:00:26. > :00:36.Good afternoon. We are live from the this ball, where that sky is
:00:36. > :00:44.blue. -- live from Liverpool. That's the view from the Liverpool
:00:44. > :00:47.Wheel. It is another busy day here at conference. Ed Miliband has been
:00:47. > :00:51.doing his round of morning interviews, which always follows
:00:51. > :00:55.the leader's speech these days. He has a message for you youngsters
:00:55. > :01:00.out there - do not pin your hopes on being the next star of a reality
:01:00. > :01:04.TV show. You know you want to, but the Labour leader says no. His
:01:04. > :01:13.party tonight is hosting its own talent contest. Inside the
:01:13. > :01:16.conference, delegates are still digesting the Miliband speech. The
:01:16. > :01:20.journalists -- he had a good reception here, even though they
:01:20. > :01:23.are not working in the aisles. We will be speaking to the Shadow
:01:23. > :01:28.business secretary. And Giles has been finding out if there is any
:01:28. > :01:34.appetite for a future deal with the Lib Dems. Is there still hope for
:01:34. > :01:40.the Progressive Alliance? Or has Nick Clegg put an end to that? And
:01:40. > :01:45.that's not all. Jo has done a runner, left us. She's back in
:01:45. > :01:50.London. I have hot-footed it back to the capital, where the weather
:01:50. > :01:54.is just as nice. The big story today - Labour accusing the
:01:54. > :01:57.coalition of confusion over police reform. So the party has set up its
:01:57. > :02:06.own review. We will be speaking to the former Crimewatch presenter
:02:06. > :02:11.Nick Ross, and to the Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper.
:02:11. > :02:15.Yes, all that and a lot more coming up in the next hour. To discuss
:02:15. > :02:19.that, I am joined by Anushka Asthana from the Times, and
:02:19. > :02:24.Benedict Brogan from the Telegraph. So, it is the morning after the
:02:24. > :02:28.night before - what do we think? think the speech has not had a
:02:28. > :02:36.great reception in terms of the newspapers today. I saw that Ed
:02:36. > :02:40.Miliband was asked about Tony Blair this morning, whom of course he
:02:40. > :02:47.mentioned that he was not in the speech, and got cheers. He did not
:02:47. > :02:51.defend Tony Blair that heavily. Should not a leader have said, when
:02:51. > :02:56.he heard the Boeing, have immediately ad-libbed, how dare
:02:56. > :03:00.anybody do that for the most successful Labour leader we ever
:03:00. > :03:05.had, who introduced the minimum wage, built more schools and
:03:05. > :03:09.hospitals than any leader ever? Why did he not do that? There are still
:03:09. > :03:14.plenty of fans of Tony Blair, and this morning they are out raged
:03:14. > :03:18.that he did not say anything. He appears to have associated himself
:03:18. > :03:25.with the jeering of Labour's most successful leader since the war, if
:03:25. > :03:31.not in its entire history. There is some good news for him. He came to
:03:31. > :03:34.Liverpool and advanced an argument. That is refreshing. But it is an
:03:34. > :03:37.argument that everybody is arguing with this morning. The difficulty
:03:37. > :03:41.for him is that in his round of interviews, he spent all of his
:03:41. > :03:45.time explaining what he was trying to say, defending himself about
:03:45. > :03:49.Tony Blair, and even having to answer questions about whether or
:03:49. > :03:54.not he is weird. There is a difficult disconnect for the Labour
:03:54. > :03:58.leader, I would suggest. He says it is the end of the political and
:03:58. > :04:02.economic consensus of the past 30 years. He may be right on that.
:04:02. > :04:07.These things come in cycles. The post-war consensus ended with Mrs
:04:07. > :04:10.Thatcher. It is probably time for a new one to emerge. But if you say
:04:10. > :04:15.something that big is happening, you have to have something quite
:04:15. > :04:25.big to respond to it. I agree. He has got this idea of goodies and
:04:25. > :04:27.
:04:27. > :04:30.baddies, producers and predators, I think it was. The the problem is
:04:30. > :04:35.that it is too much like black-and- white. Everybody has a bit of both.
:04:35. > :04:42.You have these pantomime villains, like Fred Goodwin. He's talking to
:04:42. > :04:47.you, as in, are we the goodies? I'm not sure, maybe I'm a baddie, I'm a
:04:47. > :04:52.journalist. A definitely a baddie, you're a predator. But you at the
:04:52. > :04:55.Telegraph, we do not know. definitely on the good side of the
:04:55. > :04:59.argument. But he has got this big argument and he has not got
:04:59. > :05:04.convincing answers to it. Everybody is puzzled as to what he means.
:05:04. > :05:14.Does it mean that as Mr Hi! -- bad businesses will be taxed more than
:05:14. > :05:18.others? We remember Gordon Brown going around like a bear with a
:05:18. > :05:23.sore head after the Sun dumped him. Ed Miliband was not quite like that
:05:23. > :05:27.this morning. This is what he had to say. Are you saying you want to
:05:27. > :05:31.fight the gas and electricity companies? Just remind me, who was
:05:31. > :05:36.the Secretary of State for energy quite recently? Me, and that's why
:05:36. > :05:40.I took action. Did you take them on? You guessed, I did. Talk to
:05:40. > :05:48.them about it. I took action on prices, on pre-payment meters. But
:05:48. > :05:52.there's more that we can do. People are saying, hold on, he wrote the
:05:52. > :05:58.rules - on Energy, on debt finance, which led to Southern Cross, you
:05:58. > :06:02.were there. A was there, and I do not say we did everything right.
:06:02. > :06:07.I'm proud of what we did. On the crucial issue of pre-payment meters,
:06:07. > :06:11.for example, we took action. Ask the companies themselves whether
:06:11. > :06:14.Ray gave them an easy ride, and they will say I did not. I'm
:06:14. > :06:19.determined that we complete that work, which we would have done if
:06:19. > :06:24.we had been re-elected. mentioned good business and bad
:06:24. > :06:28.business - British Airways, is that a good business? The most important
:06:28. > :06:34.distinction I make is between good business practices and bad business
:06:34. > :06:43.practices. I'm not going to typecast one industry. So, let's
:06:43. > :06:47.talk about British Aerospace... It is the subject of a fraud inquiry.
:06:47. > :06:55.I know what good business is about. It is about training your workforce,
:06:55. > :07:00.it is about sustainable wealth, not wealth which is built on sand. Of
:07:00. > :07:04.course you need defence manufacturers in your economy.
:07:04. > :07:10.about private-equity companies? So, provided you train people and spend
:07:10. > :07:15.money on research...? Sustainable wealth, that is what is about. It
:07:15. > :07:18.is more complicated than just to say it is about a few evil people.
:07:19. > :07:23.The rules were not right, they encouraged the wrong things, not
:07:24. > :07:28.the right things. You could say, let's just carry on as we are.
:07:28. > :07:33.Let's say the banking crisis was simply a local difficulty. Icesave
:07:33. > :07:43.this is a moment when we have got to change. This is not anti-
:07:43. > :07:45.
:07:45. > :07:49.business. It is anti-business as usual. Let me comeback to a matter
:07:49. > :07:54.mention by Ben, the question on the Today Programme, people think you
:07:54. > :07:58.are weird... Before coming here, partly because the new channels are
:07:58. > :08:04.full of the Michael Jackson trial, I tried to watch some other things.
:08:04. > :08:09.I came across Channel Five, the show with a live audience in the
:08:09. > :08:13.mornings, not with people like this, just ordinary daytime viewers. They
:08:13. > :08:17.ran a clip of Ed Miliband, and the whole audience started to snigger
:08:17. > :08:22.and burst into laughter. The presenter, quite pro-Labour, put
:08:22. > :08:27.his head in his hands, like that. That's a real problem. I think it
:08:27. > :08:33.can be a problem. It is a real shame that that was the reaction.
:08:33. > :08:39.It takes time to put that right. With Mr Hague and Iain Duncan Smith,
:08:39. > :08:43.for the Tories, it never happened.. But it can happen for some people.
:08:43. > :08:47.David Cameron was not as impressive in the early days as he later
:08:47. > :08:51.became. I'm not sure it can, in this case. First impressions are
:08:52. > :08:57.terribly important. The danger is that Ed Miliband is crystallising
:08:57. > :09:01.the minds of the public as somebody who is slightly so regal, slightly
:09:02. > :09:09.goofy looking. Somebody who is not quite in tune with them. --
:09:09. > :09:13.cerebral. We have not got that much time left. The William Hague of
:09:13. > :09:17.this conference, Rory Weal, it turns out, according to some of the
:09:17. > :09:21.papers, he was not born in a shoe and brought up in the middle of a
:09:21. > :09:25.roundabout, after all. But you have interviewed him. You can have a
:09:25. > :09:29.minute to defend him, and you have a minute to say whatever you want.
:09:29. > :09:33.He probably should have mentioned that she had gone to private school.
:09:33. > :09:37.But he never claimed that he lived a life of poverty. One point he
:09:37. > :09:40.made to me was that actually, people who sometimes need the
:09:40. > :09:45.benefits system are not the stereotypes that you talk about. He
:09:45. > :09:50.never lied, his house was repossessed. He was remiss in what
:09:50. > :09:54.he should have told us. Perhaps it was a sin of omission. But he is a
:09:54. > :10:02.16-year-old. How many 16-year-olds can do what he did yesterday. Very
:10:02. > :10:07.few, but then he does go to a grammar school. I found him great,
:10:07. > :10:10.he was a normal kid. He loved football, Charlton Athletic. I
:10:10. > :10:17.should have noticed that she had a season ticket for Charlton Athletic,
:10:17. > :10:21.which obviously wasn't that cheap. You warmed to him? Yes, he's just a
:10:21. > :10:25.very nice, personable 16-year-old. I was impressed with what he did.
:10:25. > :10:30.He should have mentioned his dad and the money. But the reality is
:10:30. > :10:37.that his house did get repossessed. The you will probably turn out to
:10:37. > :10:41.be a brilliant politician because he has mastered the art of being
:10:41. > :10:47.economical with the truth. And he is a walking, talking advertisement
:10:47. > :10:50.for private education as well. Would you like a badge? I love
:10:50. > :11:00.Rupert Murdoch? He is your proprietor, I would like to remind
:11:00. > :11:01.
:11:01. > :11:06.you. This one, I love Ed. I will take, I love deficit reduction. The
:11:06. > :11:10.thank you very much to both of you. Let's go back to London. Open the
:11:10. > :11:14.papers, turn on the television, and the parts of Ed Miliband's speech
:11:15. > :11:18.which are being picked over are the bits about business. Labour's big
:11:18. > :11:23.game hunters stepped into the conference jungle yesterday, and he
:11:23. > :11:29.had some big targets in his sights. He took aim at predatory private-
:11:29. > :11:34.equity firms, like the one which bought and eventually closed
:11:34. > :11:41.Southern Cross care homes, Blackstone. He could not resist
:11:41. > :11:45.firing off a few rounds at ex-RBS chief Fred Goodwin. But he was keen
:11:45. > :11:49.to recognise good firms, what he termed producers, like Rolls-Royce,
:11:49. > :11:52.who are creating wealth and keeping jobs in this country. He made it
:11:52. > :11:56.clear he would favour these firms and government.
:11:56. > :12:00.We must learn the lesson that growth is built on sand if it comes
:12:00. > :12:05.from our predators and not our producers. For years, as a country,
:12:05. > :12:10.we have been neutral in that battle. They have been taxed, regulated,
:12:10. > :12:12.celebrated the same - they will not be by me. We need the most
:12:12. > :12:19.competitive tax and regulatory environment for business that we
:12:19. > :12:23.can have. When I am Prime Minister, how we tax, how we relegate, what
:12:23. > :12:28.government buys, will be in the service of Britain's producers.
:12:28. > :12:32.That did not go down well with big business beasts. Former trade
:12:33. > :12:35.minister Lord Digby Jones called minister Lord Digby Jones called
:12:35. > :12:39.the remarks divisive and a kick in the teeth for business. In contrast,
:12:39. > :12:44.the speech was it would meet for those on the left. Len McCluskey
:12:44. > :12:48.eulogised that there was a phoenix rising from the ashes, with Labour
:12:48. > :12:53.becoming a peoples Party. Joining me now, from the Conservative Party,
:12:53. > :12:55.me now, from the Conservative Party, Michael Fallon. Do you agree that
:12:55. > :13:01.the something for something mantra that he used will resonate well
:13:01. > :13:02.people? But what did they do about it over 13 years? They did not do
:13:02. > :13:06.it over 13 years? They did not do anything about welfare reform.
:13:06. > :13:15.They're not backing our changes on welfare reform to make sure that
:13:15. > :13:19.you have to work to claim benefit. Just not backing the changes. They
:13:19. > :13:22.are talking about this. They did not do it when they were in office.
:13:22. > :13:25.You could argue that they did actually have a welfare programme
:13:25. > :13:34.in place, and they have said that they would use more stick and
:13:34. > :13:39.carrot. But you couldn't disagree with the idea of something for
:13:39. > :13:43.something? No, but you have to ask why they did not do it successfully
:13:43. > :13:47.in government, why they had so many people claiming benefit, and why it
:13:47. > :13:51.is still more worthwhile to claim benefit and to work. We're changing
:13:51. > :13:55.that. We have got a bill changing that at the moment. The locals are
:13:55. > :13:59.in a sense, you agree on that level, even if you are doing different
:13:59. > :14:09.things about it. He also agree with the idea of ending the era of the
:14:09. > :14:17.
:14:17. > :14:27.fast buck? You agree with him on that as well? We are regulating the
:14:27. > :14:47.
:14:47. > :14:51.banks properly and putting the Bank We were warning about it. Lots of
:14:51. > :14:55.people were warning about it. Lots of people were saying, this thing
:14:55. > :15:00.is getting out of control, and when it ended up with the banks going
:15:00. > :15:03.bust. We are now having to clear up that mess. That's why we are
:15:03. > :15:08.reforming banking regulation and making sure it does not happen
:15:08. > :15:12.again. So, in a sense, you are at one with what Ed Miliband is saying.
:15:12. > :15:16.You are saying they should be regulation, they should be some
:15:16. > :15:20.controls on what banks and may be big in the business does. In a way,
:15:20. > :15:30.you are agree with that line, that it is the end of that era, it is
:15:30. > :15:35.
:15:35. > :15:39.the end of the fast buck, the end He say you need to divide companies
:15:39. > :15:49.into good cafes and bad companies, some are producers, and nobody
:15:49. > :15:50.
:15:50. > :15:53.knows how you define them. It takes you back to the kind of picking
:15:53. > :16:01.winners and so one of the 1970s if you say that they are different.
:16:01. > :16:06.Are you saying there is not to case about having an argument where,
:16:06. > :16:10.cannot he be the middle guide between people who exploit the
:16:10. > :16:13.welfare state and businesses that made money on the back of
:16:13. > :16:18.speculation. You are always having to improve regulation because they
:16:18. > :16:21.fail to regulate the banks properly. The Conservatives didn't come in at
:16:21. > :16:25.the time and say. He is going further and say in government
:16:25. > :16:30.ministers should make moral decisions about which companies are
:16:30. > :16:33.better. Wise's boots a predator? Are you saying it is not possible
:16:33. > :16:39.or desirable to reward good businesses with tax breaks and
:16:39. > :16:42.investments? Good businesses are rewarding themselves by attracting
:16:42. > :16:48.more shareholding, making profits for the shareholders. There is
:16:48. > :16:55.already plenty of corporate guidance and so on. But what
:16:55. > :17:00.ministers cannot do is say, you are a good business and you are a bad
:17:00. > :17:06.one. The Federation of Schmoll businesses had criticism along
:17:06. > :17:12.those lines but said Ed Miliband had a good idea -- Federation of
:17:13. > :17:17.school businesses. Do you not agree? We can always improve
:17:18. > :17:22.regulation. We are doing that. is more than that. He is saying
:17:22. > :17:28.something different. He is trying to say that ministers should make
:17:28. > :17:33.moral judgments. I don't think they should go so far as deciding what a
:17:34. > :17:41.good and bad company is. Were you celebrating in Conservative Central
:17:41. > :17:44.Office is as has been reported? I have not heard that. It has not
:17:45. > :17:48.been a good walk. On Monday we didn't have a credible economic
:17:48. > :17:55.plan from Ed Balls and yesterday we have a speech from Miliband which
:17:55. > :18:01.is already falling apart. It hasn't been a good week. It has been
:18:01. > :18:07.confused and rather weak. Back to Andrew in the Conference Centre.
:18:07. > :18:15.We are joined by the Shadow Business Secretary, John Denham.
:18:15. > :18:23.The leader of the opposition told Nick Robinson that he didn't want
:18:23. > :18:26.wealth built on sand. But when your government was taking billions and
:18:26. > :18:31.billions of pounds in revenues from banks like the Royal Bank of
:18:31. > :18:36.Scotland and others in the mid- part of the decade to, using it to
:18:36. > :18:40.build schools and hospitals, was that wealth built on sand?
:18:40. > :18:43.reality was that that approach to the economy wasn't one that is
:18:43. > :18:47.sustainable in the long term. That is why Ed Miliband was talking
:18:47. > :18:51.about the rules. You didn't know at the time. When you were taking all
:18:51. > :18:55.that money, billions of pounds from financial-services, you didn't know.
:18:55. > :19:00.You certainly didn't say it was wealth built on sand. The point
:19:00. > :19:04.about where we are now after losing an election and after the banking
:19:04. > :19:08.crisis is to say, do we understand what needs to be done in the
:19:08. > :19:11.future? We have a record that I am proud. But there were things that
:19:11. > :19:21.happened and things we didn't get right that we need to change in the
:19:21. > :19:25.future. My point is, you do not know, we do not know when wealth is
:19:25. > :19:30.built on sand and when it isn't. Who would have thought that the
:19:30. > :19:35.Royal Bank of Scotland turned out to be well built on sand? I think
:19:35. > :19:39.we can say that if we have as many companies a possible who invest
:19:39. > :19:42.long term, who trained staff, who take the environment seriously,
:19:43. > :19:47.which want their customers to be with them in 15 years' time and not
:19:47. > :19:53.just in 15 minutes, those countries are the ones that are most likely
:19:53. > :19:57.to bring success to this country. We don't have an environment that
:19:57. > :20:01.fosters that. It is often been possible to make more money by
:20:01. > :20:05.doing more short-term things than by building a long-term business.
:20:05. > :20:08.What government has to do more seriously than we have done before
:20:08. > :20:11.is create the environment for those good companies to grow. Firstly,
:20:11. > :20:16.you will not get good companies without good government. If
:20:16. > :20:22.government jobs and changes its policy... Willie penalise countries
:20:22. > :20:26.that do not follow the Government's rules? You have to get incentives
:20:26. > :20:31.right in the first place. It is recognising that if the rules of
:20:31. > :20:36.the game are that you can make more money than speculation than
:20:36. > :20:40.investing long-term, people will. Let us get the rules right. This
:20:40. > :20:45.company is full of companies -- this country is full of companies
:20:45. > :20:49.that invest for the long term. you look at the economy, there are
:20:49. > :20:52.not enough of them for the size of a country to pay away in the world.
:20:53. > :21:01.We have brilliant companies but we also have companies with business
:21:01. > :21:07.models that a more short-term. example. I will not name any.
:21:07. > :21:10.you can't name companies, it is impossible to have a proper debate.
:21:10. > :21:17.It is a theoretical debate for an Oxbridge Common Room. It is talking
:21:17. > :21:22.about features in companies, training, Ferrar conditions. We
:21:22. > :21:25.need more of those conditions and more sectors of the economy.
:21:25. > :21:29.Everything we cut of about doing is changing the rules of the economy.
:21:29. > :21:33.Which falls? Rules on investment return for example, which means
:21:33. > :21:37.they can be incentives to buy into a young company and then sell it on
:21:37. > :21:44.within five years, instead of keeping your cup listen to enable
:21:44. > :21:48.it to grow. We need to make more small companies become bigger
:21:49. > :21:54.companies. How do you know it might not be a good thing to sell the
:21:54. > :21:58.company on in five years to another company? A trade sale that wants to
:21:58. > :22:03.acquire it and grow it? How can you stop it on know whether it is good?
:22:03. > :22:07.You have to make judgments on what deals you is a device. I wouldn't
:22:07. > :22:11.want to stand in the way of somebody who got Investment and
:22:11. > :22:16.chose to sell on after five years. Too many small businesses say they
:22:16. > :22:21.have no option. That when you get venture capital in after five years
:22:21. > :22:25.the capital has to be released. We can look at how you change the
:22:25. > :22:29.rules to foster different behaviour. It means making judgements about
:22:29. > :22:33.the business models you want to reward. How many ministers in the
:22:33. > :22:39.shadow cabinet have first-hand business experience? I don't know
:22:39. > :22:44.how many do. I haven't done a head count. Who has? I set up the social
:22:44. > :22:48.enterprise myself very successfully 30 years ago. Did you have any
:22:48. > :22:54.business folk in the cabinet? have business people around the
:22:54. > :22:58.party. In the cabinet? I don't think there are any that come to
:22:58. > :23:03.mind that have made their main careers in business. And yet you
:23:03. > :23:07.think you can judge? Your shadow cabinet has no business experience
:23:07. > :23:10.yet you think you can judge when wealth is not based on sand, when
:23:10. > :23:15.it would be good or bad to sell a company on in five years' time,
:23:15. > :23:19.whether venture-capital lays down the right decisions? You have no
:23:19. > :23:25.qualifications for any of that. What was said yesterday and what I
:23:25. > :23:29.was saying, has not come out of thin air. If you talk about
:23:29. > :23:32.business, this is a discussion they are they having. It is the conflict
:23:32. > :23:38.between long-term wealth creation and short-term decisions. The
:23:38. > :23:41.dilemmas faced by small companies that want to grow. This is not a
:23:41. > :23:45.Labour party invented debate. It is what British business is talk about
:23:45. > :23:47.today. The reason we are talking about it is because we have been
:23:47. > :23:51.listening to businesses says the last election and that is what they
:23:51. > :23:54.are asking us to raise and to talk about. That has not been the
:23:54. > :23:58.reaction of business. Every spokesman we have heard from his
:23:58. > :24:03.very sniffy about what you are proposing. Tell me one major
:24:03. > :24:09.business figure that has supported the line Mr Miliband took yesterday.
:24:09. > :24:19.John Cridland from the CBI. Not to tour. He bangs the idea of
:24:19. > :24:22.
:24:22. > :24:28.customers investing in the long term. -- he backs the idea. That is
:24:28. > :24:30.not controversial. At the moment we do not have a system of incentives,
:24:30. > :24:37.government policy-making, rewards, which fosters those types of
:24:37. > :24:41.business. He didn't do that for 14 years in power? -- you didn't.
:24:41. > :24:47.invest in training. We had crucial decisions that Ed was talking about
:24:47. > :24:52.earlier. Energy policy that laid down a long time frame mark. You're
:24:52. > :24:59.telling us now you have to take the six major energy companies over
:24:59. > :25:02.predatory pricing. We did some of the things but not all of them. If
:25:02. > :25:12.you are saying we shouldn't try to make this choice, try to foster
:25:12. > :25:21.
:25:21. > :25:25.that environment, I did believe There is nothing wrong about the
:25:25. > :25:28.investment bank. But if you buy into a company, loaded with Betts,
:25:28. > :25:38.strip its assets and leave it as a husk, that is not a helpful
:25:38. > :25:47.business model. Tuna was investment banks do? They offer a range of
:25:47. > :25:56.mergers and acquisitions and a You are saying, if you are going to
:25:56. > :26:00.be in that activity, do tax was -- awards reward the merges? If they
:26:00. > :26:04.do, that is good. If government gets the rules wrong and they can
:26:04. > :26:08.make more money by taking assets out, you don't own the company for
:26:08. > :26:15.that. The individuals involved. You say government has to get the rules
:26:15. > :26:24.right. Were you proud of your party when Tony Blair was booed
:26:24. > :26:29.yesterday? Ed Miliband was clear. He said he was his own man. He said
:26:29. > :26:32.this morning that this was the end of the Thatcher-Blair era. To the
:26:32. > :26:36.extent that the idea was that we should be completely neutral about
:26:36. > :26:40.which types of business models that took place as long as they were
:26:40. > :26:44.business. We have to go beyond that. If we pay our way in a world that
:26:44. > :26:47.has a rising China, a rise in India, we need more of those companies
:26:47. > :26:54.that will invest in the long term. Can you understand why people are
:26:54. > :26:57.puzzled that your own party should do what was regarded as the most
:26:58. > :27:06.successful leader -- should be doing what was regarded as the most
:27:06. > :27:13.successful leader. I was in the hall. With a Tory conference ever
:27:13. > :27:17.do that to Margaret Thatcher? don't think so. What did you say
:27:17. > :27:26.about Gordon and Tony? Two of the greatest leader the party has ever
:27:26. > :27:29.had. Did they applaud that? they did. Are you sure? We will
:27:29. > :27:37.have to look at the Tate. Thank you for being a with us.
:27:37. > :27:40.Last week at the Liberal Democrat conference we sent the mood box out
:27:40. > :27:46.to see who delegates would prefer to go into coalition with should
:27:46. > :27:51.there be a hung parliament in 2015. Tory or Labour? Delegates said they
:27:51. > :27:55.fancied Labour over the Tories. We went out this week to see if the
:27:55. > :28:00.feelings were reciprocated. Someone has tried to walk off with
:28:00. > :28:06.some of the mood box balls. We have lost them. But the question is
:28:06. > :28:15.today, should Ed Miliband rule out a coalition with the Lib Dems? It
:28:15. > :28:24.takes two seconds. Whichever one you think. You are really need out.
:28:24. > :28:30.Excellent. I expected there to be a coalition so he knows what would
:28:30. > :28:36.happen. Should he rule out a coalition with the Lib Dems? We
:28:36. > :28:43.don't ask easy questions. They are angry about what Nick Clegg has
:28:43. > :28:48.is progressive and that will do the right thing to Britain that is not
:28:48. > :28:52.led by the Tories. It is the right thing to leave the options open for
:28:52. > :29:01.a start you are catching us on the end of Ed Miliband's speech so we
:29:01. > :29:06.are feeling positive. It is a good thing to feel positive. You think
:29:06. > :29:13.it is sensible. Is that heart ruling head? I think so. If you
:29:13. > :29:17.have the chance to go to government you should take it. It is just
:29:17. > :29:24.sensible politics? There would have to be a new leader. Obviously not
:29:24. > :29:31.Vince Cable or Nick Clegg. Maybe Charles Kennedy again. Should Ed
:29:31. > :29:35.without a coalition with the Lib Dems? That would be like having a
:29:35. > :29:42.coalition with the Conservatives, so very much he should rule it out.
:29:42. > :29:48.We may not need them but you have to keep it open. Should he rule out
:29:48. > :29:51.a coalition with the Lib Dems? heart says rule it out. My head
:29:51. > :29:54.says, if his -- if it was a few of them and a lot of us, and the
:29:54. > :30:02.difference between us and them and the tourists and them, we would
:30:02. > :30:12.have to consider it. But it would go against the grey mack -- go
:30:12. > :30:22.
:30:22. > :30:27.It is the trade unionists and the MPs that do this. Howard Wilson
:30:27. > :30:31.said, a day in politics is a long time, and that's why I'm leaving my
:30:31. > :30:41.options open. It is closer than most have been this week, but it is
:30:41. > :30:45.still definitely rule it out which is winning at the halfway stage.
:30:45. > :30:52.think we ought to go it alone. If we are a minority government, so be
:30:52. > :30:55.it. Tell me, is there a reason why it. Tell me, is there a reason why
:30:55. > :31:01.all the MPs are options open, and the delegates are, well in it out?
:31:01. > :31:11.We are sensible realists. I think the Lib Dems will be very good,
:31:11. > :31:16.particularly those who have got more in common with Labour. More
:31:16. > :31:26.people would like Ed to read aloud a coalition with the Lib Dems, but
:31:26. > :31:27.
:31:27. > :31:31.there are the pragmatists, who want options to be left open. Am joined
:31:31. > :31:41.now by the MP for Ian Murray, and by the self-styled sensible realist,
:31:41. > :31:46.
:31:46. > :31:53.Tessa Jowell. Let me ask you this - given that we may be in an era of
:31:53. > :31:57.hung parliaments, we do not know, but we might be, surely, any party
:31:57. > :32:02.would be sensible not to read aloud any option. I think that's right.
:32:02. > :32:08.Other than the national Front, or whatever. That's right. And that is
:32:08. > :32:11.what being a sensible realist means. But also, nobody won the last
:32:11. > :32:19.election, and we do not know what the public mood will be that the
:32:19. > :32:24.time we get to the next election. So, I think the right thing is to
:32:24. > :32:27.campaign for an outright majority... Of course. And then, if there is
:32:27. > :32:32.not an outright majority, but in the event that Labour was the
:32:32. > :32:35.largest party, to look at the feasibility and desirability of
:32:35. > :32:42.coalition, consistent with the policies that you have campaigned
:32:42. > :32:45.on. What would your view be? It is up to the voters to decide. If they
:32:45. > :32:49.decide they do not want the Liberal Democrats forming any part of any
:32:49. > :32:53.government, then they will say so at the ballot box. But you could
:32:53. > :32:56.only do that if you wiped out the Liberal Democrats altogether. When
:32:56. > :32:59.voters vote for individual parties, we do not know if they are also
:32:59. > :33:03.voting for the Lib Dems to be holding the balance of power.
:33:03. > :33:07.would not rule it out in terms of doing any deal with the Liberal
:33:07. > :33:10.Democrats, in the sense that we want rid of this rotten
:33:10. > :33:14.Conservative government. But the bottom line is the trust issue, for
:33:14. > :33:17.me. The pledges that have been broken by Nick Clegg. There is no
:33:17. > :33:23.doubt that the Labour Party is the only progressive party left in the
:33:23. > :33:28.country. The voters will decide. the voters decide to make you the
:33:28. > :33:31.largest party, but without an overall majority, but the Lib Dems
:33:31. > :33:37.still have enough seats, that with them, you could form an overall
:33:37. > :33:41.majority, what would your advice be? It would be a very, very bitter
:33:41. > :33:44.pill to swallow, but if it meant that the Conservatives were removed
:33:44. > :33:48.from power, and Labour could take progressive policies to the country,
:33:48. > :33:54.then we would have to think about doing a deal. But Nick Clegg would
:33:54. > :33:59.be very much a barrier to that. Miliband has said that we could not
:33:59. > :34:05.do a deal with Nick Clegg as leader - is that still the situation, is
:34:05. > :34:13.it a sensible position to be in?. think that at this stage, 3.5 years
:34:13. > :34:19.from an election, it is very hard to lay down firm conditions, other
:34:19. > :34:23.than that we're going to campaign for a majority government. In the
:34:23. > :34:27.circumstances of the time, unionist has yet, and you decide whether
:34:27. > :34:31.you're going to be a minority government on what is called
:34:31. > :34:36.confidence and supply, where you have agreement issue by issue, or
:34:36. > :34:39.whether you can actually become a full coalition. Ian is right, full
:34:39. > :34:44.coalition has to be consistent with progressive values, and it also has
:34:44. > :34:50.to be consistent with what people have voted for Labour to achieve in
:34:50. > :34:54.government. You sound, if I may say so, a bit like a number of Tory MPs
:34:54. > :34:59.at the moment, who wish that they had not gone into coalition with
:34:59. > :35:03.the Lib Dems, and had formed a minority government on this supply
:35:03. > :35:11.and confident basis which Tessa Jowell is talking about. In the
:35:11. > :35:15.circumstances, is that not what you would really prefer? I have been
:35:15. > :35:24.called a lot of things, but never a Tory. We are stuck in a very
:35:24. > :35:27.dangerous austerity package. But I am talking about 2015. The Liberal
:35:27. > :35:31.Democrats have endorsed an austerity package which they do not
:35:31. > :35:36.believe in. We have to put a strong message to the British people,
:35:36. > :35:40.which says that if you want a progressive party in charge...
:35:40. > :35:44.getting enough stuff like that from the conference, I'm asking you a
:35:44. > :35:48.specific question, that in the circumstances of you being the
:35:48. > :35:52.largest party, and without an overall majority, would you not
:35:52. > :35:59.prefer, as many Tory MPs would have done in the same circumstance, to
:35:59. > :36:05.remain a minority government, with a supply and confident steal?
:36:05. > :36:10.believe in leaving those options open. You do not sound enthusiastic
:36:10. > :36:13.about a coalition. It depends on the numbers. If you fall so far
:36:13. > :36:17.away from having an absolute majority, then you might have to
:36:17. > :36:22.form a coalition. But otherwise, supply and demand should not be
:36:22. > :36:28.rule out. There is also a difference, if I can say, between
:36:28. > :36:32.the prospect of being a minority government, but with a sufficient
:36:32. > :36:39.number of seats to form a majority coalition with the Liberal
:36:39. > :36:43.Democrats, and being the largest party but a minority government,
:36:44. > :36:50.and having to cobbled-together enough seats with a whole lot of
:36:50. > :36:53.other minority parties. I think then, quite honestly, the price of
:36:53. > :37:00.being in government is just too high, financially, because of what
:37:00. > :37:05.they demand, and also, it stretches credibility. And understand that,
:37:05. > :37:07.but will this not change our politics? The possibility of a hung
:37:08. > :37:11.parliament in the run-up to the last election was the kind of
:37:11. > :37:16.elephant in the room, nobody talked about it, but it was there. Now
:37:16. > :37:19.that we have got a coalition, if, in the next campaign, the polls
:37:19. > :37:23.show there is likely to be no clear-cut winner, this will affect
:37:23. > :37:29.the campaign, and people like me will ask people like you what
:37:29. > :37:33.positions you're taking in the event of a coalition. It will be a
:37:33. > :37:37.different kind of election... would give you the same answer,
:37:38. > :37:42.that we are campaigning for an outright majority. But I will say,
:37:42. > :37:46.we know that, but are you prepared if we do not get it to do a deal
:37:46. > :37:50.with the Liberals? And the answer would be, of course, if we are the
:37:50. > :37:54.largest party, we would look at the possibility of coalition in order
:37:54. > :38:04.to form a majority government, consistent with the policies in our
:38:04. > :38:07.manifesto. It will affect the election campaign,, won't you?
:38:07. > :38:17.There is no doubt that it will change the way you campaign. We
:38:17. > :38:27.
:38:27. > :38:36.will all be campaigning to be the On that shock revelation from Tessa
:38:36. > :38:39.Jowell, campaign to win, it's back to Jo in London. Now to the
:38:39. > :38:42.conference floor. Ed Miliband got cheers yesterday when he said he
:38:42. > :38:46.wasn't Tony Blair. But today, the Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette
:38:46. > :38:50.Cooper, has told them that Tony Blair was right, at least on the
:38:50. > :38:53.subject of law and order, with his famous mantra, tough on crime,
:38:53. > :38:57.tough on the causes of crime. Remember that? We will hear what
:38:57. > :39:01.she had to stay in a moment. But first, this is what Sidique Khan
:39:01. > :39:06.had to say to conference. In the past 12 months, the challenges for
:39:06. > :39:11.the justice system have become all too apparent. The groups and
:39:11. > :39:16.campaign organisations I have met, the prisons, young offenders'
:39:16. > :39:21.institutions and courts I have visited, the judiciary and legal
:39:21. > :39:30.professionals I have listened to, and the victims whose experiences I
:39:30. > :39:33.have heard. Take one couple who, following the tragic murder of
:39:33. > :39:38.their young son, have channelled all of their energy into working
:39:38. > :39:45.towards a safer community for young people across London through a
:39:45. > :39:52.Foundation. I'm honoured to have Barry advising my policy review. As
:39:52. > :39:56.you know, I shadow the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke. Somebody
:39:56. > :40:02.once said to me that one downside of being in the shadow cabinet is
:40:02. > :40:11.that you begin to resemble the Cabinet Minister you shudder. Well,
:40:11. > :40:16.so far, I do not wear Hush puppies, don't smoke cigars, and manage to
:40:16. > :40:21.stay a week during my leader's speech. -- to stay awake. Because
:40:21. > :40:25.of Ken Clarke and his Government's policies, the ministry of justice
:40:25. > :40:31.faces a budget cut of a quarter, risking the effective functioning
:40:31. > :40:34.of our justice system. Dedicated, experienced professionals and the
:40:34. > :40:40.prison and probation service face uncertainty about the future of
:40:40. > :40:46.their crucial work. Even his own chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick
:40:46. > :40:56.Hardwick, said, this month, he has found no evidence at all of a
:40:56. > :41:10.
:41:10. > :41:15.Bid will be enshrined in statute, so that the rights of bereaved
:41:15. > :41:19.families, of victims of homicide, are honoured. It will deliver
:41:19. > :41:22.effective justice and treat victims with respect and dignity.
:41:22. > :41:27.Supporting victims through all stages of the process, including
:41:27. > :41:31.the deeply traumatic experience of one a case reaches court. Under
:41:31. > :41:35.Labour, victims will be at the heart of the justice system. I will
:41:35. > :41:39.work with victims groups to make sure we get this right. Conference,
:41:39. > :41:45.the riots this summer show that we need a government which is not out
:41:45. > :41:50.of touch. Our country deserves better than what we have got. We
:41:50. > :41:55.need to make important decisions on crime and justice at the same time
:41:55. > :42:00.as making tough fiscal choices. At Ken Clarke and his government are
:42:00. > :42:04.getting these choices wrong. It will be down to us to put it right.
:42:04. > :42:12.There is only one party that can be trusted on law and order, and
:42:12. > :42:15.that's us, the Labour Party. Thank you very much. Tony Blair was right
:42:15. > :42:20.- tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, because it worked.
:42:20. > :42:25.Crime fell by 40%, the first government since records began
:42:25. > :42:35.where crime went down, not up, 7 million fewer crimes a year. That
:42:35. > :42:37.
:42:37. > :42:44.is Labour's record, and we should be proud of it. But we know that
:42:44. > :42:52.crime is still too high. We want crime to fall further. But the
:42:52. > :42:56.Tories don't get it. I don't think they ever did. In 1978, Jaxx Mark
:42:56. > :43:01.came to Labour Party conference from Castleford, in my constituency,
:43:01. > :43:04.and he said of the Tories then, they do not have to live in
:43:04. > :43:08.vandalised communities, they do not have to drive the trams which have
:43:08. > :43:18.missiles thrown into the camps, they do not have to take charge of
:43:18. > :43:20.
:43:20. > :43:24.the buses and deal with the rowdies. My old friend Jack was right. Can
:43:24. > :43:34.you imagine David Cameron and George Osborne dealing with the
:43:34. > :43:35.
:43:35. > :43:40.rowdy is? Rowdies Of their own, they can't even deal with Boris
:43:40. > :43:47.Johnson. And what is David Cameron's answer to crime? 20%
:43:47. > :43:53.front loaded cuts to the police. It is shocking. 650 police officers
:43:53. > :43:58.cut from Merseyside, 750 for Wales, 1,200 from the West Midlands,
:43:58. > :44:02.nearly 2000 officers from the Met. Right across the country, 16,000
:44:03. > :44:11.police officers lost. This is a reckless risk to take with the
:44:11. > :44:15.fight against crime. With me now, the former presenter of Crimewatch
:44:15. > :44:19.Nick Ross, also the chairman of the Jill Dando Institute of Security
:44:19. > :44:22.and Crime Science at University College London. Let's go back to
:44:22. > :44:26.the beginning, if you like, when it comes to Labour's record. That
:44:27. > :44:32.phrase, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime - did they live
:44:32. > :44:34.up to it in 13 years? Well, it is a meaningless expression, isn't it?
:44:34. > :44:38.meaningless expression, isn't it? Memorable, but meaningless. Yvette
:44:38. > :44:44.Cooper's, and was also memorable but meaningless, about Labour's
:44:44. > :44:48.record of crime going down 40%. She's a good politician, but she
:44:48. > :44:53.betrays why we cannot believe politicians, they do themselves a
:44:53. > :44:56.disservice. Crime started tumbling around 1995, it happened to be
:44:56. > :45:01.under the Conservatives. It was a trend Labour inherited and it went
:45:01. > :45:05.on steeply through labour's period. The Tories refused in opposition to
:45:05. > :45:09.acknowledge this. They come up with a whole load of nonsensical
:45:09. > :45:12.statistical rubbish to tell us that crime was not coming down. It has
:45:12. > :45:16.come down very, very fundamentally. There are Many lessons about why it
:45:16. > :45:19.came down. There are Many lessons about why we did not believe that
:45:19. > :45:22.crime would come down. The narrative they had in America we
:45:22. > :45:27.did not have here. So, great that the politicians are talking about
:45:27. > :45:32.it, but I wish they would put some more science and real fact been
:45:32. > :45:37.twit. Did they get anything right about crime reduction policies,
:45:37. > :45:40.Labour, over that period? You say that the crime rate was coming down,
:45:41. > :45:43.people were getting their cars are alarmed, whatever, but was there
:45:43. > :45:53.anything which struck you during that period that they did get
:45:53. > :45:54.
:45:54. > :45:58.Don't dismiss the things you have said dismissively. Crime goes up
:45:59. > :46:03.and crime goes down but Hummer sapiens remain the same from one
:46:03. > :46:07.generation to the next. Roughly speaking, people remain the same.
:46:07. > :46:11.What changes his circumstance. If you have a society where suddenly
:46:11. > :46:16.everybody has the sort of wealth that only the ultra-rich used to
:46:16. > :46:20.have, you have to start locking your doors, like they looked theirs,
:46:20. > :46:24.or had servants to protect them. We had that belatedly so we had a
:46:24. > :46:28.crime wave. When we started looking after our positions, crime came
:46:28. > :46:34.down. Car crime, when I had my first car, if you wanted to get
:46:34. > :46:40.into it you put the window open and pulled a lever and pushed a wire
:46:40. > :46:44.together. Now it is very difficult. Are you saying the politicians
:46:44. > :46:52.cannot have influence over crime policy? Looking at the issue, the
:46:52. > :46:57.contentious issue of bobbies on the beach, it is always essential part
:46:57. > :47:01.of the argument. Yvette Cooper was saying the coalition policy will
:47:02. > :47:07.result in fewer bobbies on the beat. Is it about police on streets?
:47:07. > :47:10.is not. It is in part, but mostly it is about the design of products,
:47:10. > :47:14.services and policies. Labour didn't get it entirely wrong and
:47:14. > :47:18.the Conservatives are putting some effort in as well. We have design
:47:18. > :47:22.against crime. And standards for new houses and so forth. This is
:47:22. > :47:29.really important. It is not the dramatic stuff. One of the things
:47:29. > :47:33.politicians need to do and we as Democrats need to do, and I used to
:47:33. > :47:36.present Crimewatch, finding people on a conveyor belt and taking them
:47:36. > :47:41.to the courts. We need to recognise just is important in its own right
:47:41. > :47:47.but it has a remarkably small effect on crime rates -- justice is
:47:47. > :47:52.important. We need to move the police away from being a come --
:47:52. > :47:55.conveyor belt and being proactive and problem solving. One of the
:47:55. > :48:01.ideas the coalition has had his elected police commissioners. What
:48:01. > :48:05.do you think? It is a pretty poor system on the hole and a pretty
:48:05. > :48:10.poor idea except politically. If he did not have strong policies you
:48:10. > :48:15.have to have a strong sense of momentum, and here is an initiative.
:48:15. > :48:20.That is what Gordon Brown was doing. It will give us a sense of momentum.
:48:20. > :48:25.But where will the people get... It has not as though we are electing
:48:25. > :48:30.people. Do you want to elect your surgeons and pilots? What about
:48:30. > :48:36.somebody like you? There isn't going to be a crime Commissioner
:48:36. > :48:43.for London. My concern is that most people are going to be lay people.
:48:43. > :48:50.They will not know much about it. It is a technical business, how you
:48:50. > :48:58.drive down crime. It is not intuitive. What about victims a
:48:58. > :49:03.law? What Sadiq Khan was talking about? The case is a breath of
:49:03. > :49:08.fresh air and politics. I was on the Advisory Board for victim
:49:08. > :49:14.Support for very many years. Things have improved but the judicial
:49:14. > :49:17.system is adversarial. It is between the guy in the dock being
:49:17. > :49:22.prosecuted and the defence. Unless the witness, the victim is a
:49:22. > :49:25.witness, he or she is irrelevant to the process. It is really important
:49:25. > :49:29.they should be brought in. It will not help reduce crime but it will
:49:29. > :49:38.help us get a better sense of Justice Vos up what about the
:49:38. > :49:43.review, this independent heavy Is it a bit after the event, Labour
:49:43. > :49:47.suggesting this? Yes but when you are in power nobody wants to
:49:47. > :49:52.acknowledge they do not know what they're doing. At the first step
:49:52. > :49:58.Labour is taking is being open about it. We do not understand what
:49:58. > :50:08.causes crime to rise and fall. The Jill Dando is a Jew does Lord
:50:08. > :50:11.
:50:11. > :50:15.Stevens does as well. -- Jill Dando We need to have a different
:50:16. > :50:22.attitude to policing. We have to detach from running after things
:50:22. > :50:27.after the event. Thinking more about what police do in football
:50:28. > :50:33.matches, terrorism, organised crime getting upstream. We need to move
:50:33. > :50:36.the whole thing, as we have learned in so many other areas of life,
:50:36. > :50:41.public health is better than patching people up afterwards.
:50:41. > :50:44.is a sort of antiquated service. It these to be modernised and run a
:50:44. > :50:49.little bit more efficiently -- needs to be. Is that what you're
:50:49. > :50:53.saying? Yes, but I'm not saying it will lease to be new. When the
:50:53. > :50:57.police service was founded in 1827 the founders would be horrified at
:50:57. > :51:01.the idea of the police not being detectives. They would have fought
:51:01. > :51:10.against it and they did. Why should police be detectives? We need to
:51:10. > :51:14.think about it. Thank you, and across. Before we go, we will get
:51:14. > :51:19.the answer to yesterday's competition. But back to Andrew
:51:19. > :51:23.first. I am joined by the shadow home
:51:23. > :51:28.secretary, Yvette Cooper. Welcome. We used to talk about Thatcher's
:51:28. > :51:33.children. Do you accept some responsibility for the of riots
:51:33. > :51:36.this summer? In a sense, they were Labour's children. I think you
:51:36. > :51:41.should always do more, go further to get people out of a life of
:51:41. > :51:45.crime. It was shocking what happened in the summer. Crime fell
:51:45. > :51:49.by 40% during Labour's period and that included fewer young people
:51:49. > :51:53.before the riots, few young people going into crime, fewer young
:51:53. > :51:58.offenders. But we ended up with riots, people who were grown-up,
:51:58. > :52:03.not all of them, obviously, but most, their formative experience,
:52:03. > :52:08.school, early life, had been under a Labour government. They were
:52:08. > :52:11.Labour's children. The fact they have been fewer young offenders is
:52:11. > :52:15.important progress. But of course it is the case that there were a
:52:15. > :52:19.lot of those young people, people in their 20s, because some of them
:52:19. > :52:23.were older. Who we have not managed to stop getting into a life of
:52:23. > :52:26.crime. That is why you always need to do more. I would like to see a
:52:26. > :52:31.strong implementation of some of the work being done in Boston and
:52:31. > :52:34.Hackney that targets the gangs. We have set out ways that you could
:52:34. > :52:40.fund that and the Government could start doing it now, so you do not
:52:40. > :52:48.have any repeat of the violence next summer. You have talked about
:52:48. > :52:53.the fall in crime under Labour and boasted about it. That has to be
:52:53. > :53:03.caveat it by the fact it ended in the worst rioting we have seen in a
:53:03. > :53:04.
:53:04. > :53:07.generation I spoke to. I spoke to police officers and a were right
:53:07. > :53:12.about public order pressures, the fear of a long, hot summer.
:53:12. > :53:15.they have a sense something would happen? Yes, several senior police
:53:15. > :53:21.officers were worried something would happen. For everybody else it
:53:21. > :53:27.was a surprise for us up exactly. It was a shock. You see people out
:53:27. > :53:33.of control, off the rails. And a sense that the fact the police were
:53:34. > :53:38.not able to hold the streets on the first night made it escalate.
:53:38. > :53:43.People thought they could get away with it. They thought the law would
:53:43. > :53:49.not be enforced. But if you saw it was a long, hot summer, it is all
:53:49. > :53:52.the more surprising that they left as undefended on the first night.
:53:52. > :53:56.don't think the police have anticipated how fast the writers
:53:56. > :54:01.would gather. One police officer said he had never in a 20 year
:54:01. > :54:05.career seen a crowd gathered that fast. And that his social media, a
:54:05. > :54:08.rolling news. But you have to respond to that. If criminals can
:54:09. > :54:12.gather quickly that the police need together quickly. And that means it
:54:12. > :54:17.is madness to make the police officer cuts. You set up the
:54:17. > :54:23.commission on the future of policing. You have chosen John
:54:23. > :54:27.Stevens, who has already attacked the Government's idea of Police
:54:27. > :54:31.Commissioner's -- elected to police commissioners. You have picked Tim
:54:31. > :54:34.Brain, who has criticised the Government cuts already. It sounds
:54:34. > :54:40.like the independent commission is full of people who have already
:54:40. > :54:45.made up their minds what the coalition is doing is wrong and
:54:45. > :54:52.what you will be doing is right. Not very independent. Lord Stevens
:54:52. > :54:58.is across printer in the House of Lords. -- is a crossbencher. All
:54:58. > :55:02.the police are attacking government policy. It makes it easy to find
:55:02. > :55:06.much as police officers but experts on crime, experts on how to bring
:55:06. > :55:10.crime down, all saying that what the Government is doing is madness.
:55:10. > :55:14.You will know that when the public sector gets United to attack those
:55:14. > :55:19.trying to reform it, as Mr Blair reminded us, you end up with scars
:55:19. > :55:23.on your back. It doesn't make them wrong. I can't find anybody who
:55:23. > :55:28.supports what the Government is doing. Anybody who supports 16,000
:55:28. > :55:32.cuts to police officers, support this is some shall organisation and
:55:32. > :55:36.chaos that they are proposing -- support the substantial
:55:36. > :55:45.reorganisation and chaos. Rather than big vision for the future.
:55:45. > :55:49.speak to policemen, and I get a sense that there is a crying need
:55:49. > :55:54.of the police, ordinary police, for a better quality of leadership and
:55:54. > :55:58.a better way their leaders are. It. Do you say that? There are some
:55:58. > :56:01.excellent police leaders. In the 21st century what you want is to
:56:01. > :56:06.draw on the best leadership, promote people fast, and have
:56:06. > :56:08.flexibility as well. I'm sure that there are issues around
:56:08. > :56:14.professionalisation and work force and those are things that will be
:56:14. > :56:17.covered as part of the review. There has been a tendency for
:56:17. > :56:24.ministers to undermine the police in the way they have been handling
:56:24. > :56:31.it and play at being armchair constables. I think some of the
:56:31. > :56:37.things we have been doing... It it is because they have no faith in
:56:37. > :56:41.the police. In August, when things were topping over the edge and we
:56:41. > :56:44.were all concerned, when we did not know whether the violence would be
:56:44. > :56:47.repeated, on that Tuesday, we should have been backing the police
:56:47. > :56:53.and backing respect for the police and the rule of law. The way they
:56:53. > :57:00.handled that, the way they seem to be knocking the police and -- in
:57:00. > :57:04.those sensitive few days was undermining the police at a time
:57:04. > :57:08.when we needed to support them most. There has been a claim that in the
:57:08. > :57:13.event of another leadership contest, your husband would sand if -- stand
:57:13. > :57:20.aside for you. Do you believe him? He said that Ed Miliband was doing
:57:20. > :57:25.a great job and he would carry on being leader for many years to come.
:57:25. > :57:31.Did he say he would not run for leadership again and that he was
:57:31. > :57:36.sad aside for you? Tony take his word,? That is what he said to me
:57:36. > :57:44.before we had the last leadership? These husbands, you cannot trust
:57:44. > :57:49.the! You don't think he will run again as leader? He has been there,
:57:49. > :57:58.done that. He is working very hard and doing a good job. You haven't
:57:58. > :58:04.ruled yourself out. You do always say that. Thank you for being with
:58:04. > :58:13.us. Before we go, time for the answer to the competition. Back in
:58:13. > :58:20.The answer was 1950, Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill, the Korean war
:58:20. > :58:30.were all in there. Nick, you can pick the winner. Everybody here got
:58:30. > :58:33.
:58:33. > :58:43.this right? They did. Pick our winner. It is Matthew... Matthew
:58:43. > :58:47.