0:00:34 > 0:00:37Good afternoon. Welcome o the Daily Politics. First, the good news. The
0:00:37 > 0:00:40American car maker General Motors has announced an investment which
0:00:40 > 0:00:45will secure the future of the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port,
0:00:45 > 0:00:48saving 2,000 jobs. Now the bad news. The Prime Minister's warning of
0:00:48 > 0:00:52perilous economic times ahead and says he needs to keep us safe from
0:00:52 > 0:00:57the storm brewing over Greece and the eurozone. He had this to say
0:00:57 > 0:01:01this morning. The eurozone is at a Crossroads. It
0:01:01 > 0:01:06either has to make up or it is looking at a potential break-up.
0:01:06 > 0:01:10No-one can pull in the crowds quite like the Queen. Jubilee fever hits
0:01:10 > 0:01:13the country and we'll be asking what's she got that our elected
0:01:13 > 0:01:18leaders don't. In the spirit of free speech, should we be hearing
0:01:18 > 0:01:23more of this? You know, really you have the
0:01:23 > 0:01:30charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank
0:01:30 > 0:01:35clerk. Charming of course. Wouldn't hear that language here. All that
0:01:35 > 0:01:38in the next hour. With us for the duration is Harvey Goldsmith, music
0:01:38 > 0:01:42promoter. Welcome to the programme. He's organising one of the biggest
0:01:42 > 0:01:46parties of the summer, the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations and
0:01:46 > 0:01:52he's pretty well qualified. It is the Diamond Jubilee. Can't believe
0:01:52 > 0:02:01I said the Golden Jubilee and I read it out. You are the man for
0:02:01 > 0:02:11the job. Why, because you organised this. # All we need is radio Gaga...
0:02:11 > 0:02:24
0:02:24 > 0:02:29We will remember that, some of us who are my age, I was there
0:02:29 > 0:02:33actually, some time ago in 1985 as the grainy footage shows. Harvey,
0:02:33 > 0:02:37are you ready for the next huge challenge then organising the
0:02:37 > 0:02:43Diamond Jubilee party? I'm not doing all of it, I'm doing a facet
0:02:43 > 0:02:48of it. We are organising a two-day major festival in Hyde Park which
0:02:48 > 0:02:52is really for the family and then we are staying open to be the kind
0:02:52 > 0:02:56of overflow for the concert that's taking place outside Buckingham
0:02:56 > 0:03:01Palace because only a limited audience can go then. We are
0:03:01 > 0:03:10expecting large crowds for that. What is it like? It must be hor
0:03:10 > 0:03:13Roan dousely nerve-racking. I mean that was a long time ago. How do
0:03:13 > 0:03:17you organise them -- horrendous? Organising the event is not
0:03:17 > 0:03:22difficult when you do it for a living. Finding the right talent
0:03:22 > 0:03:25sometimes has its challenging, but organising the event, we have a
0:03:25 > 0:03:29checklist, a fantastic team of people work with me on these events.
0:03:29 > 0:03:33So that gets done. With this particular event, because there are
0:03:33 > 0:03:37so many different events going on at different places and there is
0:03:37 > 0:03:41the concern about excess crowds which is how I got involved in it
0:03:41 > 0:03:46in the first place, we are really there to soak up a lot of the
0:03:46 > 0:03:51audiences that are coming in who won't be able to get down the mall
0:03:51 > 0:03:57or won't find a place on the river to see the pageant. So we are
0:03:57 > 0:04:01organising the day time family pageant. How many people are you
0:04:01 > 0:04:07expecting? 50,000 for the concert. On the Tuesday for the final
0:04:07 > 0:04:11procession and the balcony moment, if you like, we could have anything
0:04:11 > 0:04:15from 50,000 to 150,000 people. Rather you than me. You have
0:04:15 > 0:04:23organised major events and charitable performances. What do
0:04:23 > 0:04:30you think going back to the Budget, this idea of capping tax relief on
0:04:30 > 0:04:35charitable donations? Personally, I think it's insane. What we should
0:04:35 > 0:04:40be doing is encouraging people to give to charities, support
0:04:40 > 0:04:44charities, which they do anyway. We are a fantastic nation of
0:04:44 > 0:04:49supporting causes and charities and awareness events and so on and
0:04:49 > 0:04:54there are thousands of charities. But the idea, all the time the
0:04:54 > 0:04:57Government has of using a sleedge hammer to crack a nut, is complete
0:04:57 > 0:05:00madness and doesn't make sense. Thank you very much. Stay with us
0:05:00 > 0:05:10for the rest of the show. Time for the daily quiz now. And the
0:05:10 > 0:05:18
0:05:18 > 0:05:21question for today is: What is I am sure you have all of those
0:05:21 > 0:05:25Harvey Goldsmith. At the end of the show, Harvey will give us the
0:05:25 > 0:05:28answer. There's no doubting the seriousness of the problems facing
0:05:28 > 0:05:32the eurozone. Questions about whether the euro can survive seem
0:05:32 > 0:05:36to get louder every day. But one people of research by an economist
0:05:36 > 0:05:39at JP Morgan Asset Management has taken a quirkier approach.
0:05:39 > 0:05:44Comparing different groups of countries to see which might be the
0:05:44 > 0:05:47best suited for a Single Currency by looking at which are the most
0:05:47 > 0:05:50economically and politically convertiant. The research suggests
0:05:50 > 0:05:54the strongest candidate for monetary union would be Latin
0:05:54 > 0:05:58America. A combination of the UK and its English-speaking offshoots,
0:05:58 > 0:06:02the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand would also work
0:06:02 > 0:06:07pretty well. The countries that used to make up the Soviet Union
0:06:07 > 0:06:10would do better than the eurozone, as would a reconstituted ot mon
0:06:10 > 0:06:16empire, even the random group of all the countries in the world that
0:06:16 > 0:06:20begin with M would make a more cohesive group than the euro area,
0:06:20 > 0:06:26how bizarre. The euro countries are bottom of the pile. We are joined
0:06:26 > 0:06:28by the BBC's Business Editor, Robert Peston who, tonight in a BBC
0:06:28 > 0:06:32Two programme, entitled The Great Euro Crash, will be exploring
0:06:32 > 0:06:36what's gone wrong. Should it never have happened, Robert? I mean
0:06:36 > 0:06:40should the countries have never formed a monetary union? Well,
0:06:40 > 0:06:45certainly from the stand point of where we are today you would have
0:06:45 > 0:06:52to say that it was a very, very, very foolish decision to go ahead.
0:06:52 > 0:06:58What one has to do is put one's self-into in a sense the minds of
0:06:58 > 0:07:08the two leaders who made the crucial decisions, Mr Cole and Mr
0:07:08 > 0:07:09
0:07:09 > 0:07:13Mitterrand more than 20 years ago now. What was on Francois
0:07:13 > 0:07:20Mitterrand's mind at the time was that he wanted to use monetary
0:07:20 > 0:07:25union to curb the grower power of the European Union. It was on the
0:07:25 > 0:07:29verge of becoming a more powerful country, France wanted to bind them
0:07:29 > 0:07:34in therefore to the EU in a rather more deeper way. Therefore, in
0:07:35 > 0:07:38Mitterrand's view, this was always a political project. It was all
0:07:38 > 0:07:43about effectively creating over time a United States of Europe. Had
0:07:43 > 0:07:50they been able to create that federation, arguably actually there
0:07:50 > 0:07:54would be much less of a crisis today. The problem that they've got
0:07:54 > 0:07:58is that they are still run as sovereign states and therefore for
0:07:58 > 0:08:03that reason Germany in particular is unwilling to provide the kind of
0:08:03 > 0:08:08financial support to the weaker countries that would allow us to
0:08:08 > 0:08:12get through this crisis without a complete calamity. It's the absence
0:08:12 > 0:08:16of political union that's led us to this extraordinary mess. Now,
0:08:16 > 0:08:19taking what you have just said with hindsight and that is a wonderful
0:08:19 > 0:08:22thing, you wouldn't have put the northern and southern European
0:08:22 > 0:08:30countries together. But when you look at what the immediate problems
0:08:30 > 0:08:33are, it's not a currency problem in itself is it. It's a banking
0:08:33 > 0:08:38problem, sovereign debt in that sense. That hasn't necessarily just
0:08:38 > 0:08:45come out of the fact that there was monetary union, has it? Well, you
0:08:45 > 0:08:51are absolutely right, that the borrowing, the fact that Italy,
0:08:51 > 0:08:55Spain, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, they all borrowed more than we now
0:08:55 > 0:09:01regard as sensible or affordable. They did it at exactly the same
0:09:01 > 0:09:06time as the UK borrowed more than was affordable, as did the US. It
0:09:06 > 0:09:11was an era of cheap interest rates. For those countries, the rates were
0:09:11 > 0:09:16made even cheaper by the monetary union which is why they borrowed
0:09:16 > 0:09:21wrecklessly, so it's not an accumulation of the debt, it's that
0:09:21 > 0:09:27unlike the US and the UK, as part of the eurozone, these countries
0:09:27 > 0:09:30don't have the tools to fix the job. We are able to get interest rates
0:09:30 > 0:09:34down to a record level in both countries, the US and the UK, the
0:09:34 > 0:09:37Central Bank's created tonnes of money to ease the period during
0:09:37 > 0:09:43which we are trying to get our debt down. Our currencies have fallen in
0:09:43 > 0:09:46value which makes life easier for our exporters. None of those
0:09:46 > 0:09:52adjustment mechanisms are available within the eurozone. What does it
0:09:52 > 0:09:58mean? It means that unfortunately for Greece, Portugal, Ireland,
0:09:58 > 0:10:05Spain and Italy, in order to get their debts down, it imposes a
0:10:05 > 0:10:10massively painful sequence of events on the people of those
0:10:10 > 0:10:13countries. If you can't devalue, what has to happen? The wages of
0:10:13 > 0:10:17people in those countries has to fall, perhaps by as much as 30% to
0:10:17 > 0:10:20make the companies in those countries competitive with
0:10:20 > 0:10:24Germany's. So what you get within the monetary union in the absence
0:10:24 > 0:10:29of Germany helping out the other countries is frankly extraordinary
0:10:29 > 0:10:33misery for the people of the weak countries, a misery that may well
0:10:33 > 0:10:38go on for years. On that basis, can anything be done to prevent the
0:10:38 > 0:10:48eurozone breaking up, or is it inef I believe the now? Gosh, I'll lose
0:10:48 > 0:10:52my job if I answer that question, Jo -- inevitable. The pressure, the
0:10:52 > 0:10:57forces pulling the euro apart are powerful. It's very difficult to
0:10:57 > 0:11:01see how the eurozone sticks together unless, to get back to the
0:11:01 > 0:11:05point I originally made, the Germans are prepared to use more of
0:11:05 > 0:11:08their wealth to help the other countries. If Germany is prepared
0:11:08 > 0:11:12to help, there is a chance they'd get through this. But in the
0:11:12 > 0:11:17absence of that, it's very difficult to see why the citizens
0:11:17 > 0:11:20of any of these countries are over a period potentially of years of
0:11:20 > 0:11:23personal misery, why they would think at the end of the day they
0:11:23 > 0:11:29want to persevere with this. That makes your programme essential
0:11:29 > 0:11:33viewing. Remind us when it's on? Nine o'clock, BBC Two and I hope
0:11:33 > 0:11:35that people get some sense of how we got into what is an
0:11:35 > 0:11:38extraordinary mess. Thank you very much.
0:11:38 > 0:11:43With us now is the chair of the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew
0:11:43 > 0:11:46Tyrie. Let's pick up on some of those points. We've had a fairly
0:11:46 > 0:11:50comprehensive explanation of the history of it, but in your view
0:11:50 > 0:11:53could it have been done differently in the way Robert Peston described,
0:11:53 > 0:11:57that monetary union between the southern and European countries to
0:11:57 > 0:12:01have make it work? Yes, many of us argued at the start of this project,
0:12:01 > 0:12:04even before the eurozone was created, that you needed a
0:12:04 > 0:12:09mechanism to enable countries that couldn't cope to get out, and there
0:12:09 > 0:12:12isn't one. No. That's the first point. The second point is, those
0:12:12 > 0:12:14countries that joined needed to know that they had to make very
0:12:14 > 0:12:18tough adjustments if they were going to stay in the eurozone for
0:12:18 > 0:12:24the long-term. Those adjustments are now coming home all at once
0:12:24 > 0:12:29like all the buses all arriving at the bus stop all at once. The third
0:12:29 > 0:12:33foint make -- point to make, which is crucial, which is not fully
0:12:33 > 0:12:37understood, is that it's not just a one-off check that will have to be
0:12:37 > 0:12:42made by the northern tier countries if this area is to stay together.
0:12:42 > 0:12:45Year after year, the southern tier countries are likely to perform
0:12:45 > 0:12:51somewhat less well than the northern cheques and therefore
0:12:51 > 0:12:55cheques will have to be written. sounds that you feel like Greece
0:12:55 > 0:12:59should just exit now? It's more likely than not that Greece will go.
0:12:59 > 0:13:03Do you think they should? Do you think they should pay now? It gets
0:13:03 > 0:13:07more difficult the longer it's left. The best time for them to go would
0:13:07 > 0:13:10have been as soon as the crisis broke. That's two years ago we have
0:13:10 > 0:13:13been in this we have to bear in mind and the fact it's dragging on
0:13:13 > 0:13:19so long is one of the reasons the British economy is struggling. It's
0:13:19 > 0:13:22worth bearing in mind too that the Greeks cheated, the Greeks actually
0:13:22 > 0:13:26lied in their submission to the European Commission. The French and
0:13:26 > 0:13:30Germans flouted budgetary rules as well? About the state of their
0:13:31 > 0:13:34public finances. It's true that everybody broke the rules, but it's
0:13:34 > 0:13:38not true that everybody lied in accounting terms. One country did
0:13:38 > 0:13:42lie and, in my view, action should have been considered at that point
0:13:42 > 0:13:46which was quite early on. OK, but you are saying now would be better
0:13:46 > 0:13:52than later to see Greece exit? at it from the Greeks' point of
0:13:52 > 0:13:55view. Do we think the Greek economy will be able to recover from here,
0:13:55 > 0:13:58a sustained recovery at current exchange rates? Maybe that's
0:13:58 > 0:14:03possible, I think it's unlikely. If it doesn't happen, if I can finish
0:14:03 > 0:14:07the answer to that point point, it means extensive and enduring checks
0:14:07 > 0:14:12from the Germans to assist the Greeks -- cheques. Whatever is done
0:14:12 > 0:14:17will involve a lot of pain. Greece leaving will be painful, for us as
0:14:17 > 0:14:20well as Greece. Before we get to contagion, let's look at the
0:14:20 > 0:14:25language from David Cameron and George Osborne. In that sense, why
0:14:25 > 0:14:28aren't we hearing a case being made by British politicians? They may
0:14:28 > 0:14:31not want to shout from the sidelines Greece should leave, it
0:14:31 > 0:14:34would be better for the British economy, if that's what they feel
0:14:34 > 0:14:37because David Cameron's entered into that territory. Was he right
0:14:37 > 0:14:42to do so? It's problematic for David Cameron and George Osborne.
0:14:42 > 0:14:51We are not members of the eurozone, but we are in the EU. It's not much
0:14:51 > 0:14:53fun for the eurozone members getting that. They don't like
0:14:53 > 0:14:57hearing lectures. David Cameron and the Chancellor don't want to get
0:14:57 > 0:15:00involved in that. On the other hand, we are trying to protect British
0:15:00 > 0:15:03interests and bring forward the point at which these decisions are
0:15:03 > 0:15:07taken. We have been at this for two years now, that's part of the
0:15:07 > 0:15:12problem, the fact that it's dragging on. If I can make a
0:15:12 > 0:15:16further point. It may be that we will stagger our way to a solution
0:15:16 > 0:15:21where eventually the cheques are written from the north to keep the
0:15:22 > 0:15:24whole zone together or parts of the eurozone may fold or fall away at
0:15:24 > 0:15:28the bottom, perhaps only Grease or others, I don't know. Whatever
0:15:28 > 0:15:34happens there, we must get that decision taken quickly. That is why
0:15:34 > 0:15:38I have favoured and been arguing for some time that the IMF come in,
0:15:38 > 0:15:41not as a partner of the European Central Bank, but to tell the
0:15:41 > 0:15:46European Central Bank what to do, to tell the European Commission
0:15:46 > 0:15:49what to do, to act as they would with any other country in trouble
0:15:49 > 0:15:54and give really tough unsentimental advice to the rest of the eurozone.
0:15:54 > 0:15:57In terms of what the leadership is saying, do you want to hear more
0:15:57 > 0:16:05from David Cameron saying make that decision, break up if you are not
0:16:05 > 0:16:15prepared to stand by the currency or get the ECB to prop up, daupt to
0:16:15 > 0:16:16
0:16:16 > 0:16:20Maybe he can leave it to me fr. His point of view, when he comes to the
0:16:20 > 0:16:26heads of state meeting, he doesn't want to give a long lecture. I'm in
0:16:26 > 0:16:31a different position. I can argue that the Greece position is
0:16:31 > 0:16:35perilous. To some extent it's a no- win. It appears that a large chunk
0:16:35 > 0:16:38of the Greek population don't want to be in the eurozone because of
0:16:38 > 0:16:44the adjustments they're having to make to deal with the pressures
0:16:44 > 0:16:47they're putting on them. It appears that a ton of money's been
0:16:47 > 0:16:56literally wasted that's already been given to Greece which is
0:16:56 > 0:17:02aplauing. -- pauling. If either Greece, are they going to be pushed
0:17:02 > 0:17:04or did they jump. We're not sure which way round. We're getting
0:17:04 > 0:17:10complete uncertainty from the litres and we're not getting
0:17:10 > 0:17:13certainty from our own leader. And what's the knock-on effect? I take
0:17:13 > 0:17:19your position, that if you don't cut the wound off soon, that wound
0:17:19 > 0:17:24is going to fester and spread everywhere, which is perilous to
0:17:24 > 0:17:29start with. The risk of contagion as Vince Cable set out clearly, is
0:17:29 > 0:17:34frightening. Is that not worse, the risk that you see Greece default
0:17:34 > 0:17:38messily or not and then depositors start taking money out of Spanish
0:17:38 > 0:17:42and Italian banks. Then British banks look more vulnerable to debt
0:17:42 > 0:17:49there. That would be, wouldn't that be far more frightening than
0:17:50 > 0:17:52actually trying to keep up propping up Greece? Correct. A disorderly
0:17:52 > 0:17:56break up of the eurozone would be catastrophic for anybody near the
0:17:57 > 0:17:59eurozone at the time that happens. Can we find a way of making these
0:17:59 > 0:18:05adjustments, either in the eurozone or with these countries leaving
0:18:05 > 0:18:10with the key country at moment leaving, Greece? To some extent, it
0:18:11 > 0:18:14would be a plus, if I just... If I jump in. Obviously the money
0:18:14 > 0:18:17that would have gone to Greece can be spread around the other
0:18:17 > 0:18:22countries if they so need it. want to complete the point I wanted
0:18:22 > 0:18:29to make. A said a second ago that I think we need to be involving the
0:18:29 > 0:18:32IMF in all this. Are the Europeans, is the eurozone planning a
0:18:32 > 0:18:37contingency operation for Greek withdrawal? I don't see enough
0:18:37 > 0:18:45evidence of that. I don't see the work being done. You don't? Surely
0:18:45 > 0:18:50it is going on behind the scenes. very much hope. So the people best
0:18:50 > 0:18:54place to guide it are the IMFment empower them. Three quarters of
0:18:54 > 0:18:58their shareholders are not in the eurozone and it's on their behalf,
0:18:58 > 0:19:01that's us, America, Japan, China, India, it's on behalf of the rest
0:19:01 > 0:19:05of the world that we need them to do that. You're going to be here
0:19:05 > 0:19:08for the next discussion as well. What did David Cameron have to say
0:19:08 > 0:19:14about the domestic economy this morning? Here's a flavour of his
0:19:14 > 0:19:20speech. Let me be clear, we are moving in the right direction, not
0:19:20 > 0:19:25rushing the task, but judging it carefully. And that is why we must
0:19:25 > 0:19:29resist dangerous voices calling on us to retreat. Yes, we are doing
0:19:29 > 0:19:36everything we can to return this country to strong, stable economic
0:19:36 > 0:19:39growth. But, no, we will not do that by returning to the something
0:19:39 > 0:19:45for nothing economics that got us into this economic mess in the
0:19:45 > 0:19:49first place. We cannot blow the budget on more spending and more
0:19:49 > 0:19:53debt. It would be to squander all the progress that we've made in the
0:19:53 > 0:20:00last two tough years. It would actually mean tough decisions
0:20:00 > 0:20:04lasting even longer. It would risk our future. It is not an
0:20:04 > 0:20:07alternative policy, it is a coppout. The Prime Minister speaking there
0:20:07 > 0:20:11about the economy. Andrew Tyrie, I mean the Bank of England has cut
0:20:11 > 0:20:14its growth forecast. Mervyn King's warned that the squeeze on
0:20:14 > 0:20:18household incomes will persist. Inflation stays high till next year.
0:20:18 > 0:20:22Mortgages are going up. Are you still confident the Government's
0:20:22 > 0:20:26policies are working? It's tough. I don't see an alternative to the
0:20:26 > 0:20:30strategy we've got. But it's not working. I notice that the Prime
0:20:30 > 0:20:38Minister has a purple tie on today and that... Matching. Matching the
0:20:38 > 0:20:45set here. If they're not working... He's been giving a pretty robust,
0:20:45 > 0:20:49if not to say gloomy speech, when you say it's not working... We're
0:20:49 > 0:20:52in recession. What's the alternative? The alternative
0:20:52 > 0:20:56strategy that the Prime Minister goes on about now, is we need to
0:20:56 > 0:20:59look at growth. He doesn't want to spend any more money. If you're
0:20:59 > 0:21:02looking at plan that the Government said was going to work in two years
0:21:02 > 0:21:06there would be growth, it hasn't worked. There isn't growth.
0:21:06 > 0:21:10Shouldn't they be looking at an alternative. There are two parts of
0:21:10 > 0:21:15that. The first is to say, have we got the right level of demand in
0:21:16 > 0:21:18the economy. Are we taking too much out of the economy, are we, are the
0:21:18 > 0:21:22spending cuts going through too vigorously? If you ask the people
0:21:22 > 0:21:27calling for that, I expect they'll be in your studio on and off for
0:21:27 > 0:21:35months to come, ask them by how much do they want to reduce that?
0:21:35 > 0:21:40Is it �2 billion, �5 billion, �8 billion? Bear in mind we've just
0:21:40 > 0:21:43done �300 billion worth of squeezing. The odd few billion here
0:21:44 > 0:21:48on fiscal policy is not going to make a great difference. What we
0:21:48 > 0:21:53need to be addressing is a longer term question which is reform of
0:21:53 > 0:21:58the way the economy operates, the labour market, tax system. I'm glad
0:21:58 > 0:22:02you use the term, I thought I'd try to avoid it. But do you think that
0:22:02 > 0:22:06will transform the economic landscape? It did in the 1980s. We
0:22:06 > 0:22:11were a basket case in the '70s. We had supply side reform and it
0:22:11 > 0:22:15worked. It's what the Germans are talking about and what the European
0:22:15 > 0:22:17Community, European Union is talking about with a respect to the
0:22:18 > 0:22:21Lisbon agenda, which was never implemented. It's one of the
0:22:21 > 0:22:24reasons why the eurozone is so inflexible and why the Greeks and
0:22:24 > 0:22:28Spanish and Portuguese are in a more difficult situation than they
0:22:28 > 0:22:33would be. You do accept that the plan has failed to do what the
0:22:33 > 0:22:35Government set out to do, which was as George Osborne said by having a
0:22:35 > 0:22:41rigorous deficit reduction programme there would be growth.
0:22:41 > 0:22:44There isn't growth. They blamed the eurozone. Don't they? Rather than
0:22:44 > 0:22:49saying any of it is down to policies here. Is that really
0:22:49 > 0:22:53enough to blame the eurozone for all of those factors I've listed?
0:22:53 > 0:22:58think the eurozone as the Governor of the Bank of England pointed out
0:22:58 > 0:23:03in evidence to the Treasury committee said, is responsible for
0:23:03 > 0:23:08the bulk of it. At the time the decisions were taken two years ago,
0:23:08 > 0:23:12the eurozone was doing better than it is now, substantially better.
0:23:12 > 0:23:16The remainder is accounted for the fact we have higher commodity
0:23:16 > 0:23:20prices. The British economy, bearing in mind the pressure on it,
0:23:20 > 0:23:24has been showing flexibility. We saw that in the labour market
0:23:24 > 0:23:29statistics which have come out. Unemployment is not as bad as
0:23:29 > 0:23:34people feared, it is very bad, but not as bad as feared. This is a
0:23:34 > 0:23:37huge crisis, the biggest crisis that the country has faced since
0:23:37 > 0:23:43the 1930s, certainly since the 1980s. In my view they have
0:23:43 > 0:23:49broughtly the bright -- broadly the bright strategy on fiscal policies.
0:23:49 > 0:23:52The sort of labour supply side reforms you would like to see?
0:23:52 > 0:23:56have started to articulate that agenda. I've been pushing for that
0:23:56 > 0:24:02for 18 months. I've been arguing that they need to have this higher
0:24:02 > 0:24:06up the agenda. They do now, they are movering it up the agenda,
0:24:06 > 0:24:10implementing it at a very, very tough job. Now they need to get on
0:24:10 > 0:24:15with it. Thank you. Ed Miliband had this to say this morning on the
0:24:15 > 0:24:19economy: Extraordinary, you see figures showing that the eurozone
0:24:19 > 0:24:22as a whole has not been in recession, but Britain is in
0:24:22 > 0:24:25recession. Now what's got to happen is that we have to have a proper
0:24:25 > 0:24:31plan for growth in Britain. We've got to have that proper plan for
0:24:31 > 0:24:33growth and jobs. We've got to see crucially the eurozone sort out its
0:24:33 > 0:24:36problems. Sometimes listening to the Prime Minister he's like a man
0:24:36 > 0:24:40watching events. He's the Prime Minister. He should be getting in
0:24:40 > 0:24:44there and getting it sorted out with Europe's leaders and sorting
0:24:44 > 0:24:47it out means not just sorting out the eurozone's problems but getting
0:24:47 > 0:24:52that proper plan for growth we need in Europe, just like we need a plan
0:24:52 > 0:24:57for growth in Britain. The Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury is
0:24:57 > 0:25:01with me now. I will pick up on what Andrew Tyrie said, let's hear how
0:25:01 > 0:25:05much you would spend in a stimulus. If the, as you say, the
0:25:05 > 0:25:07Government's policies are wrong, we are in recession. Growth isn't
0:25:07 > 0:25:11happening. How much would the Government need to spend to
0:25:11 > 0:25:16kickstart the economy? What we're saying is that there should be a
0:25:17 > 0:25:20slower pace of deficit reduction. I'm sorry to interrupt you, the
0:25:20 > 0:25:25slower pace of deficit reduction, how much slower would it have to be.
0:25:25 > 0:25:32The Government is cutting 13 a year, Labour wouldn't have cut as much, -
0:25:32 > 0:25:36- 1prs a year, Labour wouldn't have cut as much. -- 1%. This Government
0:25:36 > 0:25:39set out to eliminate the deficit in this Parliament. They're not going
0:25:39 > 0:25:42it achieve that because they're borrowing �150 billion more because
0:25:42 > 0:25:45of higher unemployment and the economy is back into recession.
0:25:45 > 0:25:49What about the cuts made so far, you wouldn't have made any fewer
0:25:49 > 0:25:53cuts really or not a lot less than have been made so far in terms of
0:25:53 > 0:25:57expenditure? If you look at the police, the Government are cutting
0:25:57 > 0:26:01by 20%, we said 12%. I'm looking at the overall expenditure. Overall
0:26:02 > 0:26:05you wouldn't have been cutting a lot less. Our plan was to go at
0:26:05 > 0:26:08half the speed, to halve the deficit during the course of this
0:26:08 > 0:26:11Parliament. Remember, because the Government have failed to get the
0:26:11 > 0:26:17economy back on track and because unemployment is higher, they are
0:26:17 > 0:26:22now borrowing more than the plan Alistair Darling set out, �150
0:26:22 > 0:26:26billion more because their decision to cut too far too far, choked off
0:26:26 > 0:26:30the economic recovery. You don't have the tax receipts coming in.
0:26:30 > 0:26:35accept when you say over the course of the Parliament. What I'm trying
0:26:35 > 0:26:38to establish is that over the last two -- two years, in terms of what
0:26:38 > 0:26:43Labour would have done, they haven't cut much faster than Labour
0:26:43 > 0:26:46would have done at this point. And we are still in recession. Are you
0:26:46 > 0:26:51saying that the policies that Labour would have undertaken,
0:26:51 > 0:26:55cutting a little slower, would have resulted in let's say 2% to 3%
0:26:55 > 0:26:59growth. Is that where we would be? If you look at the United States of
0:26:59 > 0:27:03America, which has a different pace of deficit reduction, their economy
0:27:03 > 0:27:07is growing strongly... With a massive stimulus. With a stimulus,
0:27:07 > 0:27:12but they're reducing the deficit. They're deficit is coming down at a
0:27:13 > 0:27:16faster rate than ours. You would have liked to see a stimulus into
0:27:16 > 0:27:19the British economy, more spending? What you're seeing in the United
0:27:19 > 0:27:22States is their deficit is coming down because they have more people
0:27:22 > 0:27:26in work paying taxes and fewer people out of work receiving
0:27:26 > 0:27:29benefits. The two go together. You have to have those policies for
0:27:29 > 0:27:34jobs and growth to get the economy moving, but also to get the deficit
0:27:34 > 0:27:39down as well. The Government have failed in all three tests. The
0:27:39 > 0:27:42economy's in a double-dip recession. Unemployment is far too high. Also,
0:27:42 > 0:27:46they're borrowing much more because their plan has failed. Would you
0:27:46 > 0:27:49like to see more spending on things like infrastructure, that perhaps,
0:27:49 > 0:27:55would have prevented unemployment rates, though they've come down in
0:27:55 > 0:28:00the last set of figures, but would have prevented unemployment rates
0:28:00 > 0:28:03going up so much? London is in the middle of infrastructure at the
0:28:03 > 0:28:10moment. Just getting about London is an absolute nightmare. There's
0:28:10 > 0:28:12so much work going on and so many people employed. The notion of
0:28:12 > 0:28:15having capital infrastructure projects which will only happen at
0:28:15 > 0:28:22certain times is the reason why we have the Olympic Games coming to
0:28:22 > 0:28:27London, for example. To encourage more, that is the prime reason why
0:28:27 > 0:28:32people decided to have the Olympics to push for it, is because those
0:28:32 > 0:28:36prodge etc -- projects would never have taken place. They're happening
0:28:36 > 0:28:41any way. What this good. Or the coalition is pointing out and I
0:28:41 > 0:28:44think which is becoming quite obvious, you can't spend what you
0:28:44 > 0:28:48don't have. We've been spending what we don't have for too long and
0:28:48 > 0:28:53trying to make that up is never going to work. On that point, it's
0:28:53 > 0:28:57been put to Labour many times, briefly, should you be saying
0:28:57 > 0:29:00Greece needs to leave the euro? Greece leaves the euro then I think
0:29:00 > 0:29:05that could have disastrous consequences for the UK and the
0:29:05 > 0:29:08rest of Europe. So I want to see the governments in Europe,
0:29:09 > 0:29:15including David Cameron and our Government, doing all that can be
0:29:15 > 0:29:18done to try and support the eurozone economy. That means having
0:29:19 > 0:29:22a policy for jobs and growth. Have you more and more people out of
0:29:22 > 0:29:26work in Europe. Unless people go back to work, you can't get the
0:29:26 > 0:29:29economy back on track. How will that help Greece? None of that
0:29:29 > 0:29:33helps at the moment? Looking at Greece, they've been in recession
0:29:34 > 0:29:38for four years now, one of the reasons why they're struggling so
0:29:39 > 0:29:42much with the deficit and debt is that their economy is shrinking.
0:29:42 > 0:29:46Nothing will save Greece at this point unless the European Central
0:29:46 > 0:29:52Bank or money is put in. There are things that can be done as you've
0:29:52 > 0:30:00just said. That's if the ECB does its job as a lender of last resort
0:30:00 > 0:30:10and if the austerity is also met with a proper growth package that
0:30:10 > 0:30:14could save the euro, but also, We often talk about the backbench
0:30:14 > 0:30:181922 committee on this programme, every other day it seems. Why
0:30:18 > 0:30:21should today be any different? It's influential and has been through
0:30:21 > 0:30:26years of thorn in the side of Conservative leaders. Last night it
0:30:26 > 0:30:30had fresh elections. To tell us who is in and out, let's cross to James
0:30:30 > 0:30:35Landale, a keen follower of these things. Who won and who lost, if
0:30:35 > 0:30:40that's the way to characterise it? I won't go through the names, but
0:30:40 > 0:30:45largely the new generation, those MPs elected in 2010, a lot more
0:30:45 > 0:30:49have been elected on to this body. Some old guards, so-called awkward
0:30:49 > 0:30:54squad, they've been kicked off this committee. As a committee, it will
0:30:54 > 0:30:58be driven a lot more by the views of the new intake and all their
0:30:58 > 0:31:01agendas. I think the Government will be happier with that because
0:31:01 > 0:31:04largely they will be more in line with where the Government is
0:31:04 > 0:31:09heading at the moment. However, I think that the problem for the
0:31:09 > 0:31:13Government is that the process of this election was testy, scratchy,
0:31:13 > 0:31:16devisive factional and I think that will add to the Government's
0:31:16 > 0:31:21discipline problems in the long run. Thank you very much.
0:31:21 > 0:31:24Well, I'm joined now by the chairman of the 1922 committee
0:31:25 > 0:31:31Graham Brady who was re-elected unopposed. Listening to that, at
0:31:31 > 0:31:35the moment, it's been testy, bad tempered, is that how you see it?
0:31:35 > 0:31:37think the campaign was too factional and occasionally bad
0:31:37 > 0:31:41tempered. I think sometimes colleague didn't show respect for
0:31:41 > 0:31:45each other that I would like the see and I hope now we have had an
0:31:45 > 0:31:53election which was very well conducted yesterday and good
0:31:53 > 0:31:57humours on the day and is in a - has resulted in a very good
0:31:57 > 0:32:03spectrum, I hope it will be more civilised and we'll treat each
0:32:03 > 0:32:09other with more respect. Was this a perge by loyalists loyal to the
0:32:09 > 0:32:14leadership? -- purge? It's exactly as it should be... Tell me how that
0:32:14 > 0:32:18is? You survived as perhaps one of the traditionalists, but a lot of
0:32:18 > 0:32:23loyalists have got on to the executive, 11 out of 12, that
0:32:23 > 0:32:28sounds like a purge? I don't think the division between loyalists and
0:32:28 > 0:32:32traditionalists is ar accurate. are loll loyal to the leadership?
0:32:32 > 0:32:35try to be, and to the party. The committee is a channel of
0:32:35 > 0:32:39communication to the backbenches and the party, principally to the
0:32:39 > 0:32:42leader of the Conservative Party. That is something we do well. We
0:32:42 > 0:32:48generally, contrary to popular opinion, the executive does it
0:32:48 > 0:32:51discreetly, very rarely leaks and we should maintain that. Can you be
0:32:51 > 0:32:57an effective conduit to the leadership from backbenchers who, I
0:32:57 > 0:33:00mean I had Dan on earlier who said many of the intake think the 1922's
0:33:00 > 0:33:04become almost irrelevant and the old guard doesn't really represent
0:33:04 > 0:33:08our views? Well, I don't know whether Dan thinks I'm old guard or
0:33:08 > 0:33:13not, I hope he doesn't. You are in the sense that you are not part of
0:33:13 > 0:33:17the 2010 intake? But the Conservative Party... I take that
0:33:17 > 0:33:21point, but what do you say to the criticism? I think the 192
0:33:21 > 0:33:25committee is frequently misunderstood by some of its
0:33:25 > 0:33:27members. It doesn't take a corporate view, it's a channel of
0:33:27 > 0:33:31communication, the way in which Conservative backbenchers
0:33:31 > 0:33:35communicate with the leadership of the party. The way they need to do
0:33:35 > 0:33:39that is to engage, be present, involve themselves and their voice
0:33:39 > 0:33:41will be heard. Do you accept the leadership is worried about that,
0:33:42 > 0:33:47because they wouldn't have been backing a slate of candidates put
0:33:47 > 0:33:51forward by a particular group, the 301 group of essentially new MPs?
0:33:51 > 0:33:54That's something for historians to... What is your view? If the
0:33:54 > 0:33:57leadership has to get that involved? I don't think David
0:33:57 > 0:34:00Cameron was involved. George Osborne entertained a lot of those
0:34:00 > 0:34:04people trying to get on to the committee? George Osborne, David
0:34:04 > 0:34:08Cameron preconstituent I have have drinks parties for Conservative
0:34:08 > 0:34:10Members of Parliament, I think that's a good thing, ebgts pected
0:34:10 > 0:34:15thing, natural for David Cameron and George Osborne to come to the
0:34:15 > 0:34:20committee -- expected. Do you think it would be too disloyal? You are
0:34:20 > 0:34:23there as a critical voice or friend or whatever, but do you accept the
0:34:23 > 0:34:26leadership was worried it was becoming too critical, that people
0:34:27 > 0:34:31were voicing their unhappiness with what the Government was doing?
0:34:31 > 0:34:34think it's important to bear in mind. People who happen to be on
0:34:34 > 0:34:37the executive of the 1922 commission or in the offices are
0:34:37 > 0:34:43Members of Parliament as well. They don't necessarily speak in their
0:34:43 > 0:34:47capacity as officers of the 1922 committee. I tend to have a fairly
0:34:47 > 0:34:51strict self-denying audience. I'm not plastered across the media
0:34:51 > 0:34:54making public meant because it's more effective to make the comments
0:34:54 > 0:34:58privately to David Cameron and others in the Government. Do you
0:34:58 > 0:35:03think Mark Pritchard, Christopher Chote, Peter Bone, these are MPs
0:35:03 > 0:35:08who've caused problems or said things and it's thought they spoke
0:35:08 > 0:35:13out of turn? I just expect honesty and courtesy and respect. People
0:35:13 > 0:35:16have to make their own judgments. How does Nadine Dorries and her
0:35:16 > 0:35:20comments about two posh boys fit into that? That was not showing the
0:35:20 > 0:35:25personal respect that should be shown to all colleagues. So those
0:35:25 > 0:35:29comments - I mean where's the line - if you want people to express
0:35:29 > 0:35:33their unhappy views, such as Lord's reform, should that have been in
0:35:33 > 0:35:36the Queen's speech? It's for the Government to decide that. But you
0:35:36 > 0:35:40are representing backbenchers. entirely proper for backbenchers to
0:35:40 > 0:35:44give their views and to communicate their advice and views to the
0:35:44 > 0:35:48Government. That is I think a necessary part of the process. We
0:35:48 > 0:35:51are elected to Parliament to do is something, not just to sit, wait
0:35:52 > 0:35:56and hear what the Government tells us. Do you think the Tory party is
0:35:56 > 0:35:59changing this new intake of MPs that are coming through? In some
0:35:59 > 0:36:02ways, they are actually very independent even if some are saying
0:36:02 > 0:36:08they want to be loyal to David Cameron. What is your view?
0:36:08 > 0:36:15appears as if the party is changing. Obviously, from a lay point of view
0:36:15 > 0:36:25from being on the outside, all we are seeing is the condemn, you know,
0:36:25 > 0:36:25
0:36:25 > 0:36:28the coalition. Whether it's Con /kDem or not, we can't see the wood
0:36:28 > 0:36:33for the trues. I thought the committee was there to point out
0:36:33 > 0:36:36which was the wood and which was the trees. It's natural the
0:36:36 > 0:36:39committee will want to pull a coalition Government in the
0:36:39 > 0:36:45Conservative direction and make sure the coalition is properly
0:36:45 > 0:36:48balanced. So for instance, Lord's reform, needn't have been in the
0:36:48 > 0:36:52Queen's speech as far as your 1922 committee and backbenchers are
0:36:52 > 0:36:55concerned? We don't take a corporate view, we do however tray
0:36:55 > 0:36:59to reflect the spectrum and strength of opinion. As is well
0:36:59 > 0:37:02known, we did have a meeting to discuss House of Lords reform. It
0:37:02 > 0:37:06was I think quite an important meeting and I think it helped to
0:37:06 > 0:37:09inform the government's thinking on the subject. Gay marriage - that
0:37:09 > 0:37:14dropped even though there's been the consultation. Was that the
0:37:14 > 0:37:18right thing to do? It's not been dropped... But it wasn't in
0:37:18 > 0:37:22legislating on in the Queen's speech? As with many things, as a
0:37:22 > 0:37:25spectrum of opinion in the party on it, what I think is a broad held
0:37:25 > 0:37:29view is that it shouldn't be stpral to what the Government is doing --
0:37:29 > 0:37:32central. The things David Cameron's been talking about this morning I
0:37:32 > 0:37:35think are very much at the core both of what the Government needs
0:37:35 > 0:37:39to be doing, what the country needs and the thing that the coalition's
0:37:39 > 0:37:42come together to achieve. Do you think you will still be in that
0:37:42 > 0:37:46position next year? Well, I quite like democracy and it's a good
0:37:46 > 0:37:49thing for people to have elections and to be able to vote and make
0:37:49 > 0:37:53their own choices. Thank you very much. From the old guard, well,
0:37:53 > 0:37:56perhaps not quite so old guard, to what must be the new guard, joining
0:37:56 > 0:37:59us from College Green outside the House of Commons is Graham Evans,
0:37:59 > 0:38:03he was elected to the 1922 committee for the first time last
0:38:03 > 0:38:07night and had the backing of the 301 group of modernising MPs. Well,
0:38:07 > 0:38:12congratulations on your victory. Do you see it as a victory for the
0:38:12 > 0:38:172010 intake and the 301 group? I don't see it as a victory. The
0:38:17 > 0:38:202010 intake was full of a huge amount of talented new MPs from
0:38:20 > 0:38:25extremely diverse backgrounds, more representative of society, from the
0:38:25 > 0:38:28north of England from working class backgrounds. So I think the 1922
0:38:28 > 0:38:32committee is representative of the party as a whole. Why did you have
0:38:32 > 0:38:36to run a slate of candidates then? Why did it have to be that
0:38:36 > 0:38:39organised with what looked like backing from the leadership?
0:38:39 > 0:38:43wasn't contacted by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. I was
0:38:43 > 0:38:48going to stand anyway. I'm a member of the 2010 intake, so although
0:38:48 > 0:38:53much play's been made on the slate, we are a bunch of individuals from
0:38:53 > 0:38:57the 2010 intake and happen to have got ourselves elected. What is
0:38:57 > 0:39:01wrong with the old guard, do you like Graham Brady? I have a huge
0:39:01 > 0:39:05amount of respect for him, as a fellow north-west Conservative,
0:39:05 > 0:39:10Graham's done a fantastic job in Manchester, a lone voice of sense
0:39:10 > 0:39:20in the I woulderness years in the 90s, so a huge amount of respect
0:39:20 > 0:39:23for Graham, he's a very good chairman -- wilderness. Yes. Is the
0:39:23 > 0:39:28Government going to get an easier ride from you and your colleagues.
0:39:28 > 0:39:32Do you think it's not wise to be disrespectful and speak out in such
0:39:32 > 0:39:35a way that would damage the Government? We should be respectful
0:39:35 > 0:39:39critical friends. The message here is that the Conservative Party is
0:39:39 > 0:39:42united taking the fight to Labour for leaving our country in such a
0:39:42 > 0:39:45mess. All right. Thank you very much. Sorry I stopped you abruptly,
0:39:45 > 0:39:50but thank you very much. And thank you to you, Graham Brady.
0:39:50 > 0:39:54Get your bunting out, pack a few cucumber sandwiches and start
0:39:54 > 0:39:58waving the flags because Jubilee fever is upon us. In two-and-a-half
0:39:58 > 0:40:01weeks' time, thousands of street parties will be held all over the
0:40:01 > 0:40:04country, millions are expected to line the mall and cheer Her Majesty.
0:40:04 > 0:40:09According to the Kennel Club, Diamond Jubilee fever's seen a
0:40:09 > 0:40:14surge in demand for corgis, the Queen's favourite dog. Why do we
0:40:14 > 0:40:19love Her Majesty so much? Here is saw Sanaa.
0:40:19 > 0:40:22- Susanna. The flags, the crowds, the bunting. Only one person could
0:40:22 > 0:40:25be in town. After 60 years on the throne, the
0:40:25 > 0:40:28Queen is still pulling many the crowds. But what is it that makes
0:40:28 > 0:40:33people come and stand out here for hours on end, just to catch a
0:40:34 > 0:40:38glimpse of her? I think the fact she's been doing
0:40:38 > 0:40:43the same job for 60 years without putting a foot wrong. She's been on
0:40:43 > 0:40:46the throne for a long time and has done a good job. She's faced so
0:40:46 > 0:40:52many challenges. Because of her stamina. She never gives up. What
0:40:52 > 0:41:00about the rest of the Royals, do you like them? Not the hangers on,
0:41:00 > 0:41:05but yes, Will and Harry. Not the hangers on. Who are they? Well...
0:41:05 > 0:41:08Oh, dear, are we allowed to say. Andrew. They haven't all been as
0:41:08 > 0:41:16plash as the Queen who's now into her third Jubilee celebrations.
0:41:16 > 0:41:20This was the silver one where the street parties ran into the night.
0:41:20 > 0:41:24She became Queen many the early '50s and it's the history she
0:41:24 > 0:41:30represents which we love, according to one historian. She is the 20th
0:41:30 > 0:41:33century. She was born into the depression, the 50s and 60s and
0:41:34 > 0:41:38came through really tough times. Her popularity was at a massive low
0:41:38 > 0:41:42point after the death of Diana and she's come through it. We partly do
0:41:42 > 0:41:47love her because we did once hate her. After Diana's death, public
0:41:47 > 0:41:54anger was directed at the Queen, the monarchy had to modernise, it
0:41:54 > 0:41:58was argued. So why not let a Queen guitarist on
0:41:58 > 0:42:02the roof? The godge celebrations mixed the traditional with the
0:42:02 > 0:42:07modern -- the Golden Jubilee. And last year's Royal Wedding proved
0:42:07 > 0:42:09that the monarchy can still fill the mall. The young Royals have
0:42:09 > 0:42:13become very popular and having the Royal Wedding last year was a
0:42:13 > 0:42:16master stroke. I mean, it gathered all the incredible popularity and
0:42:16 > 0:42:19ever since then, the Royal Family have been riding high on it. There
0:42:19 > 0:42:22was a lot of talk that the Golden Jubilee would have been a come
0:42:22 > 0:42:26plait damp squib. I don't think anyone thinks that about the
0:42:26 > 0:42:30Diamond Jubilee, even if it's going to rain. If the Queen wants to know
0:42:30 > 0:42:34what the weather will be like, here is someone who can give her a
0:42:34 > 0:42:37forecast. The potential for a few flurries over barrel moral, who the
0:42:37 > 0:42:41hell wrote this script... Prince Charles is next in line for the
0:42:41 > 0:42:45throne, but in Bromley, supporters don't seem as keen on him. Maybe
0:42:45 > 0:42:50ten years ago maybe, but now I think William. Not quite sure if
0:42:50 > 0:42:55he'd make a good King, to be honest. I think William and Kate, we see
0:42:55 > 0:42:59them as the next ones. William. Those discussions will come, but
0:42:59 > 0:43:04the Queen's Diamond Jubilee is sure to have all the pomp and pageantry
0:43:04 > 0:43:07of Jubilees past. Our guest of the day, Harry Goldsmith is in charge
0:43:07 > 0:43:10of the Jubilee family festival and we are also joined by the
0:43:10 > 0:43:13Conservative MP Robert Buckland, a member of the All Party Group on
0:43:13 > 0:43:17the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and from the republican camp we are
0:43:17 > 0:43:21joined by Graham Smith from Republic. Welcome to both of you.
0:43:21 > 0:43:25Can I start with you, Robert, why do you think the Queen's appeal is
0:43:25 > 0:43:29so enduring? She embodies public service. She made that promise to
0:43:29 > 0:43:33us when she was a Princess years ago and has embodied that through
0:43:33 > 0:43:38her long reign. The amount of work and engagements she does, the
0:43:38 > 0:43:44amount of public involvement that she undertakes is extraordinary and
0:43:44 > 0:43:47I think paying tribute to that in the Jubilee is very much part of
0:43:47 > 0:43:51the celebration. But it hasn't been consistent in terms of support and
0:43:51 > 0:43:55popularity, not her public service, because as we showed at the time of
0:43:55 > 0:43:59Princess Diana's death, there was a real slump in support for the
0:43:59 > 0:44:04monarchy, particularly for the Queen. So do you think these things
0:44:04 > 0:44:07just go through phases and that actually the attachment isn't that
0:44:07 > 0:44:11deep? I think the attachment is deep to the institution of monarchy,
0:44:11 > 0:44:15but I accept your point about popularity going through phases. If
0:44:15 > 0:44:18you take the long view, Queen Victoria went through a long phase
0:44:18 > 0:44:22of unpopularity because she withdrew from public life. That
0:44:22 > 0:44:26changed and taking the long view is a very important part of how the
0:44:26 > 0:44:29Queen views her role as Monarch. The enduring support is for the
0:44:29 > 0:44:39institution, if not necessarily for the personality or for the person
0:44:39 > 0:44:39
0:44:40 > 0:44:44The reason why the monarchy has survived is largely because we've
0:44:44 > 0:44:49had one monarch on the throne for 60 years. The reason why, it's
0:44:49 > 0:44:53mathematics, she was given a job for life at the age of 25 and she's
0:44:53 > 0:44:59stayed alive. That's why she's been on the throne for 60 years. Why do
0:44:59 > 0:45:08you want to get rid of it? institution, three main reasons,
0:45:08 > 0:45:11the hereditary principle is not in keeping with democratic values.
0:45:11 > 0:45:16They willfully exploit their position for, in terms of finances,
0:45:16 > 0:45:20in terms of lobbying Government in secret, and there are serious
0:45:20 > 0:45:25constitutional issues. We're not a very democratic society and our
0:45:25 > 0:45:27power is in the centre. It's offensive, the institution from a
0:45:27 > 0:45:32hereditary point of view is offensive to democratic principles
0:45:32 > 0:45:36in this country? I don't buy that at all. Technically, all the things
0:45:36 > 0:45:43you're saying may be correct, but as far as the UK is concerned, as
0:45:43 > 0:45:48far as the public is concerned, that sense of magic, I think is a
0:45:48 > 0:45:53bit like sparkle dust at the top, we have a monarchy that, round the
0:45:53 > 0:45:56world, has the most incredible amount of respect. I mean I go
0:45:56 > 0:46:01backwards and forwards to America, I'm off in a couple of hours to New
0:46:01 > 0:46:06York, and every time I go to America, I see more sense of pride
0:46:06 > 0:46:10of having our Queen involved than anything else. Consequently, if the
0:46:10 > 0:46:16public want it and demand it, then I think this Royal Family have done
0:46:16 > 0:46:21a good job on supporting it. It's a myth that people around the world
0:46:21 > 0:46:24are fascinated with it It's not a myth. It is. There's far fewer
0:46:24 > 0:46:29monarchies around the world than there have been. And two more are
0:46:29 > 0:46:33on the ropes in Sweden and Spain. This is why we're protesting on
0:46:33 > 0:46:36June 3 at the pageant. There will be the largest protest there's been
0:46:36 > 0:46:41in modern times for the simple reason that we take democratic
0:46:41 > 0:46:45values very seriously. We're supposed to be equal citizens.
0:46:45 > 0:46:50There's no such thing as equal citizens as you know. That's a myth.
0:46:50 > 0:46:54That's as mythical as having a monarchy. OK, but it's a better
0:46:54 > 0:46:58myth than the monarchy. No, it's not. The idea is that you and I
0:46:58 > 0:47:01have the same political rights, not the same wealth or skills, but the
0:47:01 > 0:47:06same rights. In this country that's not the case. What about the case
0:47:06 > 0:47:10of magic dust, the fact that she is welcomed wherever she goes around
0:47:10 > 0:47:13the country. You can't put a value on that, can you? Let's be clear
0:47:13 > 0:47:17about the level of support. The crowds are smaller than they were
0:47:17 > 0:47:2130 years ago. The Jubilee is less than it was 35 years ago. The
0:47:21 > 0:47:25interest in the wedding was smaller than it was 30 years prior to that.
0:47:25 > 0:47:30People are not as interested. don't find that at all.
0:47:30 > 0:47:34disagree what the crowds were smaller? I don't see that at all in
0:47:34 > 0:47:38society. You can say, there may be less street parties, that's about
0:47:38 > 0:47:42the nature of society and the way it's changing. That's not a
0:47:42 > 0:47:48reflection on the popularity of the monarchy. The Royal Family remains
0:47:48 > 0:47:53an indelible part of public life. They perform a huge ceremonial and
0:47:53 > 0:47:59emotional focus for the country. It's about continuity. It's such a
0:47:59 > 0:48:05colourless, drab alternative that we're being offered. I'll give you
0:48:05 > 0:48:09two words: President Blair. No-one has argued for President Blair. How
0:48:09 > 0:48:14he's going to win an election I have no idea. It is not colourless
0:48:14 > 0:48:17and drab. It's quite exciting and a matter of national and civic pride
0:48:17 > 0:48:21to be able to elect our own President. Ireland has done it
0:48:21 > 0:48:25successfully last year. People are turning off. They're not as excited
0:48:25 > 0:48:29about the monarchy as they were before. An emotional, national
0:48:29 > 0:48:33focus is a sport. It's football, it's the Olympics. People are more
0:48:33 > 0:48:38interested in the Olympics than in the Jubilee. Are you saying there's
0:48:38 > 0:48:41a lack of emotional attachment? There's some, of course. I'm not
0:48:41 > 0:48:45pretending everybody's switched off. There will be maybe half a million
0:48:45 > 0:48:50people at the pageant as at the wedding last year. That's smaller
0:48:50 > 0:48:56crowds. London Gay Pride gets more people than you had at the wedding
0:48:57 > 0:49:00last year, so does Notting Hill Carnival. It's expected between 50
0:49:00 > 0:49:05and 150... That's not correct. As far as our planning and the work
0:49:05 > 0:49:09we're doing with the Government on, with DCMS and Cabinet Office and
0:49:09 > 0:49:13the royal parks etc, we're expecting huge crowds. One of the
0:49:13 > 0:49:17limitations we v, I mentioned earlier, of course, is the state of
0:49:17 > 0:49:22London at the moment with all its road works and whatever, which is
0:49:22 > 0:49:27an impediment to get to events. people would come? The numbers and
0:49:27 > 0:49:32health and so on which physically limit. In terms of demand, the
0:49:32 > 0:49:34demand is as big now as it's ever been. We've been talking to the
0:49:34 > 0:49:37Metropolitan Police about our protest near Tower Bridge on the
0:49:37 > 0:49:40day and they've been telling us half a million is the figure they
0:49:40 > 0:49:44got last year and the figure they're expecting this year.
0:49:44 > 0:49:50Smaller than before. We'll end the competition on the big crowds.
0:49:50 > 0:49:55Thank you to both of you. Now you bunch of (BLEEP) bleep, bet
0:49:55 > 0:49:59you wonder what I was saying. Let's talk about insults. Free speech
0:49:59 > 0:50:03campaignerers calling on the Government to change a law which
0:50:03 > 0:50:06bans insulting words and behaviour. They say the Public Order Act is
0:50:06 > 0:50:08overused and question why police and judges have the right to rule
0:50:08 > 0:50:13what is insulting. Here's our totally uselss reporter, Adam
0:50:13 > 0:50:19Fleming. Don't you hate it when people come up to you and insult
0:50:19 > 0:50:25you? You useless twit. Get a life. Campaigners against section five of
0:50:25 > 0:50:30the Public Order Act say it's part and parcel of free speech. They say
0:50:30 > 0:50:35this 25-year-old law is having a chilling effect. Get your hair cut.
0:50:35 > 0:50:39It allows insults to be criminalised without the person
0:50:39 > 0:50:45being insulted, having to prove that they were insulted. I don't
0:50:45 > 0:50:49think in this multicultural society it's appropriate to criminalise
0:50:49 > 0:50:55something as trivial as insult. It's important for people to be
0:50:55 > 0:50:59able to say truth to power. They point to examples of a teenager who
0:50:59 > 0:51:05called a police horse "gay" and spend a night in the cells as a
0:51:05 > 0:51:08result. Another teenager who was fined for shouting "woof" at a dog
0:51:08 > 0:51:11in the street. The Home Office have held a consultation on all this.
0:51:11 > 0:51:16We're waiting to hear what they say. If they decide the law has to be
0:51:16 > 0:51:23changed, then it means I can go back to the Daily Politics office
0:51:23 > 0:51:27and with impunity called Andrew Neil a (BLEEP) and Gyles he's a
0:51:27 > 0:51:33(BLEEP), (BLEEP). Our producer couldn't (BLEEP)... Then there's
0:51:33 > 0:51:36David Thompson he's a (BLEEP). And Susanna (BLEEP). Do you get the
0:51:36 > 0:51:39impression that Adam enjoyed doing that a little too much! And we're
0:51:39 > 0:51:44joined now by the human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, and
0:51:44 > 0:51:48from Southampton by Will Riches of the Police Federation. On a serious
0:51:48 > 0:51:52point, how can you criminalise insults? Let's talk first of all,
0:51:52 > 0:51:55this is not about limiting public freedom of speech at all. Isn't it?
0:51:55 > 0:52:01There was a particularly interesting piece there in relation
0:52:01 > 0:52:05to it. Well, OK. But in a sense, it is still criminalising what is
0:52:05 > 0:52:10insulting behaviour to one person and less so to another. Let's talk
0:52:10 > 0:52:14about, it talks about a person of reasonable firmness. This is not a
0:52:14 > 0:52:17shrirchinging violet. We're members of the public too going about their
0:52:17 > 0:52:22business and having to endure other people's behaviour which affects
0:52:22 > 0:52:26their quality of life as well. suppose people might say in terms
0:52:26 > 0:52:30of protecting the police can't they put up with a certain amount of
0:52:30 > 0:52:34abuse. You're the people protecting the public, is it worth spending
0:52:34 > 0:52:38the time using the law to protect yourselves against what is
0:52:38 > 0:52:42insulting behaviour? That's true. The police are the public. The
0:52:42 > 0:52:46public are the police. We are members of society and yes, we do
0:52:46 > 0:52:49have to look at the way in which people behave. We're there to
0:52:49 > 0:52:55enforce the law and make sure everybody has a right to go about
0:52:55 > 0:52:59their business and feel safe in doing so. You have campaigned to
0:53:00 > 0:53:04protect minority groups, famous for doing so, why do you want to take
0:53:04 > 0:53:10away this protection? This section five of the Public Order Act was
0:53:10 > 0:53:14used in 2009, 18,000 times. It's not a rare occurrence. Morover, it
0:53:15 > 0:53:19has been used against people who in my opinion have not insulted anyone.
0:53:19 > 0:53:22For example, there have been a series of street preachers who have
0:53:22 > 0:53:25said they believe homosexuality is wrong or immoral. They have been
0:53:25 > 0:53:29convicted under this law. Now, they weren't being aggressive on
0:53:29 > 0:53:33threating. They were just expressing their point of view. I
0:53:33 > 0:53:37disagree with it. I would protest against their point of view, but I
0:53:37 > 0:53:40don't think they should be criminalised. Surely, that is the
0:53:40 > 0:53:44fact that we champion free speech in this country, unless someone is
0:53:44 > 0:53:47under threat from physical violence, why can't people say what they want
0:53:47 > 0:53:52to say? Of course, there should be freedom of speech. It is for the
0:53:52 > 0:53:57Government to decide at what level the threshold is set. Why was it
0:53:57 > 0:54:03used 18,000 times this section five? I'm sorry, I didn't get that?
0:54:03 > 0:54:08Why was it used 18,000 times. Peter Tatchell said it was used 18,000
0:54:08 > 0:54:12times in... 2009. That's a large number. That's historic data. I
0:54:12 > 0:54:15don't have that in front of me. Clearly, if it's gone through the
0:54:15 > 0:54:19system, then we're doing our jobs as police officers and making sure
0:54:19 > 0:54:23that people are being held to account for their actions.
0:54:23 > 0:54:27thing is it's a difficult line to draw, because what is the
0:54:27 > 0:54:33difference between saying some of the things you said on religious
0:54:33 > 0:54:39marches and inciting hatred? Well, if we removed the clause against
0:54:39 > 0:54:42insults from section five, it would still leave the clauses
0:54:42 > 0:54:46criminalising abusive and threatening behaviour. And there's
0:54:46 > 0:54:50the other public order laws and the laws against harassment. They would
0:54:50 > 0:54:53rightly protect people. What we're concerned about is the chilling
0:54:53 > 0:54:58effect that this clause on insults has against people who are merely
0:54:58 > 0:55:02expressing an opinion. Of course, in a free society we have to put up
0:55:02 > 0:55:05sometimes with opinions we find offensive and insulting. Do you
0:55:05 > 0:55:09think Peter Tatchell is right, we do have to put up with that and
0:55:09 > 0:55:14that is the price for free speech? I do tend to agree with Peter's
0:55:14 > 0:55:21views. I think it's a question of balance. I think under the basis of
0:55:21 > 0:55:24what seems to be on the table, what Nadine Dorries said about her
0:55:24 > 0:55:30leaders, she should be in jail by now, based on that. It doesn't make
0:55:30 > 0:55:34any sense. We have too often, as I said earlier with the charity issue,
0:55:34 > 0:55:41we have too often where Government uses a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
0:55:41 > 0:55:44This is a balance, it's a difficult balance, particularly with whose
0:55:44 > 0:55:48interpretation of what an insult is and how devastating that is in
0:55:48 > 0:55:52effect. The problem that the police have got to do, of course, they
0:55:52 > 0:55:57have to do the interpretation of it and decide whether this really is,
0:55:57 > 0:56:01and it puts them in an inindividualious situation. Even a
0:56:01 > 0:56:07very expert and experienced person like Lord McDonald, the former
0:56:07 > 0:56:11director of public prosecutions, gave a legal opinion that we do not
0:56:11 > 0:56:14need the insult clause in section five, that if it was removed it
0:56:14 > 0:56:18would not diminish the powers of the police because there are so
0:56:18 > 0:56:23many laws they can use against behaviour that is threatening,
0:56:23 > 0:56:27abusive and causes harm to people. Thank you very much.
0:56:27 > 0:56:32When it comes to insults, we've seen some corkers, among the cut
0:56:32 > 0:56:36and thrust of blil debate, in a moment we'll chat about the thorny
0:56:36 > 0:56:40issue of unParliamentary language. First are some of the our
0:56:40 > 0:56:46favourites. I know he's keen on summing up policy in six words. How
0:56:46 > 0:56:53about this: You are the weakest link, goodbye.
0:56:53 > 0:57:03Mr Speaker, the House has noticed the Prime Minister's remarkable
0:57:03 > 0:57:03
0:57:03 > 0:57:09transformation in the last few weeks from starling to Mr Bean.
0:57:09 > 0:57:13You're a miserable pip squeak of a mad dog. Then the survivors of
0:57:13 > 0:57:18World War II started to look pretty old as well, as my noble friend the
0:57:18 > 0:57:21Baroness reminded me, claiming to be one of the only survivor I think
0:57:22 > 0:57:26in this House of the, those who gave great service to their nation.
0:57:26 > 0:57:29You know really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the
0:57:29 > 0:57:33appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question that I want
0:57:34 > 0:57:38to ask... The question that I want to ask that we're all going to ask,
0:57:38 > 0:57:42is who are you? I'd never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever
0:57:42 > 0:57:47heard of you. So, proud of our Parliamentary democracy and what
0:57:48 > 0:57:50can and can't be said? I think you know, MPs give it. I think they
0:57:50 > 0:57:54should not be criminalising the rest of the public. It's
0:57:54 > 0:57:58interesting that more than half of MPs do believe that the insult
0:57:58 > 0:58:03clause should be removed from section five. A quick few words
0:58:03 > 0:58:11that can't be said, hooligan, rat, swine, stool pigeon and traitor.
0:58:11 > 0:58:15Are they unParliamentary? They're being kind. What would you say?, no,
0:58:15 > 0:58:20don't actually tell us what you might say. One of my favourites,
0:58:20 > 0:58:28although it's very unkind, Dennis heely once said of Lord Howe it's
0:58:28 > 0:58:32like being savaged by a dead sheep. That's all for today. David
0:58:32 > 0:58:40Cameron's favourite album Pink Floyd. Dark Side Of The Moon, it is.
0:58:40 > 0:58:44Aapparently. Thanks to our guests. The one o'clock news is starting