:00:23. > :00:26.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Our high streets
:00:26. > :00:33.are in crisis - that's the verdict of the government's retail tsar,
:00:33. > :00:35.Mary Portas. So what can be done to regenerate them?
:00:35. > :00:45.After last week's deal, are European politicians any closer to
:00:45. > :00:47.
:00:47. > :00:49.discovering the elusive solution to the euro-zone debt crisis?
:00:49. > :00:52.France blackballed Britain from the Common Market.
:00:52. > :00:55.Do you get a sense of deja-vu? After Britain wields its opt-out,
:00:55. > :01:03.President Sarkozy says there are now "two Europes" - it is the
:01:03. > :01:13.latest cross-Channel spat that has lasted - well, centuries.
:01:13. > :01:16.And do shrikes leave strikers any All that in the next half-hour.
:01:16. > :01:19.With us for the whole programme today is the general secretary of
:01:19. > :01:22.the PCS union, Mark Serwotka. And no Andrew this afternoon. He
:01:22. > :01:26.decided his presence next to me in the studio today would be a
:01:26. > :01:29.distraction. But don't worry, a bit like Nick Clegg, we are hoping he
:01:29. > :01:31.will pop up a bit later on to explain himself.
:01:31. > :01:34.First this morning, our high streets are in crisis. That's the
:01:34. > :01:38.conclusion of a report for the Government by the so-called Queen
:01:38. > :01:46.of shops, Mary Portas. She says many high streets will be lost
:01:46. > :01:48.unless councils and shops work together to regenerate them.
:01:48. > :01:54.Whereas the high street was always just about shopping, that shopping
:01:54. > :01:59.has shifted into new areas. We have the internet, we have these out-of-
:01:59. > :02:03.town malls, the hypermarkets and supermarkets. We have not redefined
:02:03. > :02:07.what the high street is. We have let it go and neglected it. We have
:02:07. > :02:12.not had a vision. I propose that we look at a high street in a
:02:12. > :02:17.different way, as a multi- functional social and shopping High
:02:17. > :02:23.Street, so that we create ft fall back on the high street for other
:02:23. > :02:30.uses other than shopping. Mark Serwotka Hamas -- how important is
:02:30. > :02:33.the high street? Is important not just to the high street, but to the
:02:33. > :02:37.communities we live in. But the first thing to do is make sure
:02:37. > :02:40.people have money to spend it in shops anyway. Part of the problem
:02:40. > :02:48.at the moment is that many are having a cut in their living
:02:48. > :02:52.standards. And therefore, there is not much disposable income to spend.
:02:52. > :02:56.It does not help when in many communities, the Government is
:02:56. > :03:03.withdrawing from high streets. We have seen Jobcentres closing or
:03:03. > :03:06.licensing offices. 39 of those are closing. It is about jobs, I take
:03:06. > :03:10.your point about consumer spending and people needing money in their
:03:10. > :03:14.pockets. But in terms of getting to the shops, should the Government
:03:14. > :03:19.focus attention on the retail sector at this time of year? It has
:03:19. > :03:24.to do what it can to regenerate our economy. What support can be found
:03:24. > :03:27.for small businesses and shops, we have to find it. But at the end of
:03:27. > :03:31.these -- at the end of the day, for these businesses to be a success,
:03:31. > :03:36.they need people coming through the door with money to spend. That is
:03:36. > :03:41.the real issue at the moment. We need to create jobs, create demand
:03:41. > :03:44.in the economy and make sure people can spend. That is the best way to
:03:44. > :03:46.regenerate the high street. Now, we are expecting a crucial
:03:46. > :03:48.press conference in Europe this afternoon. After all-night sessions
:03:48. > :03:51.and passionate disagreements over the details, scientists at the
:03:51. > :03:54.Large Hadron Collider in CERN are expected to announce the answer to
:03:54. > :03:57.life, the universe and everything - the discovery of the famed Higgs
:03:57. > :04:00.boson particle. Unfortunately, despite claims that the euro-zone
:04:00. > :04:04.debt crisis had been solved after press conferences in Brussels last
:04:04. > :04:07.week, doubts are beginning to surface. While particle physics has
:04:07. > :04:13.relatively few unknowns, economics, especially that of the euro-zone,
:04:13. > :04:16.seems to be a far more inexact science. European politicians have
:04:16. > :04:21.spent months rushing around in a circular motion, colliding with
:04:21. > :04:24.each other in the hunt for the Holy Grail of euro salvation. The latest
:04:24. > :04:29.experiment involves a new fiscal compact, with new rules as
:04:29. > :04:32.immutable as Newton's Third Law of motion. This new compact will be
:04:32. > :04:35.combined with an application of physical force - a 200 billion euro
:04:35. > :04:42.bail-out fund provided by national central banks via the IMF to prop
:04:42. > :04:45.up countries at risk of default. But at the moment, this is more
:04:45. > :04:50.theoretical than the Higgs boson, with only the German Bundesbank
:04:50. > :04:53.pledging EUR45 billion. And that sum is a mere fraction of the
:04:53. > :04:58.galactic 600 billion that would be needed to bail out both Italy and
:04:58. > :05:01.Spain. But the markets continue to exert their own inevitable logic,
:05:01. > :05:06.with bond yields in those Club Med countries creeping up again and the
:05:06. > :05:09.euro sliding against the dollar and the pound. So can Europe's leaders
:05:09. > :05:15.finally re-write the laws of economics and save the euro and
:05:15. > :05:24.avoid a catastrophic big bang? Andrew's at the European Parliament
:05:24. > :05:34.in Strasbourg, from where he joins me now. It sounds like this deal
:05:34. > :05:36.
:05:36. > :05:41.that has been put on the table is unravelling? Yes, it is. We have
:05:41. > :05:44.already had a minister in France, the man the polls say will be the
:05:44. > :05:48.next President, saying he wants to renegotiate the deal agreed last
:05:48. > :05:52.week. The Austrian Chancellor does not like it. The president of the
:05:52. > :05:55.German parliament does not like it, and thinks it may be
:05:55. > :06:00.unconstitutional. The ratings agencies are talking about
:06:00. > :06:04.downgrading every European Union credit ratings. So the sense that
:06:04. > :06:10.the deal that was done last week has anything to do with the current
:06:10. > :06:13.sovereign debt crisis, they are far apart and it is beginning to
:06:13. > :06:19.unravel. The Americans have also made it clear that they will not
:06:19. > :06:22.put any more money into the IMF. A source in President Obama's White
:06:22. > :06:26.House said to me, if you think the president is going to Congress to
:06:26. > :06:29.get money for the Europeans in an election year, you must be on
:06:29. > :06:32.another planet. Be if no one is going to put more money in and
:06:32. > :06:36.everyone says it is not enough at the moment, not the big bazooka
:06:36. > :06:42.that is needed in terms of bailing out a country as big as Spain and
:06:42. > :06:46.Italy, where do they go from here? They go to another crisis. Word
:06:46. > :06:50.reached me from Berlin today that the Chancellor is even talking
:06:50. > :06:56.about another summit before Christmas. We have already had six
:06:56. > :07:01.this year. If not, there will be one early in the new year. While
:07:01. > :07:04.they talk about all sorts of things to do with fiscal union and 3%
:07:04. > :07:09.budgets and balanced budgets and so on, the markets are having their
:07:09. > :07:13.way. The Spanish and Italian bond yields are under pressure again,
:07:13. > :07:17.the euro is at a recent low against the dollar, and there is no
:07:17. > :07:22.firewall, as the Austrian Chancellor said. There is no
:07:22. > :07:26.firewall big enough to protect Spain or Italy at the moment. Last
:07:26. > :07:29.week's European summit did nothing to put one in place.
:07:29. > :07:31.I am joined now by the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and
:07:31. > :07:40.from Paris by Jacques Myard, an assembly member in President
:07:40. > :07:45.Sarkozy's party. Jacques Myard, talking to our colleagues in
:07:45. > :07:50.Strasbourg, it does sound like the deal that was done will not happen.
:07:50. > :07:57.Is that your sense as well? It is not that the deal will not happen,
:07:57. > :08:01.the question is how the deal can solve the problem. Frankly, I have
:08:01. > :08:08.great doubts that we will find a solution to save the Eurozone. We
:08:08. > :08:12.are going to put the Eurozone in a straitjacket by controlling and
:08:13. > :08:18.cutting expenses. But that is not the solution. The solution is a
:08:18. > :08:23.lack of competitiveness of some members of the Eurozone, like
:08:24. > :08:31.Greece, Spain and even France. We are facing a wall, which is that
:08:31. > :08:36.this Eurozone is absolutely inadequate for the strengths of our
:08:36. > :08:40.economies. So what is needed to happen? If you say this is not
:08:40. > :08:48.going to be enough to stem the Eurozone crisis, you are talking
:08:48. > :08:53.about competitiveness, what do these countries need to do?
:08:53. > :08:58.short-term needs, if there is no militarisation of the debts, that
:08:58. > :09:06.means genuine aid coming from the central bank to those states, they
:09:06. > :09:09.will pay their debts more expensive live. In the long term, we have to
:09:09. > :09:14.think, is this single currency adequate for our economies? Of
:09:14. > :09:19.course, I have always been reluctant towards the euro. I think
:09:19. > :09:28.we have reached the end of it. We have to face the reality. I am
:09:28. > :09:33.sorry to say that in many terms, the French political classes and
:09:33. > :09:36.European political classes are in a kind of religious belief, saying
:09:36. > :09:44.that the euro is Europe, and there is no future apart from that, which
:09:44. > :09:49.is wrong. We need to face reality. Listening to that, Jack Straw, no
:09:49. > :09:54.one thinks it is enough. No one thinks it will work. The Eurozone
:09:54. > :10:01.crisis is going to lurch on, isn't it? Running a single currency
:10:01. > :10:06.outside a single country is inherently difficult, and that is
:10:06. > :10:10.one reason why I was never in favour of it, but that is what many
:10:10. > :10:14.countries opted for. If you are going to do that, you have to have,
:10:15. > :10:19.as George Osborne has acknowledged, a fiscal union, which was at the
:10:19. > :10:24.heart of the agreement formed last week. That is a necessary part of
:10:24. > :10:28.salvation, but by no means a sufficient part. As you and this
:10:28. > :10:34.gentlemen have just said, if you want to solve the immediate crisis,
:10:34. > :10:38.you have to monitor as centrally the debt of Europe. That is
:10:38. > :10:43.something Chancellor Merkel will not do. No, and without it, the
:10:43. > :10:48.Eurozone cannot move on. I think it will move on with great difficulty.
:10:48. > :10:52.It surprises me that the German Chancellor, although she has
:10:52. > :10:57.problems in her own backyard like every other head of a Government,
:10:57. > :11:02.she does not acknowledge and lead her people to say, we are the
:11:02. > :11:07.people who have month -- most benefited from the euro. Why can't
:11:07. > :11:11.we now assist in keeping the euro together? Jacques Myard, do you
:11:11. > :11:15.agree with Jack Straw that the Germans have to make the central
:11:15. > :11:24.bank come up with the goods now and without it, this crisis will get
:11:24. > :11:30.work? I have always said we need to monitor rise the debts. That means
:11:30. > :11:40.we need strong help from the central bank. The treaty forbids
:11:40. > :11:44.that. But this can only work if you transfer money from the strong to
:11:44. > :11:50.the weak countries. And Germany knows that if they do that, they
:11:50. > :11:56.will have to pay up to 4% of their gross national product in transfers
:11:56. > :12:01.to Italy and Spain etc, which is more expensive than the
:12:01. > :12:05.reunification of eastern Germany and western Germany. Even in France,
:12:05. > :12:09.Mr Sarkozy is now looking at the prospect of downgrading from the
:12:09. > :12:14.credit ratings in France. But the French economy is not strong either.
:12:14. > :12:19.You can't expect it also to come up with that kind of money, because it
:12:19. > :12:24.itself is vulnerable. Yes. A downgrading of France is not so
:12:24. > :12:32.awful, because I think all countries will be downgraded. The
:12:32. > :12:38.only point is that our -- it will be more expensive for France to
:12:38. > :12:46.borrow. So I think we have to change monetary policy. As Mr Straw
:12:47. > :12:52.just said, we need to monitor as that. If we do that in the short
:12:52. > :13:00.term, we will be facing a wall and it will be more expensive and it
:13:00. > :13:05.will be the end. Jack Straw, is it the case that Britain's position
:13:05. > :13:10.outside not only the 17, but the 26, if we were at that table, would we
:13:10. > :13:14.be able to influence more to persuade the Germans to let the
:13:15. > :13:21.central bank by government bonds and let them rescue the Eurozone in
:13:21. > :13:25.a way that we can't now? Yes. If you read the conclusions of the
:13:25. > :13:31.European Council last Thursday and Friday, you will see that a number
:13:31. > :13:37.of countries in the EU -- in the EU but outside the Eurozone said they
:13:37. > :13:40.reserved their position. David Cameron could have done that. He
:13:40. > :13:44.could have completely preserved all his negotiating position. He was
:13:44. > :13:49.not signing up to anything formal, but he would have been in the room.
:13:49. > :13:53.His difficulty and now the country's difficulty is that
:13:53. > :13:59.gratuitously, he has lost influence. Would it have made a difference?
:13:59. > :14:02.course. I have seen these negotiations. It is a fact of life
:14:02. > :14:08.that heads of government have very large egos. Tell us something we
:14:08. > :14:12.don't know! It is about national interest, but it is also about
:14:12. > :14:17.their interest. This matters, because these guys are very
:14:17. > :14:23.powerful. John Major understood that how you deal with it makes a
:14:23. > :14:29.reunification. The result was that when he needed something,
:14:29. > :14:32.Chancellor Kohl said to him, what can I deliver for you? In this
:14:32. > :14:42.situation, we need a resolution to the euro crisis. Schadenfreude is
:14:42. > :14:44.
:14:44. > :14:48.not a policy. Our future depends on Of course, the British did not sign
:14:48. > :14:51.up to the agreement in Brussels last week. Nicolas Sarkozy rejected
:14:51. > :14:57.outright Britain's demands for an opt-out on City regulation, which
:14:57. > :15:04.he said was not acceptable. He added that there are a now clearly
:15:04. > :15:09.two Europes. Is this just another salvo in the centuries long tiff
:15:09. > :15:14.with our neighbours? Let's start in the 17th century, when this French
:15:14. > :15:23.bishop is one of the first to be recorded using the phrase,
:15:23. > :15:28.perfidious Albion. In other words, cheating Brits. Fast forward to the
:15:28. > :15:32.1960s, the news reels were fretting about vetoes then, too. Charles de
:15:32. > :15:37.Gaulle had denied Britain's application to join the group which
:15:37. > :15:45.was to become the EU. We finally got membership in the 1970s. Then,
:15:45. > :15:49.along came this lady, in a fetching jumper. They will be keeping an
:15:49. > :15:52.all-night vigil under the statue of Winston Churchill, the first person
:15:52. > :15:59.to have the great vision for working together for peace in
:15:59. > :16:03.Europe. Instead, war was waged by the Sun against the French man in
:16:03. > :16:11.charge of the European Commission in the 1990s. His request for more
:16:11. > :16:16.powers begat this famous soundbite. No, no, no! Tony Blair's language
:16:16. > :16:22.was warmer, but the relationship was spoiled by the French banning
:16:22. > :16:25.this, British beef, and disagreeing with this, the Iraq war. Now, the
:16:25. > :16:30.theory is that the French are trying to pinch business from the
:16:30. > :16:35.City. President Sarkozy, normally famously shy about speaking English,
:16:35. > :16:45.knows that money talks, as demonstrated by this clip from a
:16:45. > :16:46.
:16:46. > :16:54.few years ago. You are welcome to invest in France. We will be happy
:16:54. > :17:02.to help you make money in France. And of course, to make some money
:17:02. > :17:08.with you - for us. There we go. And the two Jacks and Mark Serwotka are
:17:08. > :17:12.still with me. Is the entente cordiale dead in the water? It is
:17:12. > :17:18.not dead in the water, it is damaged. Don't forget they were our
:17:18. > :17:24.great allies in the First World War, and they are then faced German
:17:24. > :17:27.occupation in the Second World War. We are two similar-sized countries,
:17:27. > :17:31.both on the Security council, have remarkably parallel although
:17:31. > :17:34.different histories, very proud of our nations, but we need each other.
:17:35. > :17:40.My experience of dealing with the French, sometimes they could drive
:17:40. > :17:45.me mad, but I daresay I could drive them mad. But you could co-operate
:17:45. > :17:48.with them. As far as the current commissioner is now concerned, the
:17:48. > :17:52.commissioner on business regulation, I had a lot to do with him. He was
:17:53. > :17:57.the French Foreign Minister. He's French, I'm British, but this guy
:17:57. > :18:03.is not gratuitously going to damage European businesses. You can get
:18:03. > :18:07.alongside these people. I'm not naive at all. But I do not believe
:18:07. > :18:14.you need to damage diplomatic relations in the way that we have
:18:14. > :18:17.done, as David Cameron has done. Jacques Myard, Nicolas Sarkozy
:18:17. > :18:20.accused David Cameron of shouting from the sidelines about the
:18:20. > :18:25.eurozone crisis - is the relationship damage in that way, as
:18:25. > :18:29.we have just heard from Jack Straw, or is it all politics? I do not
:18:29. > :18:35.agree with Jack Straw. Our relationship, our diplomatic
:18:35. > :18:40.relationships, are much stronger than these last events. I tell you
:18:40. > :18:44.this morning, the French are more interested in Jonny Wilkinson's
:18:44. > :18:50.decision to retire than David Cameron and any comment like that.
:18:50. > :18:55.So, don't worry. No, in fact, in the view of Sarkozy, there are two
:18:55. > :19:00.kinds of Europe. There is the euro Europe, that he is trying to save
:19:00. > :19:05.with Germany, and there are other relations, especially in terms of
:19:05. > :19:10.defence, and world powers, which we do with Great Britain. We signed a
:19:10. > :19:18.treaty in the last few months on Nuclear Corporation, and this is
:19:18. > :19:21.very important. This has all been a bit of a sideshow, Mark Serwotka,
:19:21. > :19:24.saving the eurozone from its crisis is the most important issue, not
:19:24. > :19:29.this treaty - how do you see the relationship between Britain and
:19:29. > :19:33.France, is it important as far as the unions are concerned? My only
:19:33. > :19:37.beef with the French is that they beat Wales in the Rugby World Cup,
:19:37. > :19:42.with a very unjust outcome. The European trade unions, in France,
:19:42. > :19:46.Britain, Germany and Greece, have issued a statement in the last 24
:19:46. > :19:49.hours. What we say is, the people who are suffering in Europe are
:19:49. > :19:55.working people - people losing their jobs, having their incomes
:19:55. > :19:58.cut, their pensions slashed. None of what has happened over the last
:19:58. > :20:02.few days, it seems to me, has really been about addressing the
:20:02. > :20:07.needs of working people. They're trying to save these countries from
:20:07. > :20:11.a debt crisis. They say they are. But the view that we have is that
:20:11. > :20:15.it is the wrong answer to the problem. We need to grow our
:20:15. > :20:20.economies, and we want to grow our economies and deal with the deficit
:20:20. > :20:24.over the longer term. What we want to do is open the debate up and say,
:20:24. > :20:28.why aren't any of these European leaders talking about the role of
:20:28. > :20:32.the markets, the fact that the markets are unaccountable, are now
:20:32. > :20:35.picking governments in parts of Europe, setting social policy,
:20:35. > :20:39.effectively? We know that the markets do not care about the
:20:39. > :20:47.welfare state and the NHS, like we do. So we need a more fundamental
:20:47. > :20:51.discussion, not fiddling while Rome burns. A couple of weeks ago,
:20:51. > :20:55.members of Mark Serwotka's union, the PCS, were striking over the
:20:55. > :20:58.Government's proposed pension reforms. A fierce battle has raged
:20:58. > :21:02.over whether public sector workers were right to go on strike. But
:21:02. > :21:08.there is another issue. Our strikes in general effective means of
:21:08. > :21:11.getting your own way? Here's Giles. It is a fact of modern industrial
:21:11. > :21:15.relations that both unions and managers have started to see the
:21:15. > :21:19.strike as something of a last resort. Unions have discovered more
:21:19. > :21:22.sophisticated ways of industrial action, short of a strike, and
:21:22. > :21:27.private sector managers have discovered the economic value of
:21:27. > :21:32.compromise. So, is it time to ask the question, what do strikes
:21:32. > :21:36.achieve? The range of outcomes and his wide, from the success of women
:21:36. > :21:41.workers at Ford's Dagenham, whose strike led to laws on equal pay, to
:21:41. > :21:47.the failure of the miners to keep pits open. Most end with compromise,
:21:47. > :21:51.or compromise comes first. Bylaw, disputes are more specific, strikes
:21:51. > :21:59.are harder to call. There is more concession bargaining, less big
:21:59. > :22:05.causes. We deal with about 900 disputes per year. When I went to
:22:05. > :22:08.work for ACAS in 1976, we were dealing with 7,500. The threat of
:22:08. > :22:12.strikes is very often effective, and that is one of the more recent
:22:12. > :22:16.developments, with changes in the law requiring unions to ballot
:22:16. > :22:20.their members. They can then say, we have balloted our members, and
:22:20. > :22:25.they are willing to come out on strike, now, what more have you got
:22:25. > :22:31.to offer? Clearly, in the recent pensions dispute, things have come
:22:31. > :22:35.to a head. Militants, itching for a fight. They want families to be
:22:35. > :22:39.inconvenienced. We are not itching for a fight. But we do need
:22:39. > :22:42.ministers who want to reach an agreement with us. Despite the
:22:42. > :22:47.disappointment of the party opposite, it looks like something
:22:47. > :22:51.of a damp squib... But from experience of conciliator in many
:22:51. > :22:53.disputes, it may seem like two sides are at war, but it can be
:22:54. > :22:58.very different behind the scenes. The difference between the
:22:58. > :23:02.collective dispute, trade union and employer, and an individual dispute,
:23:02. > :23:08.is that in the collective dispute, the union and the employer have got
:23:08. > :23:12.to cope with tomorrow. Whereas genuinely, with an individual, the
:23:12. > :23:16.relationship is ended. So, there is much more of a meeting of minds
:23:16. > :23:19.than perhaps the public rhetoric would suggest. Increasingly, old
:23:19. > :23:25.unions have taken a lead on new tricks, with more sophisticated
:23:25. > :23:28.options, short of strikes. strike is a nuclear option. It will
:23:28. > :23:33.only do that if there is really nothing else that can be done. It
:23:33. > :23:37.is expensive, it is difficult, quite often unpopular, and unions
:23:37. > :23:40.use strikes as a last resort. I cannot think of any union which
:23:40. > :23:44.would simply go on strike for the sake of it. The strike in itself is
:23:44. > :23:49.not a principle, it is a tactic. There are does politically who will
:23:49. > :23:53.say strikes achieve nothing whatsoever. But there is one
:23:53. > :23:57.undeniable answer to that. You're never going to know what would have
:23:57. > :24:00.happened had there not been a strike, you're trying to measure
:24:00. > :24:05.something which is unmeasurable. If there had not been a strike, what
:24:05. > :24:10.the employer have offered more? You do not know. Mark Serwotka is still
:24:10. > :24:14.here, and we're also joined by the Conservative MP Dominic Raab. Mark,
:24:14. > :24:19.can you give any recent examples of where a strike has had a positive
:24:19. > :24:23.effect? In the last few months, PCS, employed in a private sector
:24:23. > :24:27.company, a multinational company, offered a derisory pay rise, went
:24:28. > :24:32.on strike and it ended up getting an 11% pay increase for the lowest-
:24:32. > :24:36.paid. Very interesting, because what it said is that if industrial
:24:36. > :24:41.action in the private sector is going to make a company realise its
:24:41. > :24:43.profits may be effective, they will come round the negotiating table.
:24:43. > :24:47.What do you say to that? private sector it rather different,
:24:47. > :24:51.you have got far less strike days lost in the private sector, the
:24:51. > :24:56.whole dynamic is very different. The whole issue with effectiveness
:24:56. > :24:59.is that if your aim is to cause damage, a strike will do that. We
:24:59. > :25:04.saw in the most recent strikes damage done to parents with schools
:25:04. > :25:09.closing. If your aim is to carry public opinion, I think they have
:25:09. > :25:15.failed. If you look back Mark's union, just one in five of his own
:25:15. > :25:19.members backed the strike, which is why, if I'm a finish, you seek
:25:19. > :25:27.instantly suddenly consistently from June to November, the polls
:25:27. > :25:31.are showing that they had lost the support of the public. Strike
:25:31. > :25:35.ballots only need a majority of those who take part, not a majority
:25:35. > :25:40.of those eligible to vote, and that is a real problem with the public,
:25:40. > :25:44.is it not? You're talking about far smaller numbers than the unions try
:25:44. > :25:48.to paint. I disagree. You cannot disagree that it is with the
:25:48. > :25:52.majority who take part. If we start talking about thresholds, we would
:25:52. > :25:56.not have Boris Johnson in his current post. It is an unnecessary
:25:56. > :26:00.hurdle. We have the most restrictive union laws in any
:26:00. > :26:03.Western European country. It is fantastically difficult. I have
:26:03. > :26:07.said to the government, and I will say it again now, if they want
:26:07. > :26:11.bigger turnout in ballots, we have made numerous suggestions to make
:26:11. > :26:15.it easier to vote, telephone, online, in the workplace - they do
:26:16. > :26:22.not want to know. Do you think that would make a difference? Of course
:26:22. > :26:30.it would. The public will not thing strikes are credible if you have
:26:30. > :26:36.such low numbers voting... I think actually, in all strikes, the
:26:36. > :26:41.times bigger than those who actually cast the vote. The turnout
:26:41. > :26:45.which matters is on the day. In the strike we have just seen, two
:26:45. > :26:48.million people on strike to stop a raid on their pensions, it was one
:26:48. > :26:51.of the most effective demonstrations of opposition to the
:26:51. > :26:54.Government which we have seen in recent years. Except, the
:26:54. > :27:00.Government make concessions on the threat of strike, not the strike
:27:00. > :27:04.itself. Since then, there has been nothing. Actually, it was the
:27:04. > :27:07.tiniest concession. I have just come from the TUC this morning, and
:27:08. > :27:10.we have started discussing further industrial action. The reason for
:27:10. > :27:14.that is to get the Government around the negotiating table. They
:27:14. > :27:18.have not met us since the 2nd November. We want a negotiated
:27:18. > :27:24.settlement, but if they are not even in the room, it becomes
:27:24. > :27:27.impossible. What do you say to that, Dominic? Will this mean the
:27:27. > :27:32.Government will feel it has to make another concession? Well, they have
:27:32. > :27:35.already made a massive concession. If you're a carpenter, a cabbie or
:27:35. > :27:43.a hairdresser, you will be looking at the reformed pensions which
:27:43. > :27:46.public sector workers will be getting, and it is way out of the
:27:46. > :27:51.League of what the vast majority, the hard-working majority in this
:27:51. > :27:55.country, will be able to access. I think if we have a further threat
:27:55. > :28:00.of strikes, you will see more ebbing of public opinion, and I
:28:00. > :28:03.think the unions have lost it. The real question is this - the
:28:03. > :28:06.government is out of touch with ordinary, hard-working people. I
:28:06. > :28:14.think it is the militant minority of hardline union leaders, who have
:28:14. > :28:18.not accepted a cracking offer on the table, though, with their
:28:18. > :28:22.inflation -- inflated salaries and pensions, are looking increasingly
:28:22. > :28:25.out of touch themselves. I think you should not be able to have
:28:25. > :28:30.hundreds of people paralysing the infrastructure in London, which
:28:30. > :28:33.disrupts millions, on the votes of a few hundred people. If ever there
:28:33. > :28:39.was confirmation of a government being out of touch, it used to
:28:39. > :28:43.describe as a cracking offer, work eight years longer, pay thousands
:28:43. > :28:49.of pounds more in, it is robbery. But equality of misery is not a