Conference Special Daily Politics

Good afternoon, live from the Lib Dem conference here in beautiful

downtown Birmingham. The economy is taking centre stage yet again. The

eurozone crisis continues to rumble to an uncertain climax, with Italy

now firmly in the Cross says. It has joined the growing list of

countries whose credit has been downgraded -- in the cross hairs.

This is embarrassing for the Lib Dems because this party was once

the most enthusiastic of all about joining the euro. We didn't, but we

will still suffer from the fall-out. Smiling Vince Cable warned the

eurozone crisis could push Britain back over the edge. He told a

fringe event that the UK was facing a second financial crisis. He said

it was possible we face years of stagnation. Nick Clegg had to spend

this morning in his round of interviews defending the

Government's's policy of deficit- reduction, despite its impact on

growth, which is close to zero at the moment. Will be speaking to Tim

Farron who has been busy denying that he wants to be the next leader

of the party. We know what that rains. And we will be playing

coalition life swap with the Tory backbencher, Peter Bone. It is of

the scale, of the planet. I have no idea that they were so completely

out of touch with reality. And if that wasn't enough, Jo is in London.

Good morning. We are here but we are still talking about the Lib

Dems, who are claiming victory in their battle over health reforms in

England. Have they really saved the NHS? And the Energy Secretary gets

tough with the gas and electricity companies, but will consumers be

Thank you. Who better to kick off today's show than two of Her

Majesty's finest members of the official press corps. Paul Waugh

from Politics Home, that is a website. George Parker from my

financial times, that is a newspaper. More Tory bashing, this

time from the Tory bashing Chris Huhne. He does specialise in his

favourite blood sport of Tory bashing. Is it making any impact in

the real world? I suspect it is not. The conference will love everything

he has got to say about comparing the right of the Tory party to the

tea-party in the States. Chris Huhne has another game to play. He

is addressing his remarks to the ball about possible leadership

ambitions, who knows? -- to the hall. Positioning, for a meltdown

of Mr Clegg? Chris Huhne has been in the running before a couple of

times. Does anyone really think that he is going to stand again? I

don't think anyone in the party thinks. Maybe Chris Huhne things.

Certainly not Tim Farron who is the other on mobilising himself. I

think they think there has been too much of this easy Tory bashing at

this conference, and they are worried about this mare in wartime

phenomenon. Where you are collaborating with the enemy,

trying to make things worse than they otherwise would have been. It

is dangerous, it looks like they are collaborating with the enemy. I

think they want to get back more ownership of the programme. Chris

Huhne has already likened the Tories to go balls, so liking them

to -- Goebbels, so it likening them to Sarah Palin is probably an easy

step. Chris Huhne knows what he's doing. He is one of the most ardent

Europhiles in the party but he has had to amend his views. He knows

that on the issue of Europe, Lib Dems still firmly have big issue --

differences with the Tories. When it comes to European Human Rights,

he is going to stand firm on that. It is interesting, because he is

putting out these new feelers to the Labour Party. Last night he

attended a fringe with John Denham. Next week there will be a reversal

of that, he will go to Labour's conference with John Denham. There

were over chose last night about not closing of that route for the

future. There is no doubt when you speak to the rank and file, here,

they may not be representative of Lib Dem voters, because party

conferences are not, but most people here, if they had to be in

coalition, would rather be in coalition with Labour than the

Tories. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Most Lib Dem

marginal seats are against the Tories, most people have spent

their political lifetime fighting the Tories and would consider

themselves a left-leaning party. The fact is, they often don't have

a choice when it comes to coalition forming. They did not have a choice

in May 2010 and they may not have a prize at the next election. I think

that is why Clegg and his entourage do not like we talk about divorced

from the Tories. Tim Farron has talked about that, why would you do

that? Unless it was political posturing and positioning. It is

positioning. The reason for choosing Tim Farron is ditching the

coalition with the Conservative Party. He takes on the party when

everything goes sour with the Conservatives, or if Nick Clegg

finds it impossible to work with the Labour Party. It is looking a

long way down the track. There is a dark cloud. The eurozone crisis is

a particular problem for this party. Like your newspaper, you and the

Lib Dems were enthusiastic supporters of us joining the euro.

And it is not a great position in retrospect to have fouled, is it?

Indeed. I think that is a fair point about the FT and the Liberal

Democrats. The Liberal Democrats are an international party, but at

grassroots level there is a lot of scepticism. I am from the West

Country and most people in the West Country are probably not aware the

Liberal Democrats are pro-European, they don't like to talk about it

much and did not at the last election. Something has struck me

very much. Vince Cable, you would not mistake for a ray of sunshine.

He was very gloomy in his speech yesterday, even more gloomy at the

fringe event last night, talking about potentially years of

stagnation. It seems to me, this conference hasn't yet thought

through the political implications of if he is right. I think that is

right. There is a curious disconnect between Nick Clegg's

message to the party, reasons to be cheerful is what he was trying to

save. We are in government, doing things, delivering. But that is

nowhere to be seen on the big issue of the economy. For the next three

years, they will have to negotiate how to dig in during these times.

If Mr Cable is right and there are years of stagnation ahead, they are

close. I think you might be right. They have a real problem put up

they were sold this proposition, two years of pain and three years

of recovery leading up to growth of about 3% a year by election year,

which is not going to happen. The Liberal Democrats trade on optimism

will do if you go into the next election in a gloomy economic

situation, that is pretty bad politically for them. I don't think

they have thought of the consequences. We will leave it

there. A pleasure to have you with us. The party has been giving

itself a bit of a pat on the back. All parties do that. When they last

gathered in March, they were in rebellious mood. They wanted big

changes to the government's NHS reform bill, even though they had

signed up to it. There was what was called a pause, changes to the Bill

and some satisfaction from the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg and his health

minister, Paul Burstow, will visit a local hospital in Birmingham

today. Have the Lib Dems really got their way? On these NHS reforms?

They would like to think so, wouldn't they? Or that the health

service in England is safer with the Lib Dems partially in charge.

One of the Prime Minister's most eye-catching pre-election pledges

was to protect NHS spending in England from the cuts. This was

enshrined in the coalition agreement with Lib Dem partners

Last year, the Chancellor promised a 0.4% rise in real terms. Rising

inflation, even higher rates of health inflation and factors like

VAT increase have wiped out this increase. The NHS chief executive

has said the service will meet savings of �20 billion by 2014, in

order to standstill, representing a 4% cut a year. This money would be

used to fund the rising cost of drugs and other cost pressures. The

NHS's budget overall will therefore remain essentially flat. In April

this year, the health regulation -- regulator, Monitor, said it

expected NHS Trusts to make savings of up to 7% each year to balance

their books, because of the higher than expected rate of inflation.

This means more hospital reorganisation and jobs cuts in the

hunt for greater efficiency. The Royal College of Nursing has

identified 40,000 posts to be closed, and those calling for

radical reform of the NHS see the government's water down health

reforms as a missed opportunity to tackle a growing financial crisis.

The government again to save �70 billion in the turn of the

parliament and nothing has happened in the first two years of

government, the savings won't have been made. If we talk about this in

year-on-year terms, it is �5 billion a year that the government

That is not being saved through efficiency which means it will come

in the form of salami-slicing, and probably big shops across the

service, which will be very destructive. I caught up with G

political adviser to Nick Clegg, Norman Lamb, and asked him if

delaying the NHS Bill had meant the creation of far more layers of

bureaucracy -- chief political adviser. I don't think so, there

are always risks of that. I think we have improved the governance and

accountability of the NHS. People want to know that the health

services that are provided for the community, that the people

providing those services are accountable to that community. I

think we have improved that significantly. The big concern that

I had was what I saw as a sort of headlong rush to imposing a

complete the strobed dream of commissioning across the whole NHS,

According to the Royal College of GPs and even the Department of

Health, not having that headlong rush, making it evolutionary, is

going to cost the NHS. The chairman of the Royal College of GPs says

the number of statutory organisations will go from 163, to

521, and that the savings from these reforms will be �700 million

less. There are more organisations, in that you have smaller groups of

clinical commissioners. Which will cost more? Well... I don't think it

necessarily well. I think there is a very good case for engaging

general practitioners far more closely in the decisions about the

care of their patience. At the moment, GPs have no role at all

about the cost of the care provided to their patience, and giving them

both the power and responsibility and accountability for making those

decisions is part of making the NHS more effective and efficient.

Improving care, but making the money go further. Why does the

chair of the Royal College of GPs say that now we have a new system

like spaghetti Junction? That is her view of it. The former head of

the Royal College of GPs was the head of the listening exercise that

led to the changes that have been made. There are different views

within the NHS. I think the overwhelming view, actually, is

that we need to stop the endless debate about this bill, get it

through and make it work, because the biggest threat to the NHS is

achieving the �20 billion of efficiency savings set by Labour.

It is necessary, even though we are ring-fencing the NHS, because every

year, in every developed country, costs keep writing because an

ageing population. You are sticking to that �20 billion worth of

savings. Do you think that is now feasible, when the Department of

Health impact assessment has said savings from NHS reforms have now

gone down by �700 million? Your budget intervention has basically

cost the NHS �700 million? reason why I want this debate to

end and to get it through... But do you accept the costs have gone up?

I don't know what those specific figures are. All I know is that

changes to the Bill were necessary to safeguard the NHS. It would have

been madness to do this headlong rush to a new system, without any

evidence about how it is going to work. Evidence from the United

States suggests that you could end up with the commissioning groups

going bankrupt. We would not want that, because we have to safeguard

patient services. That is critical. We must learn as we go along, on a

more evolutionary approach. Do you think it is feasible to make those

savings by 2014? It is a very tough challenge, it has never been

achieved in the past. So, no? have to focus the entire service on

achieving that level of saving and if we don't, it services will be

lost. It becomes applet in Paris -- imperative that we focus the

service on achieving it. Because of rising inflation, it has all been

wiped out, so you have broken a key for edge in terms of money going

into the NHS? -- key pledge. alternative offered by Labour was

no ring-fencing of the NHS spent at all for we are talking about your

You make judgments about the level of spend, on the basis of the level

of inflation anticipated at that stage. We have been faced with

higher levels of inflation unexpected because of global

commodity prices. -- than expected. It reinforces the case for

achieving these efficiency savings and getting the whole service

focused. Norman Lamb, speaking to me earlier.

Back to Andrew in Birmingham. Get your crystal-ball cert, just

John Crystal once, I gaze deeply into them, I imagine it is made

2015, we had just had a general election, yet again it is a hung

parliament! They do not come for years and then two come along at

once. Who would the Lib Dems pair up with, their trusted friends, the

Conservatives? For what they want to try something new with their old

mates, Labour? We send Adam with his mood box to see what the party

faithful thought. Come and have a look, it is the

famous Daily Politics mood box. For the first quiz of 2011, we are

asking people to look forward to the general election of 2015.

Imagine Labour and the Tories have the same number of seats and the

same share of the vote. We will ask delegates who they would like to go

in coalition with. We have got 33 different policies at the moment,

and if that trend continues and we see an improvement in the economy,

we would stay with the Tories. First Labour voter, why is that?

come from a Labour. Bermondsey has been a traditional Labour seat

until Simon Hughes took over. We do not have a lot of luck with the

Tories, and I am more left than right-wing Tory views. It is a

dilemma, because we seem to be working with the Tories, but I do

not like their policies. Why do you say the Tories? The Tories we have

learned to work with, and this is just a first Parliament. Once you

have learned to work with a partner, I think you should not rush to

ditch them. I think my heart would like to go Labour, but

practicalities, I think it would have to be the Tories. With a heavy

heart, you are doing that. Yes. have cancelled each other out,

thank you very much! I am not putting my ball in either of those,

because I think it is a false question, OK? Are you going to put

it back in the basket? It depends entirely on people's manifestos.

Thank you very much. Run-a-ball for Why do you say Labour? Because I do

not think the Tories should exist at all. Labour? Oh, so you would

rather ditch them. I would ditch them tomorrow if I could. We will

be seen more of you today. Yes, later on, I've been so. Have you

been enjoying it? It has been interesting. We have had quite a

lot of people voting with their balls, and it looks like Labour are

edging it, that people are not keen and answering the question at this

conference. Pop it in the slot, it is 2015, another hung parliament.

B is in the middle, but it is rolling towards the Tories. It is a

tough dilemma. It is tough! I am not going to do it. A beastly

question! It is a beastly business. I am a two-ball person. They say

Tessa Munt has got balls, she has. Is it a dilemma, answering a

question like this? I think there are good things and all the parties.

They all have something to offer. When you look at the final result,

the balls do not life, what you think that says about the state of

your party today? The Liberal Democrat Laura Heart beats on the

left, we all know that. We are radical, progressives. When we come

from a social democratic background or a liberal background, most of us

are not Conservatives. You know what they say, the balls never lie,

and this is the final result, a clear majority of delegates would

prefer to go into coalition with Labour in the event of a hung

parliament in 2015. Only four years to wait to find out!

The interesting to see that Vince Cable rolled towards the Tories! I

do not know what it means, but it was interesting. We are joined by

the President of the Lib Dems, Tim Farron. Welcome to the Daily

Politics Conference special. You have said that as far as the

coalition is concerned, divorce is inevitable. Why? It is a fixed-term

parliaments to 2015, and the partners will go their separate

ways. It could happen, but... is not a divorce, or collisions

separate at the election, but you do not rule out coming back. -- for

coalitions. I do not rule it out. So why is divorce inevitable and it

this is a temporary marriage? are an independent party. We want

to win the general election outright. If that does not happen,

you have to be big enough to look at the arithmetic. If the next

election produces a result with the consent as has the largest party

and with your vote can form a government, as they do now, are you

ruling out renewing the coalition? Of course not. So it is not

divorce! It is not a marriage either, it was a good excuse to

tell and Eric Pickles Joe. So the words do not mean anything. It is a

temporary arrangement. Whatever happens, whenever the next general

election... Five years is not temporary, it is longer than most

marriages these days! It is important that it is a full five

years. You look in your crystal ball, it is interesting to see what

arithmetic you get out of it, but I am certain the British people,

whatever my political views, want a stable government to see us through

bleak times. I understand that, but when you said divorce is inevitable,

you were just plain to the gallery. I was saying that this is not a

permanent arrangement, not a merger. Nobody ever said it was a merger.

Nobody has ever claimed this was a merger of the parties. Both are of

parties tonight there will even be an electoral pact. That is

absolutely so. If you look at Polly Toynbee, he will write week after

week about how the Lib Dems have changed their politics, that is rot,

and it was a crude way of putting it. You say it is wrong, but the

last time I looked, Polly Toynbee wrote for the Guardian. I am a

Guardian reader, I am. Which means that in your heart are parts, if

you had a choice, all things being equal, you would rather share power

with Labour than the Conservatives. Admit it! No A. We are an

independent party. What I have always found it difficult to

understand is that you cannot really trust that the Liberal

Democrats are Liberal Democrats. I wanted to join the Labour Party, I

would have done. I am saying that there is a Guardian reader, a man

on the left, you would rather, all things being equal, share power and

be in coalition with Labour. If all things being equal, I would rather

win a general election. The bat that is not going to happen.

instead, the Said, sort it out. They gave us arithmetic which

pointed in just one direction. Am I not being honest? The why can't you

just say, I know the reasons we have to be in power with the

Tories? All things being equal, I would rather share power with

Labour if I had to share power with anyone. Correct? Off no. The bottom

line is that you look at the circumstances you are given. I'm

sure that we did the right thing going into coalition, and the only

option was to go with the Conservative Party. With Labour we

would have been short of a majority. The Tories would have won and

October general election. I want to look for. The mood box showed that

the rank-and-file at this conference would rather be closer

to Labour than the Tories. I think your mood box showed that there

were lots of people who did not want to put a ball Ni the box.

know that! It is a false question. Ming Campbell said that he saw

Labour as the most natural coalition party. Paddy Ashdown said

that a committee with Labour. Matthew Oakeshott said that the

party's heart beats to the left. Why are you saying that black is

white? Politics is an axis of horizontal and vertical, and the

interventionists and the three market. To say that we are just one

place along that line is just inaccurate and incorrect. When all

is said and done, I did not expect to have an easy ride with the

Liberals, it was not a good career move, but I wanted my politics to

prevail. Sometimes you have to go into collision to make that happen.

-- coalition. If you have described the Tories as witless and

reactionary. Which ones? I referred to some of the remarks made by some

Conservative writers in a newspaper's... No, you did not talk

about conservative writers. You thought about the Tories. What

regards to the riots, some of the responses that were made from

people, David Starkey, who support of the Conservative Party. He is

not a Conservative MP. I did not say MPs. You will say that there

are plenty of people and views expressed by the likes of the Daily

Mail, even the Murdoch press have made comments at this time. So has

you wriggle out of this, when you describe the Tories as witless and

reactionary, you were not describing any Conservative MPs.

Let's go back to the riots, six for seven weeks ago. Those were

absolutely appalling, and I am certain that I was not certain what

the causes were. I'm certain that we have to listen to people to make

sure our response is considered and thought for. There are some people

on the right, you will have interviewed them... Name names!

Starkey, bless him. He is not a Conservative MP. Those people have

decided to pour petrol on the flames of discontent by invoking

racial stereotypes. Am I not right to bring attention to that? Who are

the ideological descendants of people who send children up

chimneys? Who are they? Those were Vince's comments yesterday. All of

us wants to, I hope, get rid of the red tape that strangles businesses,

but we must not get mixed up between that red tape which

strangles business and that red tape that actually protects

people's basic rights in the workplace. Could you remind us who

got rid of children going up chimneys but a marked I imagine it

was the Liberals. It was Lord Shaftesbury, a Tory. So there are

these ideological descendants, your old Liberal Party? Lots of people

would rather get rid of tape, and it is easy to be populist, and it

is tempting to say things about red tape, but we are talking about

things that protect basic liberties and freedoms. It is a cheap shot

that you made, saying it was people who wanted to assess children up

chimneys. Vince Cable has said that we could be heading for a prolonged

period a stagnation. What are the political consequences of that? If

you hit 2015 and we are still in stagnation, and literally, you are

toast. We all know that this is a unbelievably difficult period. I

have quoted Mervyn King before, he said that whoever took power in

2010 would be out of power subsequently because of the

horrible decisions they would have to make. The rules are normally

have for five generations, so one is a good deal. Whoever is in power

has to take horrific decisions. The exit from this or for period, I

cannot predict when it is him to be. I believe that it will be in

advance of 2015. The consequences of the Liberal Democrats could be

very large, but the consequences of this country of ours not been

mature and maintaining a stable coalition, despite having

disagreements with the Tories, would be much greater, and in that

sense we are doing the right thing. Look me in the eye and be honest

with me, all this Tory bashing, divorce is inevitable, witless and

reactionary. Tories that he cannot name, you are just positioning

yourself to pick out the leadership if the coalition goes pear-shaped.

No, OK? You do not want to be leader of the Lib Dems? I have no

such ambition. Will not accept? Certainly not. You will refuse the

leadership? It is not going to come up. Nick Clegg is doing a brilliant

job. You would refuse? Yes. Not only is Nick Clegg doing a great

job, but he deserves my support. What does Tim Farron wants to be

when he grows up? Simon Hughes. that really your ambition? That

should be everybody's ambition. That is as far as it goes?

should be yours. Would you like this I love the euro that? Would

you like to wear that? I will not wear it! All your party manifesto

said that he wanted to join. It is in a difficult position at the

moment. I love tuition fees! I do not love tuition fees. You voted

for them. I did not, I would like to get rid of them. Maybe this is

the best on, don't panic. I would say panic constructively. Next!

would say calm down to a panic. Thank you for being with us and is

thus will show from Birmingham. Last year the Liberal Democrat

conference we decided to cause a bit our mischief, it surprised me,

too! We brought a Conservative MP along to see what he made of it all,

and this year we thought of a better gimmick and we send a former

England football manager along. None of them would do it, so we got

the next best thing, lookalike Peter Bone, who moonlights in

I am sometimes mistaken for a formal England football team

manager. One thing you will never mistake me for is a Liberal

Democrat. They may be in government but they are certainly not playing

for the team. Last week was my wedding

anniversary and I forget. Our -- I forgot. I am in the doghouse. What

more can I get for Mrs Bone than a Liberal Democrat bear? I'm going to

Here we are. Liberal Democrat stand on Europe. No views, no position

whatsoever, completely in line with the leadership.... Separate retail

and concede a banking must be put in place. -- casino banking.

Legislation will start soon and it will be completed within this

Parliament. I heard nothing that would help

Britain get going. As far as I'm concerned, as far as Vince Cable, I

I am sure everybody in here heard a Vince Cable setting it straight.

Absolutely outstanding. I wished the whole world was taking notice

and listening to every word of that. I think it justified what we are

doing. I have just listened to what the priorities for the Liberal

Party are for the government. Legalising cannabis, it women

shortlists and closer ties with Europe. It is off the scale, off

the planet, I had no idea they were so completely out of touch with

reality. The Liberal Party as a whole must have a yellow card.

Is it worth it, being in government? Absolutely. It means we

can get our agenda as government policy, which we are doing. You

heard our Deputy Prime Minister say we are punching way above our

weight. We did a compromise, which should have been called a graduate

tax. That is what it is, in effect. And we get the blame, because we

are the ones who said we wouldn't. The others were going to do it

anyway. I feel quite bad about that. There are lots of issues that we

have put forward. Those are the issues that we wouldn't have been

able to have any impact on, if we were not in government. But is it

for today, delegates going off. I have been struck by how many of

them want to stay in government. They would rather be in government

than stick up for their policies. That seemed very strange for me.

Many are very happy with what the Conservatives are doing. I should

have brought some Conservative membership forms, signed them up

and then they could be really part of the Conservative Party, not just

in coalition. I am joined by Sven-Goran Eriksson,

also known as the Conservative MP, Peter Bone, and by Don Foster, the

Lib Dem MP who will be going to the Conservative conference for us in a

spirit of mutual coalition liking. Are you having that for lunch?

is to get me out of trouble with my wife as I forgot her anniversary.

You have already brought your wife in to the interview. She is an

important person. I don't know why you don't have her on instead of

you. Indeed. What do you make of your coalition buddies? They did

not seem to be much Tory bashing when I talked to the

representatives. I was amazed how many people want to be in

government, they like what the Conservatives are doing. Why don't

they become Conservatives? There was nobody with beards and sandals

complaining, nobody thought they should not be in the coalition. I

was pleasantly surprised. This is not the same Peter Bone who was on

Newsnight last night, when he said, you have tainted the Tory brand,

you have stop us doing so many things, you are pulling above your

weight. You are getting much of your own way. They give you a bear

and you changed your tune? I had to pay for it, and they didn't give me

the right change, but that is another matter. I think they are

pulling above their weight, making government policy worse and the

sooner the coalition can end, the better. I am for the divorce that

Tim Farron was talking about. is a slight snag because before you

can end so coalition, you have to win an overall majority, which is

what your party spectacularly failed to do. You have to say it

was a pretty impressive result. Really? Coming from behind to be

effectively in government. But you are right, we should have done much

better. I don't think being in coalition adds to our prospects.

Let's get on, become independent parties, argue the case and have a

general election. You will become independent parties for the

election, no one is arguing that. Do you agree with Tim Farron that

the voice is inevitable? When we get to the end of the five-year

period, we will go our separate As Tim was saying to you earlier,

you look at these circumstances, you look at what the opportunities

are to get the maximum Liberal Democrat policies through. That is

what we will be following the outcome of the election, if no one

party is in overall control. As the government batted -- benefited in

any way? One big benefit is that we are working together to solve the

economic crisis, that is what the coalition is about. You mean your

air-raid shelter? I think they were brave to come in and both parties

have taken difficult decisions. We are both suffering in the polls.

Once that is done, what is the point of having a false marriage

when there is no need for it? is the point? The country needs

economic stability at the current time. One of the great things about

having the coalition is it has given us that stability and kept

interest rates down, so we are not spending on paying off the debt of

this country and paying the interest. Anything like many other

countries are having to do, because we have got the stability. Are you

happy the Lib Dems seem to have moved you away on the euro? It's --

moved your way. I am not sure if I think the Liberal Party has one

really good policy, to have a referendum of whether we should be

in or out of the EU. I don't understand why the Conservatives

have not adopted that. It is your party's fault. Absolutely and they

need to change their mind. Have you spoken to the wife? She is fully

behind that and I think we will John Pugh is co-chair of the bank

spent -- the backbench Health Committee. He says these health

reforms, even with the changes, are a major strategic mistake. John has

been very outspoken from the very beginning. He has played a key role

in helping to ensure many of the changes... You are quite right, he

has made it clear from the outset that even if we could improve them

in the way we have thought, something Peter acknowledged last

night again on Newsnight, but John is entitled to his own view.

says it is going to damage the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. Well,

that is his view. He has been outspoken, he doesn't like the

health reforms, he has said that consistently, it voted against them

in the House of Commons. He is a Are these health reforms worth the

candle now that the Lib Dems have succeeded in watering them down.

They have been watered down and I disagree that they have been

improved, they have gone in the wrong direction. We are getting rid

of PCTs, but if you have had a Tory government, you would have proper

reforms. Watering down and compromise is not what the British

people want, and that is why we need to default on the coalition.

You are accepting that even though you don't like all of it, they are

a step in the right direction. They are democratising the health

service... Andrew Lansley's proposals, watered down. Would you

like a badge? There is none that I would like. What about I love the

euro? At the moment, it would be very bad news for us. These badges

are not going very well. I can see that. There is still the

rest of the week. The Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, is

delivering a less than coded warning to Conservative

backbenchers, agitating for action on Europe and tax cuts for the rich.

He is calling them -- action on tax cuts for the rich. He's calling

them the Conservative tea-party. He turned to more everyday concerns

like the increasing cost of boiling a kettle. He attacked the gas and

electricity companies for stifling competition. World gas and

electricity prices have leapt by a third, thanks to Libya and Far

Eastern Growth. Global factors. We should surely try to limit our

dependence on oil and gas, not increase it, particularly as our

own North Sea resources are running down. In the storm-tossed seas we

have defile, low carbon energy gives us security, insurance and

safety -- we have to sail. British consumers will on average be better

off in 2020, thanks to our low off. Because getting off the oil

and gas price hook and on to clean, green energy, makes sense. With

energy saving, we can offset the effects of higher prices, and end

up with lower bills. And in one generation, we will go from fossil

fuels smokestack, too low carbon But there is hardship now, and we

are determined to help. Higher energy bills hurt, none of us

should have to save on warmth in a cold winter. Some of the most

vulnerable and elderly will shiver and worse if we do not help. That

is why this government is boosting by two-thirds the discounts to help

people in fuel poverty. Why our Warm Homes discount is a statutory

scheme, not a grace and favour hand out relying on good will. That is

also why this government will make those in fuel poverty a top

priority for the green deal, helped by our because subsidy. Improving

people's homes, after all, cuts fuel poverty for ever, while a

discount only cuts fuel poverty for a year. And year after year, fuel

poverty rose under Labour. Now we are helping the poor wear label --

where Labour flannel, we are acting where Labour talks and we are

delivering where Labour failed. It is not just the fuel poor who

need help. Today, I can announce a new package to help the hard-

pressed consumer this winter and every winter. We are determined to

get tough with the Big Six energy companies, to ensure that the

consumer gets the best possible deal. We want simpler tariffs

requiring energy companies to tell you whether you could buy more

cheaply on a another tariff. And you can save real money. Ofgem, the

independent regulator, calculates that the average household could

save �200 a year by switching to the lowest-cost supplier. But fewer

than one in seven households do so. Britain privatised the energy

companies, but most consumers never noticed. Contrary to the recent

Times report, I neither said nor meant that this was laziness. It is

just that consumers still think they face the same bill, whoever

they go to. I want to help households save money with simpler

charging, clearer bills and quicker switching. I also want consumer

friendly firms, co-ops, partnerships, consumer charities,

dedicated to doing the shopping around for consumers, to make sure

that you are always on the best deal, even if you don't have the

time to check yourself. And Ofgem should also have new powers to

secure redress for consumers money back for bad behaviour. Ofgem...

Ofgem is already stamping out bad doorstep practices that lead to

energy and is selling, with the guilty companies suffering

swingeing fines. We will stop the energy companies from blocking

action by Ofgem, which can delay matters by a year. I remember when

I was on the board of Which?, the Consumers' Association, that the

best guarantee of a good deal is more competition for your pound. We

want to encourage new small companies to come into the market,

cutting red tape so that they can grow bigger, making it easier for

them to buy and sell electricity in the wholesale market. And with

Ofgem, we are cracking down on any bad practice that could smack of

being anti-competitive. It is simply not fair. That big energy

companies can push their prices up for the vast majority of their

consumers who do not switch, while introducing cut-throat offers for

new customers that stop small firms entering the market to provide real

competition. That looks to me like predatory pricing, and it must, and

We asked the six big energy companies to respond to that speech.

No one was available this afternoon, unfortunately. The industry body

said they were on their way to Birmingham to get a public flogging

from Chris Huhne, so they were not available. But we are joined by

Louise Hanson from Which? that last point from Chris Huhne, predatory

pricing, is there anything he can do to bring prices down. Despite

all the other things he has mentioned, that is what consumers

want. Absolutely, and the cost of energy is the number one for

concern for consumers. If you want to make sure it is affordable, the

government needs to do a range of things, and it was good to hear him

talk about simpler bills and simpler tariffs and greater

competition, because injecting competition could make sure that

consumers can shop around and get the best deal. So you think that

will make a difference in terms of actually trying to bring the bills

down even if you cannot do anything about the price of gas and

electricity? Yes, at the heart of this is the fact that a lot of

people do not switch supplier. Of Gen estimate about 60% do not. --

Ofgem. The Secretary of State is suggesting to look at the major

suppliers, and is there something he can do to help the smaller

players increase their market share? I do not know, but I hope

very much that he will be putting pressure on the major retailers and

the Major Energy suppliers, because consumers at the minute are not

getting a great deal from across the basics. He denied in a speech

that consumers were lazy and cannot be bothered to switch. I have

switched companies before, and you get the best deals because you are

a new customer, but then they put the prices up and you have to

switch again. With the best will in the world, it is quite a laborious

task to keep switching companies. Absolutely, and tariffs are very

confusing. If you ask people to work them out, most people would

not understand it. There has to be a question of how often consumers

have to keep switching. Will there the loyalty for customers who stay

with their existing supplier? It is good the government is looking at

those questions. You have said you support the measures broadly, and

you will be delighted to hear that Ofgem does. They say they are

delighted with the commitment to new consumer redress powers,

although, like the others, they cannot come onto the programme

either. These new powers, I still do not feel it is going to make a

big enough difference, even if you encourage more people to switch,

let's say they know the tariffs that are available, so are you

saying that bills will come down by �300 on average? Some people can

make a really big difference to their energy bills over the space

of a year if they move to a cheaper tariff, and that is often on direct

debit, it is online, and it is dual fuel. If 60% of people are not

switching, clearly there are major barriers to encouraging people. It

has to be about giving people the individual information about how

much they can save. It was good to hear the Secretary of State saying

that he wanted energy companies to tell their customers directly if

they are better deals on offer that they could switch to. New powers

for Ofgem might include, although we do not know the detail, the

ability to impose unlimited fines on companies for bad behaviour,

which is overcharging customers. Is that likely to happen? It is really

important that fines levied by the regulator are genuine deterrent.

Some of the fines we have seen are really small compared to their

profits. They have to be an effective deterrent. Looking at the

money that they are binding, why doesn't it go back to the customer

or be invested in something to do with energy efficiency? Most

regulatory fines go to the Treasury. Consumers and individuals can go to

the ombudsman if they have an individual problem, and they might

be able to get compensation, but if the Secretary of State is thinking

about the size of regulatory fines as a deterrent to without bad

behaviour, they need to think creatively about what to do with

that money. Thank you very much for coming in. That is all from me in

London today, now back to Andrew in Birmingham.

We are not lonely at the end Birmingham, even if nobody is

coming in to talk to you! We have got the former leader of the

Liberal Democrats, Ming Campbell. Welcome back to the programme. This

morning Nick Clegg admitted that joining the euro would have been a

huge, huge error. Do you agree? do not think I would put it in

those terms, but what he is doing is articulating what many people

now feel, and that is that so far as Britain is concerned, the single

currency is off the political agenda, and is is likely to be so

for some considerable time. told your party in September 2002

that it would be a historic error if Britain bins join the euro. The

stand by that? When the facts change, I changed my opinion. Not

me, but Lord Keynes! I knew you would get it. So we were wrong?

those circumstances, at the time, it appeared to be the proper thing

to do for Britain to stay out as undoubtedly resulted in at

exercising much less influence in Europe, but as recent events have

proved, still being subject to a lot of difficulties as a result are

the failures in the eurozone. So we stood out, but it does not stop us

being affected. You once accused the Labour government of timidity

over joining the single currency. You published a pamphlet, still

available in Waterstone's, by the way, for �4.99, why the euro is the

best future for Britain. That will not make the best sellers any more.

I am delighted it is �4.99. I do not think you are going to get

much! Somebody bought a copy of my biography for one penny on a bay.

4.99 at, I am doing pretty well. Remember what I was saying, Gordon

Brown's approach, which you will recall, was to set out five

conditions. Everyone of those, he was able to say, it has either been

fulfilled or not. It was entirely equivocal. In circumstances which

we now know from the memoirs, he was at direct odds with Tony Blair.

Your party was the arrears at the time. He wanted him to get the

British economy into shape quickly to meet these five conditions. That

is why you accused him of timidity. We were the first party to promise

that there should be a referendum on whether Britain should join the

single currency. Leg has also said that no-one predicted that the euro

would descend into crisis. -- Nick Clegg. That is not true, is it?

context of that, is that no one predicted that the economy of the

United States would stagnate. No- one predicted that the eurozone

would fail, not because of the conditions that were laid down, but

because of the failure to apply these conditions. It is not the

scheme of the euro which is at fault, it is the failure of

countries to make their obligations. With, for example, the notable

alternative of Germany, where they have met all their conditions.

Guess what, the German economy is the strongest in the European Human.

-- the European Union. We knew that Italian national debt was a hundred

and 15% of GDP, whereas the rule was that it could be 60. -- 115%.

You knew that they were getting in on a false prospectus, but you

still said that the euro was best for Britain. It was best for

Britain in the circumstances of that time. I do not resile from

that. How can we trust your judgment on economic matters now

when you seem to get the biggest economic question in a generation

wrong? You can trust our party's position on economics as a result

of the performance of Vince Cable, who was predicting precisely the

kind of tsunami, economic tsunami which was created as a result of

the policies of the previous Labour government. He did not predict the

sub-prime crisis. What he did say was that personal debt in this

country amounting to 1.3 trillion pounds was extremely dangerous for

us to be an. Do you agree with Paddy Ashdown that the eurozone is

currently current circuit -- as currently constructed is unlikely

to survive and there will almost certainly be a retrenchment into a

hard core northern eurozone? think that is a possible outcome.

If we look at Germany, which I referred to a moment ago, there is

clearly great resistance among the German public, essentially, to be

turning themselves into the banker of the eurozone, which is what is

being expected of them. If that is so, and Angela Merkel cannot

persuade public opinion in our country to be more amenable to

helping to bail out those countries which are in difficulty, then I

think the possible outcome is that there will be, if you like, an

inner core and an outer core. Can I make this point? We will be

directly affected in Britain, whatever the outcome, because such

a large proportion of our trade is with Europe. And because the

sovereign debt crisis hits everyone in the end. As the economy flat

lines, and I think you will agree that is a fair way to describe the

British economy at the moment, are you really happy that there is a

determination to stick to plan? Have you noticed there is another

plan around? No one has quite articulated it, but Vince Cable

wrote a pamphlet in which he praised Roosevelt. We have not got

to the Tennessee Valley Authority of the New Deal... Danny Alexander

told me that there will be no new deal style stimulus, it is not

going to happen. But look what he said in his speech, a number of

public projects are being stymied for bureaucratic or other reasons.

He had the example where an access road costing 10 million would open

up, a very substantial opportunity for public investment. But it is

not new money. Maybe you could bring things forward, maybe you can

do things that are being done too slowly, but it is not new money,

and by definition it is therefore not a stimulus. It will be a

stimulus if it is money that is not being spent because of bureaucratic

intervention. It will be a stimulus, too, if it is money which, by being

spent, provokes and encourages the private sector. Your expertise

traditionally, your interests have been in foreign affairs, you were

the party's foreign affairs spokesman for a long time, and you

travel a lot. Should Britain's support Palestine's bid to be a

recognised state in the UN? Yes. Why? Unequivocally. Because in my

view it will contribute towards that two-stage settlement which

every Foreign Secretary I have heard at the dispatch box in the

House of Commons since 1987 has been Britain's objective. If they

go unilaterally, there will be two Estates. It will be legal

recognition of something which is partially, in practical terms, on

the ground. And is your view Nick Clegg's view? I have not discussed

it with him, but my view is quite clear and unequivocal, and I have

said so in the House of Commons and indeed here. I'm grateful for you

repeating it. Are you telling me that the leader of your party has

not consulted the man who knows more about foreign affairs than the

rest of his party puts together? on a key issue like this? I am

flattered by your assertion that I am important, I am a humble

government backbencher, I have reached my own view. He does not

consulted? I talk to him from time to time, but I would not expected.

I understand the Foreign Office is conflicted. That is why I am

speaking out. I am told that there is ministerial dispute, that some

ministers are for and some against, but my view is that Britain's

influence and reputation in the Middle East will suffer badly if we

don't do it. Ministerial conflict is our bread and butter! Thank you

for being with us. That is it for today. I will be back just after

Newsnight tonight with a round-up of today's events at the conference.

We will be back again live at noon on BBC Two tomorrow with another

Daily Politics conference special. A quick sandwich for lunch then