Conference Special Daily Politics

Conference Special

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Conference Special. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon. We are live from the this ball, where that sky is


blue. -- live from Liverpool. That's the view from the Liverpool


Wheel. It is another busy day here at conference. Ed Miliband has been


doing his round of morning interviews, which always follows


the leader's speech these days. He has a message for you youngsters


out there - do not pin your hopes on being the next star of a reality


TV show. You know you want to, but the Labour leader says no. His


party tonight is hosting its own talent contest. Inside the


conference, delegates are still digesting the Miliband speech. The


journalists -- he had a good reception here, even though they


are not working in the aisles. We will be speaking to the Shadow


business secretary. And Giles has been finding out if there is any


appetite for a future deal with the Lib Dems. Is there still hope for


the Progressive Alliance? Or has Nick Clegg put an end to that? And


that's not all. Jo has done a runner, left us. She's back in


London. I have hot-footed it back to the capital, where the weather


is just as nice. The big story today - Labour accusing the


coalition of confusion over police reform. So the party has set up its


own review. We will be speaking to the former Crimewatch presenter


Nick Ross, and to the Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper.


Yes, all that and a lot more coming up in the next hour. To discuss


that, I am joined by Anushka Asthana from the Times, and


Benedict Brogan from the Telegraph. So, it is the morning after the


night before - what do we think? think the speech has not had a


great reception in terms of the newspapers today. I saw that Ed


Miliband was asked about Tony Blair this morning, whom of course he


mentioned that he was not in the speech, and got cheers. He did not


defend Tony Blair that heavily. Should not a leader have said, when


he heard the Boeing, have immediately ad-libbed, how dare


anybody do that for the most successful Labour leader we ever


had, who introduced the minimum wage, built more schools and


hospitals than any leader ever? Why did he not do that? There are still


plenty of fans of Tony Blair, and this morning they are out raged


that he did not say anything. He appears to have associated himself


with the jeering of Labour's most successful leader since the war, if


not in its entire history. There is some good news for him. He came to


Liverpool and advanced an argument. That is refreshing. But it is an


argument that everybody is arguing with this morning. The difficulty


for him is that in his round of interviews, he spent all of his


time explaining what he was trying to say, defending himself about


Tony Blair, and even having to answer questions about whether or


not he is weird. There is a difficult disconnect for the Labour


leader, I would suggest. He says it is the end of the political and


economic consensus of the past 30 years. He may be right on that.


These things come in cycles. The post-war consensus ended with Mrs


Thatcher. It is probably time for a new one to emerge. But if you say


something that big is happening, you have to have something quite


big to respond to it. I agree. He has got this idea of goodies and


baddies, producers and predators, I think it was. The the problem is


that it is too much like black-and- white. Everybody has a bit of both.


You have these pantomime villains, like Fred Goodwin. He's talking to


you, as in, are we the goodies? I'm not sure, maybe I'm a baddie, I'm a


journalist. A definitely a baddie, you're a predator. But you at the


Telegraph, we do not know. definitely on the good side of the


argument. But he has got this big argument and he has not got


convincing answers to it. Everybody is puzzled as to what he means.


Does it mean that as Mr Hi! -- bad businesses will be taxed more than


others? We remember Gordon Brown going around like a bear with a


sore head after the Sun dumped him. Ed Miliband was not quite like that


this morning. This is what he had to say. Are you saying you want to


fight the gas and electricity companies? Just remind me, who was


the Secretary of State for energy quite recently? Me, and that's why


I took action. Did you take them on? You guessed, I did. Talk to


them about it. I took action on prices, on pre-payment meters. But


there's more that we can do. People are saying, hold on, he wrote the


rules - on Energy, on debt finance, which led to Southern Cross, you


were there. A was there, and I do not say we did everything right.


I'm proud of what we did. On the crucial issue of pre-payment meters,


for example, we took action. Ask the companies themselves whether


Ray gave them an easy ride, and they will say I did not. I'm


determined that we complete that work, which we would have done if


we had been re-elected. mentioned good business and bad


business - British Airways, is that a good business? The most important


distinction I make is between good business practices and bad business


practices. I'm not going to typecast one industry. So, let's


talk about British Aerospace... It is the subject of a fraud inquiry.


I know what good business is about. It is about training your workforce,


it is about sustainable wealth, not wealth which is built on sand. Of


course you need defence manufacturers in your economy.


about private-equity companies? So, provided you train people and spend


money on research...? Sustainable wealth, that is what is about. It


is more complicated than just to say it is about a few evil people.


The rules were not right, they encouraged the wrong things, not


the right things. You could say, let's just carry on as we are.


Let's say the banking crisis was simply a local difficulty. Icesave


this is a moment when we have got to change. This is not anti-


business. It is anti-business as usual. Let me comeback to a matter


mention by Ben, the question on the Today Programme, people think you


are weird... Before coming here, partly because the new channels are


full of the Michael Jackson trial, I tried to watch some other things.


I came across Channel Five, the show with a live audience in the


mornings, not with people like this, just ordinary daytime viewers. They


ran a clip of Ed Miliband, and the whole audience started to snigger


and burst into laughter. The presenter, quite pro-Labour, put


his head in his hands, like that. That's a real problem. I think it


can be a problem. It is a real shame that that was the reaction.


It takes time to put that right. With Mr Hague and Iain Duncan Smith,


for the Tories, it never happened.. But it can happen for some people.


David Cameron was not as impressive in the early days as he later


became. I'm not sure it can, in this case. First impressions are


terribly important. The danger is that Ed Miliband is crystallising


the minds of the public as somebody who is slightly so regal, slightly


goofy looking. Somebody who is not quite in tune with them. --


cerebral. We have not got that much time left. The William Hague of


this conference, Rory Weal, it turns out, according to some of the


papers, he was not born in a shoe and brought up in the middle of a


roundabout, after all. But you have interviewed him. You can have a


minute to defend him, and you have a minute to say whatever you want.


He probably should have mentioned that she had gone to private school.


But he never claimed that he lived a life of poverty. One point he


made to me was that actually, people who sometimes need the


benefits system are not the stereotypes that you talk about. He


never lied, his house was repossessed. He was remiss in what


he should have told us. Perhaps it was a sin of omission. But he is a


16-year-old. How many 16-year-olds can do what he did yesterday. Very


few, but then he does go to a grammar school. I found him great,


he was a normal kid. He loved football, Charlton Athletic. I


should have noticed that she had a season ticket for Charlton Athletic,


which obviously wasn't that cheap. You warmed to him? Yes, he's just a


very nice, personable 16-year-old. I was impressed with what he did.


He should have mentioned his dad and the money. But the reality is


that his house did get repossessed. The you will probably turn out to


be a brilliant politician because he has mastered the art of being


economical with the truth. And he is a walking, talking advertisement


for private education as well. Would you like a badge? I love


Rupert Murdoch? He is your proprietor, I would like to remind


you. This one, I love Ed. I will take, I love deficit reduction. The


thank you very much to both of you. Let's go back to London. Open the


papers, turn on the television, and the parts of Ed Miliband's speech


which are being picked over are the bits about business. Labour's big


game hunters stepped into the conference jungle yesterday, and he


had some big targets in his sights. He took aim at predatory private-


equity firms, like the one which bought and eventually closed


Southern Cross care homes, Blackstone. He could not resist


firing off a few rounds at ex-RBS chief Fred Goodwin. But he was keen


to recognise good firms, what he termed producers, like Rolls-Royce,


who are creating wealth and keeping jobs in this country. He made it


clear he would favour these firms and government.


We must learn the lesson that growth is built on sand if it comes


from our predators and not our producers. For years, as a country,


we have been neutral in that battle. They have been taxed, regulated,


celebrated the same - they will not be by me. We need the most


competitive tax and regulatory environment for business that we


can have. When I am Prime Minister, how we tax, how we relegate, what


government buys, will be in the service of Britain's producers.


That did not go down well with big business beasts. Former trade


minister Lord Digby Jones called minister Lord Digby Jones called


the remarks divisive and a kick in the teeth for business. In contrast,


the speech was it would meet for those on the left. Len McCluskey


eulogised that there was a phoenix rising from the ashes, with Labour


becoming a peoples Party. Joining me now, from the Conservative Party,


me now, from the Conservative Party, Michael Fallon. Do you agree that


the something for something mantra that he used will resonate well


people? But what did they do about it over 13 years? They did not do


it over 13 years? They did not do anything about welfare reform.


They're not backing our changes on welfare reform to make sure that


you have to work to claim benefit. Just not backing the changes. They


are talking about this. They did not do it when they were in office.


You could argue that they did actually have a welfare programme


in place, and they have said that they would use more stick and


carrot. But you couldn't disagree with the idea of something for


something? No, but you have to ask why they did not do it successfully


in government, why they had so many people claiming benefit, and why it


is still more worthwhile to claim benefit and to work. We're changing


that. We have got a bill changing that at the moment. The locals are


in a sense, you agree on that level, even if you are doing different


things about it. He also agree with the idea of ending the era of the


fast buck? You agree with him on that as well? We are regulating the


banks properly and putting the Bank We were warning about it. Lots of


people were warning about it. Lots of people were saying, this thing


is getting out of control, and when it ended up with the banks going


bust. We are now having to clear up that mess. That's why we are


reforming banking regulation and making sure it does not happen


again. So, in a sense, you are at one with what Ed Miliband is saying.


You are saying they should be regulation, they should be some


controls on what banks and may be big in the business does. In a way,


you are agree with that line, that it is the end of that era, it is


the end of the fast buck, the end He say you need to divide companies


into good cafes and bad companies, some are producers, and nobody


knows how you define them. It takes you back to the kind of picking


winners and so one of the 1970s if you say that they are different.


Are you saying there is not to case about having an argument where,


cannot he be the middle guide between people who exploit the


welfare state and businesses that made money on the back of


speculation. You are always having to improve regulation because they


fail to regulate the banks properly. The Conservatives didn't come in at


the time and say. He is going further and say in government


ministers should make moral decisions about which companies are


better. Wise's boots a predator? Are you saying it is not possible


or desirable to reward good businesses with tax breaks and


investments? Good businesses are rewarding themselves by attracting


more shareholding, making profits for the shareholders. There is


already plenty of corporate guidance and so on. But what


ministers cannot do is say, you are a good business and you are a bad


one. The Federation of Schmoll businesses had criticism along


those lines but said Ed Miliband had a good idea -- Federation of


school businesses. Do you not agree? We can always improve


regulation. We are doing that. is more than that. He is saying


something different. He is trying to say that ministers should make


moral judgments. I don't think they should go so far as deciding what a


good and bad company is. Were you celebrating in Conservative Central


Office is as has been reported? I have not heard that. It has not


been a good walk. On Monday we didn't have a credible economic


plan from Ed Balls and yesterday we have a speech from Miliband which


is already falling apart. It hasn't been a good week. It has been


confused and rather weak. Back to Andrew in the Conference Centre.


We are joined by the Shadow Business Secretary, John Denham.


The leader of the opposition told Nick Robinson that he didn't want


wealth built on sand. But when your government was taking billions and


billions of pounds in revenues from banks like the Royal Bank of


Scotland and others in the mid- part of the decade to, using it to


build schools and hospitals, was that wealth built on sand?


reality was that that approach to the economy wasn't one that is


sustainable in the long term. That is why Ed Miliband was talking


about the rules. You didn't know at the time. When you were taking all


that money, billions of pounds from financial-services, you didn't know.


You certainly didn't say it was wealth built on sand. The point


about where we are now after losing an election and after the banking


crisis is to say, do we understand what needs to be done in the


future? We have a record that I am proud. But there were things that


happened and things we didn't get right that we need to change in the


future. My point is, you do not know, we do not know when wealth is


built on sand and when it isn't. Who would have thought that the


Royal Bank of Scotland turned out to be well built on sand? I think


we can say that if we have as many companies a possible who invest


long term, who trained staff, who take the environment seriously,


which want their customers to be with them in 15 years' time and not


just in 15 minutes, those countries are the ones that are most likely


to bring success to this country. We don't have an environment that


fosters that. It is often been possible to make more money by


doing more short-term things than by building a long-term business.


What government has to do more seriously than we have done before


is create the environment for those good companies to grow. Firstly,


you will not get good companies without good government. If


government jobs and changes its policy... Willie penalise countries


that do not follow the Government's rules? You have to get incentives


right in the first place. It is recognising that if the rules of


the game are that you can make more money than speculation than


investing long-term, people will. Let us get the rules right. This


company is full of companies -- this country is full of companies


that invest for the long term. you look at the economy, there are


not enough of them for the size of a country to pay away in the world.


We have brilliant companies but we also have companies with business


models that a more short-term. example. I will not name any.


you can't name companies, it is impossible to have a proper debate.


It is a theoretical debate for an Oxbridge Common Room. It is talking


about features in companies, training, Ferrar conditions. We


need more of those conditions and more sectors of the economy.


Everything we cut of about doing is changing the rules of the economy.


Which falls? Rules on investment return for example, which means


they can be incentives to buy into a young company and then sell it on


within five years, instead of keeping your cup listen to enable


it to grow. We need to make more small companies become bigger


companies. How do you know it might not be a good thing to sell the


company on in five years to another company? A trade sale that wants to


acquire it and grow it? How can you stop it on know whether it is good?


You have to make judgments on what deals you is a device. I wouldn't


want to stand in the way of somebody who got Investment and


chose to sell on after five years. Too many small businesses say they


have no option. That when you get venture capital in after five years


the capital has to be released. We can look at how you change the


rules to foster different behaviour. It means making judgements about


the business models you want to reward. How many ministers in the


shadow cabinet have first-hand business experience? I don't know


how many do. I haven't done a head count. Who has? I set up the social


enterprise myself very successfully 30 years ago. Did you have any


business folk in the cabinet? have business people around the


party. In the cabinet? I don't think there are any that come to


mind that have made their main careers in business. And yet you


think you can judge? Your shadow cabinet has no business experience


yet you think you can judge when wealth is not based on sand, when


it would be good or bad to sell a company on in five years' time,


whether venture-capital lays down the right decisions? You have no


qualifications for any of that. What was said yesterday and what I


was saying, has not come out of thin air. If you talk about


business, this is a discussion they are they having. It is the conflict


between long-term wealth creation and short-term decisions. The


dilemmas faced by small companies that want to grow. This is not a


Labour party invented debate. It is what British business is talk about


today. The reason we are talking about it is because we have been


listening to businesses says the last election and that is what they


are asking us to raise and to talk about. That has not been the


reaction of business. Every spokesman we have heard from his


very sniffy about what you are proposing. Tell me one major


business figure that has supported the line Mr Miliband took yesterday.


John Cridland from the CBI. Not to tour. He bangs the idea of


customers investing in the long term. -- he backs the idea. That is


not controversial. At the moment we do not have a system of incentives,


government policy-making, rewards, which fosters those types of


business. He didn't do that for 14 years in power? -- you didn't.


invest in training. We had crucial decisions that Ed was talking about


earlier. Energy policy that laid down a long time frame mark. You're


telling us now you have to take the six major energy companies over


predatory pricing. We did some of the things but not all of them. If


you are saying we shouldn't try to make this choice, try to foster


that environment, I did believe There is nothing wrong about the


investment bank. But if you buy into a company, loaded with Betts,


strip its assets and leave it as a husk, that is not a helpful


business model. Tuna was investment banks do? They offer a range of


mergers and acquisitions and a You are saying, if you are going to


be in that activity, do tax was -- awards reward the merges? If they


do, that is good. If government gets the rules wrong and they can


make more money by taking assets out, you don't own the company for


that. The individuals involved. You say government has to get the rules


right. Were you proud of your party when Tony Blair was booed


yesterday? Ed Miliband was clear. He said he was his own man. He said


this morning that this was the end of the Thatcher-Blair era. To the


extent that the idea was that we should be completely neutral about


which types of business models that took place as long as they were


business. We have to go beyond that. If we pay our way in a world that


has a rising China, a rise in India, we need more of those companies


that will invest in the long term. Can you understand why people are


puzzled that your own party should do what was regarded as the most


successful leader -- should be doing what was regarded as the most


successful leader. I was in the hall. With a Tory conference ever


do that to Margaret Thatcher? don't think so. What did you say


about Gordon and Tony? Two of the greatest leader the party has ever


had. Did they applaud that? they did. Are you sure? We will


have to look at the Tate. Thank you for being a with us.


Last week at the Liberal Democrat conference we sent the mood box out


to see who delegates would prefer to go into coalition with should


there be a hung parliament in 2015. Tory or Labour? Delegates said they


fancied Labour over the Tories. We went out this week to see if the


feelings were reciprocated. Someone has tried to walk off with


some of the mood box balls. We have lost them. But the question is


today, should Ed Miliband rule out a coalition with the Lib Dems? It


takes two seconds. Whichever one you think. You are really need out.


Excellent. I expected there to be a coalition so he knows what would


happen. Should he rule out a coalition with the Lib Dems? We


don't ask easy questions. They are angry about what Nick Clegg has


is progressive and that will do the right thing to Britain that is not


led by the Tories. It is the right thing to leave the options open for


a start you are catching us on the end of Ed Miliband's speech so we


are feeling positive. It is a good thing to feel positive. You think


it is sensible. Is that heart ruling head? I think so. If you


have the chance to go to government you should take it. It is just


sensible politics? There would have to be a new leader. Obviously not


Vince Cable or Nick Clegg. Maybe Charles Kennedy again. Should Ed


without a coalition with the Lib Dems? That would be like having a


coalition with the Conservatives, so very much he should rule it out.


We may not need them but you have to keep it open. Should he rule out


a coalition with the Lib Dems? heart says rule it out. My head


says, if his -- if it was a few of them and a lot of us, and the


difference between us and them and the tourists and them, we would


have to consider it. But it would go against the grey mack -- go


It is the trade unionists and the MPs that do this. Howard Wilson


said, a day in politics is a long time, and that's why I'm leaving my


options open. It is closer than most have been this week, but it is


still definitely rule it out which is winning at the halfway stage.


think we ought to go it alone. If we are a minority government, so be


it. Tell me, is there a reason why it. Tell me, is there a reason why


all the MPs are options open, and the delegates are, well in it out?


We are sensible realists. I think the Lib Dems will be very good,


particularly those who have got more in common with Labour. More


people would like Ed to read aloud a coalition with the Lib Dems, but


there are the pragmatists, who want options to be left open. Am joined


now by the MP for Ian Murray, and by the self-styled sensible realist,


Tessa Jowell. Let me ask you this - given that we may be in an era of


hung parliaments, we do not know, but we might be, surely, any party


would be sensible not to read aloud any option. I think that's right.


Other than the national Front, or whatever. That's right. And that is


what being a sensible realist means. But also, nobody won the last


election, and we do not know what the public mood will be that the


time we get to the next election. So, I think the right thing is to


campaign for an outright majority... Of course. And then, if there is


not an outright majority, but in the event that Labour was the


largest party, to look at the feasibility and desirability of


coalition, consistent with the policies that you have campaigned


on. What would your view be? It is up to the voters to decide. If they


decide they do not want the Liberal Democrats forming any part of any


government, then they will say so at the ballot box. But you could


only do that if you wiped out the Liberal Democrats altogether. When


voters vote for individual parties, we do not know if they are also


voting for the Lib Dems to be holding the balance of power.


would not rule it out in terms of doing any deal with the Liberal


Democrats, in the sense that we want rid of this rotten


Conservative government. But the bottom line is the trust issue, for


me. The pledges that have been broken by Nick Clegg. There is no


doubt that the Labour Party is the only progressive party left in the


country. The voters will decide. the voters decide to make you the


largest party, but without an overall majority, but the Lib Dems


still have enough seats, that with them, you could form an overall


majority, what would your advice be? It would be a very, very bitter


pill to swallow, but if it meant that the Conservatives were removed


from power, and Labour could take progressive policies to the country,


then we would have to think about doing a deal. But Nick Clegg would


be very much a barrier to that. Miliband has said that we could not


do a deal with Nick Clegg as leader - is that still the situation, is


it a sensible position to be in?. think that at this stage, 3.5 years


from an election, it is very hard to lay down firm conditions, other


than that we're going to campaign for a majority government. In the


circumstances of the time, unionist has yet, and you decide whether


you're going to be a minority government on what is called


confidence and supply, where you have agreement issue by issue, or


whether you can actually become a full coalition. Ian is right, full


coalition has to be consistent with progressive values, and it also has


to be consistent with what people have voted for Labour to achieve in


government. You sound, if I may say so, a bit like a number of Tory MPs


at the moment, who wish that they had not gone into coalition with


the Lib Dems, and had formed a minority government on this supply


and confident basis which Tessa Jowell is talking about. In the


circumstances, is that not what you would really prefer? I have been


called a lot of things, but never a Tory. We are stuck in a very


dangerous austerity package. But I am talking about 2015. The Liberal


Democrats have endorsed an austerity package which they do not


believe in. We have to put a strong message to the British people,


which says that if you want a progressive party in charge...


getting enough stuff like that from the conference, I'm asking you a


specific question, that in the circumstances of you being the


largest party, and without an overall majority, would you not


prefer, as many Tory MPs would have done in the same circumstance, to


remain a minority government, with a supply and confident steal?


believe in leaving those options open. You do not sound enthusiastic


about a coalition. It depends on the numbers. If you fall so far


away from having an absolute majority, then you might have to


form a coalition. But otherwise, supply and demand should not be


rule out. There is also a difference, if I can say, between


the prospect of being a minority government, but with a sufficient


number of seats to form a majority coalition with the Liberal


Democrats, and being the largest party but a minority government,


and having to cobbled-together enough seats with a whole lot of


other minority parties. I think then, quite honestly, the price of


being in government is just too high, financially, because of what


they demand, and also, it stretches credibility. And understand that,


but will this not change our politics? The possibility of a hung


parliament in the run-up to the last election was the kind of


elephant in the room, nobody talked about it, but it was there. Now


that we have got a coalition, if, in the next campaign, the polls


show there is likely to be no clear-cut winner, this will affect


the campaign, and people like me will ask people like you what


positions you're taking in the event of a coalition. It will be a


different kind of election... would give you the same answer,


that we are campaigning for an outright majority. But I will say,


we know that, but are you prepared if we do not get it to do a deal


with the Liberals? And the answer would be, of course, if we are the


largest party, we would look at the possibility of coalition in order


to form a majority government, consistent with the policies in our


manifesto. It will affect the election campaign,, won't you?


There is no doubt that it will change the way you campaign. We


will all be campaigning to be the On that shock revelation from Tessa


Jowell, campaign to win, it's back to Jo in London. Now to the


conference floor. Ed Miliband got cheers yesterday when he said he


wasn't Tony Blair. But today, the Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette


Cooper, has told them that Tony Blair was right, at least on the


subject of law and order, with his famous mantra, tough on crime,


tough on the causes of crime. Remember that? We will hear what


she had to stay in a moment. But first, this is what Sidique Khan


had to say to conference. In the past 12 months, the challenges for


the justice system have become all too apparent. The groups and


campaign organisations I have met, the prisons, young offenders'


institutions and courts I have visited, the judiciary and legal


professionals I have listened to, and the victims whose experiences I


have heard. Take one couple who, following the tragic murder of


their young son, have channelled all of their energy into working


towards a safer community for young people across London through a


Foundation. I'm honoured to have Barry advising my policy review. As


you know, I shadow the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke. Somebody


once said to me that one downside of being in the shadow cabinet is


that you begin to resemble the Cabinet Minister you shudder. Well,


so far, I do not wear Hush puppies, don't smoke cigars, and manage to


stay a week during my leader's speech. -- to stay awake. Because


of Ken Clarke and his Government's policies, the ministry of justice


faces a budget cut of a quarter, risking the effective functioning


of our justice system. Dedicated, experienced professionals and the


prison and probation service face uncertainty about the future of


their crucial work. Even his own chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick


Hardwick, said, this month, he has found no evidence at all of a


Bid will be enshrined in statute, so that the rights of bereaved


families, of victims of homicide, are honoured. It will deliver


effective justice and treat victims with respect and dignity.


Supporting victims through all stages of the process, including


the deeply traumatic experience of one a case reaches court. Under


Labour, victims will be at the heart of the justice system. I will


work with victims groups to make sure we get this right. Conference,


the riots this summer show that we need a government which is not out


of touch. Our country deserves better than what we have got. We


need to make important decisions on crime and justice at the same time


as making tough fiscal choices. At Ken Clarke and his government are


getting these choices wrong. It will be down to us to put it right.


There is only one party that can be trusted on law and order, and


that's us, the Labour Party. Thank you very much. Tony Blair was right


- tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, because it worked.


Crime fell by 40%, the first government since records began


where crime went down, not up, 7 million fewer crimes a year. That


is Labour's record, and we should be proud of it. But we know that


crime is still too high. We want crime to fall further. But the


Tories don't get it. I don't think they ever did. In 1978, Jaxx Mark


came to Labour Party conference from Castleford, in my constituency,


and he said of the Tories then, they do not have to live in


vandalised communities, they do not have to drive the trams which have


missiles thrown into the camps, they do not have to take charge of


the buses and deal with the rowdies. My old friend Jack was right. Can


you imagine David Cameron and George Osborne dealing with the


rowdy is? Rowdies Of their own, they can't even deal with Boris


Johnson. And what is David Cameron's answer to crime? 20%


front loaded cuts to the police. It is shocking. 650 police officers


cut from Merseyside, 750 for Wales, 1,200 from the West Midlands,


nearly 2000 officers from the Met. Right across the country, 16,000


police officers lost. This is a reckless risk to take with the


fight against crime. With me now, the former presenter of Crimewatch


Nick Ross, also the chairman of the Jill Dando Institute of Security


and Crime Science at University College London. Let's go back to


the beginning, if you like, when it comes to Labour's record. That


phrase, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime - did they live


up to it in 13 years? Well, it is a meaningless expression, isn't it?


meaningless expression, isn't it? Memorable, but meaningless. Yvette


Cooper's, and was also memorable but meaningless, about Labour's


record of crime going down 40%. She's a good politician, but she


betrays why we cannot believe politicians, they do themselves a


disservice. Crime started tumbling around 1995, it happened to be


under the Conservatives. It was a trend Labour inherited and it went


on steeply through labour's period. The Tories refused in opposition to


acknowledge this. They come up with a whole load of nonsensical


statistical rubbish to tell us that crime was not coming down. It has


come down very, very fundamentally. There are Many lessons about why it


came down. There are Many lessons about why we did not believe that


crime would come down. The narrative they had in America we


did not have here. So, great that the politicians are talking about


it, but I wish they would put some more science and real fact been


twit. Did they get anything right about crime reduction policies,


Labour, over that period? You say that the crime rate was coming down,


people were getting their cars are alarmed, whatever, but was there


anything which struck you during that period that they did get


Don't dismiss the things you have said dismissively. Crime goes up


and crime goes down but Hummer sapiens remain the same from one


generation to the next. Roughly speaking, people remain the same.


What changes his circumstance. If you have a society where suddenly


everybody has the sort of wealth that only the ultra-rich used to


have, you have to start locking your doors, like they looked theirs,


or had servants to protect them. We had that belatedly so we had a


crime wave. When we started looking after our positions, crime came


down. Car crime, when I had my first car, if you wanted to get


into it you put the window open and pulled a lever and pushed a wire


together. Now it is very difficult. Are you saying the politicians


cannot have influence over crime policy? Looking at the issue, the


contentious issue of bobbies on the beach, it is always essential part


of the argument. Yvette Cooper was saying the coalition policy will


result in fewer bobbies on the beat. Is it about police on streets?


is not. It is in part, but mostly it is about the design of products,


services and policies. Labour didn't get it entirely wrong and


the Conservatives are putting some effort in as well. We have design


against crime. And standards for new houses and so forth. This is


really important. It is not the dramatic stuff. One of the things


politicians need to do and we as Democrats need to do, and I used to


present Crimewatch, finding people on a conveyor belt and taking them


to the courts. We need to recognise just is important in its own right


but it has a remarkably small effect on crime rates -- justice is


important. We need to move the police away from being a come --


conveyor belt and being proactive and problem solving. One of the


ideas the coalition has had his elected police commissioners. What


do you think? It is a pretty poor system on the hole and a pretty


poor idea except politically. If he did not have strong policies you


have to have a strong sense of momentum, and here is an initiative.


That is what Gordon Brown was doing. It will give us a sense of momentum.


But where will the people get... It has not as though we are electing


people. Do you want to elect your surgeons and pilots? What about


somebody like you? There isn't going to be a crime Commissioner


for London. My concern is that most people are going to be lay people.


They will not know much about it. It is a technical business, how you


drive down crime. It is not intuitive. What about victims a


law? What Sadiq Khan was talking about? The case is a breath of


fresh air and politics. I was on the Advisory Board for victim


Support for very many years. Things have improved but the judicial


system is adversarial. It is between the guy in the dock being


prosecuted and the defence. Unless the witness, the victim is a


witness, he or she is irrelevant to the process. It is really important


they should be brought in. It will not help reduce crime but it will


help us get a better sense of Justice Vos up what about the


review, this independent heavy Is it a bit after the event, Labour


suggesting this? Yes but when you are in power nobody wants to


acknowledge they do not know what they're doing. At the first step


Labour is taking is being open about it. We do not understand what


causes crime to rise and fall. The Jill Dando is a Jew does Lord


Stevens does as well. -- Jill Dando We need to have a different


attitude to policing. We have to detach from running after things


after the event. Thinking more about what police do in football


matches, terrorism, organised crime getting upstream. We need to move


the whole thing, as we have learned in so many other areas of life,


public health is better than patching people up afterwards.


is a sort of antiquated service. It these to be modernised and run a


little bit more efficiently -- needs to be. Is that what you're


saying? Yes, but I'm not saying it will lease to be new. When the


police service was founded in 1827 the founders would be horrified at


the idea of the police not being detectives. They would have fought


against it and they did. Why should police be detectives? We need to


think about it. Thank you, and across. Before we go, we will get


the answer to yesterday's competition. But back to Andrew


first. I am joined by the shadow home


secretary, Yvette Cooper. Welcome. We used to talk about Thatcher's


children. Do you accept some responsibility for the of riots


this summer? In a sense, they were Labour's children. I think you


should always do more, go further to get people out of a life of


crime. It was shocking what happened in the summer. Crime fell


by 40% during Labour's period and that included fewer young people


before the riots, few young people going into crime, fewer young


offenders. But we ended up with riots, people who were grown-up,


not all of them, obviously, but most, their formative experience,


school, early life, had been under a Labour government. They were


Labour's children. The fact they have been fewer young offenders is


important progress. But of course it is the case that there were a


lot of those young people, people in their 20s, because some of them


were older. Who we have not managed to stop getting into a life of


crime. That is why you always need to do more. I would like to see a


strong implementation of some of the work being done in Boston and


Hackney that targets the gangs. We have set out ways that you could


fund that and the Government could start doing it now, so you do not


have any repeat of the violence next summer. You have talked about


the fall in crime under Labour and boasted about it. That has to be


caveat it by the fact it ended in the worst rioting we have seen in a


generation I spoke to. I spoke to police officers and a were right


about public order pressures, the fear of a long, hot summer.


they have a sense something would happen? Yes, several senior police


officers were worried something would happen. For everybody else it


was a surprise for us up exactly. It was a shock. You see people out


of control, off the rails. And a sense that the fact the police were


not able to hold the streets on the first night made it escalate.


People thought they could get away with it. They thought the law would


not be enforced. But if you saw it was a long, hot summer, it is all


the more surprising that they left as undefended on the first night.


don't think the police have anticipated how fast the writers


would gather. One police officer said he had never in a 20 year


career seen a crowd gathered that fast. And that his social media, a


rolling news. But you have to respond to that. If criminals can


gather quickly that the police need together quickly. And that means it


is madness to make the police officer cuts. You set up the


commission on the future of policing. You have chosen John


Stevens, who has already attacked the Government's idea of Police


Commissioner's -- elected to police commissioners. You have picked Tim


Brain, who has criticised the Government cuts already. It sounds


like the independent commission is full of people who have already


made up their minds what the coalition is doing is wrong and


what you will be doing is right. Not very independent. Lord Stevens


is across printer in the House of Lords. -- is a crossbencher. All


the police are attacking government policy. It makes it easy to find


much as police officers but experts on crime, experts on how to bring


crime down, all saying that what the Government is doing is madness.


You will know that when the public sector gets United to attack those


trying to reform it, as Mr Blair reminded us, you end up with scars


on your back. It doesn't make them wrong. I can't find anybody who


supports what the Government is doing. Anybody who supports 16,000


cuts to police officers, support this is some shall organisation and


chaos that they are proposing -- support the substantial


reorganisation and chaos. Rather than big vision for the future.


speak to policemen, and I get a sense that there is a crying need


of the police, ordinary police, for a better quality of leadership and


a better way their leaders are. It. Do you say that? There are some


excellent police leaders. In the 21st century what you want is to


draw on the best leadership, promote people fast, and have


flexibility as well. I'm sure that there are issues around


professionalisation and work force and those are things that will be


covered as part of the review. There has been a tendency for


ministers to undermine the police in the way they have been handling


it and play at being armchair constables. I think some of the


things we have been doing... It it is because they have no faith in


the police. In August, when things were topping over the edge and we


were all concerned, when we did not know whether the violence would be


repeated, on that Tuesday, we should have been backing the police


and backing respect for the police and the rule of law. The way they


handled that, the way they seem to be knocking the police and -- in


those sensitive few days was undermining the police at a time


when we needed to support them most. There has been a claim that in the


event of another leadership contest, your husband would sand if -- stand


aside for you. Do you believe him? He said that Ed Miliband was doing


a great job and he would carry on being leader for many years to come.


Did he say he would not run for leadership again and that he was


sad aside for you? Tony take his word,? That is what he said to me


before we had the last leadership? These husbands, you cannot trust


the! You don't think he will run again as leader? He has been there,


done that. He is working very hard and doing a good job. You haven't


ruled yourself out. You do always say that. Thank you for being with


us. Before we go, time for the answer to the competition. Back in


The answer was 1950, Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill, the Korean war


were all in there. Nick, you can pick the winner. Everybody here got


this right? They did. Pick our winner. It is Matthew... Matthew


Download Subtitles