come into the market,
:45:16. > :45:20.cutting red tape so that they can grow bigger, making it easier for
:45:20. > :45:25.them to buy and sell electricity in the wholesale market. And with
:45:25. > :45:30.Ofgem, we are cracking down on any bad practice that could smack of
:45:30. > :45:34.being anti-competitive. It is simply not fair. That big energy
:45:34. > :45:39.companies can push their prices up for the vast majority of their
:45:39. > :45:43.consumers who do not switch, while introducing cut-throat offers for
:45:43. > :45:49.new customers that stop small firms entering the market to provide real
:45:49. > :45:58.competition. That looks to me like predatory pricing, and it must, and
:45:58. > :46:03.We asked the six big energy companies to respond to that speech.
:46:03. > :46:06.No one was available this afternoon, unfortunately. The industry body
:46:06. > :46:10.said they were on their way to Birmingham to get a public flogging
:46:10. > :46:19.from Chris Huhne, so they were not available. But we are joined by
:46:19. > :46:23.Louise Hanson from Which? that last point from Chris Huhne, predatory
:46:23. > :46:25.pricing, is there anything he can do to bring prices down. Despite
:46:25. > :46:31.all the other things he has mentioned, that is what consumers
:46:32. > :46:35.want. Absolutely, and the cost of energy is the number one for
:46:35. > :46:39.concern for consumers. If you want to make sure it is affordable, the
:46:39. > :46:43.government needs to do a range of things, and it was good to hear him
:46:43. > :46:46.talk about simpler bills and simpler tariffs and greater
:46:46. > :46:50.competition, because injecting competition could make sure that
:46:50. > :46:53.consumers can shop around and get the best deal. So you think that
:46:53. > :46:57.will make a difference in terms of actually trying to bring the bills
:46:57. > :47:01.down even if you cannot do anything about the price of gas and
:47:01. > :47:07.electricity? Yes, at the heart of this is the fact that a lot of
:47:07. > :47:13.people do not switch supplier. Of Gen estimate about 60% do not. --
:47:13. > :47:16.Ofgem. The Secretary of State is suggesting to look at the major
:47:16. > :47:20.suppliers, and is there something he can do to help the smaller
:47:20. > :47:25.players increase their market share? I do not know, but I hope
:47:25. > :47:27.very much that he will be putting pressure on the major retailers and
:47:27. > :47:33.the Major Energy suppliers, because consumers at the minute are not
:47:33. > :47:36.getting a great deal from across the basics. He denied in a speech
:47:36. > :47:41.that consumers were lazy and cannot be bothered to switch. I have
:47:41. > :47:44.switched companies before, and you get the best deals because you are
:47:44. > :47:48.a new customer, but then they put the prices up and you have to
:47:48. > :47:52.switch again. With the best will in the world, it is quite a laborious
:47:52. > :47:57.task to keep switching companies. Absolutely, and tariffs are very
:47:57. > :48:01.confusing. If you ask people to work them out, most people would
:48:01. > :48:04.not understand it. There has to be a question of how often consumers
:48:04. > :48:08.have to keep switching. Will there the loyalty for customers who stay
:48:08. > :48:12.with their existing supplier? It is good the government is looking at
:48:12. > :48:16.those questions. You have said you support the measures broadly, and
:48:16. > :48:19.you will be delighted to hear that Ofgem does. They say they are
:48:19. > :48:22.delighted with the commitment to new consumer redress powers,
:48:23. > :48:27.although, like the others, they cannot come onto the programme
:48:27. > :48:31.either. These new powers, I still do not feel it is going to make a
:48:31. > :48:34.big enough difference, even if you encourage more people to switch,
:48:34. > :48:40.let's say they know the tariffs that are available, so are you
:48:40. > :48:43.saying that bills will come down by �300 on average? Some people can
:48:43. > :48:47.make a really big difference to their energy bills over the space
:48:47. > :48:53.of a year if they move to a cheaper tariff, and that is often on direct
:48:53. > :48:56.debit, it is online, and it is dual fuel. If 60% of people are not
:48:56. > :49:00.switching, clearly there are major barriers to encouraging people. It
:49:00. > :49:04.has to be about giving people the individual information about how
:49:04. > :49:06.much they can save. It was good to hear the Secretary of State saying
:49:06. > :49:11.that he wanted energy companies to tell their customers directly if
:49:11. > :49:15.they are better deals on offer that they could switch to. New powers
:49:15. > :49:19.for Ofgem might include, although we do not know the detail, the
:49:19. > :49:24.ability to impose unlimited fines on companies for bad behaviour,
:49:24. > :49:28.which is overcharging customers. Is that likely to happen? It is really
:49:28. > :49:32.important that fines levied by the regulator are genuine deterrent.
:49:32. > :49:37.Some of the fines we have seen are really small compared to their
:49:37. > :49:41.profits. They have to be an effective deterrent. Looking at the
:49:41. > :49:44.money that they are binding, why doesn't it go back to the customer
:49:44. > :49:49.or be invested in something to do with energy efficiency? Most
:49:49. > :49:52.regulatory fines go to the Treasury. Consumers and individuals can go to
:49:52. > :49:55.the ombudsman if they have an individual problem, and they might
:49:55. > :50:00.be able to get compensation, but if the Secretary of State is thinking
:50:00. > :50:03.about the size of regulatory fines as a deterrent to without bad
:50:03. > :50:08.behaviour, they need to think creatively about what to do with
:50:08. > :50:11.that money. Thank you very much for coming in. That is all from me in
:50:11. > :50:15.London today, now back to Andrew in Birmingham.
:50:15. > :50:19.We are not lonely at the end Birmingham, even if nobody is
:50:19. > :50:22.coming in to talk to you! We have got the former leader of the
:50:22. > :50:27.Liberal Democrats, Ming Campbell. Welcome back to the programme. This
:50:27. > :50:31.morning Nick Clegg admitted that joining the euro would have been a
:50:31. > :50:35.huge, huge error. Do you agree? do not think I would put it in
:50:35. > :50:40.those terms, but what he is doing is articulating what many people
:50:40. > :50:44.now feel, and that is that so far as Britain is concerned, the single
:50:44. > :50:49.currency is off the political agenda, and is is likely to be so
:50:49. > :50:53.for some considerable time. told your party in September 2002
:50:53. > :50:58.that it would be a historic error if Britain bins join the euro. The
:50:58. > :51:04.stand by that? When the facts change, I changed my opinion. Not
:51:04. > :51:07.me, but Lord Keynes! I knew you would get it. So we were wrong?
:51:07. > :51:13.those circumstances, at the time, it appeared to be the proper thing
:51:13. > :51:16.to do for Britain to stay out as undoubtedly resulted in at
:51:17. > :51:22.exercising much less influence in Europe, but as recent events have
:51:22. > :51:27.proved, still being subject to a lot of difficulties as a result are
:51:27. > :51:31.the failures in the eurozone. So we stood out, but it does not stop us
:51:31. > :51:36.being affected. You once accused the Labour government of timidity
:51:36. > :51:41.over joining the single currency. You published a pamphlet, still
:51:41. > :51:44.available in Waterstone's, by the way, for �4.99, why the euro is the
:51:44. > :51:49.best future for Britain. That will not make the best sellers any more.
:51:49. > :51:55.I am delighted it is �4.99. I do not think you are going to get
:51:55. > :52:01.much! Somebody bought a copy of my biography for one penny on a bay.
:52:01. > :52:05.4.99 at, I am doing pretty well. Remember what I was saying, Gordon
:52:05. > :52:11.Brown's approach, which you will recall, was to set out five
:52:11. > :52:16.conditions. Everyone of those, he was able to say, it has either been
:52:16. > :52:21.fulfilled or not. It was entirely equivocal. In circumstances which
:52:21. > :52:25.we now know from the memoirs, he was at direct odds with Tony Blair.
:52:25. > :52:30.Your party was the arrears at the time. He wanted him to get the
:52:30. > :52:34.British economy into shape quickly to meet these five conditions. That
:52:34. > :52:37.is why you accused him of timidity. We were the first party to promise
:52:37. > :52:43.that there should be a referendum on whether Britain should join the
:52:43. > :52:49.single currency. Leg has also said that no-one predicted that the euro
:52:49. > :52:54.would descend into crisis. -- Nick Clegg. That is not true, is it?
:52:54. > :52:58.context of that, is that no one predicted that the economy of the
:52:58. > :53:03.United States would stagnate. No- one predicted that the eurozone
:53:03. > :53:06.would fail, not because of the conditions that were laid down, but
:53:06. > :53:09.because of the failure to apply these conditions. It is not the
:53:09. > :53:14.scheme of the euro which is at fault, it is the failure of
:53:14. > :53:17.countries to make their obligations. With, for example, the notable
:53:17. > :53:23.alternative of Germany, where they have met all their conditions.
:53:23. > :53:28.Guess what, the German economy is the strongest in the European Human.
:53:28. > :53:33.-- the European Union. We knew that Italian national debt was a hundred
:53:33. > :53:38.and 15% of GDP, whereas the rule was that it could be 60. -- 115%.
:53:38. > :53:42.You knew that they were getting in on a false prospectus, but you
:53:42. > :53:44.still said that the euro was best for Britain. It was best for
:53:44. > :53:49.Britain in the circumstances of that time. I do not resile from
:53:49. > :53:52.that. How can we trust your judgment on economic matters now
:53:53. > :53:58.when you seem to get the biggest economic question in a generation
:53:58. > :54:02.wrong? You can trust our party's position on economics as a result
:54:02. > :54:06.of the performance of Vince Cable, who was predicting precisely the
:54:06. > :54:10.kind of tsunami, economic tsunami which was created as a result of
:54:11. > :54:15.the policies of the previous Labour government. He did not predict the
:54:15. > :54:20.sub-prime crisis. What he did say was that personal debt in this
:54:20. > :54:26.country amounting to 1.3 trillion pounds was extremely dangerous for
:54:26. > :54:30.us to be an. Do you agree with Paddy Ashdown that the eurozone is
:54:31. > :54:34.currently current circuit -- as currently constructed is unlikely
:54:34. > :54:38.to survive and there will almost certainly be a retrenchment into a
:54:38. > :54:43.hard core northern eurozone? think that is a possible outcome.
:54:43. > :54:47.If we look at Germany, which I referred to a moment ago, there is
:54:47. > :54:51.clearly great resistance among the German public, essentially, to be
:54:51. > :54:56.turning themselves into the banker of the eurozone, which is what is
:54:56. > :55:01.being expected of them. If that is so, and Angela Merkel cannot
:55:01. > :55:04.persuade public opinion in our country to be more amenable to
:55:04. > :55:08.helping to bail out those countries which are in difficulty, then I
:55:08. > :55:13.think the possible outcome is that there will be, if you like, an
:55:13. > :55:17.inner core and an outer core. Can I make this point? We will be
:55:17. > :55:21.directly affected in Britain, whatever the outcome, because such
:55:21. > :55:25.a large proportion of our trade is with Europe. And because the
:55:25. > :55:28.sovereign debt crisis hits everyone in the end. As the economy flat
:55:28. > :55:32.lines, and I think you will agree that is a fair way to describe the
:55:32. > :55:36.British economy at the moment, are you really happy that there is a
:55:36. > :55:42.determination to stick to plan? Have you noticed there is another
:55:42. > :55:47.plan around? No one has quite articulated it, but Vince Cable
:55:47. > :55:51.wrote a pamphlet in which he praised Roosevelt. We have not got
:55:51. > :55:56.to the Tennessee Valley Authority of the New Deal... Danny Alexander
:55:56. > :56:00.told me that there will be no new deal style stimulus, it is not
:56:00. > :56:06.going to happen. But look what he said in his speech, a number of
:56:06. > :56:10.public projects are being stymied for bureaucratic or other reasons.
:56:10. > :56:14.He had the example where an access road costing 10 million would open
:56:14. > :56:19.up, a very substantial opportunity for public investment. But it is
:56:19. > :56:22.not new money. Maybe you could bring things forward, maybe you can
:56:22. > :56:27.do things that are being done too slowly, but it is not new money,
:56:27. > :56:30.and by definition it is therefore not a stimulus. It will be a
:56:30. > :56:35.stimulus if it is money that is not being spent because of bureaucratic
:56:35. > :56:43.intervention. It will be a stimulus, too, if it is money which, by being
:56:43. > :56:47.spent, provokes and encourages the private sector. Your expertise
:56:47. > :56:49.traditionally, your interests have been in foreign affairs, you were
:56:49. > :56:54.the party's foreign affairs spokesman for a long time, and you
:56:54. > :57:00.travel a lot. Should Britain's support Palestine's bid to be a
:57:00. > :57:05.recognised state in the UN? Yes. Why? Unequivocally. Because in my
:57:05. > :57:08.view it will contribute towards that two-stage settlement which
:57:08. > :57:12.every Foreign Secretary I have heard at the dispatch box in the
:57:12. > :57:17.House of Commons since 1987 has been Britain's objective. If they
:57:17. > :57:22.go unilaterally, there will be two Estates. It will be legal
:57:22. > :57:28.recognition of something which is partially, in practical terms, on
:57:28. > :57:33.the ground. And is your view Nick Clegg's view? I have not discussed
:57:33. > :57:36.it with him, but my view is quite clear and unequivocal, and I have
:57:36. > :57:40.said so in the House of Commons and indeed here. I'm grateful for you
:57:40. > :57:43.repeating it. Are you telling me that the leader of your party has
:57:43. > :57:49.not consulted the man who knows more about foreign affairs than the
:57:49. > :57:56.rest of his party puts together? on a key issue like this? I am
:57:56. > :57:59.flattered by your assertion that I am important, I am a humble
:57:59. > :58:05.government backbencher, I have reached my own view. He does not
:58:05. > :58:11.consulted? I talk to him from time to time, but I would not expected.
:58:11. > :58:15.I understand the Foreign Office is conflicted. That is why I am
:58:15. > :58:19.speaking out. I am told that there is ministerial dispute, that some
:58:19. > :58:22.ministers are for and some against, but my view is that Britain's
:58:22. > :58:27.influence and reputation in the Middle East will suffer badly if we
:58:27. > :58:32.don't do it. Ministerial conflict is our bread and butter! Thank you
:58:32. > :58:36.for being with us. That is it for today. I will be back just after
:58:36. > :58:41.Newsnight tonight with a round-up of today's events at the conference.
:58:41. > :58:45.We will be back again live at noon on BBC Two tomorrow with another
:58:45. > :58:50.Daily Politics conference special. A quick sandwich for lunch then