14/10/2011 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics on Friday, where we'll be

asking the difficult question: Just how do you stabilise the world

economy? That's the question finance ministers from the G20

countries will be hoping to answer, as they meet in Paris. This morning,

Spain's long-term debt was downgraded for a second time in a

week. We'll be asking, should the eurozone survive?

Fantastic Dr Fox has survived the week. We'll be analysing the latest

twist and turns as his friend Mr Werritty faces more questions today.

Happy birthday Glenda Slagg, HP sauce and Street of Shame. We'll be

celebrating Private Eye's 50th birthday.

There are definitely front covers I have seen him...

And, Oliver Letwin has kindly donated next weeks cover! Mr

Cameron's right-hand man has apparently been caught dumping

With me today are Anushka Asthana from the Times, and Paul Waugh,

editor of Politics Home. Welcome. First this morning, let's turn our

eyes to St James's Park, where, according to today's Daily Mirror,

the Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin has been throwing away

sensitive documents in the park's bins. The paper alleges Mr Letwin

disposed of more than 100 papers in a number of different bins. A

government spokeswoman said Mr Letwin often worked in the park,

and none of the material was sensitive. We did ask Mr Letwin to

come on the Daily Politics. He declined, but we have his Shadow,

Labour's Michael Dugger with us from Leeds.

The defence is this is not sensitive information, we should

not be worried. We need an investigation to find that what

this information was, what classification it was in terms of

its clearance. Also, how often this has happened. Most people would

find it incredible that the minister is so as a touch he thinks

it is OK to disregard the normal procedures all ministers must

follow her and all civil servants must follow, by leading information

in this way. He has duties as a constituency MP, and

responsibilities under data protection to look after the data

of his constituents who have written to him privately. It just

shows how out of touch they have become. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a

friend and colleague, it says a copy of the letter sent to him

published by the Daily Mirror, doesn't amount to anything but

communication between two backbenchers. That is rather

complacent. The reports I have read says of this information may deal

with counter-terrorism and intelligence. Most people watching

will think that is reasonably sensitive. We need an investigation.

This does need to take their responsibilities seriously, and

stop acting in what is such a cavalier manner. Oliver Letwin is

an intelligent man, it seems bizarre that he would chuck away

sensitive documents in a park been. There is a famous phrase, it is

amazing how stupid clever people can be. There are very clear

procedures governing the conduct of ministers in relation to how they

handle government correspondence and information. And he should have

followed those. We need an investigation to find out what is

out there and why he hasn't done that.

Paul Waugh, he does have a point. He does. Oliver Letwin, a likeable

and smart Minister, but accident- prone as it seems. He is using an

orthodox filing system of Park bins which will amaze most people. The

Cabinet Office but trees in his more seriously than most people

have overnight. They have changed their line. The Cabinet Office will

be looking into this. It is not a matter of saying, these are not

classified documents. Information Commissioner's office

is looking into this, they take pictures of data protection

seriously and have the power of ordering a fine of �500,000.

can't say that actually happening. Idea this is serious but the person

most likely to find these letters was a journalist from the Daily

Mirror! The photographs are hilarious. There is a funny side to

this story, and like the idea spend in the morning in the park before

work, I might do it myself. That in itself is not a crime! Number 10

were relaxed, saying, with a straight face, most of the business

Mr Letwin does in the park his constituency based. That won't wash

for very long. It won't with his constituents. The material that

related to his constituents is Fraser's did to those people it

belongs to. I do not think they will appreciate the fact he has

been throwing that into the bin. Finance ministers from the G20

countries are meeting in Paris to discuss how to stabilise the world

economy. Representatives from eurozone countries are expected to

come under further pressure to come up with a credible plan to tackle

the mounting debt crisis. Our correspondent, Hugh Schofield, is

in Paris. How likely is a credible plan likely to emerge?

It is not going to emerge here. Simply because there are two very

important meetings coming up, where they will save their ammunition for,

next Sunday, the European summit delayed for a week. There is an

awful a matter of expedition building up around that, where the

Commission President and the German and French leaders are expected to

come together to announce this big plan which they think will provide

the shock and or to the market that will see us through. On top of that,

the G20 actual summit in Cannes, a week after that, again, that will

be digesting the European plan. This meeting here it is clearly

important as a preparatory step but we shouldn't expect anything out of

this meeting. Even if they agree, they won't announce anything, they

will wait for these two bigger meetings. Time is of the essence.

Would we not even hear about any extension to the stability fund, or

any more extension in terms of bailing out Greece? We can

definitely see what is beginning to emerge. Quite clearly from the

signals we are getting, there is this big plan as has been turned,

built around three things. A kind of structured default for Greece,

in which creditors, like the banks, accept more than the 21% haircut

than what has already been agreed. Some kind of structured default

which Keats crease in the euro. Then, beefing up the bail-out fund

now that Slovakia has got new powers, but those powers aren't

enough, so they will be beefed up again with leverage in. The IMF

will use its financial muscle to put more money into that. The third

thing is, recapitalising the banks. If the banks need a bigger hair cut

they will need more cash. Joining me from west London is the

Conservative MP and chairman of his party's Economic Affairs Committee,

John Redwood. We have just heard what is being

discussed in terms of recapitalising Europe's banks,

extending the stability fund. You have compared the euro to the ERM

in terms of not worth saving. Should the eurozone just collapse?

I don't want it to collapse but an orderly reduction in members would

be the best way for all of the European economies. Several of the

weaker countries cannot live within the disciplines sensibly proposed

at the beginning of the scheme. It would be better to let them get out,

devalue, and compete their way back to prosperity. But they're not

going to do that. The problems of the big banks' scheme is it will

slow growth further in Europe. The bans will respond by saying the

anyway is to lend even less. But, if you shore up the banks? They

won't be attacking these weaker countries. Then the eurozone crisis

does begin to diminish? On the contrary, what they have in mind is

shoring up the banks with more money from taxpayers and from week

sovereigns. For the states that don't have the money to do that.

The danger is the banks will do most of the adjustment by lending

less when we need growth and recovery. Everybody knows the way

out of this is a faster growth rate for the euro and other countries in

the west. This is the opposite of a growth agenda. The government has

been saying the way to growth is to have a strong, functioning eurozone.

You are saying those countries should default. You are talking

about Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain. How much would that cost?

wasn't saying they should default, but a limited number of countries

should have a planned exit from the euro so they can re-establish their

own currencies. Certainly that should be done for Greece

immediately. So they can have a competitive exchange rate which

allows them to compete with Germany. Default is much more problematic.

The euro scheme members now seem to want a default for Greece. I think

that is hazardous, for losses in the banking system and send a

message that countries can go on spending beyond their means and one

day they can turn around and say to all the investors, bad luck, we

have stolen your money. A thank you for the moment.

What you think, this idea they should be organising their exit,

the weaker currencies, out on the euro, and growth will hopefully

come? Politically in Britain, what this

has provided to the Euro-sceptics, but it clear in the Conservative

Party, is a strong argument it wasn't right in the first place.

Part of that argument was some economies would not behave in a way

necessary for this to continue. Therefore, that argument is very

persuasive. But we don't have much of a say in it? To an extent, this

is Germany and France deciding. The Germans aren't necessarily going to

back beside it even if taxpayers are not keen of throwing their

money at the problem. George Osborne is pushing hard for

the long-term structural changes. But the big business will be at the

EU summit. This week, David Cameron and Chris Grayling have said the

rise in unemployment in the UK it is a direct result of the

continuing economic uncertainty in the eurozone. So this matters to

Britain hugely. What David Cameron once in his to push this through.

How do you understand this being carried out? What is it David

Cameron can expect when we are on the margins of this issue? David

Cameron will be successful and will adopt a proposal. The problem is,

they will do it reluctantly and with all sorts of the tell, not

properly settled. To put so much money into buttressing these

countries that have borrowed too much and these weak banks, the

markets will give up and say, you can get yourself through. What they

have got to do is to solve the underlying problem, to tackle the

excess deficits in the sovereign countries. But this will give them

time, won't it? To look at those structural problems in those

countries. The question is, how much more time do they need? We

have been telling them intensively over the last year and they have

wasted month after month and not done what was needed. In the case

of Greece, where they start to do what looks but the rump -- the

right things, they create a vicious circle spiralling downwards because

the country cannot compete. What employers are you having on the

leadership? They are not doing what you want them to do? We are having

influence on the leadership, we have been saying consistently we

must not put more British money at risk. And they have agreed to that.

We are saying we need to give hard advice to them, if they wish to

maintain their currency, then of course they have to take tough

decisions and get German discipline into the budgets of all the Latin

countries. That is democratically very difficult. They had better get

on and do it. Euro-sceptics, apart from agreeing British money should

not going, much more they cannot do. I think George Osborne is quite

pragmatic about this. We are not in a situation where we have as much

influence as we might have had. Equally, this is very important for

Britain, it will have a huge impact on jobs and growth at home. They're

not going to do what John Redwood is proposing? I suspect George

Osborne would love privately to go ahead with what John Redwood is

proposing. John makes a good point about the value of currency. What

pressures most economic recoveries is a devaluation, which is what

happened post 1993, and over the last year. That is why British

exports are finally batting hard for Britain. If you pull out of the

euro, countries like Greece will Any way read thank you very much.

It cost 1.50. If you make the front cover you have probably had a bad

week. It is fifty years old. What I am a reader and a fan. I think I

first sort of discovered it over the Dear Bill letter which were

very funny when Margaret Thatcher was doing the job I do now. There

were front covers I have seen and thought "My God, how could they?"

the main thing is it is funny. If you can't laugh at yourself you

shouldn't do this job. particularly like this cover here

you have the Queen saying what is obviously is a mass murderer and

the Queen is saying "How very interesting." I used to read it as

a teenager, and it was no question, it is a really important thorn in

the side of politician, and that from dition of great investigative

journalism. Humorous journalism. Journalism that pokes fun at

politicians is part of a free society. That is one of my

favourite clover covers. Crow can see why. It hits it on the head.

You can't help laughing. Some weeks are better than others but every

week especially in my trade you are very glad you have read it. I am

particularly proud of the sketch they did of my committee when we

took evidence from Max Mosley, talking about the revelations of

what he had been doing, where I was referred to as Sir John

Whippingdale. This is vintage Private Eye. I laughed out loud at

the front cover of Private Eye after our disastrous local election

results this May. I am not sure if of Hilary clip on the and Obama

looking at the televised thing of the attack on the Bin Laden

compound and a bubble say ing "Those poor Liberal Democrats." I

saw it in my local news agent. I did stick this one up on the pin

board, I just thought, that kind of double joke of popularity of down

on the Abbey and the situation. What is good about Private Eye is

the memory that can go back through Margaret Thatcher makes these kind

of references or cross references you wouldn't necessarily think of

yourself. I people I am amazed it is 50679 I think I have probably

been reading it for 40 years which makes me a real saddo P Saddo. Such

fond memories there of Private Eye. We have a Private Eye cover girl

with us, Edwina Currie is in Manchester. Edwina Currie, we have

been hearing memories from politicians and journalist, do you

like or loathe it? Oh, I love Private Eye. I think we should be

very proud we have this. As a British institution. I have been on

the front cover four times. Lucky you! My favourite was when I

resigned from Government over eggs, and they had a cover of me, holding

a tray of eggs that had been taken previously somewhere else, with the

egg bubble saying "I'm off. And me saying so am I." I couldn't put it

better myself. How does it feel when you find yourself on the front

cover, albeit four times? Well, you kind of know in that week that you

are going to be on the front cover of Private Eye. You have been in

the new, you know, Oliver Letwin or Dr Fox or whoever, they will be on

the front coverment you know this is going to happen. You hope they

are not too cruel. You know they will be cruel and accurate, very

accurate. That is the essence of Private Eye. They tell the truth,

when politicians try to hide it and cover it up. Yes, so the sting is

there. Why do you think it survived so long, until 50 in fact? I think

it survived so long because a large number of people believe in our

democracy and freedoms, and much of that depends on susing out the

truth, the essence of stories that are going on behind the scenes they

have 300,000 subscribing peep, and that is enough for them to be

independent, they take hardly any advertising bg they are not

involved in the commercial world, they can be independent and that is

the essence of their strength. don't suppose you expect to be back

in after your exit from Strictly Come Dancing. I would be delighted.

I would have a fifth cover. Tell us what was it like in Strictly Come

Dancing? Well, Strictly is a world of its own. It's a complete fantasy.

Like politics at the time. You are hoping for the vote. You pretend

yourself as well as you can, you try to hide the mid riff and you

hope you put your feet in the right place. Usually you are not.

thought it was unfair they got rid of you so early on. Going back

briefly to the Private Eye are there any columns or characters you

like and loved?. These days I tend to look at the local Government

ones very carefully, because a lot of money is going to local

Government and you find to your surprise, actually the Fire Service

don't own their fire trucks and they are beholden to somebody else

or in the NHS there is a reason why this particular hospital is in

trouble that a lot of money is going into something they shouldn't

be spending money on. It is only Private Eye and their reams and

reams of informers, inside informers that get that information

out. And they are usually right. Stay us with -- stay with us a bit.

Anushka Asthana you been in Private Eye? Greatest moment of my career

unfortunately not the front-page, but you know you have made it.

was it? Was it Hugh Grant. When Slovakia was joining the EU. Had

been sent to find out about people coming over here, and, in my

travels hadn't found many people coming so I had written up my piece,

got on the plane, and back in the office in London, they had taken

some copy from the wiefrs somebody coming into Heathrow and it said,

one of the people trickling into Heathrow was such and such with the

quote, and I had got in under fancy that because the Sunday people had

the same quote as one of the people flooding in. There you go. You made

it. Have you Paul? I haven't. Someone who works in new media how

wonderful it is that Private Eye is an inI can institution, it is only

print based. The internet site is none existent. There is a story

that somebody once saw a computer and went in and unplugged it from

the wall, because they don't like to be on line. I can see why and it

works for them. It is a fantastic investigative vehicle, no problem.

Particularly what we are learning about it it would be nice if

Leveson took evidence from Mr Hislop. I am sure. It would add

sauce to goose. Does Private Eye have any good competitors these

days? No, they are a bunch of overgrown public schoolboys with

wits and brains and energy and they don't give a toss what anybody

thinks there is no competitor. Private Eye rules maybe for another

50 years, thank you for joining us. Ryan Giggs and Wayne Rooney have

made the headlines this week, a couple from Wisbech won over �100

million in the Lottery and millions of black Bri users got angry. So

let us look back at the week. The story shows no sign of fizzling out

but Defence Secretary Liam Fox has survived a full question of

questions over the role of his self-styled adviser Adam Werritty.

An inquiry is under way and Dr Fox claims it is business as usual.

am continuing to do what is needed, is that the Defence Secretary

focuses on defence issues. government's watered-down bill for

reforming the NHS is dividing opinion, but survived an attempt to

derail it in the House of Lords. Ed Miliband's been showing off the new

look Shadow Cabinet. But is it a case of, as Private Eye might put

it, who they? Unemployment has hit%, the highest rate for 17 years.

David Cameron says he won't switch to Plan B but promises action.

accept we have to do more, to get our economy moving, to get jobs for

our people. It is a case of half strike for Hetton-le-Hole -- Oliver

Letwin. Not only does he fail to recycle official documents he has

been filing them in bins in a London park. Well, time to talk

about Liam Fox I think. He has survived another week, are you

surprised or not? I am surprised that the Prime Minister has allowed

himself so much rope with which to hang Oliver Letwin. Oliver Letwin

or Liam Fox. Sorry Liam Fox. They are keeping the fox inquiry as

enough as possible. Saying all unanswered questions will be

answered. That is ominous for him. There are lots of unanswered

questions. We seem to have heard this week, or certainly suggestion

there was a sort of parallel Foreign Office policy being driven

or funded certainly by sympathisers of Liam Fox who bank rolled Adam

Werritty. I mean, how has that gone down? I think it looks terrible. We

always say does something pass the smell test, clearly this does

notment the reason he is surviving so far is we are not quite there,

in terms of the fact perhaps that will make him go. But I am

surprised he has lasted this long, because there has been a clear

problem with his judgment over this. I... Is one of the issues though

his position in the party? I mean the 1922 committee of backbenches

have invited him to speak to show they are supporting him. It might

be dangerous politically, to get rid of him. There is no question

that is a fact for the Prime Minister and this isn't just about

an interpretation of the Ministerial Code. There is a wider

issue about his judgment which the Prime Minister will want to hone in

on. Did he make a serious misjudgment in not informing civil

servants about his close contacts to Adam Werritty and if he knew at

all about where it Werritty's financial links, that is difficult.

Having said that the Prime Minister is trying to be fair throughout the

process, he is trying to set a pattern where he does not sack

people, and he gives them the benefit of the doubt and goes

through due process. That is interesting. It's a different

approach from previous Governments you have to say, but it has its own

danger which is the perception of a lack of grip. That is something he

won't want to... That is the question that is beginning to be

raised because David Cameron said something to try and allude to

strong leadership as if it is coming into question. I think he

looks indecisive as a result of it. That said, there have been a number

of scandals involving Liberal Democrat councillors and they

haven't gone. The problem David Cameron has got is the right of his

party don't want to see a different rule for their man. The other side

of this though is if Liam Fox survives is he in a weak position

and perhaps not the figure from the right of the party they want to

have in their cabinet any more? Liberal Democrat point is a good

one isn't it. Look at Vince Cable. One might have argued his comments

over Murdoch were enough potentially for action to have been

taken and you have to be seen as even handled. He wasn't even

reshuffled. I think what is important that the newspapers,

every day are doing a better job and investigating Liam Fox han the

Cabinet office, and that is really significant, given in the post

hacking era that we live in, the newspapers are supposed to be the

ones that that are weak and yet when it came to Vince Cable and

Liam Fox, it is newspaper nas are driving this and Number Ten knows

that. That is all from us this week. Good luck Wales tomorrow, I will be

back on Monday for more daily politic, in the meantime I leave