:00:42. > :00:47.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Is David Miliband
:00:47. > :00:51.making a political comeback? He has broken his silence in the New
:00:51. > :00:55.Statesman, warning his party and his brother not to shift too far to
:00:55. > :00:58.the left or alienate business. Are we heading for a new bout of
:00:58. > :01:02.fraternal strife? Prince William is going to the
:01:02. > :01:06.Falklands to serve six weeks as a search-and-rescue pilot. But is his
:01:06. > :01:09.job are about to be privatised? The government says it wants fewer
:01:09. > :01:14.but better immigrants, we will be asking the Minister how he is going
:01:14. > :01:18.to manage that. And has the entente cordiale turned
:01:18. > :01:24.sour, we will be analysing the growing tensions between Messrs
:01:24. > :01:28.Cameron and Sarkozy. All that in the next half-hour, and
:01:28. > :01:35.with us for the duration is Emma Harrison, chairman of A4E, Action
:01:35. > :01:40.for Employment. I did not know that! It describes itself as a
:01:40. > :01:44.social purpose company, we could do with that on this show. It aims to
:01:44. > :01:50.improve people's lives by helping them to find work, skills,
:01:50. > :01:55.direction or whatever it is they need! We need you! He will be busy!
:01:55. > :02:01.Very busy. But you have any thoughts of Commons and anything we
:02:01. > :02:11.are discussing, you can send them to us. -- If you have any comments
:02:11. > :02:14.David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary, has been stirring things
:02:14. > :02:20.up a wee bit in the Labour Party. In an article in the New Statesman,
:02:20. > :02:24.he warns today that Labour is moving to part of the left and is
:02:24. > :02:29.in danger of alienating business. - - moving too far. He has declined
:02:29. > :02:33.to come onto the programme. Not for want of trying! But we did get
:02:33. > :02:37.something, we have got former Labour and one and minister and
:02:37. > :02:43.David Miliband supporter Tony McNulty, welcome to the programme.
:02:43. > :02:47.-- Employment Minister. Why not -- why now? Ed Miliband has had a very
:02:47. > :02:50.good week at the turn of the year, but the party has some way to go in
:02:50. > :02:57.terms of redefining itself, and David's contribution is more than
:02:57. > :03:01.welcome. His replying to an article that Roy Hattersley wrote in the
:03:01. > :03:07.political Quarterly months ago. Even Roy Hattersley... Did you not
:03:07. > :03:12.catch it?! I did not! Even Roy Hattersley has forgotten he wrote
:03:12. > :03:17.it. That is quite a Redland, a device for him to get these ideas
:03:17. > :03:22.out. -- Redland. If you look through this seven points, I do not
:03:22. > :03:26.think there is much that Ed would disagree with. There is that he
:03:26. > :03:30.can't and carry on tendency, he calls it the reassurance tender sea.
:03:30. > :03:40.All you have got to do is keep quiet, the Tories will mess up and
:03:40. > :03:41.
:03:41. > :03:44.we will be back. That way lies toxicity and murder. Ed, since the
:03:44. > :03:48.conference, has dealt with predatory capitalism. David is
:03:48. > :03:50.saying that productive capitalism matters as well. Half of the stuff
:03:50. > :03:57.the same is only, look, there is a poor picture that we need to
:03:57. > :04:02.appreciate. It is not an two Ed, by any stretch of imagination. What
:04:02. > :04:06.planet are you one?! He says that every Labour member knows that the
:04:06. > :04:11.Tories have done a serious job in black guarding Labour as fiscally
:04:11. > :04:17.incontinent. We do. We had the detail of a leadership contest
:04:17. > :04:20.straight after the election, during which time the Tories established
:04:20. > :04:25.the lexicography of the discussion of the economy, and we have got to
:04:25. > :04:30.row back from that. We started that process. What Ed Balls did Jay
:04:30. > :04:34.weeks ago at the Fabian Society is bang in line with this article. --
:04:34. > :04:38.two weeks ago. Her look me straight in the face, I want to see if your
:04:38. > :04:42.nose gets bigger. Are you telling me Ed Miliband is over the moon
:04:42. > :04:47.with this article? There is nothing he would disagree with. Are you
:04:47. > :04:52.telling me he is over the moon with it? Ed understands there has to be
:04:52. > :04:55.a way back for David. It could not be more unhelpful! At the last
:04:55. > :04:59.election, this is in a week when Ed Miliband has been making all the
:04:59. > :05:03.running by a strong anti-business rhetoric, and his brother points
:05:03. > :05:08.out at the last election not a single major business endorse
:05:08. > :05:11.Labour. We cannot afford that again. That is what he is talking about in
:05:11. > :05:17.terms of balance. We will not win the next election as the anti-
:05:17. > :05:20.business party. We will win it as the There is a productive bit of
:05:21. > :05:25.capitalism, and we are the people who know what that vision and tails.
:05:25. > :05:31.That is what David and Ed are talking about. All singing from the
:05:31. > :05:36.same song sheet. A broadly, yes, but within that there is discussion.
:05:36. > :05:42.You cannot put a cigarette paper between them! Of course you curd.
:05:42. > :05:48.have just seen a squadron of pigs fly over this studio! Why does it
:05:48. > :05:53.have to be either? Why can't we have and and? Why can't we have two
:05:53. > :05:57.good people? Out there in normal land, not London land, people are
:05:57. > :06:05.saying, if someone has got something to contribute, let them
:06:05. > :06:08.contribute! Why doesn't Ed Miliband bring his brother back into the
:06:08. > :06:14.Shadow Cabinet? A That is a matter of David. I think you should have
:06:14. > :06:17.said Ed. Unlike commentators, I know which one is which! I think it
:06:17. > :06:21.is a part of all David to say whether he wants to come back.
:06:21. > :06:24.are told he will be a lot more active next week on a number of
:06:24. > :06:30.fronts, we are going to hear a lot more from him, and not in his
:06:30. > :06:35.comfort zone of foreign policy. hope so. I can see the Ed Miliband
:06:35. > :06:39.people are really saying, we are so grateful for that! They will be, I
:06:39. > :06:43.think. It is about the confidence to have a grown-up debate, that is
:06:43. > :06:47.what the Labour Party is about. They want to see that the
:06:47. > :06:52.politicians are having confident, grown-up debates, and this does not
:06:52. > :06:56.impress the people. If no-one in the wonderful world of the Daily
:06:56. > :07:02.Politics is saying it is Jo's show or Andrew's show, the strength is
:07:02. > :07:08.that it is both of yours shows! is trying to turn the tables! It is
:07:08. > :07:13.not going to work! Ed Miliband has shown he understands this with the
:07:13. > :07:20.policy review. What does that mean?! There are lots out there
:07:20. > :07:25.that show very clearly, there are about 10 or 12 points that Ed will
:07:25. > :07:30.be absolutely sold on. It is about putting flesh and Labour's
:07:30. > :07:37.direction for 2015, rather than 1975, and that has got to be right.
:07:37. > :07:41.They then need to embrace notions of Merit, reward, developing
:07:41. > :07:46.responsibility in tax and welfare. It is part of a discussion about
:07:46. > :07:52.distribution. They are all over the place on welfare, against the cut,
:07:52. > :07:56.for the cap. If the cap fits! they have been broadly in favour,
:07:56. > :08:00.but not be limited cap that we have been talking about. It does work, I
:08:00. > :08:04.think. The easiest thing to do, if you are a lazy journalist, is to do
:08:04. > :08:08.what the Daily Telegraph it and write this over the front page as a
:08:09. > :08:12.big row. This is kindergarten stuff for a journalist, but this serious
:08:12. > :08:17.politics for the next election. invite you to go on the internet
:08:17. > :08:24.and see that is just the Daily Telegraph! Kindergarten stuff for
:08:24. > :08:30.journalists, I did not say that. You didn't! Bouquet! A new art
:08:30. > :08:35.covering yourself here, aren't you? From the theatre of the absurd...
:08:35. > :08:38.It is time for our daily quiz. The question for today, whose underwear
:08:38. > :08:48.brought London to a standstill yesterday? We are raising the level
:08:48. > :08:49.
:08:50. > :08:56.Should you need it, at the end of the show, Emma will give us the
:08:56. > :09:02.correct answer! Don't say yet! There is only one person I am
:09:02. > :09:04.hoping it is! Even Ed Miliband? Prince William is starting his
:09:04. > :09:07.deployment in the Falkland Islands as an RAF search-and-rescue pilot,
:09:07. > :09:11.but his presence on islands is increasing the tension between
:09:11. > :09:14.Britain and Argentina with the Argentinian foreign ministry
:09:14. > :09:19.stating that he will be in the uniform of the Conqueror. His
:09:19. > :09:22.arrival follows news that the UK is sending the destroyer HMS Dauntless
:09:22. > :09:26.to the region. Allan Little is at Port Stanley. Thank you for joining
:09:26. > :09:31.us. You have been on the islands for the past few days, is their
:09:31. > :09:37.tension? How are people feeling? This is not a very excitable place.
:09:37. > :09:41.People are quite relaxed, quietly confident that there will be no
:09:41. > :09:45.militarisation of this dispute with Argentina. Argentina is a very
:09:45. > :09:50.different country now to 30 years ago, and the mood here is pretty
:09:50. > :09:54.defined. It is very hard to find anyone who pretty much cares about
:09:54. > :10:00.Argentine susceptibilities, Argentine sensibilities. I spoke to
:10:00. > :10:04.a senior official of the Falkland Islands government yesterday, and I
:10:04. > :10:07.asked Tim... He is the head of oil exploration, and I asked about
:10:07. > :10:11.exploration as a provocation to Argentina, and he said, they can
:10:11. > :10:15.see it as that, but it has got nothing to do with them, it is none
:10:15. > :10:20.of their business, we are forging ahead, it is an exciting time. That
:10:21. > :10:24.is not the voice of somebody who is afraid that an Argentine invasion
:10:25. > :10:28.might lie at the end of this road that we are going down. If they are
:10:28. > :10:34.not worried about that, is there any worry about the tour from the
:10:34. > :10:37.Argentinian government about some kind of economic blockade? -- Cork.
:10:37. > :10:41.There is anxiety about that, but at the same time there is a
:10:41. > :10:44.bullishness, because so far it has not really work. A lot of South
:10:44. > :10:49.American countries have bought into the idea of banning Falklands ships
:10:49. > :10:51.from their ports, but the Argentines have not been very
:10:51. > :11:00.successful and running their neighbours to the idea of a
:11:00. > :11:04.portrait blockade with the Falkland Islands. -- full trade blockade.
:11:04. > :11:07.This does not feel like an island community under siege, and they are
:11:07. > :11:11.pleased with the nature of Prince William's stay on the island. It is
:11:11. > :11:15.being sold to the world by Britain and the Falkland Islands assembly a
:11:15. > :11:21.six-week tour of duty of Flight Lieutenant Wales, but at the same
:11:21. > :11:24.time it is the future king coming to the Falkland Islands, and they
:11:24. > :11:27.are seeing that as a quiet reassertion of Britain's commitment
:11:27. > :11:32.to defending their self determination. Not that it would
:11:32. > :11:37.escalate things. His arrival and sending HMS Dauntless, even if the
:11:37. > :11:41.government says it is just routine. The government does say it is just
:11:41. > :11:45.routine, they are very pleased that HMS Dauntless is coming, the people
:11:45. > :11:51.here. The idea of British military protection is still very, very
:11:51. > :11:54.important. 1982 casts a long shadow, and that idea that men came from
:11:54. > :11:58.9,000 miles up -- miles away to defend their right to choose their
:11:58. > :12:01.destiny is a living thing in the streets here in a Falkland Islands,
:12:01. > :12:05.so they do not see that as an escalation but as the continuation
:12:05. > :12:11.of Britain's 30 year commitment to defend them against any threat. But
:12:11. > :12:14.there is no panic here, no sense of intimidation, no fear, really, that
:12:14. > :12:18.this is going to turn into a military conflict. Allan Little,
:12:18. > :12:20.thank you. There is a growing row in
:12:20. > :12:24.Parliament over the future of search and rescue, which could have
:12:24. > :12:28.an impact on Prince William's job. Ben Geoghegan is in the central
:12:28. > :12:31.locking. This seems as though the RAF search
:12:31. > :12:34.and rescue Service could become a thing of the past within the last
:12:34. > :12:39.few years as the government tries to contract out that service in the
:12:39. > :12:43.future. Part of the reason for that is the ageing Sea King helicopters,
:12:43. > :12:47.which needs to be replaced, but it also raises the question about what
:12:47. > :12:52.Prince William will do in the military in the future. Joining me
:12:52. > :12:56.to discuss that is Patrick Mercer, a former military man, and Maria
:12:56. > :13:00.Eagle, shadow transport spokesman. What is your view about this? The
:13:00. > :13:03.whole process of replacing the helicopters began under Labour.
:13:03. > :13:08.did, and of course they need replacing, they are getting to the
:13:08. > :13:11.end of their life, and we began a PFI procurement to replace the kit.
:13:11. > :13:16.What the government have done is replace that with a procurement to
:13:16. > :13:21.contract out the entire service. So despite the fact that our military
:13:21. > :13:24.have conducted the service in an exemplary fashion since the war,
:13:24. > :13:28.shortly there will be no military involvement. That does raise the
:13:28. > :13:31.issue about who is going to do this job, and of course we know that
:13:31. > :13:35.Prince William and others will be redeployed within the military, but
:13:35. > :13:39.what does that mean for the future of the service and the quality of
:13:39. > :13:45.the services around our coastline? Patrick Mercer, can civilian
:13:45. > :13:49.contractors do as good a job as the RAF? I do not know, and I think
:13:49. > :13:55.Maria makes some very good points. Actually, they might, if nothing
:13:55. > :13:58.else, to a cheaper job. I know it is not the same argument, but it is
:13:58. > :14:02.a hugely important these days. There is no question that I would
:14:02. > :14:06.like, and any other sensible person, would like the RAF and the role may
:14:07. > :14:10.be to remain involved, but as a former soldier, if you told me that
:14:10. > :14:13.cuts have to be made, would I prefer this sort of thing or combat
:14:13. > :14:19.power to go, you will know my answer. It has got to be this sort
:14:19. > :14:24.of soft service, rather than combat power. What sort of assurances can
:14:24. > :14:27.the MoD asked for? His there a standardised system in place across
:14:27. > :14:30.the military and into the civilian area to make sure that the training
:14:30. > :14:34.is up to scratch, that they can perform the same things that the
:14:34. > :14:37.Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have been doing? I have no doubt
:14:37. > :14:40.that the training for whichever of them takes this on will be
:14:40. > :14:47.partially militarised anyway. There is all of that expertise in the
:14:47. > :14:50.hands of the RAF and Navy, and it and it might make sense financially.
:14:50. > :14:53.But yes, standards can be maintained, and of course there
:14:53. > :14:56.will be competition between different companies do get the
:14:56. > :15:00.contract in the first place. That is a good thing, and my only
:15:00. > :15:04.concern is that civilian crews, and I do not want to pour aspersions,
:15:04. > :15:13.might be slightly more risk averse and military crews. That is an
:15:13. > :15:16.It is a concern, the MoD are handing this over to the Department
:15:16. > :15:20.for Transport, and good and concerned about the chain of
:15:20. > :15:26.command, what does it mean if the military needs somebody rescuing
:15:26. > :15:29.offshore, will they have to go to a civilian service to do the rescue?
:15:30. > :15:39.I think there are a number of questions which the Government
:15:39. > :15:43.needs to answer before we go through with this. Military men are
:15:43. > :15:47.very adaptable, I'm sure that those personnel who will need to be
:15:47. > :15:53.redeployed will be found roles by the MoD, but it does leave
:15:53. > :15:59.questions about how well safety around the coastline will be
:15:59. > :16:03.maintained. There is a record of coastguard stations being closed,
:16:03. > :16:06.emergency towing vessels being got rid of, and I think there are
:16:06. > :16:11.questions the Government need to answer about safety around our
:16:11. > :16:16.coast if this goes ahead. Briefly, what should Prince William do if it
:16:16. > :16:20.comes to it that he's made redundant. He will not be. He is a
:16:20. > :16:26.heavily trained, expensively trained, combat pilot, that is his
:16:26. > :16:30.principle training. There are a number of different things that he
:16:30. > :16:33.can do - helicopters and helicopter pilots are in huge demand. He will
:16:33. > :16:39.not be made redundant, there is no doubt about that, I'm sure the
:16:39. > :16:44.military will find a role for him. Thank you very much. We do not know
:16:44. > :16:47.what Prince William's view on this issue is. It was reported in a
:16:47. > :16:57.newspaper some time ago that he tried to lobby the Prime Minister
:16:57. > :17:01.against his proposal. Now, should you be able to command a salary of
:17:01. > :17:04.�31,000 to come and live in Britain? That is what Immigration
:17:04. > :17:10.Minister Damian Green thinks. First, let's hear what he had to say this
:17:10. > :17:13.morning. Today I want to speak about another key element in the
:17:13. > :17:17.long-term transformation of British immigration policy, which is the
:17:17. > :17:21.development of the principle of selectivity. We need to know not
:17:21. > :17:25.just that the right numbers of people are coming here, but that
:17:25. > :17:31.the right people are coming here. People who will benefit Britain,
:17:31. > :17:35.not just people who will benefit from Britain. An immigration policy
:17:35. > :17:39.which reflects a consensus about who should be able to come here,
:17:39. > :17:46.and an immigration system that can actually deliver that, a legal
:17:46. > :17:53.framework which reflects the will of Parliament while reflecting --
:17:53. > :17:58.respecting our international obligations. And by the magic of
:17:58. > :18:05.television, Damian Green joins us now. Welcome to The Daily Politics
:18:05. > :18:09.- what happens if you're on less than �31,000? That is a particular
:18:09. > :18:15.proposal, about not whether you can come here, but whether you can stay
:18:15. > :18:19.here. We have been advising that we should look at a range of salaries,
:18:19. > :18:24.from �31,000 to �49,000, to pick point below which people should not
:18:24. > :18:28.be allowed to settle, because that is the best proxy for skills and
:18:28. > :18:31.ability to contribute to the economy. The basis of what I was
:18:31. > :18:34.saying this morning was that people who come here should be able to
:18:34. > :18:40.make a contribution to British life, and that is one of the ways of
:18:40. > :18:44.defusing the tension, if we know that everyone who's coming here can
:18:44. > :18:47.actually make a positive contribution, then a loss of three
:18:47. > :18:53.-- then a lot of the stresses and strains of the system in the past
:18:53. > :18:57.will be dissipated. So, if you earn �27,000, you're not making a
:18:57. > :19:01.positive contribution? You might be, we're not talking about people
:19:01. > :19:05.coming here, we're talking about the link between coming here to
:19:05. > :19:12.work for a few years, and settling here for ever. So, after a few
:19:12. > :19:16.years, if you are not earning �31,000, you're out? It has not
:19:16. > :19:21.been decided, but that was the recommended range from the Advisory
:19:21. > :19:25.Committee. Do you agree with it? will know that when we make the
:19:25. > :19:28.announcement in a few weeks' time. You do not know now? No, we have
:19:28. > :19:37.not decided it, it will be announced in the course of the next
:19:37. > :19:44.few weeks. If you marry a un EU citizen, do they have to earn
:19:44. > :19:48.�31,000 to come in? -- a non-EU citizen. Again, it is the same
:19:48. > :19:52.principle, you need to be able to play a role in British society.
:19:52. > :19:55.What, the person coming in? Yes, we are saying that you should be able
:19:55. > :20:01.to speak at least a smattering of English, so that you're not
:20:01. > :20:06.completely isolated in your community. And also, you certainly
:20:06. > :20:12.should not be able to come here with the expectation of living on
:20:12. > :20:16.benefits from day one, many people would regard that as fair. How long
:20:16. > :20:20.do you think this will last in front of the European Convention on
:20:20. > :20:26.Human Rights, how long would you give it, five minutes? 15 minutes,
:20:26. > :20:33.maximum? The other thing I was talking about in that clip was that
:20:33. > :20:39.we will, as part of this process, look at family rights. It does not
:20:39. > :20:42.say right to family life only if you are earn more than �25,000.
:20:42. > :20:47.but one of the problems I was setting out this morning was that
:20:47. > :20:50.for some weird reason, ever since Parliament passed the domestic
:20:50. > :20:55.Human Rights Act in 1998, Parliament has given no direction
:20:55. > :21:02.to judges about when does heckles from Europe should apply, and when
:21:02. > :21:12.they should not. As a result, we have had a lot of judgments which
:21:12. > :21:17.are very unpopular. The problem is, there is no kind of consistency or
:21:17. > :21:21.coherence. One thing we will do as part of our announcements will be
:21:21. > :21:25.to try to give much better and clearer guidance to judges. Because
:21:25. > :21:29.I think this long-running row between Parliament and judges is
:21:29. > :21:33.pretty unhealthy. Are you looking at all of these things, which I
:21:33. > :21:36.find quite difficult to understand, and you yourself do not seem to
:21:36. > :21:41.have made your mind upon them, is it because you're worried about
:21:41. > :21:46.your target? The official data for net migration was more than 250,000
:21:46. > :21:51.last year, and you have pledged to get it down to tens of thousands.
:21:51. > :21:56.It was not last year it was actually the year before. Our
:21:56. > :22:02.target is to get it down to tens of thousands by May 2015, at the end
:22:02. > :22:05.of this Parliament, more than four years away. But you set a target
:22:05. > :22:10.for net migration, in other words, the number of people leaving the
:22:10. > :22:13.country minus the number of people coming in, but you have set an
:22:13. > :22:16.immigration target which actually depends on British people
:22:16. > :22:23.emigrating - what's the point of that? Because the actual use of
:22:23. > :22:27.public services in this country, transport, health, education, that
:22:27. > :22:32.depends on the size of the population, and the size of the
:22:32. > :22:34.population depends on net migration. So, in practical terms, if you
:22:34. > :22:39.actually want to defuse the tensions caused by too much
:22:39. > :22:43.immigration, it is the net migration figure which matters.
:22:43. > :22:48.more British people should leave? We want more British people to
:22:48. > :22:52.leave Britain then we will hit our target! We want fewer people who
:22:52. > :22:56.will not make a contribution to British life to come here. That is
:22:56. > :23:00.what we can control. Will you come back and see us when we make up
:23:00. > :23:09.your mind? -- when you make up your mind? A of course, but we have to
:23:09. > :23:12.speak to Parliament first. It has been nicknamed the Pret effect,
:23:12. > :23:17.after the Mayor of London wondered aloud why it was that there were
:23:17. > :23:22.never any British people working for the upmarket sandwich chain? Is
:23:22. > :23:30.it because British people are too surly to serve the crayfish and
:23:30. > :23:33.rocket? Business agrees with Boris - four in 10 employers told the
:23:33. > :23:36.Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development that they had hired
:23:36. > :23:40.immigrants because young British people lack what are called soft
:23:40. > :23:45.skills, things like punctuality, teamwork and the delivery of
:23:45. > :23:52.service with a smile. consequence of the education system
:23:52. > :23:55.in the past decade is that it has taught pupils to pass written
:23:55. > :23:59.examinations - some of these customer-service skills are not
:23:59. > :24:03.considered necessary to get on. This has resulted in fewer young
:24:03. > :24:08.people having confidence in dealing with people, dealing with customers.
:24:08. > :24:11.To find out whether actual young people agree, let's bribe them,
:24:11. > :24:20.with some of Boris's favourite sandwiches. Would you like a
:24:20. > :24:25.sandwich? Which one is chicken and bacon, sorry? Do you think it
:24:25. > :24:29.should be taught at school, how to deal with people? I think it should
:24:29. > :24:39.be, because no matter what profession you going to, you have
:24:39. > :24:41.
:24:41. > :24:45.still got to deal with the retail world which we live in. I work in
:24:45. > :24:49.five star Michelin restaurants, so I do not think it has got anything
:24:49. > :24:55.to do with British young people. is handy to be taught in schools,
:24:55. > :25:00.but it comes from parents as well. But is it even possible to teach
:25:00. > :25:05.this stuff? This is the McDonald's University. This year, the burger
:25:05. > :25:09.chain will create 2,500 new jobs, half of them for under-21s, many
:25:10. > :25:13.who have never worked before. people are more natural. We find
:25:13. > :25:20.that young people, some of them are lacking in confidence, so a lot of
:25:20. > :25:24.it is about growing their confits - - confidence, as well as their
:25:24. > :25:27.skills. There is nothing like working on a tale in McDonald's,
:25:27. > :25:37.maintaining eye-contact with customers, to bring out those
:25:37. > :25:37.
:25:38. > :25:41.skills. -- on a till. You have to be a team player, you have to have
:25:41. > :25:46.a great attitude, you have to be polite. And customer-service, of
:25:46. > :25:50.course. If I'm going to serve a customer, and I can make it a bit
:25:50. > :25:54.more personal, ask have their day is going, it makes the whole
:25:54. > :26:00.experience nicer. If somebody comes in, and they are from the phone,
:26:00. > :26:05.don't get in their face too much, because it is a bit rude. If
:26:05. > :26:12.somebody is happy, then you can be happy back. This week, thousands of
:26:12. > :26:15.vocational courses lost their status as equivalent to GCSEs, so
:26:15. > :26:21.it does not look like the Government has much appetite to
:26:21. > :26:24.introduce school subjects which are almost softer side. A former head
:26:24. > :26:34.of the CBI and Labour trade minister Digby Jones is with us now.
:26:34. > :26:39.First of all, those soft skills - how important are they? The ability
:26:39. > :26:42.to get on in life and talk to people and chat to people is number
:26:42. > :26:46.one, I would say. One of the biggest problems, I might be
:26:46. > :26:50.working with people who are long- term unemployed, some of them have
:26:50. > :26:53.degrees, PhDs, but they have no social skills, and nobody wants to
:26:53. > :26:59.employ them because they cannot connect you and cannot look at you
:26:59. > :27:02.properly. It is absolutely important. But taking away the fact
:27:02. > :27:06.that some personalities are more difficult to deal with than others,
:27:06. > :27:11.is it a sign of failed parenting and bad schooling, or is it just
:27:11. > :27:18.one of those things that people now need to be taught? There's lots of
:27:18. > :27:21.different reasons, people having autism and stuff like that, but
:27:21. > :27:25.there's whole generations coming through, there's work I have been
:27:25. > :27:28.doing, where, if your mum and dad do not have your skills, then you
:27:28. > :27:33.will not have those skills. We cannot just keep looking at the
:27:33. > :27:36.schools for this. There are some kids really struggling who are not
:27:36. > :27:41.getting this day in, day out, the ability to come in and shake
:27:41. > :27:45.somebody's hand, look them in the face and chat to them. Do you think
:27:45. > :27:51.that is the reason there are many more foreigners working in jobs
:27:51. > :27:55.like sandwich chains? As you probably saw from my accent, I'm
:27:55. > :28:00.not from London. If you go to Buxton or somewhere like that, it
:28:00. > :28:05.is all English kids working in those shops. So this is a London
:28:05. > :28:08.issue. But yes, it probably is. I meet lads in the streets who could
:28:08. > :28:12.never ever get a job in a place like that, because they do not have
:28:12. > :28:18.the social skills. So, what is the point of the Government trying to
:28:18. > :28:23.bring down the status of some of these qualifications? I think that
:28:23. > :28:27.is ideological. And shame on them, in many areas. Because what you
:28:27. > :28:31.have got to do is to give emblems to these young people, and to the
:28:32. > :28:37.employers, because it is a currency they understand, they understand a
:28:37. > :28:43.GCSE. I will give you a good example, up at JCB, they have got
:28:43. > :28:46.this academy, with kids in vocational courses, engineering,
:28:46. > :28:51.this is stuff which British manufacturing needs. And they have
:28:51. > :28:58.just taken away the GCSE. He is saying, what have I done all this
:28:58. > :29:03.for?! The Government have tried to pander to a legitimate view about,
:29:03. > :29:07.we do not want lots and lots of hairdressers, we would rather have
:29:07. > :29:14.people who can be in manufacturing, and I am generalising. But they
:29:14. > :29:19.have used an almighty sledgehammer to crack a nut. School does play a
:29:19. > :29:23.role, more of a role that you say, actually, I think. A lack of male
:29:24. > :29:28.teachers in primary schools, for instance, is a problem. But
:29:28. > :29:32.families who are so dysfunctional, the young teenager has no contact
:29:32. > :29:37.with anybody who's going to make him get confident, and so when they
:29:37. > :29:41.start going for jobs, no confidence at all. Very, very briefly, because
:29:41. > :29:45.we have got to move on in a few seconds, but in terms of what you
:29:45. > :29:50.do, which the Government's work programme, is that a good thing?
:29:50. > :29:54.is absolutely about confidence, self-esteem and how to carry on..
:29:54. > :30:00.Are they getting jobs? Yes. And they are keeping their jobs, which
:30:00. > :30:05.is what I came about. When people say they need good people, it is
:30:05. > :30:13.not PhDs and rocket science. It is about good attitude, get in and go
:30:13. > :30:17.home on time. We have been joined by viewers in Scotland, who have
:30:17. > :30:21.been watching First Minister's Questions from Holyrood. Regular
:30:21. > :30:27.viewers will know that the Welfare Reform Bill has been having a
:30:27. > :30:30.sticky ride in the House of Commons. Yesterday it returned there where
:30:30. > :30:32.some government concessions won the day. There is a bit of
:30:32. > :30:42.parliamentary ping-pong going on between the House of Lords and the
:30:42. > :30:43.
:30:43. > :30:48.The Government today has just burned a third of the savings they
:30:48. > :30:51.proposed for this measure, because they got the policy wrong. They
:30:51. > :30:58.have incorporated part of our amendment in their concessions
:30:58. > :31:01.today, instituting an adjustment period. I want to show the
:31:01. > :31:11.Secretary of State a better way to institute a principle on what
:31:11. > :31:13.others agree. I am very interested any idea. -- in the idea. Is his
:31:13. > :31:16.party going to say to the regulator that they would have exactly the
:31:16. > :31:21.same amount of money that the government are proposing, or does
:31:21. > :31:26.he think it should be more? does he say that is an acceptable
:31:27. > :31:31.or long-term unemployed, when every day people's circumstances change?
:31:31. > :31:38.They may change their job, they may lose their relationship or marriage,
:31:38. > :31:42.and circumstances mean they have to move home. Why should the long-term
:31:42. > :31:49.unemployed, often third generation, be exempt from the sort of real-
:31:49. > :31:53.world that so many people living? We are also expected that we would
:31:53. > :31:57.provide a grace period, a degree of transition for people who lose
:31:57. > :32:00.their jobs and find their circumstances have changed
:32:00. > :32:04.dramatically through no fault of their own. We will not penalise
:32:04. > :32:06.those who are in work and doing the right thing. We will put in place a
:32:06. > :32:10.nine-month grace period for those who have been a work for the
:32:10. > :32:14.previous 12 months and lose their job through no fault of their own.
:32:14. > :32:24.We have always intended to make this measure, and I'm happy to make
:32:24. > :32:29.
:32:29. > :32:35.Joining me now, Labour MP and Conservative MP. Julian Brazier,
:32:35. > :32:39.having accepted any of the changes the laws have made? I think the
:32:39. > :32:41.government has struck about the right balance. There are many
:32:41. > :32:46.lower-paid constituents in my constituency who justifiably resent
:32:46. > :32:50.the fact that there are people being kept on benefits, some of
:32:50. > :32:54.whom, for one reason or another, have not worked for many years, and
:32:54. > :32:58.have a lifestyle that is very much better and more secure than theirs.
:32:58. > :33:02.I think the Government is right to make these changes. It has made a
:33:02. > :33:06.number of concessions to ensure that people who lose their jobs
:33:06. > :33:12.through no fault of their own are not immediately penalise, but I
:33:12. > :33:16.think it is absolutely right to be doing this. -- penalised. Could you
:33:16. > :33:23.now answer my question? Have you accepted any of the changes the
:33:23. > :33:27.Lords have made? Sorry, died personally accept them? As the
:33:27. > :33:32.Government in the Commons accepted any of the changes the Lords have
:33:32. > :33:36.made? Not in the way the laws have drafted them. The main change, as
:33:36. > :33:39.you show it in your clip, that the government has made is that it has
:33:39. > :33:45.allowed this nine-month grace period, and I think that the nine-
:33:45. > :33:50.month grace period for those who lose their jobs is absolutely right.
:33:50. > :33:56.But the wider point is... You have made the wider point, and I thank
:33:56. > :34:01.you for that. Are you voting for, against or abstaining in any of
:34:01. > :34:05.this? Well, the fact of the matter is, as was pointed out by my Labour
:34:05. > :34:11.colleagues, this question of �26,000 applies in certain areas,
:34:11. > :34:16.particularly in areas in London and one or two other places. The fact
:34:16. > :34:19.of the matter is the bulk of that money goes to landlords, private
:34:19. > :34:25.landlords, and it is very, very difficult for those who are going
:34:25. > :34:29.to be adversely affected to find alternative accommodation. I do not
:34:29. > :34:33.think we need lectures from the Government about unemployment and
:34:33. > :34:38.the rest. The fact of the matter is that unemployment is growing, more
:34:38. > :34:43.and more people are losing their jobs, and I think that what the
:34:43. > :34:47.Government is doing once again his divide and rule, trying to
:34:47. > :34:52.concentrate people's minds on other sections of workers, instead of the
:34:52. > :34:57.bankers, the bonuses and tax evasion. That is fine, we have
:34:57. > :35:03.heard the rhetoric from both sides. Are you for or against a cap of
:35:03. > :35:07.�26,000? I would be very reluctant to have a cap unless it is quite
:35:07. > :35:10.clearly very much on a regional basis. But bear in mind, we were
:35:10. > :35:18.discussing other matters yesterday, other than this particular issue,
:35:18. > :35:21.as you know. I understand that. He is the ping pong coming to an end?
:35:21. > :35:26.Does this Bill go back to the Lords? Do you expect further
:35:26. > :35:29.changes? Or is it coming to the end of the parliamentary road? I think
:35:29. > :35:32.it is coming to the end of the parliamentary road, because there
:35:32. > :35:38.are very substantial amounts of public money involved, so the
:35:38. > :35:42.Commons can claim privilege honest. The central point is that we cannot
:35:42. > :35:46.go on in a team of -- time of extreme recession with people
:35:46. > :35:50.struggling, working very long hours, paying a lot of tax, and seeing
:35:50. > :35:56.those one not in work and have not been for many years enjoying a
:35:56. > :35:59.better standard of living than they are. But what the Conservative
:36:00. > :36:04.Members of Parliament, including our friend here, being favour of
:36:04. > :36:08.some control on landlords? Would they be in favour of rent control
:36:08. > :36:12.and the rest of it? As I emphasised a moment ago, the fact of the
:36:12. > :36:16.matter is that so much of this money which is being talked about
:36:16. > :36:22.is absolutely going to private landlords, who are making fat
:36:22. > :36:26.profits. That is why... I'm afraid, gentlemen, we are going to have to
:36:26. > :36:30.leave it there. It is clear the debate is far from over. Thank you
:36:30. > :36:33.for joining us. Anglo-French relations are known to
:36:33. > :36:38.be a bit up-and-down, and every now and then even a little bit topsy-
:36:38. > :36:43.turvy. With another summit looming, we thought it would be pertinent to
:36:43. > :36:47.ask, how are the French President and the British Prime Minister
:36:47. > :36:51.getting along? Jo! Well, things have been better! That
:36:51. > :36:55.the many victims of the financial crisis, including the entente
:36:55. > :37:02.cordiale between Britain and France. Only last autumn, relations between
:37:02. > :37:08.Cameron and Sarkozy looked convivial. David and Nicola were
:37:08. > :37:13.treated like heroes in Libya after leading the international action
:37:13. > :37:16.against Colonel Gaddafi, but David Cameron's decision to veto a new EU
:37:16. > :37:20.treaty led to a public snub by the French President he was said to
:37:20. > :37:23.have called Mr Cameron and obstinate child and told him to
:37:24. > :37:27.shut up. Then Mr Sarkozy began taking pot-shots at the British
:37:27. > :37:32.economy, saying it has no industry any more. Yesterday we learnt that
:37:32. > :37:35.the Indian government had chosen to buy a fleet of French jets over the
:37:35. > :37:39.British build Eurofighter. Mr Sarkozy might not be around for
:37:39. > :37:43.much longer, with the Socialist Francois Hollande the favourite in
:37:43. > :37:47.May's presidential election. Mr Hollande does not like the EU
:37:47. > :37:51.treaty either, but with signs that he may be even more hostile to the
:37:51. > :37:56.City than Sarkozy, Mr Cameron might find that relations can only get
:37:56. > :38:01.worse. Earlier I spoke to an MEP from Mr Hollande's Socialist Party
:38:02. > :38:06.and began by asking if she wanted the treaty ripped up. This is
:38:06. > :38:09.obviously the position that our candidate for the presidential
:38:09. > :38:16.election has taken on behalf of our party. We believe it is important,
:38:16. > :38:22.because we know that the current crisis in the eurozone is a crisis
:38:22. > :38:26.not only about financial stability but also about the lack of growth.
:38:26. > :38:30.The increasing divergence of competitiveness among member states,
:38:30. > :38:35.some internal imbalances as well. We believe this treaty would only
:38:35. > :38:41.add austerity to financial indiscipline. We need some
:38:41. > :38:44.financial discipline, but we believe that growth will not result
:38:44. > :38:48.only with financial discipline. We believe that you need to have
:38:48. > :38:52.growth to allow financial discipline. So you want to spend
:38:52. > :38:56.money, basically, you would like to see more money spent, and so you
:38:56. > :39:03.are at odds with both Germany and Britain, because Mrs Merkel and
:39:03. > :39:10.David Cameron want austerity as it is. No, but austerity on its own
:39:10. > :39:17.will not allow us to get out of this crisis. Tell me, how can you
:39:17. > :39:21.reimburse your debt if you do not create added value? This is all
:39:21. > :39:27.about the debate, what it is about. If you want to go out of this
:39:27. > :39:31.crisis, you need to have sustainable public finances, and to
:39:31. > :39:38.do that you need some kind of growth. Do you have sympathy with
:39:38. > :39:42.David Cameron's decision to veto the treaty? I think David Cameron
:39:42. > :39:47.did not a very good thing, because I think his country is also very
:39:47. > :39:53.much committed to the EU and to the health of the macro economy. I mean,
:39:53. > :39:59.there are plenty of figures demonstrating how much the UK is
:39:59. > :40:02.depending on the EU and the eurozone economies. I think he
:40:02. > :40:07.would have been much better inside the discussion, but of course the
:40:07. > :40:13.condition he had to put to be inside the discussion was not
:40:13. > :40:17.acceptable. The request to the outside any financial legislation.
:40:18. > :40:21.On that issue of the transaction tax, the financial transaction tax,
:40:21. > :40:26.David Cameron and the leader of the opposition here are opposed to it
:40:26. > :40:31.if it is not worldwide. Would you be willing to go ahead, leaving the
:40:31. > :40:37.EU outside the tax? I think this would be bad news for the UK and
:40:37. > :40:42.for France, and for the eurozone, the union as a whole. You know, in
:40:42. > :40:48.the U: -- in the UK, you are a very clever and good proposal regarding
:40:48. > :40:52.the banking sector, which is the Vickers Report. Drawing this line,
:40:52. > :40:58.you should also accept that to have better supervision, better
:40:58. > :41:02.regulation of the financial markets, you need to go all along the line.
:41:02. > :41:07.To a separation between the deposit and the investment banking sector,
:41:07. > :41:12.but also the transaction tax. This would be a really consistent
:41:12. > :41:15.position. In terms of the treaty itself, if Germany does not want to
:41:15. > :41:20.renegotiate and Angela Merkel does not seem to want to, what are you
:41:20. > :41:24.going to do? They are the driving force. They are the driving force,
:41:24. > :41:29.but I think they will need to have France on board, because you cannot
:41:29. > :41:33.have the eurozone only decided in Berlin. This has never been the
:41:33. > :41:36.case, and it will not be the case in the future. I think the fact
:41:36. > :41:43.that Francois Hollande, our candidate for the Socialist Party,
:41:43. > :41:49.has already foreseen the idea that there will be a renegotiation, that
:41:49. > :41:54.allows us to prepare the people for this renegotiation and to define
:41:54. > :41:59.the point where we will ask for this renegotiation. Our partners
:41:59. > :42:04.will not be taken by surprise when we win the election on the sixth of
:42:04. > :42:09.May! If Angela Merkel appears on the same platform as President
:42:09. > :42:13.Sarkozy, which every indication is she well, what do you think of
:42:13. > :42:20.that? Well, we will see how it helps President Sarkozy to win the
:42:20. > :42:22.election, and I think it will not. I think French people are really
:42:22. > :42:28.expecting Francois Hollande to become the next President of the
:42:28. > :42:33.republic. Will he meets David Cameron when he comes to London?
:42:33. > :42:37.will see! Anyhow, I have no doubt that if he comes, he will speak to
:42:37. > :42:41.him about the financial transaction tax. So there will be a meeting,
:42:41. > :42:47.you think? It could be. I and what about Ed Miliband, the leader of
:42:47. > :42:52.the opposition? Well, I mean, he is our sister party, so I think that
:42:52. > :42:57.will also be a very important meeting, but I have no idea about
:42:57. > :43:00.the complete planning of this visit. Do you think, then, well, you are
:43:00. > :43:07.predicting that Francois Hollande will win the election, but you ever
:43:07. > :43:12.see the axis within the eurozone actually shifting? The Uno, I think
:43:13. > :43:17.everybody is under pressure, because there is this debt crisis,
:43:17. > :43:22.and everybody understands that the one who has the tool to put the
:43:22. > :43:28.pressure is really in a strong position. But if you read what the
:43:28. > :43:31.academics and experts tell you, whether it is the OECD, the IMF or
:43:31. > :43:36.some people even in the Financial Times, they tell you that austerity
:43:36. > :43:43.as such is not sustainable and will not be a solution in the long run
:43:43. > :43:47.for the eurozone. I think if Francois Hollande, when he wins the
:43:47. > :43:52.election, he will make Bogor at the political level this thing that is
:43:52. > :43:57.really now very widespread in the public and in the academic world, I
:43:57. > :44:01.think it can make the difference, and it will allow people who are
:44:01. > :44:04.today under stress and under pressure, not allowing themselves
:44:04. > :44:08.to really say what they think about these plans and this treaty, to be
:44:08. > :44:12.more vocal. That is the view of the French
:44:12. > :44:17.Socialist Party, favourites to win the presidential election. The
:44:17. > :44:21.first round is in April, the second round is in May. We are joined to
:44:21. > :44:25.talk about this by French journalist Agnes Poirier, who has
:44:25. > :44:30.just got off the train from Paris and then got stuck in traffic, but
:44:30. > :44:37.she made it, now auditioning for the Killing, you are dressed like
:44:37. > :44:41.the detective! It is the Scandinavian programme. This bit
:44:41. > :44:51.about Sarkozy and Cameron, a French president in trouble, it looks like
:44:51. > :44:52.
:44:52. > :44:58.he's going to lose, a bit of Brit It is funny to look at them,
:44:58. > :45:04.because it was a very short affair. And also, when David Cameron lost
:45:04. > :45:09.his father, Sarkozy sent not the troops but the helicopter to get
:45:09. > :45:14.him there on time. And they were the best of friends. And on 15th
:45:14. > :45:19.September, both of them in Benghazi being acclaimed. And then it just
:45:19. > :45:25.went downhill. But it is a bit of a one-sided divorce, Mr Cameron does
:45:25. > :45:29.not say anything nasty about Mr so cosy, but Mr Sarkozy is very nasty
:45:29. > :45:34.about our Prime Minister. -- Mr Sarkozy. He has told Cameron to
:45:34. > :45:38.shut up, a period of silence for you, Britain doesn't produce
:45:38. > :45:41.anything any more, which is factually wrong, because
:45:41. > :45:47.manufacturing is a higher percentage of our GDP than it is in
:45:47. > :45:56.France. For it is very low, anyway. Industrial production is higher in
:45:56. > :46:02.Britain, its 15%. We just take the punches, because we don't care. He
:46:02. > :46:07.is a failed, outgoing politician. Absolutely, although you do not
:46:08. > :46:14.know it, because he is very good at bouncing back. He is a better
:46:14. > :46:18.campaigner, I would say, than a President. But that's the way he is.
:46:18. > :46:26.And also perhaps, that's the French way, being more straightforward
:46:26. > :46:32.about what you think. Look at Nicolas Sarkozy, you know how he is,
:46:32. > :46:36.he throws tantrums. He did say, apparently, reportedly, that David
:46:36. > :46:42.Cameron was a spoilt brat, on December 9th. But Nicolas Sarkozy
:46:42. > :46:48.is another brat, throwing tantrums. They wouldn't shake hands. Well,
:46:48. > :46:53.apparently, yes. A French journalist once said to me, and
:46:53. > :46:58.this sums up Anglo-French relations - the French do not like Britain,
:46:58. > :47:05.but they like the British. And the British like France, but they don't
:47:05. > :47:14.like the French - discuss! Is he rude to anyone else as leader?
:47:14. > :47:19.That's the way he is. Is he rude to everybody? He is uncouth. He is
:47:19. > :47:23.unlike any French president we have ever had. The guy is strange.
:47:24. > :47:28.us, it is quite a remarkable proposition, that the German
:47:29. > :47:35.Chancellor will come and campaign for the re-election of the French
:47:35. > :47:42.President - the German Chancellor! I know, it sounds strange. Is that
:47:42. > :47:49.a plus? I don't know, is it? But that's what he also did for her, so
:47:49. > :47:53.I guess she's just returning the compliment. And since they have
:47:53. > :47:59.seen each other more than he has seen his own wife in the last few
:47:59. > :48:05.months, so she might as well. would you rather see, Carla Bruni
:48:06. > :48:08.or Angela Merkel? I knew you were going to ask that question.
:48:08. > :48:12.Socialist candidate, leading in the poles at the moment, Francois
:48:12. > :48:17.Hollande, he is going to come to London, because London I think is
:48:17. > :48:20.the fifth-biggest French city in the world. But most of the French
:48:20. > :48:25.people here came to London to escape people like Francois
:48:25. > :48:30.Hollande, he's not going to get many votes here. Well, you would be
:48:30. > :48:34.surprised. First of all, a lot of people who voted for Sarkozy were
:48:34. > :48:41.very disappointed very early on, almost a few hours after he was
:48:41. > :48:45.elected. The honeymoon was two hours. Remember, it was 8pm, he had
:48:46. > :48:53.just been elected, and he went to that very tacky restaurant on the
:48:53. > :48:59.Champs Elysees, and we thought, oh, my God, we have made a mistake!
:48:59. > :49:05.Tacky restaurant on the Champs Elysees, how could that happen? How
:49:05. > :49:10.would you sum up Anglo-French relations? I would not dare, really.
:49:10. > :49:13.I'm pleased to hear that he is rude to everyone, it is not just us. I
:49:13. > :49:18.think they're a bit upset because our food got better, I think that
:49:18. > :49:25.is one of the big problems. food did get better, but it only
:49:25. > :49:35.had one way to go. And there is the one who is not getting much mention
:49:35. > :49:37.
:49:37. > :49:42.on this side of the Channel, Marinne Le Penn, it is not beyond
:49:42. > :49:47.the realms of possibility that she could come second. Yes, there is
:49:47. > :49:54.another guy as well, who got 19% last night. He is more in the
:49:54. > :49:59.middle. Yes, supposedly on the left for it very much at the centre. --
:49:59. > :50:06.on the left but very much at the centre. Do not discount him.
:50:07. > :50:13.think the French election is going to be fascinating. Anything can
:50:13. > :50:21.happen. If anybody is watching in my home town in France, everybody
:50:21. > :50:26.there is very friendly to the Brits. Thanks for rushing from the station.
:50:26. > :50:30.You can relax now, get your breath back. Get out the sunblock,
:50:30. > :50:35.everyone, it is time for the Lib Dem away day in Eastbourne. But
:50:35. > :50:38.don't count on there being talent for ice-creams, there are some
:50:39. > :50:44.serious issues which need to be discussed. We tried to get hold of
:50:44. > :50:49.the agenda, but we were told to go away. Charming. So we have made up
:50:49. > :50:53.our own. So, what is top of the agenda? First, there is the issue
:50:53. > :50:55.of the Queen's Speech, which has been causing the once cosy
:50:55. > :50:58.coalition considerable coalition considerable
:50:58. > :51:04.consternation. Nick Clegg has made it clear that he would like the
:51:04. > :51:07.Treasury to go further in lifting the income tax threshold. And the
:51:07. > :51:12.reform of the House of Lords has been high on their agenda for some
:51:12. > :51:17.time. But it has been reported that the Lib Dems are less keen on
:51:17. > :51:21.Conservative suggestions regarding the deregulation agenda. Then there
:51:21. > :51:26.is the question of the NHS and welfare reform. It has been
:51:26. > :51:31.rumoured that a Cabinet reshuffle could be on the cards soon, and
:51:31. > :51:37.Nick Clegg would no doubt like to see an old friend returned. And
:51:37. > :51:40.then there is the holy grail of politics, poll ratings. And of
:51:40. > :51:47.course, there is always something course, there is always something
:51:47. > :51:53.on drugs. Joining us now, we have Mark Littlewood. First of all, what
:51:53. > :51:58.is a Lib Dem a awake day like? They're quite fun and convivial
:51:58. > :52:01.affairs, in my experience. I have been to two of them. I'm never
:52:01. > :52:05.quite sure that the two I experienced actually got to the nub
:52:05. > :52:10.of the issue. You would need more than a day for that I think for the
:52:10. > :52:14.Liberal Democrats. Some people might have argued that a day was
:52:14. > :52:19.too long, in times gone past. But not now? No, the reality is that
:52:19. > :52:24.the poll ratings for the party are about 10%, so about half the voters
:52:24. > :52:29.have left the course since the last election. I suppose the first two
:52:29. > :52:33.years of coalition, Nick Clegg has said, hold your nerve. It does not
:52:33. > :52:36.really amount to a strategy. They have got to think about who they
:52:36. > :52:42.are speaking to. There has been this policy of differentiation from
:52:42. > :52:47.the Conservatives, but this is not appealing to the merits of their
:52:47. > :52:51.policy positions themselves. If you think about whether you want Euro-
:52:51. > :53:01.enthusiasts, liberal on immigration, and at the same time, against the
:53:01. > :53:06.bill but, it is a miracle that you're on 10%. -- against the
:53:06. > :53:10.welfare cap. Just coming back to your point, looking at the poll
:53:10. > :53:14.ratings, the time that has been spent in coalition, what is morale
:53:14. > :53:19.going to be like? Have they held their nerve? It would seem that
:53:19. > :53:23.they have, publicly. Yes, to some considerable degree, they have.
:53:23. > :53:27.There is no great uprising within the banks. But I think they have
:53:27. > :53:31.got to work out, David Laws put this quite well at the last
:53:31. > :53:36.conference, they have got to work out whether the Liberal Democrats
:53:36. > :53:40.are going to be the engine or the brake in the coalition. There is a
:53:40. > :53:45.danger that they are the brake. They have got to find some areas on
:53:45. > :53:53.which they can drive forward, some areas they can make their own.
:53:53. > :53:57.they have differentiated themselves, with this unusual display from Nick
:53:57. > :54:02.Clegg on the �10,000 threshold, which did not seem to have been
:54:02. > :54:05.agreed by George Osborne - was that a good one to go on? Definitely, he
:54:05. > :54:10.has found a point of differentiation which is popular.
:54:10. > :54:14.It was not -- it was a Lib Dem policy at the last election, he has
:54:14. > :54:19.not dreamt it out of thin air, and he is seem to be leading the charge
:54:19. > :54:24.on that. If George Osborne brings it in, it will be chalked up as a
:54:24. > :54:29.win for Nick Clegg. But I think he needs to go more in that direction.
:54:29. > :54:34.Where else can he go? On welfare, it is difficult, they have had the
:54:34. > :54:39.Lords live up about welfare, and on health, two biggie shoes, but they
:54:39. > :54:43.will be painted as brakes, not as engines, on those issues. That's
:54:43. > :54:46.true. I think they need to think about whether or not they are going
:54:46. > :54:50.to defend the interests of small business. The Conservative Party,
:54:50. > :54:54.rightly or wrongly, is often portrayed as a friend of big
:54:54. > :54:58.business. The Liberal Democrats can be seen as being a party which is
:54:58. > :55:03.against red tape and things like that, but we have not seen much of
:55:03. > :55:08.that. I think if they stood up for small and medium sized enterprises,
:55:08. > :55:10.tax exemptions, things like that, and were seen to be on the side of
:55:10. > :55:20.the small entrepreneur, that is potentially a market which the
:55:20. > :55:23.Liberal Democrats could tap into. Would that work for you, if they
:55:23. > :55:27.followed that kind of agenda, Emma Harrison? Would it fit with the
:55:27. > :55:32.kind of thing that you're doing on the work programme? It sounds
:55:32. > :55:36.really interesting. I was just thinking about it, there is a whole
:55:36. > :55:41.piece around health, which nobody has discussed yet, which is about,
:55:41. > :55:46.what are the people want? For example, we want to be kept well,
:55:46. > :55:50.we do not want to be fixed, we want not to get ill in the first place.
:55:50. > :55:54.Start thinking about, how can you represent the voice of the consumer,
:55:54. > :56:01.thinking, I do not want great big Health Service reforms, what are
:56:01. > :56:05.you going to do to keep me well? Most of the jobs for the people I'm
:56:05. > :56:10.working with, the long-term unemployed, they find their jobs in
:56:10. > :56:13.small companies. So we need to do everything we can on that. Is the
:56:13. > :56:17.banker bashing working, or do you think that is going to turn
:56:17. > :56:22.slightly as far as public opinion is concerned? It is interesting, I
:56:22. > :56:25.was thinking a few days ago I was the last man on the planet
:56:25. > :56:29.defending Stephen Hester, and I think there has been a slight swing
:56:29. > :56:33.back in public opinion, it was a bit too populist, a bit too much
:56:33. > :56:36.politicians riding the crest of a wave, rather than making sound and
:56:36. > :56:40.sensible economic decisions. the Liberal Democrats, that has
:56:40. > :56:45.been quite a populist agenda for them. But if we're talking about
:56:45. > :56:50.thugs, do you think a lot of them are disenchanted Labour supporters,
:56:50. > :56:59.and if so, they cannot afford to lose most of those, can they?
:56:59. > :57:04.cannot, but they probably have lost most of them. They have got to find
:57:04. > :57:09.these sectors, and I think it is the small enterprise sector, a huge
:57:09. > :57:14.1, to really make their own. It has really been only on the 10p tax
:57:14. > :57:18.rate that they have done that so far. What about a mansion tax? Not
:57:18. > :57:23.all Liberal Democrat politicians seem to be big fans of that? Yet
:57:23. > :57:27.Vince Cable seems to be dead set on it? He does, but I think it will be
:57:27. > :57:32.George Osborne's choice. I think the way that has been phrased is
:57:32. > :57:37.pot of the problem. In fact it would apply to a lot of rather
:57:37. > :57:45.small properties, not just Mansions, and interestingly, in a large
:57:45. > :57:49.number of Liberal Democrat target seats, actually. I think there
:57:49. > :57:53.should not be such a rhetoric about bashing the rich. If you want to
:57:53. > :57:58.say, let's moves and taxation away from income and towards property,
:57:58. > :58:02.then put it that way. Actually saying a mention tax, hitting
:58:02. > :58:06.people in huge country estates, I think that is an unfortunate turn
:58:06. > :58:10.of phrase. In terms of the election, do they still have to go for more
:58:10. > :58:17.years of austerity, like the Conservatives? There is no Plan B,
:58:17. > :58:23.they have got to stick to that, no question about it. Just time before
:58:23. > :58:29.we go to find out the answer to our quiz question. Who was it that
:58:29. > :58:35.brought London to a standstill yesterday? I am hoping it was David
:58:35. > :58:41.Beckham. I think you're the Government. I was in London
:58:41. > :58:47.yesterday, and I was not brought to a standstill, personally. Anyway,