:00:51. > :00:55.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. As if he didn't
:00:55. > :00:58.have enough on his plate David Cameron wants to help you bring up
:00:58. > :01:01.your children or at least provide classes to lend you a hand. Has the
:01:01. > :01:05.champion of the Big Society embraced the nanny state? Now he's
:01:05. > :01:07.got that out of the way, the Prime Minister is heading to the US for a
:01:07. > :01:10.meeting of the world's biggest economies, with Greece, Spain and
:01:10. > :01:13.the euro crisis top of the agenda. We'll have the latest from
:01:13. > :01:16.Washington and ask UKIP's Nigel Farage and former Europe Minister
:01:16. > :01:19.Denis MacShane where the EU goes from here. And what happens when a
:01:19. > :01:22.politician more famous than the party they lead stands down? After
:01:22. > :01:31.Caroline Lucas steps down as Green Party leader we'll talk one person
:01:31. > :01:34.parties. How fast do you drive? 60, 70? What about 80 miles per hour?
:01:34. > :01:37.That's the government's plan for Britain's motorways but road safety
:01:37. > :01:44.campaigners say it will cost lives. We'll debate whether the planned
:01:44. > :01:47.new limit is the right one. Treasury whip just received the
:01:47. > :01:51.steps from a Labour Whip saying Please Please come to the chamber
:01:51. > :01:59.for the start of the final day of the Queen's Speech today. Ed Balls
:01:59. > :02:02.is opening for us and really needs his support. Oh dear. We'll explore
:02:03. > :02:06.the perils of mixing politics with modern technology. All that in the
:02:06. > :02:12.next hour. And with us for the whole programme today are Anne
:02:12. > :02:14.McElvoy from the Economist and Steve Richards from the Independent.
:02:14. > :02:16.Let's start with the Prime Minister's plans to help parents
:02:16. > :02:24.bring up their children by offering state-funded parenting classes,
:02:24. > :02:29.some of which will be made available in high street stores.
:02:29. > :02:33.Here's what he had to say about the idea this morning. Parents want
:02:33. > :02:37.help, it is in our interests as a society to help people bring up
:02:37. > :02:42.children. We are taught how to drive so I think it makes perfect
:02:42. > :02:47.sense to keep -- help people with parenting. I wish I had had more
:02:47. > :02:50.support. These are practical, sensible tips from midwives,
:02:50. > :02:55.featuring real families, real information. It is a good thing and
:02:55. > :02:59.people who say it is the nanny state do not listen to them. David
:02:59. > :03:06.Cameron speaking this morning. Steve, does this have a hint of the
:03:06. > :03:10.nanny state? I am a strong supporter of the nanny state, I
:03:10. > :03:14.think the idea it is a derogatory phrase is part of the problem with
:03:14. > :03:19.Britain at the moment when any one is too scared to outline clear
:03:19. > :03:24.rules. I think it is a really good idea, absolutely right but it does
:03:24. > :03:30.not go far enough. I think parenting classes should be made
:03:30. > :03:34.binding, not voluntary. My worry is that the kind of people that would
:03:34. > :03:40.really benefit from these classes like young parents will not take up
:03:40. > :03:44.the offer. It is not enough, so should be more nannying, not less!
:03:44. > :03:50.This paranoia about being a nanny state is a real problem. Look at
:03:50. > :03:53.the smoking ban. Liberating measure. The problem for him is he has
:03:53. > :04:00.always moaned about the so called nanny state that you support. Is it
:04:00. > :04:05.just surprising coming from David Cameron, this sort of policy?
:04:05. > :04:14.because it is not even nannying. It is voluntary, it is Advisory,
:04:14. > :04:21.offering advice, resources, facilities. It is not nannying. If
:04:21. > :04:24.you cannot do something like this when a few of his advisers rightly
:04:24. > :04:30.say we insist on people taking driving instructions but have no
:04:30. > :04:33.guidelines on parenting, if you cannot do this through fear of
:04:33. > :04:36.appearing bossy you might as well give up politics because they are
:04:36. > :04:42.in a position where they can do something about this. The issue is
:04:42. > :04:52.it is not enough. But are the right people going to take up any of this
:04:52. > :04:53.
:04:53. > :04:56.advice which can be classed as e- mails, I forget what else. Early
:04:56. > :05:03.intervention will save money further down the line. Tony Blair
:05:04. > :05:09.never came up with this idea. Is this going to do the trick? No. The
:05:09. > :05:16.reason is because they fear being accused of being a nanny state, so
:05:16. > :05:20.they will not impose the Sony one. -- this on any one. Where actually
:05:20. > :05:25.the only way you make progress is where people have to do it
:05:25. > :05:31.otherwise people will not. So I fear it will not reached the people
:05:31. > :05:36.that will benefit most. Everybody will benefit because nobody knows
:05:36. > :05:40.how to parent, I wish I had been forced to do it. But I do not think
:05:40. > :05:45.it will reach the right people. That means becoming more of a nanny
:05:45. > :05:48.state, then you can. We're used to the eurozone lurching from crisis
:05:48. > :05:58.to crisis, but the single currency has never looked under greater
:05:58. > :06:05.
:06:05. > :06:08.threat. After nine days of wrangling party leaders in Greece
:06:08. > :06:11.this week gave up their attempt to form a government, raising the
:06:11. > :06:14.prospect of a "Grexit" - Greece crashing out of the euro and
:06:14. > :06:17.returning to the Drachma. One economist warned that the cost of a
:06:17. > :06:19.Eurozone breakup could reach as much as one trillion dollars and
:06:19. > :06:22.would hit the UK hard. With depositors apparently taking their
:06:22. > :06:25.money out of Greece, we've then heard unconfirmed reports of a run
:06:25. > :06:28.on banks in Spain. And last night ratings agency Moody's said 16
:06:28. > :06:30.Spanish banks were being downgraded because of the country's weak
:06:30. > :06:35.economy. Spain's banking crisis threatens to reach Britain's high
:06:35. > :06:38.streets, as the UK arm of Santander was also downgraded. Amid the chaos
:06:38. > :06:43.David Cameron has appealed to the eurozone's leaders to take decisive
:06:43. > :06:46.action to save the single currency. But will his lectures risk souring
:06:46. > :06:50.relations with world leaders gathered near Washington for the
:06:50. > :06:52.annual G8 summit? Well he won't be the only world leader calling for
:06:52. > :06:55.action, with President Obama urging Europe to stiumulate growth.
:06:55. > :07:00.Joining us from Washington DC is our political correspondent Norman
:07:00. > :07:03.Smith. He cannot escape this crisis because it will be top of the
:07:04. > :07:08.agenda. There is no way round it but what is interesting is that in
:07:08. > :07:16.a way David Cameron is perhaps calling for the most radical action
:07:16. > :07:19.at the summit. We know Francois Hollande and Barack Obama won more
:07:19. > :07:22.pro-growth measure but in Downing Street they are saying the measures
:07:23. > :07:26.they're arguing for like bringing forward structural funds and credit
:07:27. > :07:33.easing is not enough, it is far too marginal given the scale of the
:07:33. > :07:37.economic crisis now. In a funny way, David Cameron finds himself almost
:07:37. > :07:44.a closet Euro-federalist having to argue a much more radical cause of
:07:44. > :07:50.action including the creation of greater fiscal integration, a much
:07:50. > :07:54.higher bail-out fund. So it is not Mr Cameron calling for austerity.
:07:54. > :07:58.In a funny way he is the one trying to crank up the pressure on the
:07:58. > :08:02.eurozone and needs to do more. is that why we are getting briefing
:08:02. > :08:08.saying there is no rift between David Cameron and Francois Hollande,
:08:08. > :08:14.bearing in mind the rhetoric has been different in the past? At a
:08:15. > :08:22.personal level it would frankly be bizarre if there was not a slight
:08:22. > :08:30.coldness between the two. But I think the truth is whatever their
:08:30. > :08:37.personal differences I think it would be extraordinary if I was
:08:37. > :08:41.allowed to skew of course there talks later today. It would be like
:08:41. > :08:46.two neighbours arguing over a hedge when the foundations of the House
:08:46. > :08:49.are crumbling. They will be focused on the political, the priority. The
:08:49. > :08:54.real focus, the person who will really come under pressure at this
:08:54. > :08:58.summit is not David Cameron, not Francois Hollande, certainly not
:08:58. > :09:06.Barack Obama, in all likelihood it will be the German Chancellor
:09:06. > :09:10.because all the remedies these men are pushing for, all of them
:09:11. > :09:20.require stacked loads of money and the only country with a stack loads
:09:21. > :09:22.
:09:22. > :09:32.of money is Germany. It will be critical. Good luck. So where does
:09:32. > :09:34.this all meet the European project? -- leave. We're joined by former
:09:34. > :09:40.Minister for Europe Denis Macshane and UKIP Leader and MEP Nigel
:09:40. > :09:44.Farage. So after two years of saying we were at a critical point,
:09:44. > :09:48.his is the critical moment when the two options of Greece going or
:09:48. > :09:58.Germany doing something dramatic to prevent that? I will give you a
:09:58. > :09:59.
:09:59. > :10:02.European answer - yes and no. People just look at Britain, read
:10:02. > :10:05.the Financial Times hearing we are in the worst slump since the 19th
:10:05. > :10:10.century, that we have cut investment, my firm is ready to go,
:10:10. > :10:13.build houses, provide catering service, all they want is a nod
:10:13. > :10:16.from the government so what the rest of Europe is doing and saying
:10:16. > :10:20.to Britain is Will you help increase demand because we cannot
:10:20. > :10:27.get ourselves out about crisis if Britain remains locked in
:10:27. > :10:31.stagnation and slump? Arguably that will not help Greece at this stage,
:10:31. > :10:39.and it is at that stage where the rest of Europe is looking to. Do
:10:39. > :10:43.you think the meeting today will be a make or break? No because I think
:10:43. > :10:49.Barack Obama will knock a few heads together and put his ideas forward.
:10:49. > :10:57.He needs to knock our view together that the government should not
:10:57. > :11:03.spend any money together with Chris's 2% of the grease economy,
:11:03. > :11:06.all the money that has gone to them so far has been recycled back to
:11:06. > :11:13.banks in Europe, including some in London, which rather than spending
:11:14. > :11:18.on improving the Greek economy. The Greek primary deficit is 1%, ours
:11:18. > :11:23.is 8%. So actually Greece has a lot of pain to go through but the
:11:23. > :11:27.notion Greece will bring Europe down his fantasy. Do you think this
:11:27. > :11:31.is a critical moment? I sense we may have passed the point of no
:11:31. > :11:33.return. The run on the banks, the rich people got the money out of
:11:33. > :11:37.Greece last year, the middle classes and are desperate to get
:11:38. > :11:46.their money out. But there are not use of people going round the
:11:46. > :11:51.corner like with Northern Rock. Take Spain, a billion euros I think
:11:51. > :11:55.we have a bank run going on, and a recognition amongst the electorate
:11:55. > :11:59.that the north of Europe is not prepared to pay continually to bail
:11:59. > :12:04.out the South. And the South is starting to vote differently as
:12:04. > :12:07.well. So you think this is the point at which everyone except
:12:07. > :12:14.Greece goes? I think they will go quickly. The does not a remote
:12:14. > :12:18.issue for Britain. If Greece goes the risk of contagion, a trillion
:12:18. > :12:23.dollars, the cost of a potential break-up, is also huge. The real
:12:23. > :12:28.problem is Spain because if it goes after Greece with a domino effect...
:12:28. > :12:30.But with your policy that is more likely isn't it? If these countries
:12:31. > :12:35.are kept trapped inside the eurozone it could lead to
:12:35. > :12:38.revolution, violence, Allsorts of awful things so the best thing is
:12:38. > :12:42.to take the medicine to help these countries get out of the euro and
:12:42. > :12:46.get our own currencies back. It will be better than staying as we
:12:47. > :12:52.are with something that is failing. But that amounts to saying to every
:12:52. > :12:55.Greek rush to your bank today, that would be soon, you would have to be
:12:55. > :13:04.armed guards outside banks because the money would be under people's
:13:04. > :13:08.beds. It is not happening in Spain. It is officially denied. Cash
:13:08. > :13:13.deposits went up 20% increase and they are falling this year.
:13:13. > :13:18.means people will feel no hope, unable to pay the police, the army,
:13:18. > :13:20.goodness knows what will happen, they will flood north light in the
:13:20. > :13:26.Yugoslavian crisis, when our government said it was somebody
:13:26. > :13:36.else's problem to solve. If we want a million Greeks flooding into the
:13:36. > :13:41.UK, go down your road, Spain... him defend it. The Greek economy
:13:42. > :13:46.has contracted by 20% over the last years, it is due to fall 67% this
:13:46. > :13:49.year, youth unemployment is 57%, we even have neo-Nazi parties winning
:13:49. > :13:54.seats in Greek parliament. The situation there is desperate. The
:13:54. > :14:02.only hope they have got us a competitive devaluation, to have a
:14:02. > :14:06.rebirth in the tourism industry, to give their exports some chance.
:14:06. > :14:10.Those are the same scenarios that have been on the table for a long
:14:10. > :14:17.time. Is there any notion at this stage that Germany is going to
:14:17. > :14:23.finally say OK, we are going to persuade the European Central Bank
:14:23. > :14:26.to step in, we're going to prevent Greece leaving the euro to save the
:14:26. > :14:31.currency? Or is it they are working on Greece leaving, then they will
:14:31. > :14:36.try to save the rest? We might have a clear idea after this weekend.
:14:36. > :14:42.There are about 25 different elements to this story. We know the
:14:42. > :14:45.answer to some of them. The Spanish bank situation is frightening but
:14:46. > :14:53.we know what we need to do because we experience that ourselves and so
:14:53. > :15:03.did the US in 2008. You need to throw money at these banks. It
:15:03. > :15:05.
:15:05. > :15:13.Spain are now officially denying it as lies. There are not queues
:15:13. > :15:17.outside banks to take money out. Spanish banks are solvent, Spanish
:15:17. > :15:27.debt is manageable so the Spanish state, we have a Prime Minister who
:15:27. > :15:28.
:15:28. > :15:31.I agree on the British element. It is difficult for David Cameron and
:15:31. > :15:37.George Osborne to lecture other countries when Britain is part of
:15:37. > :15:42.the problem with the economic policy it is pursuing. In terms of
:15:42. > :15:46.Greece and whether it will leave the euro, I haven't a clue. We have
:15:46. > :15:51.been here about 25 times over the last year. A let me take a look at
:15:51. > :15:57.the European project, broadly. Denis McShane, you promoted it at
:15:57. > :16:05.the time. It is now endangering jobs and security for millions. Do
:16:05. > :16:11.you accept that it has failed? what has endangered jobs and
:16:11. > :16:17.security is bad banking policies. This is not just me thinking it,
:16:17. > :16:22.but the most respected commentator in Europe. In Britain, we have the
:16:22. > :16:26.weakest major economy in the world. But looking at the Eurozone, do you
:16:26. > :16:30.accept that that has failed? And not at all. I have just come back
:16:30. > :16:35.from Turkey, which would like to join Europe. If you go to eastern
:16:35. > :16:39.European countries, even Ireland, the idea that they want to return
:16:39. > :16:43.to control of their own currencies and their own national economic
:16:43. > :16:47.policies, Nigel believes in that, but I don't. You are stuck with a
:16:47. > :16:51.big idea that you believed in for decades. You can't recognise that
:16:52. > :16:58.it has gone wrong. People of Europe now want a Europe in which we trade
:16:58. > :17:03.together, but one how own national democracies. The other side of that
:17:03. > :17:07.argument is that what went wrong was that there was not a closer
:17:07. > :17:13.political and fiscal union, which might happen now, with a smaller
:17:13. > :17:17.Europe. In is unlikely. You cannot build a political union without the
:17:18. > :17:20.political consent inside that union. We tried that with Yugoslavia.
:17:20. > :17:25.Nobody in Europe has been asked whether they want most of their
:17:25. > :17:29.laws made by the European Commission. They would reject it
:17:29. > :17:32.all over Europe. It but Denis MacShane's point, recent programmes
:17:32. > :17:37.have shown that many in Greece and Ireland do not want to leave the
:17:37. > :17:45.euro. That is as it was in Argentina ten years ago. The day
:17:45. > :17:54.before they left, two thirds of people did not want to leave. The
:17:54. > :18:01.day after, they were delighted. When the opinion polls do not go
:18:01. > :18:06.your way, they are wrong. It is clearly failing. Nigel Farage, I
:18:06. > :18:09.know you feel it will not happen, but if Greece does go and maybe
:18:10. > :18:17.some of the other southern European countries, and there is a small
:18:17. > :18:20.Europe with Germany at the helm, might Britain not be more isolated?
:18:21. > :18:24.I thought the Eurozone might work in northern Europe for a time, but
:18:24. > :18:29.over the last couple of years, the competitiveness gap between France
:18:29. > :18:34.and Germany is also very wide. The whole thing will break-up. In is
:18:34. > :18:42.the price of keeping Greece in the euro worth it at whatever cost?
:18:42. > :18:45.is for the Greeks to decide. We had two elections in 1974. Some people
:18:45. > :18:51.need more than one election to get where they think they should be
:18:51. > :18:55.going. A big debate is taking place in Europe. On balance, the idea of
:18:55. > :18:59.reintroducing capital controls in countries and bringing back the
:18:59. > :19:05.drachma and the peseta would cause havoc for the 800,000 Brits living
:19:05. > :19:09.in Spain. They would be the first victims if Spain is affected by the
:19:09. > :19:16.Greek problem, which almost certainly will happen. We will work
:19:16. > :19:21.our way through this. We adopt new policies such as those that Obama
:19:21. > :19:27.and so on are calling for, or we go back into the road of the
:19:27. > :19:32.Balkanisation of Europe. We have had arguments about austerity and
:19:32. > :19:37.growth, but let's think about the G8's brief, bringing together,
:19:37. > :19:46.Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Obama - that will be DG8 on the
:19:46. > :19:52.phone! So sorry! You are forgiven. The Washington hotline has
:19:52. > :19:58.contacted me now to say exactly what Merkel is going to do.
:19:58. > :20:03.they really from such different perspectives? They are, no question.
:20:03. > :20:08.When David Cameron claims that Hollande is with him in terms of
:20:08. > :20:13.what needs to be done, that is not what Hollande himself believes. I
:20:13. > :20:18.know that from conversations he has had with others in Britain. There
:20:18. > :20:27.are very different ways in which this austerity versus Growth debate
:20:27. > :20:30.could go. When people look back, they will recognise that the media
:20:30. > :20:35.reaction in 2008 to the crisis, which was when we entered this new
:20:35. > :20:41.era, the country's broadly got it right. Obama and Brown, who is not
:20:41. > :20:49.allowed to be mentioned these days, and others, persuaded Merkel to
:20:49. > :20:54.introduce a short-term fiscal stimulus. And Sarkozy. But since,
:20:54. > :20:58.this austerity package within Europe and Britain has stifled the
:20:58. > :21:06.small amount of growth that surfaced after the 2008 crisis.
:21:06. > :21:13.Angela Merkel will not be persuaded. She will not go for the euro bonds,
:21:13. > :21:18.which is David Cameron's idea. big worry is, one reaction in
:21:19. > :21:21.Greece might be to cancel the arms deal with Germany. That is what
:21:21. > :21:27.happens when you have the Balkanisation of national economies.
:21:27. > :21:32.They stop trading with each other. I have to say goodbye to you.
:21:32. > :21:37.Wiedersehen. British voters have backed UK
:21:37. > :21:41.membership of the European Union in a referendum, but that was in 1975,
:21:41. > :21:44.37 years ago. Now the People's Pledge campaign is trying to put
:21:44. > :21:48.pressure on the Government to hold a new referendum on whether we
:21:48. > :21:52.should stay in the EU. Claiming Europhile as well as Euro-sceptic
:21:52. > :21:56.support, backers range from Tory MPs Mark Reckless and Priti Patel
:21:56. > :22:00.to Caroline Lucas of the Greens and Labour's new policy chief Jon
:22:00. > :22:06.Cruddas. The group held their own mini referendum on the issue in the
:22:06. > :22:09.Essex constituency of Thurrock, where 30% of electors returned
:22:09. > :22:13.ballads and 89% backed the campaign. This morning, they announced plans
:22:13. > :22:17.to hold prefer the votes in the neighbouring Lib Dem help seeds of
:22:17. > :22:21.Manchester Withington, Cheadle and Hazel Grove. With the possibility
:22:21. > :22:24.of a vote on EU membership being taken increasingly seriously by all
:22:24. > :22:29.the political parties, the politicians will be watching with
:22:29. > :22:34.interest. We are joined now by the director of communications for the
:22:34. > :22:40.People's Pledge campaign, Ian Mackenzie. And Anne McElvoy has
:22:40. > :22:44.also made it. Ian, do you want Britain to leave the EU or stay in?
:22:44. > :22:48.The People's Pledge does not have a position on that. We have people
:22:48. > :22:52.from pro Europe and anti-Europe. Personally, I am a Europhile, but I
:22:52. > :22:56.want to take the politics out of it. The British people should decide on
:22:56. > :23:01.our relationship with our European neighbours, not the political
:23:01. > :23:06.parties. It you look at a lot of the polling evidence,
:23:06. > :23:11.overwhelmingly, people seem to be more Euro-sceptic. Not necessarily.
:23:11. > :23:17.15% are in favour of staying in without question. 47% in the middle
:23:17. > :23:23.want to renegotiate on some level. We should clear matters up with a
:23:23. > :23:33.referendum so that after 37 years, people have the chance of a say.
:23:33. > :23:34.
:23:34. > :23:39.Looking at the results, in the name, would you accept that the people
:23:39. > :23:44.who would respond to a referendum like that would be those motivated
:23:44. > :23:48.by wanting to leave the EU? For at the moment, I can't deny that the
:23:48. > :23:52.centre of gravity is clearly Euro- sceptic, certainly in therapy. It
:23:52. > :23:55.depends where you go, of course. But for the last few decades, we
:23:55. > :24:00.have had Nigel Farage and chaps on the Euro-sceptic wing arguing
:24:00. > :24:07.against it. And the air time for pro-Europeans barely happens.
:24:07. > :24:12.you think if there was more of a debate, the Euro-sceptics have
:24:12. > :24:17.dominated the argument. So you have chosen these three constituencies
:24:17. > :24:22.next. Why those three? Were looked at different options. Many factors
:24:22. > :24:27.were involved - the politics of the MPs and the local parties, our
:24:27. > :24:34.local support, psephology, local statistics. There are all Lib Dem.
:24:34. > :24:41.No particular reason for that? have a Labour MP and a Conservative
:24:41. > :24:48.MP launching a campaign. The smart be music to your ears. I agree. The
:24:48. > :24:51.more people that recognise that that referendum that seven years
:24:51. > :24:55.ago was not about the European Union. My parents did not vote for
:24:55. > :25:00.that, they voted to stay part of a Common Market, a very different
:25:00. > :25:04.thing to what we have today. The more debate there is, the better.
:25:04. > :25:09.Anne McElvoy, does it test the temperature of people in terms of
:25:09. > :25:13.wanting a referendum? Bitch should certainly test the temperature. But
:25:13. > :25:17.I am not clear up what it is a referendum on. When he and talks
:25:17. > :25:21.about it clarify our relations, if you are going to do that, you could
:25:21. > :25:25.have done that at many points. The Lisbon Treaty might have been the
:25:25. > :25:30.moment to do it, but there was not the political will to go ahead. At
:25:31. > :25:34.the moment, it is hard to say what the EU will be very shortly. So
:25:34. > :25:38.there is a charity issues that face us this campaign, which is what are
:25:38. > :25:43.you asking people to vote on? From a Europhile position, you want
:25:43. > :25:47.people to renegotiate. You can't have a referendum asking if we can
:25:47. > :25:52.renegotiate. Referendums give you clear and blunt outcomes. You are
:25:52. > :25:58.muddying the waters if you bring in renegotiation. It is either out or
:25:58. > :26:01.in on the terms on the table. Firstly, we are not talking about
:26:01. > :26:05.renegotiating now. We would want to focus on the crisis. The next
:26:05. > :26:08.Parliament would be the time to do it. A referendum requires a
:26:08. > :26:13.referendum Act, which needs a referendum bill, and that requires
:26:13. > :26:18.consent among the parties. That can only happened after a general
:26:18. > :26:22.election. But that he may look different by then. Let's find out.
:26:22. > :26:28.But you should find out, because you are putting this before the
:26:28. > :26:33.people. I have a problem with the principle of referendums. Firstly,
:26:33. > :26:38.they don't change anything for very long. If you look at the 1975
:26:38. > :26:46.referendum, by 1979 onwards, Labour were arguing to pull out of the
:26:46. > :26:50.European Union or the Common Market, as it was. The other thing is, it
:26:51. > :26:54.is always used in Britain - I know Nigel has been campaigning for it
:26:54. > :26:59.for a long time - for party political reasons. I bet Labour
:26:59. > :27:05.will adopt a referendum proposal, but it will be partly to
:27:05. > :27:13.outmanoeuvre the Tories. It is always done for the wrong reason. I
:27:13. > :27:21.am a referendum sceptic. They are promised and never held. What would
:27:21. > :27:25.be the point of UKIP after that? we have a referendum and we vote to
:27:25. > :27:30.leave the European Union, that will be day one of Britain being able to
:27:30. > :27:35.renew herself, to fulfil a global role. We are the only party putting
:27:35. > :27:41.together policies for how Britain could be run them. And the end what
:27:41. > :27:45.will you do? Get a proper job. are coming to that in a moment.
:27:45. > :27:48.Now, the leader of the Greens is standing down from the job,
:27:48. > :27:52.although she will stay on as an MP. Caroline Lucas says she is doing it
:27:52. > :27:56.so that other members of her party can raise their profiles, but can
:27:56. > :28:06.the smaller parties ever get over the problem that sometimes their
:28:06. > :28:09.
:28:09. > :28:15.leaders are bigger than they are? Let's call it the Gulliver dilemma.
:28:15. > :28:19.What do you do if you are a big political figure, but your party is
:28:19. > :28:23.a bit small? That question has been posed after the Greens' any MP,
:28:23. > :28:28.Caroline Lucas, announced that she is standing down as the party's
:28:28. > :28:31.leader so that others can share the limelight. The problem a lot of
:28:32. > :28:35.small parties have is that their leader becomes huge in political
:28:35. > :28:38.terms, and there is a vacuum below them. The danger for the Greens
:28:38. > :28:42.would be that they became more about Caroline Lucas and not the
:28:42. > :28:46.rest of the party. It is an opportunity for someone else to
:28:46. > :28:52.step forward. Sadly for UKIP, when their leader Nigel Farage decided
:28:52. > :28:55.to stand down, the person who stepped forward was Lord Pearson.
:28:55. > :29:00.Has he read your manifesto? A course. You don't seem familiar
:29:00. > :29:05.with it. I had not read it all in detail. He did not come to talk
:29:05. > :29:08.about your manifesto? I did, but not in the detailed... Of whether I
:29:08. > :29:15.have talked to some policemen in some car park. Which is why Mr
:29:15. > :29:20.Farage returned pretty soon afterwards. Although sometimes, it
:29:20. > :29:26.is help for having a boss who is famous. I have seen you on the
:29:26. > :29:32.telly. Rob it Kilroy-Silk launched veritas in 2000 and pets five, and
:29:32. > :29:36.then left. Can you name their current leader? And the referendum
:29:36. > :29:41.Party of the late '90s may be a gift -- distant memory, but the
:29:41. > :29:50.high profile of their founder, Sir James Goldsmith, helped them secure
:29:50. > :29:55.around 800,000 votes at a general election. Celebrity can sometimes
:29:55. > :30:00.create confusion, though. Many think George Galloway's the leader
:30:00. > :30:05.of Respect. He is not, he is just a humble MP. It is easy to make fun
:30:05. > :30:10.of these people who tower over their party. But underestimate them
:30:10. > :30:13.at your peril. They help set the agenda for the larger parties.
:30:13. > :30:18.Whereas no one would pretend that UKIP will be a major electoral
:30:18. > :30:22.force, the influence of UKIP is felt more in terms of how the other
:30:22. > :30:26.parties react. Ditto with the Greens. They have certainly managed
:30:27. > :30:31.to ensure that their agenda, albeit from their perspective watered down,
:30:31. > :30:34.is now a permanent part of the three main parties. There may be
:30:34. > :30:38.all this talk about the Bishop distracting from the fact that all
:30:38. > :30:42.parties, no matter what size they are, need enough little people to
:30:42. > :30:52.do the difficult work, things like knocking on doors. Wheel size
:30:52. > :30:53.
:30:53. > :30:56.Nigel Farage are still with us. Small parties benefit from having a
:30:56. > :31:00.larger than life of vocal leader like yourself. More many smaller
:31:00. > :31:04.parties are founded by somebody, drawn from the top and support
:31:04. > :31:10.comes up towards the leader and you see this across Europe. In this
:31:10. > :31:12.country I would argue UKIP is different, the Greens are similar,
:31:12. > :31:18.where grass roots movement where the support for the party bubbles
:31:18. > :31:25.up from the bottom. There has never been a dominant figure. What?!
:31:25. > :31:35.There was briefly with that suntan follow -- fellow. I beg to differ.
:31:35. > :31:35.
:31:35. > :31:41.You what the dominant figure. -- you are. If I were to fall under a
:31:41. > :31:48.bus, have a crash, who knows? If I disappeared tomorrow, UKIP would
:31:48. > :31:53.not disappear. The up we be as successful? For many people you are
:31:53. > :31:56.UKIP. We are a grassroots organisation, 300 branches in the
:31:56. > :32:01.country, I might be the dominant figure at the moment but it is
:32:01. > :32:05.about more than me. But if you were to step aside for whatever reason,
:32:05. > :32:08.where are the next generation of UKIP leaders? There are a couple of
:32:09. > :32:12.people that could do the job now actually, people have been elected
:32:12. > :32:16.to European Parliament, gained political experience. It would not
:32:16. > :32:25.be easy but it never is. Why did not come into this as a known
:32:25. > :32:30.celebrity, I came to this as a nobody. I had to work at it.
:32:30. > :32:36.Hooker takeover now? Can you think of somebody? -- who could takeover
:32:36. > :32:39.now. I would struggle with that because as you say it is grassroots,
:32:39. > :32:44.you have good women associated with other things, known for campaigning
:32:44. > :32:48.on those issues. They are UKIP but not really associated in the public
:32:48. > :32:56.mind with it. You also have powerful figures who like to stay a
:32:56. > :33:01.bit behind the scenes. You have funders, grassroots, but what tends
:33:01. > :33:09.to happen is that somebody emerges who can catch the public
:33:09. > :33:14.imagination as you have, then it is very difficult when you go. It will
:33:14. > :33:17.not be easy to say I am moving out of the way for Caroline Lucas and
:33:17. > :33:22.somebody steps in. But is not how small parties work. What effect
:33:22. > :33:28.will it have on the greens of Caroline stepping down? Would
:33:28. > :33:33.smaller parties, although the leader's personality is important,
:33:33. > :33:41.and you are one of the great media performers in that... We are being
:33:41. > :33:47.so nice to! Forget about him! issue for the smaller parties is
:33:47. > :33:50.the issue they are identified with and how salient it is. That was
:33:50. > :33:55.arranged in question, if Nigel gets this referendum and Britain votes
:33:55. > :34:00.to stay in the European Union, what role then just for Nigel but for
:34:00. > :34:05.UKIP? Similarly for the Greens, when Caroline Lucas got that see
:34:05. > :34:09.the environment was one of the big issues before the recession.
:34:09. > :34:13.Weather remains as salient in the economic doldrums is a bigger issue
:34:13. > :34:18.when parties are associated with one particular policy area. I think
:34:18. > :34:24.their fate is more dependent on the policy area they are associated
:34:24. > :34:27.with. That may have been true, certainly a few years ago. But over
:34:27. > :34:32.the last few years we have broadened and people are voting for
:34:32. > :34:35.us in local elections. No electoral success has not been great. We do
:34:35. > :34:39.look at our progress in local elections just a couple of weeks
:34:39. > :34:44.ago people are going out and voting for us for more reasons than just
:34:44. > :34:50.the European question. A accept that question now was so salient at
:34:50. > :34:56.the top of the agenda. Let's look as some other nationalist parties.
:34:56. > :35:00.Look at Alex Salmond, not a small party but does that apply in the
:35:00. > :35:05.same way? No question. What did they have the referendum in
:35:05. > :35:11.Scotland and there was a boat to keep the union? I don't think I
:35:11. > :35:14.agree. I don't think Alex Salmond will go up for something you the
:35:14. > :35:24.things that will be the outcome, he will shaded towards an endless
:35:24. > :35:28.progression towards deep Lomax and He will keep pushing for more
:35:28. > :35:37.Scottish Power's and it does have bass drum and bass in the
:35:37. > :35:41.electorate. He could miss time it and get the wrong result. I would
:35:41. > :35:47.be surprised if we went back here and there was some SNP to be
:35:47. > :35:51.dealing with. The decline may be. We always bring you great political
:35:51. > :35:54.TV for free. So today we are going to be something Vos. After the
:35:54. > :35:59.programme go to your nearest computer, go on the internet and
:35:59. > :36:09.fill in an online survey run by the University of Strathclyde to test
:36:09. > :36:17.
:36:17. > :36:19.how the nation really feels. Here How was the country feeling? The
:36:19. > :36:26.question of researchers at Strathclyde University are trying
:36:26. > :36:29.to answer would their survey. You log on anonymously, say where you
:36:29. > :36:35.are, answer a few questions and 15 minutes later the website will then
:36:35. > :36:39.take you where you are on the optimism scale. How do you feel
:36:39. > :36:44.about the events taking place around due, difficult circumstances,
:36:44. > :36:53.economic change, constitutional change, political change? How do
:36:53. > :37:00.they make you feel? Happy, nervous, when do things about pride? We are
:37:00. > :37:04.trying to get that sense. What you feel, rather than what you think.
:37:05. > :37:09.The is is the address to go to... We will bring you the result in a
:37:10. > :37:18.few weeks. Trust me, this is not your average online questionnaire.
:37:18. > :37:27.We look forward to it. The Web address for back survey is on our
:37:28. > :37:31.Facebook page. Now, the government are consulting on plans to increase
:37:31. > :37:34.the speed limit on motorways and some dual carriageways to 80 miles
:37:34. > :37:36.per hour, up from today's limit of 70. They say the current limit has
:37:36. > :37:39.been discredited because most drivers routinely exceed it and
:37:39. > :37:42.also claim it will have economic benefits. Road safety campaigners
:37:42. > :37:46.take a different view saying the change will inevitably lead to more
:37:46. > :37:49.fatalities. So, who's right? We're joined by Julie Townsend, Deputy
:37:49. > :37:54.Chief Executive of Brake and motoring journalist and former Top
:37:55. > :37:58.Gear presenter Chris Goffey. Julie, what is your worry on this? We are
:37:58. > :38:02.desperately concerned that if we see motorway speed limit increased
:38:02. > :38:07.we will see more devastating crashes and casualties on the roads.
:38:07. > :38:10.We have a range of evidence that indicate even a small increase in
:38:10. > :38:15.average speeds on our motorways will mean more people being
:38:15. > :38:19.needlessly and violently killed, more people being injured and this
:38:19. > :38:23.increases the burden on health and emergency services so it has
:38:23. > :38:29.economic repercussions and increased emissions as well.
:38:29. > :38:32.sounds like a terrible idea. A does, doesn't it? You can't argue with
:38:32. > :38:37.Brake, they're a great charity you have done great work. They were
:38:37. > :38:43.founded because a lady was killed in her car by a tanker that had did
:38:43. > :38:49.to -- had defective brakes. Since then they have campaigned for HTVs
:38:49. > :38:53.to be safer. But this does not affect HTVs, they will keep going
:38:53. > :38:56.at 56 miles an hour, their limit. But the rest of us are driving
:38:56. > :39:03.Rotimi at 80 miles an hour, being tolerated by police because our
:39:03. > :39:07.cars have moved on since 1965 when the limit came in. Sir it would
:39:07. > :39:12.just formalise what happens anyway, most people drive within that 10
:39:12. > :39:17.mile per hour grace that is given to them. We have not seen the sort
:39:17. > :39:26.of thing you have described over the last 10 years. All on the
:39:26. > :39:31.contrary, our fatalities have come rocketing down. -- on the contrary.
:39:31. > :39:35.2010 was the best year ever for casualties in the UK. We have seen
:39:35. > :39:39.casualties fall dramatically, thankfully, in recent decades. Part
:39:39. > :39:48.of the reason for that is improved compliance with speed limits across
:39:48. > :39:54.our roads. No. Mo is people flout as 70 mile limit. A lot of people
:39:54. > :39:57.do. It is only a minority that get up to 80 at any given time. In any
:39:57. > :40:01.case, we would argue that just because we have people breaking the
:40:01. > :40:07.law at present does not mean that law is wrong, all we should raise
:40:08. > :40:11.it. We have this evidence, academic research which shows if we raise
:40:11. > :40:15.the limits we would see an increase in average speeds and we will
:40:15. > :40:19.therefore seem more crashes and casualties. What about a bit was
:40:19. > :40:22.enforced properly at 80 mph, if there was not that ten-mile grace,
:40:22. > :40:30.you have audit sceptred fatalities have come down, would you be happy
:40:30. > :40:33.with that? We would like to see improved speed enforcement on the
:40:33. > :40:39.motorways, we don't want to see that accompanied with an increase
:40:39. > :40:44.in the maximum speed limit. In fact, there has been a study which looked
:40:45. > :40:48.at this option of raising the limit and improving enforcement, it
:40:48. > :40:51.looked at introduced in 100 more average speed cameras across the
:40:51. > :40:54.network and raising the limit. They still found an increasing
:40:54. > :40:57.casualties. We would argue we should be coming at this from the
:40:57. > :41:03.other direction, how to improve safety and speed management and
:41:03. > :41:06.deliver the economic benefits associated with it. So the economic
:41:06. > :41:10.benefits that have been talked about, is that a bit overblown,
:41:10. > :41:15.that if we could drive faster there would be no traffic and the economy
:41:15. > :41:19.would be doing better? I don't think it is a huge economic
:41:19. > :41:22.argument, average speed journey times will not come down that much
:41:22. > :41:26.but it is the practicality of everyday life on the motorway and
:41:27. > :41:34.the fact that cars are so much safer, the technology has come on
:41:34. > :41:40.so far since the 70 limit was introduced that we are reasonable
:41:40. > :41:44.people driving at the sensible cruising speed of our cars. Do you
:41:44. > :41:50.drive too fast? S certainly did when I came back from living in
:41:50. > :41:54.Germany where there is effectively no speed limit. I learnt my lesson,
:41:54. > :42:04.I got my points and I'd learned by lesson. I am sceptical about this
:42:04. > :42:08.change because what I have seen in Germany is that people will drive
:42:08. > :42:14.faster, that is the thing I would worry about in Britain, we are used
:42:14. > :42:20.to that 10% give, fatalities are higher, and if there is a crash the
:42:20. > :42:24.chance of fatalities becomes much higher. I think that is a
:42:24. > :42:34.reasonable thing for the state to get involved in trying to keep it
:42:34. > :42:36.
:42:36. > :42:40.down. I don't see it as an attack on my liberty. Is there a point at
:42:40. > :42:45.which you say why don't you bring it down to 60, if it is so
:42:45. > :42:49.dangerous, why stop at 70? You could say let's pitch it at 50. Is
:42:49. > :42:54.there an ideal point at which the number of deaths are acceptable?
:42:55. > :42:58.Having made a strong argument for the nanny state earlier in the
:42:58. > :43:08.programme, I disagree with that, I am quite relaxed about the speed
:43:08. > :43:09.
:43:09. > :43:14.limit going up. Simply because... You have a fast car. A don't have a
:43:14. > :43:17.fast car. Whenever I buy a car people say it goes tour hundred and
:43:17. > :43:22.142 minutes. Obviously cars are more technologically developed
:43:22. > :43:26.since the 1960s and everybody does it so it really does not bother me
:43:26. > :43:34.that much if they formalise it. I do not think that will mean people
:43:34. > :43:40.then go from 80 to 90. Are you so sure about that? Every year in
:43:40. > :43:42.Germany I drove a bit faster and I really had to rehabilitate myself.
:43:42. > :43:50.They dread that extraordinary speeds there because there is no
:43:50. > :43:54.constraint. We are going back to Europe here! No more! Now, have you
:43:54. > :43:58.ever sent a text or an email to the wrong person? Can be a bit
:43:58. > :44:02.embarrassing, can't it? Well, how embarrassing depends on who you
:44:02. > :44:07.send it to and if they pass it on. It happened to Labour whip Lyn
:44:07. > :44:12.Brown yesterday. Take a look at this. My honourable friend, the
:44:12. > :44:15.government's Treasury whip, just received this text, a Labour Whip
:44:15. > :44:19.saying Please Please come to the chamber for the start of the final
:44:19. > :44:29.day of the Queen's Speech today, Ed Balls is opening for us and really
:44:29. > :44:37.
:44:37. > :44:40.I'd give way to the lady who said the text! Can I explain to the
:44:40. > :44:50.honourable gentleman that we have a very different and more effective
:44:50. > :44:52.way of whipping our benches than he clearly has on his. Finally, to do
:44:52. > :44:56.with the economy, the Chancellor needs to pay more attention to
:44:56. > :45:06.detail because that was not the right reading of the text. Indeed,
:45:06. > :45:10.it was not accurate, just like much else he does. The Labour Party
:45:10. > :45:16.certainly does have a different whipping operation, they send their
:45:16. > :45:26.information to the other political party! How best to avoid those
:45:26. > :45:28.
:45:28. > :45:31.awkward moments? Giles still what With most politicians having some
:45:31. > :45:36.kind of electronic device, you'd think they would be technologically
:45:36. > :45:40.savvy, but some don't know their apps from their e-mail. Here is my
:45:40. > :45:44.guide to using electronic devices. While rallying your backbenchers,
:45:44. > :45:49.pay attention to the mobile phone number you are texting. A couple of
:45:49. > :45:53.digits amiss, and you could be handing the opposition a cyber coup.
:45:53. > :45:57.Why she had the other mobile number is something of a mystery.
:45:57. > :46:02.When tweeting about leaks to journalists, make sure that hush-
:46:02. > :46:06.hush info is sent as a private message. Chris Huhne wrote someone
:46:06. > :46:09.saying that he didn't want his fingerprints all over the story.
:46:09. > :46:13.Unfortunately, it was posted to thousands of his followers and
:46:13. > :46:16.retweeted to thousands more. Linger on your lingo before
:46:16. > :46:20.pressing cent. Former News International executive Rebekah
:46:20. > :46:25.Brooks reveal to the Leveson inquiry that David Cameron had
:46:25. > :46:31.signed off text messages aloe well, apparently thinking it meant lots
:46:31. > :46:35.of love. Don't let the office in turn get
:46:35. > :46:40.their hands on your Twitter account. An intern in Tom Watson's office
:46:40. > :46:44.caused consternation by logging on as Tom and using inappropriate and
:46:44. > :46:49.controversial language. And context, darling, context.
:46:49. > :46:54.Britain doesn't have any, so do you really want to post that tweet?
:46:54. > :47:02.Diane Abbott was accused of racism after saying that white people love
:47:02. > :47:08.playing divide and rule. She was forced to apologise.
:47:08. > :47:18.We are joined by Labour MP and confirmed Luddite Stephen Pound. Is
:47:18. > :47:21.that your new title? Embarrassing for Lyn Brown, wasn't it? You can
:47:21. > :47:25.come a cropper with tweeting, particularly in the Wapping
:47:25. > :47:31.operation. Were that true, it would be embarrassing, but it is a load
:47:31. > :47:37.of cobblers. I don't know what the rules about calling MP a lie are
:47:37. > :47:44.outside the chamber. It is on parliamentary inside the chamber. -
:47:44. > :47:47.- unparliamentary. Her I happen to have here in my hand - this is what
:47:47. > :47:50.the word - please come to the chamber for the start of the final
:47:50. > :47:53.day of the Queen's Speech. Ed Balls has opening for us. We have
:47:53. > :48:00.dominated so far. It is important to finish with a strong, confident
:48:00. > :48:06.finish. There is nothing there about "help out poor Ed". Ed was
:48:06. > :48:12.tearing strips off George Osborne. He was marvellous. He was in
:48:12. > :48:16.Godzilla mode. Hasn't this exposed the darker arts of whooping and
:48:16. > :48:21.political spin for what they are? Where there you read that out as
:48:21. > :48:24.the truth, as you say, or it is paraphrased by George Osborne, it
:48:24. > :48:29.just shows what goes on behind the scenes. That makes it a dangerous
:48:29. > :48:34.tool. It is different from the old dark arts of Wapping, which were
:48:34. > :48:36.more physical than electronic. It was like the last day of the
:48:37. > :48:40.football season. Everyone was watching their football team and
:48:40. > :48:47.listening to other matches going on. And in the chamber nowadays, it is
:48:47. > :48:53.like a group of penitence at prayer. You see these heads bent over these
:48:53. > :48:58.things, getting information. The other day, suddenly everybody was
:48:58. > :49:02.talking about Kenny Dalglish. You can't concentrate. Is it a bad
:49:02. > :49:05.thing in that sense, that you are keeping up so much of the time - I
:49:05. > :49:10.do it myself - you are inching through the stories as they
:49:10. > :49:15.happened, and it detracts from what is going on at the time? It becomes
:49:15. > :49:19.part of what is going on. This is what is weird at the moment. Prime
:49:19. > :49:23.Minister's Question Time is really interesting, because you see the
:49:23. > :49:26.press people of Cameron and Miliband looking at their iPads and
:49:26. > :49:30.phones to see what the Twitter verdicts are on Cameron and
:49:30. > :49:34.Miliband. So the two leaders know immediately when they leave the
:49:34. > :49:44.Chamber of whether they have robbed or been a success. I keep getting
:49:44. > :49:45.
:49:45. > :49:50.messages in real time in PMQs from the teams, pointing out things that
:49:50. > :49:58.are on Twitter. That has accelerated massively since Stephen
:49:58. > :50:02.and I started watching. Have you made any terrible faux pas?
:50:02. > :50:08.remember surprising some so-called followers. It is very dangerous to
:50:08. > :50:12.do it when you have had a few drinks. That applies to many things.
:50:12. > :50:18.But with Twitter, you forget that it is a public forum after a vat of
:50:18. > :50:21.wine or two. I have tweeted in these circumstances. And people
:50:21. > :50:27.have expressed surprise at the messages. I will not reveal what
:50:27. > :50:33.they were. We want to know! Then I looked to see if I had any replies,
:50:33. > :50:37.and they said "rather surprised at that comment, blah, blah, blah". I
:50:37. > :50:41.was going to explain that I was completely... Plastered. Should it
:50:41. > :50:46.be avoided? Tony Blair had the right idea. He still wrote with a
:50:46. > :50:52.quill pen, but he did not send e- mails. He would not have had a
:50:52. > :50:56.Leveson moment in that sense. but as we saw with the Hutton
:50:56. > :51:00.Inquiry and many other post-mortems on the Labour government, once
:51:00. > :51:05.everyone started e-mailing each other, the next step would be that
:51:05. > :51:13.you did it on Twitter on social networks, so you can't stop it. And
:51:13. > :51:17.you can make a mistake when you are doing it in a hurry. This was a
:51:17. > :51:22.slightly pleading tone to the text. It was only intended to be seen by
:51:22. > :51:27.supporters, but seen from the other side, it is funny, like it was when
:51:28. > :51:36.I e-mailed my boss and left a list of things. And she said, I don't
:51:36. > :51:43.think this is for me. It was for the cleaner. Lyn Brown, that is her
:51:43. > :51:48.style. She does not do robotic tones. That is the danger. That is
:51:48. > :51:54.the point. I am still trying to work out how Greg got hold of it.
:51:54. > :51:58.That is for you to find out. I have got Gregg's on my speed dire!
:51:58. > :52:01.senior politician said to me that in the age of Twitter, nothing is
:52:01. > :52:07.off the record. Work on the assumption that everything will be
:52:07. > :52:12.known. That is what they said when e-mail came in. Let's go back to
:52:12. > :52:17.the quills. If we had a quill, we would give it to you as a parting
:52:17. > :52:21.gift, but we don't. Thank you very much.
:52:21. > :52:25.Now, in case you have not been paying attention, time to catch up
:52:25. > :52:32.on the political Week That Was. Here is Susana Mendonca with the
:52:32. > :52:34.week in 60 seconds. The new French President might have
:52:35. > :52:38.wondered whether the thunder was trying to tell him something this
:52:38. > :52:42.week. First it rained on his victory parade. Then a lightning
:52:43. > :52:45.bolt struck his plane while he was heading to meet Angela Merkel. The
:52:45. > :52:49.German Chancellor was trying to steer Francois Hollande in her
:52:50. > :52:54.direction on growth in the Eurozone. David Cameron had his own advice.
:52:54. > :53:00.It either has to make up, or it is looking at a break-up. Theresa May
:53:00. > :53:05.felt the force of the law as she faced police off the beat. Wasn't
:53:05. > :53:10.that an awkward backdrop? The Hunter became the hunted in the
:53:10. > :53:14.hacking saga, as Rebekah Brooks and her husband faced charges of
:53:14. > :53:19.conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Unjust, they claimed.
:53:19. > :53:23.ratchet up the pressure on my wife, who is the subject of a witch-hunt.
:53:23. > :53:27.Played a seemed to tilt to the left in Ed Miliband's Mini reshuffle.
:53:27. > :53:34.And David Cameron revealed that his favourite album is Pink Floyd's
:53:34. > :53:39.backside of the moon. Is that another economic doom metaphor?
:53:39. > :53:42.That Was the Week That Was. Anne McElvoy, why don't we do a bit on
:53:42. > :53:46.growth, since you missed the beginning? We were talking about
:53:46. > :53:50.the rhetoric and everybody commented after David Cameron's
:53:50. > :53:54.speech that his rhetoric has changed. Is it heartfelt, or is it
:53:54. > :53:58.just to chime with Francois Hollande's arrival?
:53:58. > :54:02.government's position has always been more adaptive on this than it
:54:02. > :54:07.wanted to headline. It wanted to have clear blue water with Labour
:54:07. > :54:11.by saying "we are the party not afraid to do this austerity cutting
:54:11. > :54:15.thing properly". And then, as that has become less proven to be
:54:15. > :54:25.popular, we don't know if it will work in the long run, but at the
:54:25. > :54:29.moment the fashion is that Francois Hollande has come in on the left.
:54:29. > :54:33.This has always been a flexible proposition. They did increase
:54:33. > :54:37.spending and some point, and they also used quantitative easing, but
:54:37. > :54:40.they put out the message that they were super tough. They did not say
:54:40. > :54:45.they were super flexible, so we are now seeing that side. People will
:54:45. > :54:52.be confused. That is one reason why Labour's poll ratings on the
:54:52. > :54:56.economy have risen in the last week. Labour have pulled ahead in a
:54:56. > :55:03.significant way now. Some might say it is about time, bearing in mind
:55:03. > :55:07.what is going on in the economy. It was posed Budget that the big pull
:55:07. > :55:12.away happened. Is it that, or is it that people just don't believe the
:55:12. > :55:14.austerity message any more? Bearing in mind that we have been in
:55:15. > :55:20.difficult times for the last two years, why have Labour pulled
:55:20. > :55:24.ahead? De events of recent weeks have created a sense that the
:55:24. > :55:28.coalition and Cameron and Osborne in particular are not as competent
:55:29. > :55:32.as people thought. When you have doubts about competence, you then
:55:32. > :55:39.question the fundamental argument about the economic policy. And that
:55:39. > :55:47.gives them a chance to say, hold on a second, and in some cases turn
:55:47. > :55:51.back to Labour or least give them a hearing. But I do not think this is
:55:51. > :55:56.necessarily just a mid-term phenomenon. The local elections
:55:56. > :56:01.were interesting in their spread of Labour support. They are the only
:56:01. > :56:08.party now with support around the UK. If they are clever, they could
:56:08. > :56:13.use that to give themselves a new and credible picture. And it is not
:56:13. > :56:18.just the public. The timing has also been interesting, coincidental
:56:18. > :56:21.or not, of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair, who have been quiet since Ed
:56:21. > :56:26.Miliband became leader of the Labour Party. But now they want to
:56:26. > :56:29.re-enter the domestic political scene. They believe Ed Miliband
:56:29. > :56:33.could be a future prime minister? Are I am not sure if they do
:56:33. > :56:37.believe that, but they think it is a possibility. And they both have
:56:37. > :56:47.reasons for wanting to get their own profile back up again domestic
:56:47. > :56:49.
:56:49. > :56:54.kick. -- domestically. These five- year terms are very long. So it is
:56:54. > :56:58.all right to flounce out for a while. Then you suddenly think,
:56:58. > :57:01.during year three or four, maybe there are things they want to say.
:57:02. > :57:07.Mr Blair needs to reconnect with the domestic electorate for the
:57:07. > :57:10.sake of his own standing. It is true that they would not come back
:57:10. > :57:15.if Ed Miliband looked like an absolute basket case. Do you think
:57:15. > :57:18.he could be a future prime minister? When you ask me that
:57:18. > :57:25.directly, I still have difficulty seeing him on the steps of Number
:57:25. > :57:29.10. Leadership is his weakness. He is very bright and broad in the way
:57:29. > :57:34.he handles things. He has a good temperament, but he does not look
:57:34. > :57:37.like a confident leader. He needs to grab moments such as the great
:57:37. > :57:41.result in the local elections. Was the speech he gave after the best
:57:41. > :57:46.speech he could have given? He misses moments. Leaders need to
:57:46. > :57:49.catch moments. Find a look, look at this and see if you can work out
:57:49. > :57:51.why Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt is losing it on the floor of the House of
:57:52. > :58:01.Commons? We will announce our conclusion
:58:02. > :58:03.
:58:03. > :58:09.shortly. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sorry. Right. Was it something I
:58:09. > :58:13.said? I hope not. I look forward to hearing the honourable lady.
:58:13. > :58:17.you spot what happened? If not, here is a second chance from
:58:17. > :58:20.another angle. Keep your eye on Charles Hendry at the dispatch box
:58:20. > :58:30.on the left-hand side of the screen. We will announce our conclusion
:58:30. > :58:31.
:58:31. > :58:35.shortly. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Oh, dear. If you did not spot it,
:58:36. > :58:39.Charles Hendry, the energy minister, managed to sit down on top of his
:58:39. > :58:43.boss, Lib Dem climate change Secretary of State Ed Davey. No
:58:43. > :58:48.wonder Tessa Munt lost it. And Ed Davey will be one of Andrew's
:58:48. > :58:51.guests this Sunday on the Sunday Politics at noon on BBC One. See