:00:43. > :00:45.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Grannies, pasties,
:00:45. > :00:51.charities and conservatories - George Osborne's Budget has turned
:00:51. > :00:59.into a nightmare for the coalition. Do the Government have an economic
:00:59. > :01:02.story that doesn't end in tax? And monkey business or a way to
:01:02. > :01:05.reinvigorate local democracy? We'll discuss what directly elected
:01:05. > :01:08.mayors would mean for the cities about to hold a referendum on
:01:08. > :01:10.introducing them. Nato forces are preparing to
:01:11. > :01:17.withdraw from Afghanistan - even amidst continuing attacks from the
:01:17. > :01:19.Taliban. Has our involvement there threatened the stability of the
:01:19. > :01:23.whole region? And it's not been a great couple of
:01:23. > :01:26.weeks for the Government - so do they suffer from a lack of big
:01:26. > :01:30.political beasts? I'll be asking a man who was perhaps the original
:01:30. > :01:33.big beast. All that and more in the next hour.
:01:33. > :01:40.And here he is, Lord Heseltine, with us for the whole programme
:01:40. > :01:42.today. Welcome. If you have any thoughts or comments on anything
:01:43. > :01:52.we're discussing then you can send them to us daily.politics@bbc.co.uk,
:01:52. > :01:55.or tweet your comments using the Let's start with the eurozone.
:01:56. > :01:58.Fears are growing that Spain may need a big bail-out as the cost of
:01:59. > :02:01.government borrowing on ten-year bonds has hit over 6% for the first
:02:02. > :02:05.time this year. The figure brings Spain closer to the 7% borrowing
:02:05. > :02:09.cost that was seen as the tipping point for Greece and Ireland. But
:02:09. > :02:12.with a �1 trillion euro economy, many are asking if Spain would, in
:02:12. > :02:20.fact, be too big to save. Markets analyst, Louise Cooper, joins us
:02:20. > :02:28.now. Thank you. Can those bond yields be brought down in any
:02:28. > :02:32.realistic hope? Well... We have had massive amounts of ECB buying of
:02:32. > :02:38.bombs, the peripheral country bonds. One could say that the bonds may be
:02:38. > :02:45.hired it wasn't for the ECB buying. Today, Spanish borrowing costs have
:02:45. > :02:51.come down. The 10 years Spanish bond got up to over 6%, today it is
:02:51. > :02:57.about 5.9%. We have had a bit of a rally. If it was really crunch time,
:02:57. > :03:01.it would be more like seven, 7.5%. We are not at crunch time. That is
:03:01. > :03:06.the most important thing to say, for the time being. How worried
:03:06. > :03:10.should we be? Even if we are not at crunch time, it sounds like we are
:03:11. > :03:18.perilously close. We are getting close. The Spanish government tried
:03:19. > :03:24.to sell short dated Dec today. When -- short-dated debt. When
:03:24. > :03:29.government has problems financing bills, they sell short dated dead.
:03:29. > :03:34.They have had to pay double the interest rate that they were paying
:03:34. > :03:38.only a month ago -- short-dated debt. Spain's test comes on
:03:38. > :03:41.Thursday when they have to issue 10 year debt, let's see how the
:03:42. > :03:46.auction goes. The government has said it is committed to making
:03:46. > :03:49.major budget cuts, even though it admits it is in a recession. Is
:03:49. > :03:54.that going to convince the financial markets that Spain can
:03:54. > :04:00.reach its targets? The key is growth, like in the UK. Spain is
:04:00. > :04:04.expected to contract about 1.7% this year. My view is that
:04:04. > :04:10.austerity, which is what they are imposing, will make the growth
:04:10. > :04:14.forecast difficult. As you start to see, in the second quarter, gross
:04:14. > :04:19.numbers weakening, you get to see economists start revisiting the
:04:19. > :04:24.budget figures, the deficit numbers. What I fear is come late summer,
:04:24. > :04:29.when we have seven quarter GDP, when the slowdown in the economy is
:04:29. > :04:33.really becoming apparent thanks to fiscal austerity, you start to see
:04:33. > :04:38.economists take red pens to the government's financial position,
:04:38. > :04:45.and that is when it could all fall apart, in a really dramatic way.
:04:45. > :04:50.it falls apart and Spain goes, does have the euro go as well?
:04:50. > :04:55.problem for Spain is bailing out Greece, Portugal and Ireland, they
:04:55. > :05:00.are pretty small economies. Spain is not. Spain is almost, not quite,
:05:00. > :05:04.but almost too big to solve, too big to bail out. The latest news we
:05:04. > :05:08.have from the bail-out funds is they are not large enough. The
:05:08. > :05:12.permanent bail-out fund has not been implemented. It is not quite
:05:12. > :05:18.Italy in terms of the size of the country, but it is a significantly
:05:18. > :05:25.bigger challenge than Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Don't forget,
:05:25. > :05:30.we have a property crisis in Spain, possibly just as big as Ireland. It
:05:30. > :05:34.hasn't really blown up yet, but it will do. Thank you very much.
:05:34. > :05:38.Michael Heseltine, it sounds as if the pressure on Spain is going to
:05:38. > :05:43.be extremely difficult to reduce, or diminish in the coming months.
:05:43. > :05:49.Some people have said that the murders and could kill the patient.
:05:49. > :05:55.Do you see it in those apocalyptic terms -- of the medicine could kill
:05:55. > :05:59.the patient. I think that this analysis we have just heard has
:05:59. > :06:05.been current and well articulated now, for a very significant period
:06:05. > :06:11.of time. Of course, there is a lot in it. You can't possibly say, you
:06:11. > :06:17.are wrong. This is a crisis. The last thing that the people who
:06:17. > :06:22.created the euro wanted. But against this, you have to balance
:06:22. > :06:28.the determination of France and Germany to hold the thing together.
:06:28. > :06:33.Is that determination not pointless? People have made even
:06:33. > :06:37.more dramatic forecasts than you are implying. The argument that you
:06:38. > :06:46.don't hear so much is the catastrophic effect on Germany of
:06:47. > :06:52.the euro going. What has happened with the euro phenomenon, it has
:06:52. > :06:56.had a very significant devaluation. If you were to go back to the
:06:56. > :07:00.Deutschmark in some form, there would be a significant appreciation
:07:00. > :07:05.in the German currency and a very serious threat to their export
:07:05. > :07:11.markets. You have the vision of Europe, which is vital to them, but
:07:11. > :07:15.you also have the economic freer of the consequences of the euro going.
:07:15. > :07:22.Just before we go on, I think I have to ask you to turn off your
:07:22. > :07:26.phone. They say you can hear it in the gallery. It is turned off.
:07:26. > :07:34.will try again. Maybe if it is further away from the microphone,
:07:34. > :07:39.it won't vibrate. You have two situations, neither of which are
:07:39. > :07:43.desirable. In the meantime, the question arises, how much money
:07:43. > :07:47.should the European Central Bank, or other economies, be putting into
:07:47. > :07:52.what some people describe as a failed project? People who are
:07:52. > :07:56.putting the money in in the main don't regard it as a failed project.
:07:56. > :08:04.You are putting a eurosceptic view. If you're sitting on the continent,
:08:04. > :08:09.you would see this as a vision born of the war processes that have
:08:09. > :08:13.wrecked Europe so often. They are going to cling on to this. Britain
:08:13. > :08:17.has this very difficult approach, where we were never convinced, we
:08:17. > :08:23.didn't want to join, we had to join because circumstances overwhelmed
:08:23. > :08:28.us. And we have been on the touchline ever since. The moment
:08:28. > :08:32.anything goes wrong, all of the headlines scream euro crisis, euro
:08:32. > :08:36.collapse, euro over. They are not the same headlines on the continent
:08:36. > :08:43.of Europe. You don't think Britain should still join the euro, or do
:08:43. > :08:51.you? I think we will. My guess is it will survive, and in the future,
:08:51. > :08:55.not this week, or next year, we will do so. The whole process of
:08:55. > :08:59.European isation, we have resisted and failed at every turn. If you
:08:59. > :09:06.look at the history of it, we were asked to lead it and we refused, at
:09:06. > :09:11.the Messina conference, we said no. We thought we could compete, we are
:09:11. > :09:14.what, pray -- we would create the European Free Trade Area. That has
:09:14. > :09:18.been absorbed by the European Community. Every time we have had
:09:18. > :09:23.these arguments, it has always turned out to be unworkable from
:09:23. > :09:27.our point of view. The big problem suggested by Louise Cooper is this
:09:27. > :09:32.lack of growth. How can there be lack of growth in an economy like
:09:32. > :09:37.Spain's, when they are carrying out, a bit like Greece and Ireland,
:09:37. > :09:42.severe austerity. But look at the UK. We are carrying out massive
:09:42. > :09:46.austerity. Not to the same extent. But it is still big and the growth
:09:46. > :09:49.rates are very small. But we are not in the euro. So you could argue,
:09:49. > :09:56.we have the ability to devalue the currency, which is what we have
:09:56. > :10:04.done, and it hasn't seriously helped, yet. We have massive
:10:04. > :10:08.indebtedness in this country, as parts of the eurozone. And yet, the
:10:08. > :10:14.same sort of escape hatch, the devaluation process, which is what
:10:14. > :10:22.people say Spain should do, hasn't really help us. We will talk about
:10:22. > :10:24.the budget shortly. Before that, it's time for our quiz. The
:10:24. > :10:27.question for today is, which biscuit has Boris Johnson compared
:10:27. > :10:31.himself to? Was it Jammie Dodger, a custard cream, a chocolate
:10:31. > :10:35.digestive or a bourbon biscuit? At the end of the show, Michael will
:10:35. > :10:37.give us the correct answer. This one's just for fun - no prizes, I'm
:10:38. > :10:41.afraid. Now, George Osborne delivered his
:10:41. > :10:45.Budget nearly four weeks ago, but it seems to have caused no end of
:10:46. > :10:51.trouble over the last month. Indeed, the Budget has become a bit of a
:10:52. > :10:54.nightmare for the Government. Yesterday, the Prime Minister
:10:54. > :11:01.signalled a partial climb-down over plans for what's been dubbed a
:11:01. > :11:04.charity tax. The Budget proposed a cap on tax reliefs, including those
:11:04. > :11:08.on charitable donations, at �50,000 or 25% of a person's income,
:11:08. > :11:10.whichever is highest. But the PM said yesterday these plans could be
:11:10. > :11:14.altered following a consultation. The Prime Minister has also
:11:14. > :11:15.intervened on the so-called conservatory tax. He's blocked the
:11:16. > :11:18.compulsory elements of the Government's green deal, which
:11:18. > :11:21.would have forced homeowners to make their homes more energy
:11:21. > :11:25.efficient if they were carrying out home improvements, such as building
:11:25. > :11:29.an extension. All this comes after the damaging rows about the so-
:11:29. > :11:32.called granny tax - the move to end some tax reliefs for pensioners -
:11:32. > :11:37.and the so-called pasty tax, which arose from a desire to close the
:11:37. > :11:45.VAT loophole on hot takeaway food. Well, the issue of charitable tax
:11:45. > :11:49.relief was the subject of sharp exchanges in the Commons yesterday.
:11:49. > :11:54.Many charities, including the Suffolk foundation, estimate that
:11:54. > :11:57.this cap on tax reliefs will lead to a 20% reduction in their
:11:57. > :12:01.charitable donations. I wonder if the Chief Secretary could tell us
:12:01. > :12:05.whether or not he would consider exempting charitable donations to
:12:06. > :12:10.UK charities. It would be comparatively inexpensive and would
:12:10. > :12:14.be terribly important to the charitable sector. I think it is
:12:14. > :12:20.important for the house to be clear as to what is being proposed. What
:12:20. > :12:25.we are proposing is a limit on the currently uncapped tax reliefs, a
:12:25. > :12:30.limit at �50,000, or a court of someone's income, whichever is the
:12:30. > :12:34.higher. -- a quarter. Someone who is earning �10 million a year can
:12:34. > :12:40.still receive tax relief on donations of �2.5 million to
:12:40. > :12:44.charity each and every year. But as I say, we are going to talk to
:12:44. > :12:51.philanthropists and charities about this. Those discussions are going
:12:51. > :12:54.on. It is being reported that the government are doing a U-turn and
:12:54. > :12:58.perhaps we may get clarification from the Secretary, if he is
:12:58. > :13:05.bothering to listen to anything this afternoon, of whether there is
:13:05. > :13:07.a U-turn. Can the Chief Secretary confirmed that there is a U-turn on
:13:07. > :13:10.the charity's tax relief? The government doesn't seem to know
:13:10. > :13:13.what is going on, the Prime Minister doesn't seem to know what
:13:13. > :13:17.is going on and we have no clarification in the House this
:13:17. > :13:19.afternoon. In the studio with me now are the
:13:19. > :13:22.Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves - we saw
:13:22. > :13:25.her talking just there - and the Conservative MP, Harriet Baldwin.
:13:26. > :13:31.Lord Heseltine is still with, us of course. Can I start with you,
:13:31. > :13:35.Harriet Baldwin? It looks as if we are in for a series of U-turns.
:13:35. > :13:39.Let's start with the charity tax relief, the hint is it is going to
:13:39. > :13:43.be altered, they are going to have this consultation, so they are
:13:43. > :13:48.going to back down? It was always in the Red Book that these measures
:13:48. > :13:53.would be out for consultation. They are due to come into force for 2013.
:13:53. > :13:57.I think everyone wants to really encourage philanthropy. I think the
:13:57. > :14:01.point that the Chancellor is trying to make with these limits is, is it
:14:01. > :14:07.right for a philanthropist to be able to pay zero tax in any given
:14:07. > :14:11.year? Why, when the rest of us play the PAYE and it goes to general
:14:11. > :14:15.taxation, should it be a special case for someone who is very rich
:14:15. > :14:21.to build a wing of the Royal Opera House in their men, and not pay any
:14:21. > :14:26.tax that year, subsidised by the rest of us -- in their name. Do you
:14:26. > :14:29.think the cap is going to be moved? There were remarks about modelling
:14:29. > :14:33.this on the American approach. I think it is incredibly important
:14:33. > :14:37.that in this consultation that was announced at the time of the Budget,
:14:37. > :14:42.that all the charities that benefit from the generous philanthropists
:14:42. > :14:47.in this country continue to have the reassurance... But they are not
:14:47. > :14:51.reassured, they have come out one after the other.... The tax breaks
:14:51. > :15:00.we will continue to give them. I think there has been a certain
:15:00. > :15:06.amount of exaggeration. We are You can still give �1 million to
:15:06. > :15:10.charity if you make four million pounds. Don't you need to have a
:15:10. > :15:13.consultation before the policy is announced and the savings are
:15:13. > :15:17.scored in the Budget? It is a shambolic way to make policy. You
:15:17. > :15:20.have got a government that announced something in the Budget
:15:20. > :15:27.because they are trying to look at ways to raise money, because they
:15:27. > :15:30.have given a �40,000 tax cut to millionaires. They are trying to
:15:30. > :15:34.make up the difference but they have done it in a way that
:15:34. > :15:37.penalises older people, who are losing their tax allowance, and
:15:37. > :15:45.penalising charities. Do you support the principle of clamping
:15:45. > :15:52.down on tax reliefs? Absolute belief. Including charitable
:15:52. > :15:55.donations. -- absolutely. We cut down on tax avoidance to the tune
:15:55. > :16:05.of CoP million pounds. The tax avoidance measures in this Budget
:16:05. > :16:07.
:16:07. > :16:11.But to clampdown on tax reliefs? Clampdown on tax avoidance, but
:16:11. > :16:15.giving money to Macmillan Nurses, the National Trust for hospices is
:16:15. > :16:20.very different from avoiding taxes. We should be encouraging people who
:16:20. > :16:23.want to give money to importance charities that do important work.
:16:23. > :16:27.If the government go-ahead with their proposals, the losers are not
:16:27. > :16:31.going to be multi-millionaires. The losers are going to be the
:16:31. > :16:35.charities and the vulnerable people, whether you have cancer and rely on
:16:35. > :16:40.Macmillan nurses, people in the developing world who rely on the
:16:40. > :16:44.help of Oxfam. When Ed Miliband was Minister for the third sector, he
:16:44. > :16:48.said tax breaks could boost charities by up to �600 million.
:16:48. > :16:52.You say you want to clamp down on that, but he was encouraging people
:16:52. > :16:57.to use them. There is a big difference between tax avoidance by
:16:57. > :17:01.converting income into capital, by moving tax from one year to another,
:17:01. > :17:05.by setting offshore accounts. That is different from giving to
:17:05. > :17:09.charities, and the Government have got very muddled in their thinking.
:17:09. > :17:14.You have been criticised from almost every quarter over this
:17:14. > :17:18.policy. It is really important that the message gets across that giving
:17:18. > :17:21.to charity is exactly what we want to encourage, and there are
:17:21. > :17:25.generous tax breaks for that. They are not fully used by the wide
:17:25. > :17:29.majority of the population. Let's make sure that everyone is giving a
:17:29. > :17:32.lot to charity, but for those who want to use the charitable tax
:17:32. > :17:36.break to reduce their income tax, they are effectively being
:17:36. > :17:40.subsidised by everyone else and not contributing to general taxation.
:17:40. > :17:47.How has the Government handled this from its message point of view? It
:17:47. > :17:52.seems to have got rather lost in terms of policy. Yes, I think that
:17:52. > :17:58.is probably fair. It is inevitable, because what the Government is
:17:58. > :18:02.doing, amongst many other very good things in the Budget, is to attack
:18:02. > :18:09.tax evasion. We are all in favour of that. But this is tax avoidance,
:18:09. > :18:13.of course, which they are saying is perfectly legal. Well, the problem
:18:13. > :18:17.is that there is a very difficult area, and the real problem in this
:18:17. > :18:23.case is that nobody knows who the people are the one taking advantage
:18:23. > :18:26.of this, and no-one knows which charities are going to suffer.
:18:27. > :18:32.Therefore, the charity world blows up. There is no evidence that they
:18:32. > :18:36.are going to suffer. They might! But there is no evidence for it
:18:36. > :18:41.because we do not have the facts. There is evidence, because the
:18:41. > :18:46.Government have put the savings in the Budget. But they have not put
:18:46. > :18:51.in, I am sorry, figures showing which charities are going to suffer.
:18:51. > :18:56.In the Budget debate yesterday... Don't talk over each other. They
:18:56. > :19:00.said there will be savings in the proposals they have introduced.
:19:00. > :19:04.What they have not said is who is going to suffer from the savings.
:19:04. > :19:07.It flies in the face of the Government's big push for the Big
:19:07. > :19:11.Society, where it expected and encouraged people and individuals
:19:11. > :19:15.to play that part in terms of support because they do not want
:19:15. > :19:18.the state to do any more. It is a confused message. There are still
:19:18. > :19:22.very generous tax breaks for giving to charity. I would not want people
:19:22. > :19:25.to think they have articulated savings in terms of tax revenues,
:19:25. > :19:31.because that assumes every generous person will not give to charity if
:19:31. > :19:36.they do not get a tax break. �100 million, the government is saying,
:19:36. > :19:41.charities will lose out. Macmillan, hospices, Oxfam says it will cost
:19:41. > :19:45.them dearly. But they do not know, that is the point. The conservatory
:19:45. > :19:50.tax, it looks as if it has been dropped. I do not think it was ever
:19:51. > :19:54.a real threat. It was agreed in the coalition, the Liberal Democrats
:19:54. > :19:58.wanted it to be compulsory that people would be made to take on
:19:58. > :20:01.energy measures if they were fixing their boiler. Another U-turn.
:20:01. > :20:05.have never seen any substantive proposals on his. I understand
:20:05. > :20:15.there was a consultation picked up by the Daily Mail. The Green deal
:20:15. > :20:18.is a very good policy idea, where you can invest and save, pay for it
:20:18. > :20:23.through the savings on your energy bills. The granny tax, should there
:20:23. > :20:27.be a U-turn? The 24 million people who are on low or average earnings
:20:27. > :20:31.in this country to benefit from the fact that we have greatly increased,
:20:31. > :20:36.the largest increases in the personal allowance that we have
:20:36. > :20:42.ever had in history, those people ought to be strewing palm fronds of
:20:42. > :20:47.happiness, but of course what you do hear about is the fact that
:20:48. > :20:54.there is a freezing of the allowance that people... Was it
:20:54. > :20:58.right to target pensioners? I think that we recognised the fact that,
:20:58. > :21:02.in increasing the personal allowance for 24 million people,
:21:02. > :21:09.that it is right to think about civil find that and bringing
:21:09. > :21:12.everyone's tax allowance into line. -- symbol of fine. 4.4 million
:21:12. > :21:16.pensioners will be worse off, and you call it simplification? These
:21:16. > :21:19.are people who have made sacrifices in their working lives, they have
:21:19. > :21:25.put things aside for retirement, and the government will take money
:21:25. > :21:29.from them. You're not looking at the whole picture, because the
:21:29. > :21:32.state pension has been greatly strengthened. It is going up in
:21:32. > :21:37.line with inflation. Higher than the proposals we inherited from
:21:37. > :21:43.Labour, which was for average earnings. Was it a good idea?
:21:43. > :21:47.depends entirely on what the actual losses for people whose income is
:21:47. > :21:52.up at low levels, and as we have just turned, many of them have been
:21:52. > :21:55.compensated in other ways. Politically, though. Well, look,
:21:55. > :22:00.George Osborne is a very courageous Chancellor. He has a nightmare on
:22:00. > :22:05.his hands, an absolute nightmare, and everybody says, good old George,
:22:05. > :22:09.you are doing the tough things, you are absolutely right, but every
:22:09. > :22:14.proposal you make is wrong. The Labour Party, who created the mess,
:22:14. > :22:18.are having a field day, say, we would not have done this. As you
:22:18. > :22:23.said earlier... I am sorry, my own view is that you have to see what
:22:24. > :22:28.George did in his Budget. He kept his nerve, he cut corporation tax
:22:28. > :22:32.to get companies investing, he raised the thresholds for a very
:22:32. > :22:38.significant number of poorer people, and these are the bigger issues.
:22:38. > :22:44.There's one generalisation that I can make. The popular budgets are
:22:44. > :22:47.the ones that are failures. The unpopular ones are the ones, in
:22:47. > :22:53.retrospect, which are seen as good. Would you accept the government has
:22:53. > :22:57.failed to get a positive message across on his budget? To be frank,
:22:57. > :23:04.I have never known a government, in mid- term, that does not have a
:23:04. > :23:08.message crisis. From its own side. No, you say, sorry, you save from
:23:08. > :23:13.its own side, but look at its own side, analyse the motives of the
:23:13. > :23:17.people behind the government. They are not a collective group of
:23:17. > :23:20.people all saying whoopee! They are all sorts of pressure groups,
:23:20. > :23:25.subdivisions, and they are people with their own agendas. It always
:23:25. > :23:30.was like that in midterm. Do you think the message needs to move
:23:30. > :23:34.more onto the subject of growth and away from austerity and tax? All we
:23:34. > :23:37.have talked about in this is tax. When people get their pay cheques
:23:37. > :23:41.this month in April, and they benefit from the higher personal
:23:41. > :23:44.tax rates, when next year they get another higher personal tax rates,
:23:44. > :23:49.he will see people realising they have been given more money in their
:23:49. > :23:52.pockets to spend on more things, and that is important. It will
:23:52. > :23:56.transform the legacy of the Budget could Stimac it is entirely
:23:56. > :24:00.disingenuous. The Institute of Fiscal Studies show that the
:24:00. > :24:08.average family will be �511 worth of as a result of all the changes,
:24:08. > :24:12.including the tax allowance. The Ernst and Young ITEM Club yesterday
:24:12. > :24:15.forecast that the economy is going to grow by 0.4% this year, half the
:24:15. > :24:19.growth we saw last year. Nothing in his Budget will help get young
:24:19. > :24:23.people back to work, and that is what we desperately need. On the
:24:23. > :24:29.issue of sluggish growth, what can the Government to, Michael
:24:29. > :24:34.Heseltine, to win the argument? It has tried to come off austerity and
:24:34. > :24:38.go to growth. They should just call back Liam Byrne and say, what did
:24:38. > :24:44.you mean when you said to the incoming colleague, there is no
:24:44. > :24:48.money left? What he meant was any government would have had to cuts,
:24:48. > :24:54.and cuts are unpopular, and we have got to face it, there is no choice.
:24:54. > :25:00.But growth has to be the key surely, as you said for Spain. I agree with
:25:00. > :25:03.you, and I tell you that when the 2015 election comes, this
:25:03. > :25:07.government will be re-elected, either as a coalition was a Tory
:25:07. > :25:12.government, because growth will have been restored. That is what is
:25:12. > :25:18.going to happen. The forecast says 2 million people will still be
:25:18. > :25:21.unemployed, that will be the legacy. So 600,000 less than now! Thank you
:25:21. > :25:25.both for coming in. Dr Home Secretary is due to make a
:25:25. > :25:29.statement later today in the Commons Updating MPs and government
:25:29. > :25:32.efforts to deport Abu Qatada. The European Court of Human Rights has
:25:32. > :25:36.so far blocked efforts from the UK government to deport the
:25:36. > :25:41.controversial Muslim cleric. Norman Smith joins us from Parliament with
:25:41. > :25:46.the latest. What can we expect if we know what Theresa May might say?
:25:46. > :25:49.The Home Office are giving no clear guidance before and, and my
:25:50. > :25:53.expectation is that Theresa May will be able to tell MPs that there
:25:53. > :25:57.are now assurances from the Jordanians which will allow the
:25:57. > :26:00.government to begin the process of trying to deport Abu Qatada. The
:26:00. > :26:05.language I am hearing is that very good progress has been made in
:26:05. > :26:08.talks with the Jordanians. Similarly, Keith Vaz, chairman of
:26:08. > :26:11.the Home Affairs Select Committee, says he has spoken to the
:26:11. > :26:15.Jordanians and they have given assurances that they wanted. It
:26:15. > :26:19.seems to be politically implausible that Theresa May would come to the
:26:19. > :26:23.Commons and say, I have failed, I have not got these assurances, bad
:26:23. > :26:26.news, Abu Qatada will have to stay. That would be the political
:26:26. > :26:30.equivalent of wandering up the M1 in the wrong direction. I think she
:26:30. > :26:35.will come and say, we have got the assurances, we can move to deport
:26:35. > :26:37.Abu Qatada. Does that mean he is going on a plane at the end of the
:26:37. > :26:43.week, warned that he can be held in custody between now and when he
:26:43. > :26:46.does get deported? Bluntly, it means nothing is happening any time
:26:46. > :26:50.soon on the deportation. The sequence of events is this. The
:26:50. > :26:53.government will present its case to the Special Immigration Appeals
:26:53. > :26:57.Commission. His lawyers might then challenge that. That would go to
:26:57. > :27:01.the High Court, the Supreme Court, and then all the way up to the
:27:01. > :27:05.European Court, which could be months down the line. Deportation
:27:05. > :27:09.could still be many, many months away, but crucially, as I
:27:09. > :27:13.understand it, it is possible if the government believes it has a
:27:13. > :27:17.strong case, they could ask for Abu Qatada to be sent back to jail, and
:27:17. > :27:21.that could happen much more swiftly. It is possible that although you
:27:21. > :27:25.may not be deported, he could actually be behind bars much sooner.
:27:25. > :27:29.What about plans by the government to reform the European Court of
:27:29. > :27:32.Human Rights? The reports today are saying that those plans, the
:27:32. > :27:37.Government was quite gung-ho about what it would be able to do, are
:27:37. > :27:40.actually going to be watered down. What are you keirin? Talking to
:27:40. > :27:43.those around Kenneth Clarke, they have a very different
:27:43. > :27:47.interpretation of what is going to happen. Ken Clarke has a meeting
:27:47. > :27:50.with 47 members of the European Council on Thursday to hammer out a
:27:50. > :27:54.deal on reform of the European Court. What they are saying is that
:27:54. > :27:57.the signs are very encouraging and they are quietly confident that
:27:57. > :28:02.they are going to get some sort of deal. One big caveat that we have
:28:02. > :28:06.to end their here is that to get any deal, you have to get the
:28:07. > :28:10.agreement of all 47 members, which seems to me to be nigh-on close to
:28:10. > :28:14.Mission impossible. It is an extraordinarily difficult task to
:28:14. > :28:18.get that sort of agreement. But for what it is worth, Ken Clarke's
:28:18. > :28:23.people are saying that they are confident they can get some sort of
:28:23. > :28:29.a deal. A well, we are joined now by Conservative MP Dominic Raab,
:28:29. > :28:33.who worked as a lawyer and advised their EU before becoming an MP. Are
:28:33. > :28:36.you here in optimistic noises as well coming out of the Ministry of
:28:36. > :28:40.Justice? Are they right to be thinking something is going to
:28:40. > :28:42.happen? Because everything I have seen has said none of those
:28:42. > :28:46.proposals are going to go through in terms of restricting the scope
:28:46. > :28:50.of the European Court. First of all, I think the government is
:28:50. > :28:55.absolutely right to the other front foot, bringing a modest, sensible,
:28:55. > :28:58.moderate reforms to the Strasbourg court so that it intervenes a
:28:59. > :29:03.little bit less, so that it focuses on the most serious violations. Now,
:29:03. > :29:10.look, we have not started the conference, the negotiating text,
:29:10. > :29:13.as I remember from my time, gets bandied around. He will clip was
:29:13. > :29:17.far too sceptical about the prospects for consensus. Look at
:29:17. > :29:21.the declaration as to which had quite a strong resolution on
:29:21. > :29:25.deportation cases. There are two things to look out for. Will it
:29:25. > :29:29.reform Strasbourg so we have an amendment that spells out what the
:29:29. > :29:33.margin of appreciation is? A bit more respect when the Supreme Court,
:29:33. > :29:37.like in the Abu Qatada case, has already looked at the issue.
:29:37. > :29:40.Secondly, a screening mechanism so that Strasbourg is focused on the
:29:40. > :29:44.really serious abuses of human rights. They are saying that is not
:29:44. > :29:50.what is going to happen. Then maybe a little bit more edging... Who is
:29:50. > :29:53.they? Well, the commentators, but also sources who have been working
:29:54. > :29:56.on this, and they obviously take a keen interest, and they are worried
:29:56. > :29:59.you are going to get words and rhetoric but there will not be
:29:59. > :30:04.anything written down which says, we are going to limit the number of
:30:04. > :30:10.cases, we are going to reduce the caseload. Argos sources and others?
:30:10. > :30:15.Probably! I don't know, I have seen some of the texts flying around.
:30:15. > :30:19.You are optimistic. Look, I don't know what the negotiations will
:30:19. > :30:23.produce. I have spelt out to you the two benchmarks for success.
:30:23. > :30:27.They have cross-party support. The bill of Rights Commission support
:30:27. > :30:31.it. Let's see whether they are delivered. Do you agree with that?
:30:31. > :30:41.There is a case for reform, do you agree that there should be reform
:30:41. > :30:44.
:30:44. > :30:51.of the European Court of Human I will go along with that.
:30:51. > :30:55.don't have to! I have huge sympathy for Teresa May. She is a tough,
:30:55. > :31:00.articulate Home Secretary. I would guess she is spitting blood in that
:31:00. > :31:05.department. If I was in her position, I would be certain way.
:31:05. > :31:09.What I would be -- I certainly would be. The French ignored this
:31:09. > :31:15.position in deporting someone the other day. How can the French do it,
:31:15. > :31:20.and we can't? Can countries actually be in breach of the rules
:31:20. > :31:25.that govern human rights and get away with it in that sense?
:31:25. > :31:29.Italians are doing it as well. I think we are very close. Let's take
:31:29. > :31:33.the Abu Qatada case. This was not about torture fundamentally but
:31:33. > :31:42.about saying Britain was responsible for the Judea and
:31:42. > :31:46.justice system. What I think the government must now do, Teresa May
:31:46. > :31:50.has gone out of the way to provide assurances on that. I think were at
:31:50. > :31:54.the point where we need to be moving swiftly to deportation.
:31:54. > :32:02.Given the way we implement international law in this country,
:32:02. > :32:05.I think we could do so. The Supreme Court has upheld the deportation.
:32:05. > :32:09.Is there a risk of going so far along the line that you can end up
:32:09. > :32:13.tearing up the treaty that enshrines human rights in law? That
:32:13. > :32:16.is what people will be worried about. They are right to be worried
:32:16. > :32:20.and one has to remember that the reason this treaty exists is
:32:20. > :32:25.because it was designed in the 1940s, quite apart from the
:32:25. > :32:29.European Community, in order to give a beacon of hope to the people
:32:29. > :32:35.subjected to the Russian domination, that there was a rule of law and a
:32:35. > :32:38.code of behaviour, and we signed up to it. I remember being confronted
:32:38. > :32:43.as a secretary of state, do you want to give that up? Of course,
:32:43. > :32:52.you don't, because we are a great liberal democracy. But the process
:32:52. > :32:56.is out of control. Personally, if I was Teresa May, I would say if the
:32:56. > :33:01.French can do it, why can't I? are calling for a breach of the
:33:01. > :33:06.very treaty which you say must be upheld. You are in a difficult
:33:06. > :33:10.position, is it a breach? Is this what the treaty is all about? And
:33:10. > :33:15.you will say the judges say it is. I realise the weakness of my
:33:15. > :33:18.position in a court of law. In the position of Teresa May, and the
:33:18. > :33:23.Home Secretary, and a democratically elected government,
:33:23. > :33:27.I think there's a point at which you can say, no, I'm sorry, this is
:33:27. > :33:31.not what we have signed it certainly wasn't what we signed up
:33:31. > :33:37.to. When we signed up to the European Court of Human Rights,
:33:37. > :33:42.none of these issues of asylum and caused by terrorism existed.
:33:42. > :33:47.whole agenda changed? Yes. support what Dominic Raab said the
:33:47. > :33:51.government is doing, without any fear of losing... My guess is if
:33:51. > :33:57.you put it to the British people want a referendum, heaven forbid,
:33:57. > :34:01.but if you did, there would be virtual unanimity. Thank you.
:34:01. > :34:03.Research out this week says the powers that'll be handed to elected
:34:03. > :34:06.mayors aren't clear enough and should be extended beyond city
:34:06. > :34:09.boundaries. The Warwick Commission report comes just weeks before
:34:09. > :34:12.people in ten English cities will vote on whether to switch from a
:34:12. > :34:14.council leader and cabinet system to a directly elected mayor running
:34:14. > :34:24.their councils. Our reporter, Susana Mendonsa, has been to
:34:24. > :34:26.
:34:26. > :34:29.Birmingham to find out what people They're setting off for cities
:34:29. > :34:39.where council leaders are in the driving seat, but elected mayor
:34:39. > :34:44.
:34:44. > :34:49.might be taking the wheel soon. I think it is a fantastic idea and
:34:49. > :34:54.it improves things. I think it works well in London but I don't
:34:54. > :34:57.know about anywhere else. snapshot of opinion from Birmingham.
:34:57. > :35:00.This city, along with Bradford, Bristol, and Coventry, is holding a
:35:00. > :35:03.referendum next month on whether to switch to a directly elected mayor.
:35:03. > :35:05.Doncaster's the odd one out, where there's a referendum to scrap the
:35:05. > :35:07.existing mayor. Leeds, Manchester and Nottingham will also be asking
:35:07. > :35:10.whether voters want an elected mayor, as will Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
:35:10. > :35:13.Sheffield and Wakefield. But Birmingham's the first on that list.
:35:13. > :35:16.So I've come to the city's Jewellery Quarter. The clock up
:35:16. > :35:18.there commemorates Joseph Chamberlain who, as a former "non-
:35:18. > :35:22.elected" mayor of Birmingham, used his position back in the 19th
:35:22. > :35:27.century to clean up the slums and put Birmingham on the map. And some
:35:27. > :35:31.here think a directly elected mayor could raise the city's profile.
:35:31. > :35:34.These days, it's commissions like this that do that. Toye, Kenning
:35:34. > :35:37.and Spencer is one of only three firms making official medals for
:35:37. > :35:43.the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. It didn't need an elected mayor to win
:35:43. > :35:46.that contract, but could one help? Companies like this can't stand
:35:46. > :35:50.still, they know they have to win new orders, they have to go
:35:50. > :35:54.overseas, they have to have profile behind them to promote what they
:35:54. > :35:59.are doing. A mayor will come in with authority, 600,000 Brummies
:35:59. > :36:02.having elected them, with clarity, with powers from London, with the
:36:02. > :36:06.ability to go and punch above our weight on a very fiercely
:36:06. > :36:09.competitive market. What about the accountability behind council house
:36:09. > :36:15.doors? A report from the Warwick Commission this week says that's an
:36:15. > :36:19.issue of concern. It is always the case that if you give people enough
:36:19. > :36:23.powers... Lord Acton said power corrupts and absolute power
:36:23. > :36:26.corrupts absolutely. There is always a danger you can have an
:36:26. > :36:31.individual who does that kind of thing. That is why it is important
:36:31. > :36:34.we recognise what scrutiny systems we have in terms of accountability,
:36:34. > :36:37.and also try to ensure that the electorate is absolutely clear
:36:37. > :36:40.about who they are voting for. one knows what powers the mayors
:36:40. > :36:47.will have yet, although transport might top the list. On a tram ride
:36:47. > :36:49.into the Black Country, I hear why that could be a bad news. We're
:36:49. > :36:56.standing on a tramway going off to Wolverhampton from Birmingham,
:36:56. > :36:58.which actually covers three district councils. It covers
:36:58. > :37:00.Birmingham, it covers Sandwell, it covers Wolverhampton and therefore
:37:00. > :37:03.there's a need to coordinate transport right the way across
:37:03. > :37:07.those three administrative boundaries. And would a mayor not
:37:07. > :37:10.do that? What we're saying is the challenge for the city mayor is how
:37:10. > :37:13.do you do that, when he's only got a mandate just for Birmingham.
:37:13. > :37:17.cities like Liverpool and Salford have already decide to hop on board
:37:17. > :37:21.- they'll elect their mayors next month. The rest will let the public
:37:21. > :37:24.decide whether they should head in the same direction.
:37:24. > :37:27.Joining us now from Bristol is the Liberal Democrat leader of the City
:37:27. > :37:34.Council, Barbara Janke, and with us here in the studio still is Lord
:37:34. > :37:38.Heseltine, who is a strong advocate of elected mayors. Let me come to
:37:38. > :37:42.you, Barbara Janke. What is wrong with giving everyone in Bristol a
:37:43. > :37:46.say over who leads the city? Nothing at all, except that when I
:37:46. > :37:49.speak to people in my area particularly, they don't know what
:37:49. > :37:52.they are voting for. They don't know what the powers are going to
:37:52. > :37:57.be, they don't know what the cost is going to be and they don't
:37:57. > :38:01.really see how it is going to work. As your interviewee said, with
:38:01. > :38:05.Bristol having the mayor, and the whole of the travel to work area
:38:05. > :38:08.being outside that jurisdiction. just sounds like they don't have
:38:08. > :38:16.the information to make that decision. They could, if given that
:38:16. > :38:19.information, think it could be a great figurehead for Bristol.
:38:19. > :38:23.400,000 for an election and referendum, a mayor's office on the
:38:23. > :38:27.scale that we have in London, powers that are actually
:38:27. > :38:31.unspecified, seems to me to be something that people should
:38:31. > :38:35.rightly question. And I believe that there is a bit of a feeling
:38:35. > :38:39.that people are being blackmailed, being told that they won't be
:38:39. > :38:44.listened to by Downing Street. I don't see how that could be
:38:44. > :38:48.possibly right. And somehow that they won't have any say and they
:38:48. > :38:51.won't get any powers. I would not have that any government can be
:38:51. > :38:54.discriminate three in that way. But this is the kind of impression we
:38:54. > :38:58.are getting from government ministers. Let's look at the cost.
:38:58. > :39:03.What is the advantage of holding a costly referendum and having
:39:03. > :39:06.another costly election for a mayor several months later, to elect
:39:06. > :39:12.somebody who people don't seem to know what they're going to do, and
:39:13. > :39:17.they might not be any good. Bristol's case, they have had six
:39:17. > :39:20.leaders in 10 years. I can tell you that is a formula for disaster. But
:39:20. > :39:25.it is much wider than that. We are talking about the monopoly of
:39:25. > :39:29.London. Over my lifetime, I have seen more and more power taken away
:39:30. > :39:32.from the great English cities, and centralised in London. Where London
:39:32. > :39:37.makes the decisions. These councillors think they are in
:39:37. > :39:42.charge, they are not. The ministry of transport, housing, education,
:39:42. > :39:47.they are the people who make the real decisions. There is no other
:39:47. > :39:53.economy like us in the world that allows this monopolistic approach.
:39:53. > :39:56.They have all got directly elected people that are identified locally,
:39:56. > :40:01.that are powerful. If you really want to understand the argument,
:40:01. > :40:05.just look what has happened in this country with Boris Johnson and Alex
:40:05. > :40:13.Salmond. Our great English cities are being squeezed out of pressure
:40:13. > :40:16.by these two giant politicians at either end of the country. Michael
:40:16. > :40:20.Heseltine says council leaders are not really in charge of their
:40:20. > :40:25.cities, with respect, people don't know who you are, you don't have
:40:25. > :40:28.the profile that a figurehead would have. People say that and I am not
:40:28. > :40:32.going to comment on my personal position. I would say that as far
:40:32. > :40:35.as we are concerned in Bristol, we have very good international links.
:40:36. > :40:41.We have just been shortlisted for the green capital with Frankfurt
:40:41. > :40:44.and Copenhagen. Equally, as Lord Heseltine says, power has been in
:40:44. > :40:49.the centre in this country for so long, that we don't really believe
:40:49. > :40:53.that the government are going to give powers away at all. But surely
:40:53. > :41:00.this would be a start. If you accept that London dominates, which
:41:00. > :41:04.it does, why not give Bristol the chance to punch above its weight?
:41:04. > :41:08.Because we want the powers. We have been saying for a long time, we
:41:09. > :41:12.want the powers. It is immaterial, putting a figurehead over a
:41:12. > :41:16.situation where central government makes all the decisions. We would
:41:16. > :41:20.like the government to put its money where its mouth is. You have
:41:20. > :41:24.just conceded the case. You said, we don't believe that the
:41:24. > :41:28.government will give us the powers. Alex Salmond and Boris Johnson
:41:28. > :41:32.don't believe that at all. They are determined that they will get
:41:32. > :41:36.powers from London. And the problem with people in your position, it is
:41:36. > :41:41.not a personal attack, is that you have given him. You have accepted
:41:41. > :41:45.the status quo. What people like me want is to have directly elected
:41:45. > :41:51.leaders in those great cities, who thumped the table and say, we will
:41:51. > :41:58.not tolerate this dominance from London any more. That is all it is,
:41:58. > :42:04.thumping the table. Barbara is saying that they once the powers
:42:04. > :42:08.listed. I am sorry, what she is saying is we don't believe we will
:42:08. > :42:13.get them. I want people who are determined to get them. What powers
:42:13. > :42:16.should they be given? This will be an evolving process and the
:42:16. > :42:21.ministers for cities it is discussing with the cities, what
:42:21. > :42:24.powers they want. He is saying, what powers do you want and they
:42:24. > :42:30.are coming forward with ideas. They will get the first tranche and it
:42:30. > :42:33.will build. What powers would you like? What we have asked for for a
:42:33. > :42:36.long time his strategic powers over transport, to be able to raise
:42:36. > :42:41.money to fund transport schemes like the other great European
:42:41. > :42:47.cities, like in the United States. To be able to raise money in bonds,
:42:47. > :42:50.to look at what we can do in terms of revenue raising. 80% of all
:42:50. > :42:53.taxation in the city goes to central government. We say if we
:42:53. > :42:57.are allowed to keep more of our taxation, we could be self-
:42:58. > :43:06.sufficient. Successive governments have talked about this and this
:43:06. > :43:09.But to compare with Alex Salmond who is the Secretary of State for
:43:09. > :43:14.Scotland seems completely absurd. As far as the mayoral referendum is
:43:14. > :43:19.concerned, 40% turnout is what they get, which is no different from
:43:19. > :43:23.local government elections in Bristol. Those are valid points.
:43:23. > :43:30.First of all, what is the evidence, outside of London, places like
:43:30. > :43:34.Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, I any better off with elected mayors? --
:43:34. > :43:38.are any better off. They haven't been through the process of getting
:43:38. > :43:42.more power. The elected mayors of today haven't got sufficient power,
:43:42. > :43:46.in my view, but the government is committed to reversing that process
:43:46. > :43:52.and devolving power. You have to have someone to fight for it, and
:43:52. > :43:57.secondly, a method of administering that power, which doesn't exist in
:43:57. > :44:01.the present local arrangements, which are branch offices of the
:44:01. > :44:04.central government spending departments. Hartlepool and
:44:04. > :44:08.Middlesbrough have got mayors, they have been thumping the table and
:44:08. > :44:12.they haven't got those powers, which is perhaps why we hear
:44:12. > :44:15.scepticism from someone like Barbara Janke. I can't answer for
:44:15. > :44:20.what the last Labour government did in devolving powers. I can only
:44:20. > :44:23.tell you what this government is committed to do. As I made the
:44:23. > :44:27.recommendations on which the policy was built... You want the
:44:27. > :44:31.government to give those powers? am convinced, you have to go back
:44:31. > :44:35.to the position where these great cities mattered in the way in which
:44:35. > :44:40.this country is run. London was not always this great dominant centre.
:44:40. > :44:44.Barbara Janke, thank you for joining us.
:44:44. > :44:47.Next, Afghanistan. Yesterday, Taliban militants launched several
:44:47. > :44:51.attacks across the country as part of a spring offensive, showing they
:44:51. > :44:55.are still a powerful force. Militants attacked a number of
:44:55. > :44:58.sites including the Afghan Parliament. The NATO building and a
:44:58. > :45:02.number of foreign embassies. President Hamid Karzai of
:45:02. > :45:07.Afghanistan blamed a failure of NATO's intelligence services for
:45:07. > :45:10.the attacks. Officials say 51 people died in the fighting.
:45:10. > :45:13.This morning, Australia announced it will pull most its troops out of
:45:13. > :45:20.Afghanistan a year earlier than planned, in 2013. American and
:45:20. > :45:24.British troops are due to withdraw in 2014. What is the future for
:45:24. > :45:28.Afghanistan and its volatile neighbour, Pakistan? I am joined by
:45:28. > :45:34.Ahmed Rashid, it respected author about the region, who has a new
:45:34. > :45:39.book, and Douglas Alexander, Shadow Foreign Secretary. We saw this
:45:39. > :45:42.spring offensive from the Taliban. Does that really showed that not
:45:42. > :45:50.much progress has been made and the Taliban are just sitting and
:45:50. > :45:54.waiting for the withdrawals we have It shows a lot of things, including
:45:54. > :45:58.the lack of intelligence that NATO and US forces have had about the
:45:58. > :46:03.Taliban. They output so many defence mechanisms between the
:46:03. > :46:08.Pakistan border and Kabul, and yet 30 or 40 Taliban were able to come
:46:08. > :46:11.in with suicide best and all that. It shows an enormous weakness of
:46:11. > :46:16.intelligence and military capability by both the US and
:46:16. > :46:20.Afghan forces. But the other side of the picture is, remember the
:46:20. > :46:24.Taliban are in talks with the American's right now? They are
:46:24. > :46:28.temporarily suspended, but there has been a lot of dissent from
:46:28. > :46:33.Taliban commanders on the ground, saying, why are we talking to them
:46:33. > :46:36.when we are about to leave? We should be preparing for victory. So
:46:36. > :46:40.this attack was meant to impress their own commanders that they are
:46:41. > :46:44.still fighting. So the confidence is there, and they are basically
:46:44. > :46:48.confident that the Afghan army is not ready to take over and probably
:46:48. > :46:55.will not be when British and American forces withdraw by the end
:46:55. > :46:57.of 2014. I think they are very confident. I think the American and
:46:57. > :47:02.NATO assessment that we are winning and that somehow the Taliban are
:47:02. > :47:05.being depleted is completely wrong. What do you say to that, Douglas
:47:05. > :47:10.Alexander? Under Labour and his government, there is a feeling that
:47:10. > :47:14.our troops are out there, that we can win it, if you want to use that
:47:14. > :47:18.simplistic term, and when we pull- out, we will be able to hand over
:47:18. > :47:22.to a relatively stable Afghan army and police force. That does not
:47:22. > :47:26.sound like it is achievable. I have a great deal of sympathy with what
:47:26. > :47:31.we have heard. My concern is that we have an end date for NATO forces
:47:31. > :47:35.to transition out, but we have not got an end state, which is judged
:47:35. > :47:39.to be sustainable. They have said they will build up Afghan forces,
:47:39. > :47:42.but my conviction is that only politics can be the bridge between
:47:42. > :47:46.where Afghanistan is today and where it needs to be, and that is
:47:46. > :47:50.why, as well as ensuring that Afghan forces are built up and
:47:50. > :47:53.running for military draw down, there needs to be a much greater
:47:53. > :47:57.effort by the international community to ensure both an
:47:57. > :48:01.inclusive political settlement, with Al-Qaeda out and the tribes
:48:01. > :48:04.within, and a great deal of thought given to how we can bring in
:48:04. > :48:10.regional neighbours, countries like Pakistan and China, even countries
:48:10. > :48:13.like Iran. Because that is the basis on which you could have a
:48:13. > :48:17.more sustainable future for Afghanistan. Is that really
:48:17. > :48:20.credible, bringing in people like Pakistan? The West has struggled to
:48:20. > :48:24.have any sort of stable relationship with Pakistan in terms
:48:24. > :48:28.of dealing with the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and
:48:28. > :48:33.dealing with the Taliban, who many people say that Pakistan supports.
:48:33. > :48:37.The reality is that border, in many areas, does not exist. The line
:48:37. > :48:40.involves people living on one side of the border and farming on the
:48:40. > :48:44.other. One of the challenges is to betray the Pakistani leadership
:48:44. > :48:48.that the existential threat to Pakistan is not India but the
:48:48. > :48:52.insurgency within its own borders and potentially from outside its
:48:52. > :48:56.borders within Afghanistan. doesn't Pakistan say that it needs
:48:56. > :49:01.to have a relationship with what they see as the future government,
:49:01. > :49:04.the Taliban in Afghanistan? That is the long game it is plain, which
:49:04. > :49:09.means that there is no real chance of getting Pakistan onside when
:49:09. > :49:13.they are thinking ahead to who they might be dealing with after 2014.
:49:13. > :49:17.The Pakistan military, Bridge conducts the country's foreign
:49:17. > :49:22.policy, is very key that negotiations are successful between
:49:22. > :49:26.the Americans, the Taliban, Hamid Karzai and the Taliban. If those
:49:26. > :49:32.negotiations are successful, they would be some element of sharing
:49:32. > :49:36.power in Kabul between Taliban and Hamid Karzai. Before 2014, after
:49:36. > :49:41.2014, such negotiations might take longer than 2014, but if it happens,
:49:41. > :49:46.Pakistan can live without. That is the endgame. Pakistan's endgame is
:49:46. > :49:50.not to bring the Taliban back to power. Pakistan is faced with its
:49:50. > :49:55.own Taliban insurgency, and it does not want to deal with a rabbit
:49:55. > :49:58.Taliban government in Kabul. A sharing of power between the
:49:58. > :50:02.present Afghan government and the Taliban is the best outlook. But
:50:02. > :50:06.frankly, the problem is that the Americans are not taking the talks
:50:06. > :50:10.seriously. What you think the Americans should be doing? The next
:50:10. > :50:14.main date is going to be the NATO summit which takes place in May. I
:50:14. > :50:18.think we do not just want to see a Status of forces Agreement, an
:50:19. > :50:22.agreement in terms of the funding of the Afghan military, or indeed a
:50:22. > :50:26.timetable for military transition. We need to see a serious engagement
:50:26. > :50:30.with the regional players and the Taliban. We need the diplomatic
:50:30. > :50:33.efforts to match the military sacrifice. The real problem has
:50:33. > :50:37.been that President Obama has not put his foot down. There are huge
:50:37. > :50:41.divisions between the Defence Department and the State Department,
:50:41. > :50:45.the US military saying that they want to push ahead and continue
:50:45. > :50:49.fighting indefinitely until the last militant is dead. State is
:50:49. > :50:53.saying that we should be talking to the Taliban, and we have not seen
:50:53. > :50:57.assertive American leadership in going ahead. Obama and Hillary
:50:57. > :51:00.Clinton support talks, but they have not put their weight behind it.
:51:00. > :51:04.Why do you think that is? Is it because they have decided they are
:51:04. > :51:08.going to withdraw and wash their hands of it? I do not think the
:51:08. > :51:13.Americans can wash their hands of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda may be
:51:13. > :51:18.defeated, but there are still enough extremists around in that
:51:18. > :51:22.region to worry both Europe and the Americans. Michael Heseltine, in
:51:22. > :51:26.terms of his end date, to pick up on what Douglas Alexander said, to
:51:26. > :51:35.think it has just given the Taliban a date to wait for and then move
:51:35. > :51:39.in? If you were sitting in the senior counsels of the Taliban,
:51:39. > :51:43.that is what you would think. It is the only conclusion you could come
:51:43. > :51:47.to. So you would not agree to British troops withdrawn at the end
:51:47. > :51:50.of 2014. I would not have agreed to put them in in the first place. I
:51:50. > :51:58.do not understand, I cannot understand how the mission creep
:51:58. > :52:05.took place. I think it was 100% defensible of the Americans to go
:52:05. > :52:10.in, to get Bin Laden. But that was a very limited objective, highly
:52:10. > :52:18.justifiable. But what they are doing, trying to turn one of the
:52:18. > :52:23.most difficult states in the world into a civilised democracy, I just
:52:23. > :52:27.find extraordinary. And it is not going to work, you know. You are
:52:27. > :52:31.damned if you stay and you are damned if you go. And on that note,
:52:31. > :52:37.thank you very much to both of you for coming in. Before we move on,
:52:37. > :52:41.son used to say that Abu Qatada has been arrested, the Muslim cleric we
:52:41. > :52:44.have been hearing about. We are going to hear from Theresa May this
:52:45. > :52:47.afternoon, but he has been arrested in the meantime. It has not been a
:52:47. > :52:50.great couple of weeks for government in presentational terms.
:52:51. > :52:54.Some are blaming their woes of a lack of political prowess in
:52:54. > :52:57.Cabinet. Where are the big beasts that characterised previous
:52:57. > :53:07.government? A reminder of some of the talent and trouble they brought
:53:07. > :53:13.
:53:13. > :53:23.I have resigned from the Cabinet. I will make a full statement later
:53:23. > :53:29.
:53:29. > :53:32.That conflict of loyalty has become all too great. I know longer
:53:32. > :53:42.believe it is possible to resolve that conflict from within his
:53:42. > :53:58.
:53:59. > :54:08.That is what I'm going to negotiate for, and that the conference to
:54:09. > :54:15.
:54:15. > :54:23.support me in that task! -- and I Here, Gordon. It is not often I get
:54:23. > :54:27.a chance to give you something for Smiles all round, I wonder what it
:54:27. > :54:31.was really like behind the scenes. Joining is now his chief political
:54:31. > :54:36.commentator of the Express, what is a big beast in political terms?
:54:36. > :54:42.Well, I think a big beast is someone who has his own... It is
:54:42. > :54:48.usually a him, but Mo Mowlam was the last female babies. Somebody or
:54:48. > :54:52.has self-confidence, a ability to attract a following but by
:54:52. > :54:57.definition is not the party leader. But if you ask what are the
:54:57. > :55:00.consequences should this person walk out in a straw or turn hostile
:55:00. > :55:05.and the consequences of big, that is a big beast, at which point I
:55:05. > :55:10.think Lord Heseltine might be eliminate us on his definition.
:55:10. > :55:16.you agree with that? I think every generation produces their big
:55:16. > :55:22.beasts in that respect. Really? Not at the time? We are not described
:55:22. > :55:26.as a big political beast? Ken Clarke is still described as one. I
:55:26. > :55:34.have the highest regard for Ken. He is at the end of his political
:55:34. > :55:38.career. He certainly is a big beast by any standards. The great problem
:55:38. > :55:45.is that you do not see your contemporaries as big beasts.
:55:45. > :55:51.don't? No, you don't, and I certainly, having served with
:55:51. > :55:56.different generations, I do not remember ever being in tow or of
:55:56. > :56:01.any of my colleagues. Maybe people were in awe of you. I remember at
:56:01. > :56:05.the time, he did have quite a lot of Conservative MPs whose primary
:56:05. > :56:10.loyalty was probably to you, rather than the leader of the party. I am
:56:10. > :56:14.thinking of Michael Mates and Peter Temple-Morris, who saw you as their
:56:14. > :56:18.contemporaries. You had a following as a result. I certainly had a
:56:18. > :56:22.following, but plenty of people in the House of Commons today have
:56:22. > :56:25.followings. I'm not close enough, but I know it to be the case. You
:56:25. > :56:31.constantly read about them in the papers, the ones that the press go
:56:31. > :56:35.to. Do you think the government is a big beast free? I know that you
:56:35. > :56:42.look at it retrospectively, but as an observer, apart from Ken Clarke,
:56:42. > :56:45.who will be known as a big beast of this government? Well, in my own
:56:45. > :56:48.party terms, David Cameron will be seen as the man who brought the
:56:48. > :56:53.Tories back out of the cold. I think George Osborne could well be
:56:53. > :56:57.seen as an outstanding Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think William
:56:57. > :57:01.Hague is highly regarded. I say William Hague could be regarded as
:57:01. > :57:06.a big beast. He is closer to it, but I think I am right in saying
:57:06. > :57:11.that he is no longer seen as being on the ladder up. No, indeed.
:57:11. > :57:15.has got to the top of his ladder, and you have to get to the top of
:57:15. > :57:19.your ladder to be a big beast. I think you have to have the
:57:19. > :57:24.capacity or potential to cause trouble, and I think William Hague
:57:24. > :57:29.is 100% ile loyal to David Cameron. If I had to pick a big beast in the
:57:29. > :57:33.Tory party, you would have to look at David Davis, who is outside the
:57:33. > :57:38.Cabinet. But then you are talking about troublemakers. Do you need to
:57:38. > :57:42.have to have a big personality, somebody with that charisma, if you
:57:42. > :57:46.like, rather than perhaps a political leader? There are not
:57:46. > :57:49.many of those in the current government. They are not many in
:57:50. > :57:55.politics in general, partly because the status of the leader in
:57:55. > :57:58.relation to the front bench has skewed a lot in a last 20 years, so
:57:58. > :58:05.we have become more presidential. It is hard for anyone in the
:58:05. > :58:09.Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet to have that. Go back in 1979 when Margaret
:58:09. > :58:13.Thatcher was elected. Now, basically, their senior team were
:58:13. > :58:19.Ted Heath's government. They had been there for four years, big
:58:19. > :58:27.names. They were. By any standards, Quentin Hailsham, Willie Whitelaw,
:58:27. > :58:31.Geoffrey Howe, Peter Carrington were big beasts, but the government,
:58:31. > :58:35.after 18 months, was absolutely at the bottom of the opinion poll
:58:35. > :58:38.ratings. I'm not sure about the correlation between the two. We
:58:39. > :58:43.have only got seconds left, the biscuits that Boris Johnson
:58:43. > :58:47.compared himself to, do you know what it is? No idea. Chocolate