:00:49. > :00:53.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Despite the current state of the
:00:53. > :00:56.world economy it was all smiles at the G20 summit in Mexico, but what
:00:56. > :01:04.can they actually achieve? It used to be that a job in the civil
:01:04. > :01:08.service was a job for life. Not any more. Later today the government
:01:08. > :01:11.will say it wants to run Whitehall more like a business and make it
:01:11. > :01:19.easier to sack staff, so is this a "very brave move" by ministers?
:01:19. > :01:22.Cheaper childcare. All working parents want it, the government
:01:22. > :01:26.thinks it knows how to get it. We'll look at the details. And is
:01:26. > :01:30.it time to Go Dutch? We'll look at the calls for our towns and cities
:01:30. > :01:33.to become a cyclist's best friend. All that in the next hour. And with
:01:33. > :01:38.us for the whole programme today is the Guardian journalist, author and
:01:38. > :01:41.chairman of the National Trust to boot, Simon Jenkins. Today world
:01:41. > :01:44.leaders are preparing for their second day of talks at the Mexican
:01:44. > :01:46.resort of Los Cabos... Poor things. The economic crisis in Europe is
:01:46. > :01:49.naturally dominating proceedings. World leaders have urged Europe to
:01:49. > :01:52.take all necessary steps to deal with the problems. However, the
:01:52. > :01:55.talks were last night in danger of deteriorating into a damaging row
:01:55. > :01:57.after comments from the President of the European Commission Jose
:01:57. > :02:03.Manuel Barroso. Speaking to journalists Mr Barroso said the
:02:03. > :02:12.crisis in Europe was, in fact, the fault of American banks. This
:02:12. > :02:19.crisis was not originated in Europe, North America, but in North America.
:02:19. > :02:23.Many of our financial sector were contaminated a buy, how can I put
:02:24. > :02:27.it, unorthodox practice from some sectors of the financial market.
:02:28. > :02:32.But we are not coming here to receive lessons in terms of
:02:32. > :02:36.democracy, or how to handle the economy because it the European
:02:36. > :02:41.Union has a model we should be proud of. We're not complacent
:02:41. > :02:47.about the difficulties, we are open, I wish all partners were so open
:02:47. > :02:57.about their own difficulties. We are engaging with partners but
:02:57. > :02:57.
:02:57. > :03:01.we're not coming here to receive lessons from anybody. He lost it a
:03:01. > :03:04.bit there. Is he right though, should people in North America not
:03:04. > :03:09.try to dictate to Europe when it was their fault the crisis started
:03:09. > :03:15.there in 2000 an eight and somehow the eurozone is also their fault?
:03:15. > :03:20.Everybody was burdened with this debt, it is ridiculous. I can see
:03:20. > :03:27.how you loses his rag. These occasions really are pointless. Why
:03:27. > :03:30.they have to go to Mexico and come to no agreement. They are not the
:03:30. > :03:35.government of anything, they are a group of people gathering in Mexico,
:03:35. > :03:44.wasting their time and clearly losing their re-rack. I honestly
:03:44. > :03:47.find these things completely pointless. -- their re-rack.
:03:48. > :03:52.2008 the G20 was worthwhile, sometimes -- somehow there was a
:03:52. > :03:55.common cause to save the banks and the summit was a success and that
:03:55. > :04:02.it is just they don't seem to know what to do, rather than the
:04:02. > :04:06.institution itself is wrong? It has become the international
:04:06. > :04:10.conglomerate for saving banks, it does not save the economy. 2000 an
:04:10. > :04:15.eight was some time ago. Does not achieve what it set out to. Any
:04:15. > :04:18.fool can save a bank by tipping money into it. But going to Mexico
:04:18. > :04:23.does not save a bank. They are saved by governments putting money
:04:23. > :04:26.into them. If Europe is to be saved at all it will be saved by the
:04:26. > :04:29.Germans decided to do the right thing but they won't because they
:04:29. > :04:35.will do what Germany has in its interests, which is to save German
:04:35. > :04:39.banks. A do you think it is the end of the G 20? They will go to these
:04:39. > :04:45.things up nauseam. There is a Euro- summit every three months now. What
:04:45. > :04:48.is a telephone for? It was invented. They keep boasting about the
:04:48. > :04:58.digital age, why do they have to go to expensive hotels were they just
:04:58. > :04:59.
:04:59. > :05:09.row. And probably some nice dinners. You always get to know the menu.
:05:09. > :05:16.
:05:16. > :05:21.Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is... At the
:05:21. > :05:26.end of the show Simon will give us the correct answer. I am sure you
:05:26. > :05:29.can hazard a guess! Should our civil servants be a bit more, "Yes,
:05:29. > :05:32.minister" and a bit less "that would be very brave, minister"?
:05:32. > :05:35.Today the Government will tell us how it plans to improve the Civil
:05:35. > :05:38.Service. The Civil Service currently employs around 430,000
:05:38. > :05:44.people and has existed as a politically neutral, merit-based
:05:44. > :05:47.bureaucracy since the 1850s. But recently ministers have been
:05:47. > :05:51.complaining that the mandarins are not up to the job, even getting the
:05:51. > :05:59.blame for the recent pasty tax, caravan tax and charity tax fiascos.
:05:59. > :06:02.And now Government ministers think it is time for a shake up. Steve
:06:02. > :06:05.Hilton, the Prime Minister's former blue skies guru, was reported to
:06:05. > :06:08.have wanted to cut the civil service by 90%. Cabinet Office
:06:08. > :06:10.Minister Francis Maude won't go that far but he will unveil a
:06:10. > :06:20.series of reform proposals, including allowing politicians to
:06:20. > :06:25.
:06:25. > :06:27.choose. -- choose the Civil Service heads of each department,
:06:27. > :06:31.outsourcing policy-making to the private sector and plans to tell
:06:31. > :06:34.the bottom 10% of civil servants to shape up or face the sack. Joining
:06:34. > :06:36.me now is Peter Thomas from the Institute for Government, who's a
:06:36. > :06:39.former Civil Servant who was involved in the government's
:06:39. > :06:42.consultation on the civil service. What are ministers trying to
:06:42. > :06:45.achieve that these reforms? The one to make sure they have a civil
:06:45. > :06:48.service that can get through what is an unprecedented level of cuts
:06:48. > :06:53.and deliver the best services it can for significantly less money --
:06:53. > :06:57.they want. Are they saying it can only be done making cuts? Civil
:06:57. > :07:01.servants are also clear that the scale of the challenge is
:07:01. > :07:05.unprecedented since the Second World War. They know they need to
:07:05. > :07:08.do things differently and stop doing things if they are going to
:07:08. > :07:13.deliver a civil service that can support whichever government they
:07:14. > :07:18.are there to support. What is it being proposed here? What will
:07:18. > :07:24.achieve it? We know they are going to try to get rid of the worst
:07:24. > :07:27.performing 10%. What else will change that vision of the Civil
:07:27. > :07:30.Service and Howard works in practice? We will see when it is
:07:30. > :07:34.published later but what is much more important than some of those
:07:34. > :07:38.elements is what is the Civil Service going to look like, what
:07:38. > :07:44.kind of civil servants do you need? What job should be doing and what
:07:44. > :07:48.should be stopped doing? It will obviously look smaller, it is clear
:07:48. > :07:52.you need people who can work effectively with the private sector,
:07:52. > :07:57.the public sector, more commercial skills, the pressure to increase
:07:57. > :08:05.productivity is huge, so financial skills, good disciplines of basic
:08:05. > :08:09.management. But it is politically neutral, unified, will be
:08:09. > :08:14.threatened? I don't think so. It is one of their strengths, there are
:08:14. > :08:17.plenty of structures in place to protect it. I would be surprised if
:08:17. > :08:20.there was a significant change to that. Do you think you should be
:08:20. > :08:24.protected above all else? That is the kind of signature of the
:08:25. > :08:28.British political system that you have an independent, impartial
:08:28. > :08:32.Civil Service working with the political government of the day.
:08:32. > :08:36.don't see any great challenge to that. I would be surprised if we
:08:36. > :08:38.saw something that substantially altered that. But you think with
:08:38. > :08:44.these proposals it will look different and productivity will
:08:44. > :08:49.improve? It has to. The Civil Service is already on a march to
:08:49. > :08:53.being 25% smaller, some departments are taking out 50% of their costs.
:08:53. > :08:56.Top teams have been halved in some departments. They have to do things
:08:56. > :08:59.better. If they are going to minimise the impact on the front
:08:59. > :09:02.line services that missable servants are involved in them they
:09:03. > :09:07.have to raise productivity, they have to pick from the best practice
:09:07. > :09:11.of the private sector, from of a public sector. It will be a test of
:09:11. > :09:15.this plan. Is it addressing what most civil servants do, or just
:09:15. > :09:25.plain with some interesting novelties around Whitehall and bits
:09:25. > :09:27.
:09:27. > :09:30.of policy-making? Thank you. Let's get more on this with the
:09:30. > :09:38.Conservative MP Nick Boles and the former London Mayoral candidate and
:09:38. > :09:41.former civil servant. --, Siobhan Beinta. We heard earlier that of
:09:41. > :09:51.ministers are going to appoint directly to the top, it will no
:09:51. > :09:52.
:09:52. > :09:56.longer be a civil service? I don't You would actually have ministers
:09:56. > :09:59.bringing in somebody to run the department, like in the US, I don't
:09:59. > :10:04.think that is right, or the British way of doing things but I think the
:10:04. > :10:08.idea that a minister can have influence over which civil servants,
:10:08. > :10:12.independent, non-partisan, they work with, because the truth is
:10:12. > :10:17.personalities matter, the fit and skills of a politician and civil
:10:17. > :10:21.servant matter. I think it is reasonable as long as the people
:10:21. > :10:26.they offered on all people who would pass the test of impartiality
:10:26. > :10:30.and the qualifications for the job. But wouldn't it stretch the feeling
:10:31. > :10:36.of impartiality if ministers are allowed, in whatever way you want
:10:36. > :10:41.to describe it, basically a. People who they know will do the job they
:10:41. > :10:47.want and in the way they want? That is no longer totally impartial, or
:10:47. > :10:50.politically neutral. I think it is. The Civil Service is there to
:10:50. > :10:54.deliver the policies of the elected government. They have always done
:10:54. > :10:59.that without being appointed by ministers. All political parties
:10:59. > :11:03.will agree on this - in the past the deliveries have not been
:11:03. > :11:07.effective, or as quick, and the reason there are so many programmes
:11:07. > :11:11.about this is because of this problem. I think it is a reasonable
:11:11. > :11:15.way to deal with the problem of delivery without afeared --
:11:15. > :11:19.interfering in any way with the political impartiality of the civil
:11:19. > :11:29.servants themselves. Do you accept that? There are many things about
:11:29. > :11:33.the planned -- in the plan that I think will be welcomed. The bit I
:11:33. > :11:37.think people will be most wary about is this thing about ministers
:11:37. > :11:40.being able to appoint permanent secretaries. The reality is there
:11:40. > :11:43.is always discussion when a new permanent secretary has appointed
:11:43. > :11:50.anyway about whether they will fit with the minister. So to somehow
:11:50. > :11:54.say we need to make this official does worry me. One of the big
:11:54. > :11:57.things that is indeed about our civil service is its impartiality
:11:57. > :12:03.and this seems to be removing that. This is thing I would be most
:12:03. > :12:08.worried about. But are they a roadblock to reform? They are not
:12:08. > :12:12.helping with delivery, then you run into problems with policies not
:12:12. > :12:16.being implemented. It is always about human behaviour and how
:12:16. > :12:19.people get on and if the relationships at the top of the
:12:19. > :12:24.department are not working well, there has always been the ability
:12:24. > :12:28.to move people around Whitehall. That has happened anyway. It is
:12:28. > :12:31.this making it official that worries me. If it is a blockage and
:12:31. > :12:36.things are not working well in a department people do get moved
:12:36. > :12:39.around, that has always been the case. This is going a step too far.
:12:39. > :12:48.Let's look at where it might have been a problem in terms of delivery.
:12:48. > :12:52.The Budget. Do you blame civil servants for the shambles? I am
:12:52. > :12:55.glad to say my colleagues stick to the principle that ministers take
:12:55. > :12:59.responsibility for the things that go wrong. George Osborne as take
:12:59. > :13:09.responsibility for those things in the Budget he has since had to
:13:09. > :13:12.But in reality you cannot expect politicians to be able to be on top
:13:12. > :13:19.of every single detail of implementation and so when things
:13:19. > :13:27.don't work well I think it is reasonable to look at whether this
:13:27. > :13:30.informal practice - and I think that is a problem in the civil
:13:30. > :13:33.service, there are so many informal ways of doing things, we will sort
:13:33. > :13:36.things out an hour classic way, if you are not happy with someone, we
:13:36. > :13:39.promote them to another department without telling the other
:13:39. > :13:45.department why we're not happy with them, let's bring this out into the
:13:45. > :13:48.open, make it clear, a minister will have to justify in the Civil
:13:48. > :13:53.Service and the Commission and the media why the move this person.
:13:53. > :13:57.Isn't that a better way of dealing with it? Do you accept that? For me
:13:57. > :14:00.it is crazy to think that something like the Budget could have got
:14:00. > :14:04.there without ministers signing them off. It is very easy for
:14:04. > :14:09.ministers when the going gets tough, when things go wrong, for them to
:14:09. > :14:17.turn around and blame senior officials. I specifically did not
:14:17. > :14:22.do that. You did not but others did. There were things about it that the
:14:22. > :14:28.Budget was pet project of civil servants that slipped through. Is
:14:28. > :14:34.it the case every administration cut that the policy through a few
:14:34. > :14:39.years in and blame the civil service? Yes. I think it is a
:14:39. > :14:42.sensible way of approaching it, the simple thing is the calibre of the
:14:42. > :14:45.civil servants and the problem there is you have a huge wall of
:14:45. > :14:51.lobbying facing Whitehall to the extent that it was not the case 30
:14:51. > :15:01.years ago. In those days the Civil Service was more self confident,
:15:01. > :15:05.
:15:05. > :15:10.Now, it is taken this way and that. Ministers understandably want
:15:10. > :15:15.better civil servants. Isn't it the pressure to try to politicise the
:15:15. > :15:21.Civil Service? I think that is a red herring. On the whole, civil
:15:21. > :15:27.servants do what they ministers want. The problem now, in
:15:27. > :15:33.experienced ministers are up against... There are not 50
:15:34. > :15:40.political lobbyists for nothing. These people are very potent in the
:15:40. > :15:45.Government now. I joined the Civil Service in 1996, it was in reform
:15:45. > :15:50.then and it has been in constant reform. One thing that does not get
:15:50. > :15:55.addressed his ministerial behaviour and performance. It is about making
:15:55. > :15:59.Government work better. I would like to see a plan on how to make
:15:59. > :16:06.Government more effective and that it would involve ministers as well
:16:06. > :16:12.as officials. What do you think of that? I had some sympathy for it.
:16:12. > :16:16.Most ministers are drawn from a relatively small pool of MPs are
:16:16. > :16:20.elected for the governing parties. But the Institute for Government,
:16:20. > :16:23.the gentleman you interviewed earlier has made some proposals and
:16:23. > :16:28.done some work with this Government and the opposition, to help get
:16:28. > :16:34.ministers ready for the duties they will have to fulfil, how to deal
:16:34. > :16:39.with a crisis for its sample. Maybe go through crisis-management with
:16:39. > :16:44.people who have done it professionally. Or you can do is
:16:44. > :16:49.make ministers better prepared for their job. Just before we leave it,
:16:49. > :16:54.this 10%, the worst performing civil servants who will have a year
:16:54. > :16:59.before they face dismissal, is that just amongst senior civil servants
:16:59. > :17:04.or all rebels? My understanding is, one of the regular things that
:17:04. > :17:07.comes up in surveys is the frustration that civil servants
:17:07. > :17:13.have with the lack of performance management. People don't like to
:17:13. > :17:17.work with other people who are lazy, incompetent or feckless. There is
:17:17. > :17:26.no proper performance management in the Civil Service. I suspect it
:17:26. > :17:29.goes through organisations as it will do with television talons as
:17:29. > :17:32.well. As any working parent knows
:17:32. > :17:34.childcare is an expensive business. The Government, which is keen to
:17:34. > :17:37.encourage more parents back to work, has this morning launched a
:17:37. > :17:40.consultation into how to make childcare more affordable. It could
:17:40. > :17:42.lead the relaxation of some of the rules surrounding looking after
:17:42. > :17:51.children and extending after school clubs. Kate Conway is on College
:17:51. > :17:55.Green with more. Downing Street regards the costs of child care as
:17:55. > :18:02.one of the most pressing issues for families worried about their living
:18:02. > :18:07.standards. One MP has been pushing for changes in the childcare sector,
:18:07. > :18:14.who joins me now. We also have the shadow children's minister. Liz,
:18:14. > :18:19.what would you like to see change? Britain spends a lot on child care,
:18:19. > :18:25.we spend more as the Government's, but we get less for our money.
:18:25. > :18:29.Parents are paying 27% of their income in child care. I would like
:18:29. > :18:36.to see the regulatory system slim down. I would like to see just
:18:36. > :18:41.Ofsted regulating. I would like to see the ratios moved. We do have
:18:41. > :18:46.the lowest ratio which pushes up costs for parents. I want to see
:18:46. > :18:51.the funding streams reduced to just one funding scheme, so we are not
:18:51. > :18:55.wasting money on the bureaucracy in the system. Lisa, we know one of
:18:55. > :18:58.the reasons childminders have left the procession is because of the
:18:58. > :19:02.curriculum in the system and the bureaucracy. What do we do about
:19:02. > :19:09.that? The real reason childminders leave the profession is because of
:19:09. > :19:12.the devaluing of the profession itself. 85% of child minders say
:19:12. > :19:16.they welcome the individual inspections Liz is not keen on.
:19:16. > :19:20.What we need to do if we want to cut costs to parents and the
:19:20. > :19:25.Government, if we want to increase the clock -- quality and supply of
:19:25. > :19:30.childminders, we have to raise the status of the profession. I am
:19:30. > :19:34.concerned at some of the suggestions about removing what are
:19:34. > :19:41.actually the props to increase standards for children Colton the
:19:41. > :19:47.break -- ultimately is not in the interests of children. I am not
:19:47. > :19:51.talking about reducing standards. The average child minder earns
:19:51. > :19:55.about �11,000 a year. It is not enough to attract more people to
:19:55. > :20:02.the profession. We have to look at what the rest of the world are
:20:02. > :20:08.doing, they have Orazio of 5-1, and not 3-1. They can look at the more
:20:08. > :20:12.children and offer better value. I am saying, let's slimline
:20:12. > :20:16.deregulation has. At the moment, childminders are checked by Ofsted
:20:16. > :20:25.and local authorities. Let's give nurseries are more power over what
:20:25. > :20:30.they do, academy status like we do it in schools. We spent 7 billion,
:20:30. > :20:34.3.5000 for each child care place. It is a lot of money and I want to
:20:34. > :20:39.see more of that in the hands of parents going into higher charity
:20:39. > :20:47.Best high quality childcare. It is because of the skills are working
:20:47. > :20:53.in the industry in our country, but that is a contradiction. It is a
:20:53. > :20:58.chicken and egg problem. If we are playing in a month wage, �11,000 a
:20:58. > :21:02.year, it is difficult to recruit skilled people. Nurseries are
:21:02. > :21:08.struggling to keep afloat, childminders are leaving. We have
:21:08. > :21:12.half as many childminders as we did 10 years ago. In Holland, they have
:21:12. > :21:17.a higher ratio, twice as many childminders per head as we do and
:21:17. > :21:20.parents are satisfied with the flexible childcare they get. Lisa,
:21:20. > :21:26.women are leaving the workplace and the number of women working has
:21:26. > :21:32.been a problem for the past decade, it is not a recent problem. It
:21:32. > :21:35.requires billions, in needs to be committed to proper universal
:21:35. > :21:40.childcare we can all afford? Government has to make this a
:21:40. > :21:45.priority. If we were in Government it would be the same. If you go to
:21:45. > :21:49.countries like Sweden, Norway Denmark... It means billions though
:21:49. > :21:56.doesn't it? It's is a priority in terms of raising the status of the
:21:56. > :21:59.profession. I do disagree with Liz, the great parallel but this is in
:21:59. > :22:03.social work. The Government had issued a report, which means
:22:03. > :22:11.raising the status of the profession is the way to attract
:22:11. > :22:14.good quality people. I support raising the status of the
:22:14. > :22:19.profession. That is what I'm talking about. But that is not
:22:19. > :22:29.about having tick box exercises and ratios out of line with other
:22:29. > :22:30.
:22:30. > :22:34.countries. Thanks to both barer much -- very much. It will be a key
:22:34. > :22:37.issue at the next election among women voters.
:22:37. > :22:40.My guest, Simon Jenkins is the Chairman of the National Trust
:22:40. > :22:44.which is probably best known as the organisation which looks after the
:22:44. > :22:48.nation's historic houses and opens them to the public. But it's not
:22:48. > :22:50.all Downton Abbey and cream teas. It's also Europe's biggest
:22:50. > :22:54.conservation charity and a powerful voice lobbying the Government on
:22:54. > :22:58.heritage, the environment and food policy. The National Trust was
:22:58. > :23:04.founded in 1895. It looks after more than 300 historic houses along
:23:04. > :23:07.with areas of natural beauty and hundreds of miles of coastline.
:23:07. > :23:11.Membership now stands above four million. And with so many
:23:11. > :23:13.supporters the Trust has a lot of clout. Last year it organised a
:23:13. > :23:16.petition against the Government's proposals on planning reform
:23:16. > :23:19.leading to significant changes. They were also involved in the
:23:19. > :23:23.campaign that led to a government U-turn on plans to privatise that
:23:23. > :23:29.nation's forests. And they've been raising concerns about the some of
:23:29. > :23:31.the potential impacts of HS2. Some people have suggested that by
:23:32. > :23:36.becoming involved in these campaigns, the Trust has become too
:23:36. > :23:42.political. Simon Jenkins is of course the Chairman of the National
:23:42. > :23:47.Trust and I'm also joined by Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas. Do
:23:47. > :23:52.you think the allegation it has become too political is true?
:23:52. > :23:57.are having an impact on the body politic. I was frustrated in
:23:57. > :24:01.relation to the planning discussion. One of the big things we need at
:24:01. > :24:07.the moment is to build more houses. It is hardly a great insight as the
:24:07. > :24:11.housing stock has not been renewed and is at an all-time low. There is
:24:11. > :24:15.something like -- about the National Trust, whilst I always
:24:15. > :24:19.enjoyed the houses and natural beauty, they have become the
:24:19. > :24:24.leaders of the green take brigade that stop us developing. And
:24:24. > :24:28.because they are the National Trust, they get away with having the
:24:28. > :24:31.credibility that comes with it, that means everybody has to stop
:24:31. > :24:36.and listen. I kind of which they would keep out of the politics and
:24:36. > :24:41.just look after the houses. They should keep out of the politics?
:24:41. > :24:46.are not allowed to be political, we are a charity. We do campaign very
:24:46. > :24:50.rarely. The any campaign we have launched in decades was on the
:24:50. > :24:54.Planning Bill. It is usually political. You cannot save the
:24:54. > :24:58.National Trust does not get involved in political campaigns?
:24:58. > :25:04.Those campaigns to have political impact, there is no question about
:25:04. > :25:09.that. But we do very little of it. But we were founded as a political
:25:09. > :25:14.party. When you have a discussion on the need to develop on green-
:25:14. > :25:21.belt land, often the National Trust, whether you like it or not is a
:25:21. > :25:24.voice that suddenly gets heard. And the high-speed train is another one.
:25:24. > :25:29.It is one thing about not liking the nitty-gritty of the Planning
:25:29. > :25:35.Bill, but what is argued is, we shouldn't touch this green land,
:25:35. > :25:40.places of natural beauty. It is scaremongering of the worst order.
:25:40. > :25:48.We are going to build over every part of the natural world. Only 10%
:25:48. > :25:57.of the UK is developed. You must be the last person speaking on the
:25:57. > :26:03.first draft of that bill. arguments used was not nit-picking?
:26:03. > :26:06.We criticise the document. It was something like this will lead to
:26:06. > :26:11.the greater sprawl into the countryside since the 1930s. That
:26:12. > :26:18.is true. That came from the CPRE, but we supported little stock it
:26:18. > :26:24.was a quote from your website. point I'm making it is was not on
:26:24. > :26:28.the finer details, it was a broad brush, frightening tactics. If you
:26:28. > :26:33.look at the amendments, it will hold things back again. On the main
:26:33. > :26:39.point, no one is opposing development. This was a question of
:26:39. > :26:43.whether you give in to two lobbies. One was a high-speed train
:26:43. > :26:48.construction lobby and the House builders Federation. They want to
:26:48. > :26:53.build on green land which is cheap and profitable. We want to build in
:26:53. > :26:57.towns, where the infrastructure is in place. There is no shortage of
:26:57. > :27:02.land in this country. There is no shortage of land in this country,
:27:02. > :27:06.some of it is green. There is nothing wrong with building there.
:27:06. > :27:11.Sprawl is what is called ordinary people having homes in new places
:27:11. > :27:16.and not being crowded in around towns that are already overcrowded.
:27:16. > :27:19.What you had just said is a broader, ideological political statement and
:27:19. > :27:26.fiddling around the edges of the bill. Should you be playing that
:27:26. > :27:30.role? Our mission is to defend the open spaces of England. I cannot
:27:30. > :27:32.pretend we are in favour of building houses every work. We
:27:32. > :27:38.wouldn't have done this if it wasn't for the first terrible
:27:38. > :27:42.document. It was a building permit system. Nobody in England wants to
:27:42. > :27:48.see the sort of thing you have got in Ireland. Claire's general point
:27:48. > :27:52.is the National Trust has a vision clearly set out. Is it using that
:27:52. > :27:57.romantic vision for Britain which does not represent all parts of the
:27:57. > :28:05.country, but it has so much power and clowns that it is being
:28:05. > :28:10.unfairly represented? It has no more cloud than anybody from the
:28:10. > :28:15.Guardian would have said. Most people want to defend green belt.
:28:15. > :28:19.The National Trust is in danger of getting jumbled up with the kind of
:28:19. > :28:22.environmentalism default position, which is to argue against
:28:22. > :28:26.development. I don't think the National Trust should do it.
:28:26. > :28:30.There's nothing wrong with the National Trust having old houses.
:28:30. > :28:35.I'm not suggesting we knock-down all the great places you defend and
:28:35. > :28:40.built tower blocks. But there is a danger there is a sense we are
:28:40. > :28:45.saying, sustainability. That means limits. There is endless attempts
:28:45. > :28:49.to say that we shouldn't do. We need more high-speed rail. My
:28:49. > :28:53.problem with it is we haven't built at high speed link since the
:28:53. > :28:58.Victorian era. Just because they hold the opposing view and it is
:28:58. > :29:03.the National Trust, it is still legitimate? I'm not arguing they
:29:03. > :29:08.shouldn't speak. This was set up as that kind of discussion. We should
:29:08. > :29:13.be open about the fact you are lobbying and political. So we
:29:13. > :29:17.should have a political argument about it. We are lobbying. I won't
:29:17. > :29:23.buy into the high-speed rail lobby, it is a commercial, industrial
:29:23. > :29:27.lobby. Our argument is dispassionate. We are not opposed
:29:27. > :29:33.to development. I travelled the country looking at brownfield sites.
:29:33. > :29:41.I have never seen so much land. think we should build on them, too.
:29:41. > :29:45.We will get you to back together. It is 38 days and counting since
:29:45. > :29:48.the Olympics gets under way. The Government say it will come in on
:29:48. > :29:54.time at around half a billion pounds under budget, and most of
:29:54. > :29:58.the buildings have commercial plans agreed by after the Games. So for
:29:58. > :30:04.those like Simon Jenkins, who criticised the plans, and wrong
:30:04. > :30:08.after all? Under budget and on time - the kind
:30:08. > :30:12.of headline Olympic organisers would have dreamed of when this
:30:12. > :30:17.project first got off the ground. The venue's completed a year ago
:30:17. > :30:20.were built by thousands of different companies simultaneously.
:30:20. > :30:24.Allergist will challenge that deserves applause, according to the
:30:25. > :30:29.firm who built the aquatic centre. We have had multiple contractors.
:30:29. > :30:33.Most of the big names in the industry have been working on the
:30:33. > :30:36.infrastructure. Most of the people involved in the delivery, the
:30:36. > :30:40.establishment of the logistics centres for materials and equipment
:30:40. > :30:44.moving. It was a complicated undertaking and underlines the
:30:44. > :30:54.achievement of having done it in the time and ahead of when it is
:30:54. > :30:55.
:30:55. > :30:59.It was a different picture in Athens eight years ago and the
:30:59. > :31:05.government has been keen to point out the 2012 games will come in
:31:05. > :31:10.under budget. It was announced early this month that �476 million
:31:10. > :31:13.will be left over from the entire budget. And that the extra �19
:31:13. > :31:16.million needed to cover crowd control and public information
:31:16. > :31:22.costs would be paid for from money within the Olympic budget. But the
:31:23. > :31:30.cost of building all of this have been estimated at 2.4 billion when
:31:30. > :31:38.first -- London first got the game's seven years ago. -- the
:31:38. > :31:48.games. Simon Jenkins was watching that and I'm also joined by soon to
:31:48. > :31:52.be Dame Tessa -- so it has cost more then than it was thought it
:31:52. > :31:57.would. But what happens after the Games are over? This man spent the
:31:57. > :32:01.last three years working that out. The Olympic Park is not just a
:32:01. > :32:08.sports stadium but also communities, five new neighbourhoods, 7,000
:32:08. > :32:12.homes, it is all integrated. Most of these venues already have their
:32:12. > :32:18.legacy uses secured so we know there will not be white elephants
:32:18. > :32:22.here. But will there be ducks? This was Barcelona's diving Centre on
:32:22. > :32:26.our last visit, now largely unused since the 1992 games but there have
:32:26. > :32:29.been success stories in Barcelona like the beach built for the
:32:29. > :32:37.Olympics Andy games enhance the city's image with visitor numbers
:32:37. > :32:43.of -- visitor numbers doubled in the decade that followed. You have
:32:43. > :32:46.the largest urban Mall in Europe, an interest in housing all around,
:32:46. > :32:49.you cannot get the housing development and that is because the
:32:49. > :32:54.Olympics accelerated that process. It would not have happened but for
:32:54. > :33:00.the Olympic Investment. So there is confidence here that the Games will
:33:00. > :33:07.not be overshadowed by a less than lasting legacy.
:33:07. > :33:10.Simon Jenkins was watching that as well as Dame Tessa Jowell, Olympics
:33:10. > :33:17.minister under the last government and now a shadow minister for the
:33:17. > :33:24.Games. Welcome. So it has come in on time under budget. Are you
:33:24. > :33:29.relieved? I expected it. If you travel the budget. That is not an
:33:29. > :33:34.issue. I have always been impressed by the capacity of the British
:33:34. > :33:39.construction industry to do a good job. I congratulate them on it. It
:33:39. > :33:45.is also a wonderful sight, park, I am still sceptical about all the
:33:45. > :33:48.legacy but there will be legacy there. You can argue whether it
:33:48. > :33:52.should have cost 9 billion and yesterday it was at Greenwich which
:33:53. > :34:00.has been completely destroyed by a huge stadium. It was supposed to be
:34:00. > :34:05.in a park. Some of the things work, like Stratford, some things have
:34:05. > :34:09.not worked, I think Greenwich is an outrage. It is a great triumph for
:34:10. > :34:14.British construction, no argument. What about the issue of legacy. We
:34:14. > :34:19.heard there that that part of London would not have got the
:34:19. > :34:23.regeneration it clearly has an that will benefit not just that area but
:34:23. > :34:29.will have wider repercussions economically, too. Maybe. There is
:34:29. > :34:33.no evidence it has affected house prices. But that aside, if you have
:34:33. > :34:37.to have an Olympics to find 9 billion to regenerate east London
:34:37. > :34:42.it is a poor, and on our democracy. Is this really the only way to
:34:42. > :34:50.regenerate the East End? Is it? it would not have happened had we
:34:50. > :34:58.not won the right to host the We have accelerated the
:34:58. > :35:02.regeneration of that area in six years with regeneration of 60 years.
:35:02. > :35:09.We submitted an indicative budget which did not take full account of
:35:09. > :35:14.our regeneration. 75p of every pound of the roundabout 7 billion
:35:14. > :35:19.that will have been spent on building the park will have been
:35:19. > :35:24.spent on regeneration. Cleaning the soil, decontaminating soil, getting
:35:24. > :35:31.rid of the waterlogging. So we not only have the largest new urban
:35:31. > :35:38.parking Europe for 150 years but new homes, 2,800 homes after the
:35:38. > :35:43.Games. More homes to be built over the next 15 years. Is that down to
:35:44. > :35:48.the Olympics legacy, or improve transport links. The improved links
:35:48. > :35:53.were intensified and increased by virtue of the Olympics. Certainly
:35:53. > :36:02.the Westfield shopping centre was planned for some time but remember,
:36:02. > :36:08.a round-the-world, retail developers were pulling out of
:36:08. > :36:12.shopping centres. The Lowing family said with that -- stuck with that.
:36:12. > :36:20.The Retail Academy is training and people from the area in the retail
:36:20. > :36:30.industry. -- young people. Do you think the economic boost will
:36:30. > :36:34.
:36:34. > :36:39.In a way, part of the legacy has been realised and �6 billion into
:36:39. > :36:44.UK plc not just in London but firms around the country so when you look
:36:44. > :36:49.at the Olympic Park, the stadium, you can tell a story of
:36:50. > :36:53.construction and skill brought from the whole of the UK. That was very
:36:53. > :37:03.important in 2008 when the downturn really hit the construction
:37:03. > :37:13.industry. What about the effect on other lives of Londoners? I don't
:37:13. > :37:16.
:37:16. > :37:21.It is going to be a disaster for London's hotels. One third of them
:37:21. > :37:25.will be empty in August. It is a catastrophe for anybody working in
:37:25. > :37:31.London. Raising the expectations that everybody will make a mint out
:37:31. > :37:34.of it was unhelpful because it will lead a lot of people to invest in
:37:34. > :37:40.things which will not be there for the Olympics. It is wrong to
:37:40. > :37:45.persuade people this is a fantastic event, it will be some Olympic
:37:45. > :37:51.Games, let's enjoy them. Have expectations been ever managed in a
:37:51. > :37:56.sense? There is a worry at the lives of Londoners will be a
:37:56. > :38:01.nightmare trying to get to work, carrying on normal business. They
:38:01. > :38:05.have been told not to work. Or to work from home. But many people in
:38:05. > :38:12.London already do. I think they will be days in London where it
:38:12. > :38:17.will be very hard to go about your normal business. But five days in
:38:17. > :38:21.an Olympics, and overwhelmingly London is looking forward to this
:38:21. > :38:26.and looking forward to welcoming people from around the world. And
:38:26. > :38:30.of course there will be days there will be difficult and there were
:38:30. > :38:33.days when if you are not going to see something in the mouth I would
:38:33. > :38:40.probably stay away from central London and go and watch the events
:38:40. > :38:46.on the big screens. But is it justified to making London's
:38:46. > :38:56.subservient to Olympic the IPs, with special lanes and extra fast
:38:56. > :39:05.
:39:05. > :39:08.emergency treatment, it was Olympic lanes are to avoid the
:39:08. > :39:13.situation that happened in Atlanta where summer Olympic -- athletes
:39:13. > :39:21.missed their events because of traffic. And what about the media?
:39:21. > :39:30.They are the greatest users, 18,000 media will use the Olympic lanes.
:39:30. > :39:34.Why can't they get their earlier? It is so the games out in East
:39:34. > :39:38.London can get easily to the park, but the quickest way if you are not
:39:38. > :39:43.in an Olympic Lane is to get public transport. Seven minutes from
:39:43. > :39:48.King's Cross to Stratford would not have happened without the Olympics.
:39:48. > :39:54.Are you going? Like almost all Londoners I have been told to get
:39:54. > :39:59.out. The government is engineering a recession this summer. I would
:39:59. > :40:04.like to know how it can be a profit for London. I hope they are a great
:40:04. > :40:12.success but honestly, to inflict this on London was not kind. Ready?
:40:13. > :40:16.Is that not a bit killjoy? There has been no boost when the Olympic
:40:16. > :40:22.city so the argument for London was it would be different, it will not
:40:23. > :40:27.be. The displacement effect is distinctive. No other tourists are
:40:27. > :40:31.coming to London this summer. That is a big loss. But they will come
:40:31. > :40:35.after this year, which is how you build the long-term tourism legacy.
:40:35. > :40:44.They were coming anyway. I will stop you there. Enjoy. I don't
:40:44. > :40:49.think you'll get anywhere with that. It has been going on for years!
:40:49. > :40:52.Conservatives' chief fund raiser has been forced to resign. Lord
:40:52. > :40:56.think has been accused by Labour of breaking parliamentary rules after
:40:56. > :41:01.he agreed to host a dinner for American Express cardholders. He
:41:01. > :41:07.said he had agreed to sponsor the dinner in return for a donation to
:41:07. > :41:10.Guy's and St Thomas's Hospital in London but Labour says this was a
:41:10. > :41:13."flagrant attempt to breach the rules" and have called on him to
:41:13. > :41:16.resign or be sacked. The Conservatives say the event was
:41:16. > :41:22.cancelled last week when it became clear it may have been in breach of
:41:22. > :41:25.the rules. Lord Fink was appointed to treasurer in March, replacing
:41:25. > :41:35.Peter goddess. He had to resign after being secretly filmed
:41:35. > :41:35.
:41:35. > :41:40.apparently offering access to David Cameron for a donation of �250,000.
:41:40. > :41:47.Labour said yesterday that he should resign, is that still your
:41:47. > :41:53.position? He certainly has to consider his position. The rules
:41:53. > :41:58.have been very clear after this practice of selling space in
:41:58. > :42:04.Parliament came a few years ago. What we all are you claiming Lord
:42:04. > :42:08.Fink has broken? It has been categorical you cannot use
:42:08. > :42:11.Parliament for fund raising -- rule. You cannot even have a charity
:42:11. > :42:16.auction, those are the rules. Whether that should change is
:42:16. > :42:19.another matter but those are the roles and the reason they are there
:42:19. > :42:24.is because one person's charity as another person's political
:42:24. > :42:28.operation. But you would not argue Guy's and St Thomas's is not a
:42:28. > :42:34.valid cause in a sense. And charities do advertise openly on
:42:34. > :42:40.line dinners, don't they? So I don't see how this was a fundraiser
:42:40. > :42:43.in the way you put it. It was not for commercial benefit. It was a
:42:43. > :42:49.fundraiser for charity and the danger with that there are good
:42:49. > :42:54.charities and ambiguous ones. It is to stop parties and politicians
:42:54. > :42:59.using Westminster to fund raised. That was endemic and it should not
:42:59. > :43:07.be allowed, that is why it. To. The rules are clear. Endemic under
:43:07. > :43:11.Labour? All parties were doing it, particularly the Tories. The rules
:43:11. > :43:21.are clear and the Tories do not seem to have any systems in place
:43:21. > :43:22.
:43:22. > :43:26.for keeping control of their top You have set out it is a breach of
:43:26. > :43:31.the Rolls. But is it really appropriate to say he should
:43:31. > :43:37.resign? The dinner never happened. I would call it a minor breach of
:43:37. > :43:42.the rules. However, he is a major figure Andy. It's if you are in
:43:42. > :43:46.charge of fund-raising for the Conservative Party and you are
:43:46. > :43:52.breaking rules on the fund raising there is a hugely bigger problem --
:43:52. > :43:56.and the point is. People doing fund-raising have to be absolute on
:43:56. > :43:59.the Rolls, otherwise everything is a grey area. We have had enough
:43:59. > :44:05.problems with politicians and money, which is why the rules must be
:44:05. > :44:08.absolute. It is a minor breach of the rules and although there has
:44:08. > :44:18.been a lot of controversy about fund-raising and donations, it is
:44:18. > :44:22.not the same as the allegation against the former treasurer.
:44:22. > :44:25.do not want to abuse Parliament but in all my life I have been going to
:44:25. > :44:32.events in Parliament which are quite clearly designed to raise
:44:32. > :44:36.money for somebody somewhere. I would get the whole lot out. It is
:44:36. > :44:43.a place for MPs and secretaries and that is it. You go there now and
:44:44. > :44:47.the place is of Rausch -- awash with the lobbyists and others.
:44:47. > :44:57.they being fairly used and attributed? If it is going on all
:44:57. > :45:02.I was amazed to hear this rule. There are going on all the time.
:45:02. > :45:05.The rule came up after another MP and myself could do about the party
:45:05. > :45:10.political funding. The dining rooms were full of it every night, people
:45:10. > :45:19.bringing people to sell spaces, access. Parliament belongs to the
:45:19. > :45:25.Is it just too much of an exaggeration to say Lord Fink
:45:25. > :45:31.should resign, and is it failure in the Conservative Party? Who is
:45:31. > :45:35.running the Conservative Party at the top. It is not a minor MP. A
:45:36. > :45:41.man at the top doing fundraising. If you are breaching the rules,
:45:41. > :45:44.however minor on fund-raising, there is a bigger problem. If you
:45:44. > :45:51.breached one well, the danger is you will reach another one. The you
:45:51. > :45:55.are happy to go through labour politicians? Every politician,
:45:56. > :45:58.every politician. It's very rare these days that a British
:45:59. > :46:02.politician is proud to say they are taking their policies from Europe,
:46:02. > :46:04.but the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson seems to be the exception.
:46:04. > :46:06.Under pressure from cyclists during the mayoral elections, Boris
:46:06. > :46:09.Johnson signed up to the "Love London, Go Dutch" campaign,
:46:09. > :46:12.agreeing to adopt some of the cycling policies from Europe's
:46:12. > :46:22.number one cycling nation. So could our towns and cities be as cycling
:46:22. > :46:27.
:46:27. > :46:33.mad as the Dutch? Andrew Cryan went to Holland to find out.
:46:33. > :46:41.No helmets, no high-visibility jackets and no panic look on
:46:41. > :46:47.people's faces. Welcome to Holland, the No. 1 Cycling City. Between 50
:46:47. > :46:51.and 60% of Transport is done on a bicycle. Compare that to London,
:46:51. > :46:59.which is only 3%. But this is down two decades of sometimes very
:46:59. > :47:05.controversial decisions. Once upon a time, Holland had similar traffic
:47:05. > :47:09.to the UK, congested roads were hard for cyclists. By the 1970s,
:47:09. > :47:13.the soaring number of road deaths involving children became an
:47:13. > :47:19.outrage. Dutch politicians are made an enemy of the car and a friend of
:47:19. > :47:25.the bicycle. This man was one of them. There was a strong resentment
:47:25. > :47:30.towards the car. The idea this street is something you play on as
:47:30. > :47:34.a child, that you should had comfort, it should be comfortable
:47:34. > :47:40.to shop and walk around was a strong sentiment. We did not call
:47:40. > :47:47.it ecological, but it was in a sense. What was important is there
:47:47. > :47:52.was a strong political debate on who is the owner of the street.
:47:52. > :47:56.winner here was definitely the bicycle. It is easy to see how they
:47:56. > :48:01.did it. Cars and bikes were separated whenever possible. And
:48:01. > :48:06.where they meet, cyclists have the priority, like on this roundabout.
:48:06. > :48:10.There are special traffic lights and parking your bike is very
:48:10. > :48:19.rarely a problem, at a local railway station they have 6,000
:48:19. > :48:24.spaces. At London Bridge there is just 400., this is beautiful to
:48:24. > :48:29.cycle, but can we apply it to London? A lot of cyclists think we
:48:29. > :48:33.can. Before this Lord Mayor election, the streets of the
:48:33. > :48:38.capital were filled with people who want to go Dutch. The Lord Mayor
:48:38. > :48:43.signed up to the campaign. But anyone expecting London's roads to
:48:43. > :48:46.be the same as the Netherlands, after just four years, shouldn't
:48:46. > :48:51.hold their breath. Joining me now is Mustafa Arif,
:48:51. > :48:55.Chair of Campaigns at the London Cycling Campaign. Are you
:48:55. > :49:00.advocating cyclists should own the streets of London? The people
:49:00. > :49:04.should own the streets. We want London to be a more Liverpool city
:49:04. > :49:10.for everyone by making it as safe and inviting the cycling as in
:49:10. > :49:17.Holland. How do you make those streets safer? You saw some
:49:18. > :49:24.techniques in the film where they have reduced and closed off through
:49:24. > :49:28.traffic in busy, urban centres. But there is a whole range of solutions,
:49:28. > :49:32.that is used in some places. In other places they will separate and
:49:32. > :49:37.segregate the traffic on the streets so they have separate lanes
:49:37. > :49:42.for the cycles. You're talking about a different infrastructure on
:49:42. > :49:48.the roads. Separation of cyclists and vehicles and better lanes for
:49:48. > :49:53.cyclists, even when they are Longside vehicles? Separation and
:49:53. > :49:58.better quality. Were that be better for London, less dependency on the
:49:58. > :50:03.car and public transport? There is a lot of traffic, and most of that
:50:03. > :50:10.film was taken in small backstreets of small towns. Be could work in
:50:10. > :50:14.other cities across the UK? It does, it works in Oxford and Cambridge
:50:14. > :50:24.and plenty of places I have been through. But the great breakthrough
:50:24. > :50:32.
:50:32. > :50:36.will come, if you don't endlessly separate. You create a pattern of a
:50:36. > :50:44.street in which everyone is using it all of the time. Traffic is
:50:44. > :50:50.slowed down but you don't separate. You make sure people, cars, buses
:50:50. > :50:57.and cyclists police each other. As in Germany, in Holland and other
:50:57. > :51:01.places in Europe, accidents reduced. Speed reduces, and it is safer.
:51:01. > :51:06.That is changing culture which will be hard to do it you don't do
:51:06. > :51:12.anything to the infrastructure? Dutch do not wear helmets. Why
:51:12. > :51:16.don't they were Helmut? They know it is safe. Sometimes it is
:51:16. > :51:21.mechanical, to make it easier for people to use the streets. If you
:51:21. > :51:26.have endless flights, signs and lanes, cars think they are safe,
:51:26. > :51:31.everybody thinks they are safe when they are not. His that the vision
:51:31. > :51:40.on how we should progress? Hands Mandolin is not seen as the
:51:40. > :51:49.authority of traffic engineering in the Netherlands. There is a quote
:51:49. > :51:55.from the head of bicycle lane design in Amsterdam, he said he had
:51:55. > :52:02.not heard of this policy. They do have reduced accident rates, but
:52:02. > :52:06.you see in those areas that people cycle less. I used to be a student
:52:06. > :52:10.at Imperial College and I did campaign for the scheme will stop I
:52:10. > :52:14.do regret that because I know from students and staff who last over,
:52:14. > :52:23.they hate it. It as made this street more dangerous because they
:52:23. > :52:29.did not reduce the amount of traffic to make it work. Traffic
:52:29. > :52:36.speed has gone down. But the number of cyclists have gone up. In London,
:52:37. > :52:41.and other cities, and in other cities around the UK, it might be
:52:41. > :52:44.easier to use the technique, but in London it is not safe enough is it
:52:44. > :52:52.with the high number of vehicles that exist without separation?
:52:52. > :52:56.You'll not get exclusive cycle routes in London. The most
:52:56. > :53:00.problematic thing in London, is a lot of people using the street.
:53:00. > :53:05.There is no way you can separate them, but you might make them safer
:53:05. > :53:10.by slowing the traffic. There are a dozen different ways on slowing the
:53:10. > :53:15.traffic, you have to do it. Transport for London assumed half
:53:15. > :53:20.of all car journeys are under two miles. A lot of the journeys could
:53:20. > :53:24.be done by bicycle. People will do it if they felt it is safe enough.
:53:24. > :53:27.It is viable on the main roads to have separate space.
:53:27. > :53:30.The next instalment of the Alistair Campbell Diaries is out and yet
:53:30. > :53:33.again it's causing front page news. However there's another set of
:53:33. > :53:37.diaries from that era that's also been causing quite a stir, so much
:53:37. > :53:40.so that they've been turned into a play that's about to hit the West
:53:40. > :53:42.End. Called 'A Walk-On Part', it's been adapted from the diaries of
:53:42. > :53:45.the former Labour Minister Chris Mullin, and gives a unique insight
:53:45. > :53:48.into the workings of the New Labour government. Here's a sneak preview
:53:48. > :53:55.of their rehearsals where then Prime Minister Tony Blair, is being
:53:55. > :54:02.quizzed about plans to clip Rupert Murdoch's wings.
:54:02. > :54:06.I am much sure it is a good idea. He is trying to sink his
:54:06. > :54:12.competitors with pricing? Are we sure that is what he is trying to
:54:12. > :54:17.do? He is trying to destroy the Independent and we have to stop him.
:54:17. > :54:24.Somebody, even myself might be tempted to put it back in. If you
:54:24. > :54:30.think it is a good idea, Chris, go ahead but Tom's amendment must go.
:54:30. > :54:38.We have to come into line with Europe. They have Murdoch and we
:54:38. > :54:42.haven't. I have a date with Bill Clinton. All affability again, the
:54:42. > :54:48.man is off to catch Concorde. Joining me now is Chris Mullin and
:54:48. > :54:54.the actor who's playing Chris Mullin, John Hodgkinson.
:54:54. > :54:58.Why do you think it works so well on the stage? It is presenting a
:54:58. > :55:03.different view of politicians. The general public, most of us feel
:55:03. > :55:13.with justification, politicians are crooks and charlatans, and this is
:55:13. > :55:22.one who isn't. You could not have put it better yourself, Chris
:55:22. > :55:28.Mullin's Bostock I could not. It does work very effectively?
:55:29. > :55:35.Astonishingly well. I was sceptical when they said they wanted to do it.
:55:35. > :55:43.There is some brilliant acting, and standing in the case of John.
:55:43. > :55:53.has got your voice quite well. is quite similar in many ways.
:55:53. > :55:57.long did you have to practise that? Not long. When I went to see the
:55:57. > :56:02.rehearsal in Newcastle, they asked what I thought of his performance.
:56:02. > :56:09.I said the last person who played make was John Howard, he was better
:56:09. > :56:16.than John Hurt. The other actors made him a T-shirt with "better
:56:16. > :56:19.than John Hurt". We played the clip talking about Rupert Murdoch. An
:56:19. > :56:25.example that deep-seated problems affect all governments, and things
:56:25. > :56:29.don't change that much? Howard Flight to thing I saw Rupert
:56:29. > :56:35.Murdoch coming slightly ahead of the curve. Within a few months of
:56:35. > :56:41.Tony Blair being elected I pursued the matter with him. -- I would
:56:41. > :56:46.like to think. There has been a trip through political history in
:56:46. > :56:52.that sense. From an acting point of view, do you have to be interested
:56:52. > :56:58.in politics on note the subject matter? Not from an acting point of
:56:58. > :57:05.view, but I was already a fan. I was enthusiastic. It is not the
:57:05. > :57:09.actor's job to be interested in the subject matter, it is the actor's
:57:09. > :57:16.job betray it interestingly and truthfully. You do play different
:57:16. > :57:20.roles. Without knowing the subject matter, having to come in so
:57:20. > :57:26.quickly would be difficult, if you weren't familiar with what had gone
:57:26. > :57:32.wrong? We have all developed an interest than most of us already
:57:32. > :57:38.had, in the rehearsal. Are you surprised it was Chris Mullin's
:57:38. > :57:45.diaries that made it to the stage? No, we do share a publisher, so I
:57:45. > :57:50.might as well not be too flattering. I am fascinated about diaries. The
:57:50. > :58:00.best diaries are often not from people who get to the top. The
:58:00. > :58:05.
:58:05. > :58:11.great thing is the self deprecating quality. It also makes it a very
:58:11. > :58:18.truth. The diaries just rang true. And they rarely translate it on
:58:18. > :58:22.stage. I don't think Alastair Campbell's diaries or make it.
:58:22. > :58:32.does not always work and it does not always work when it is
:58:32. > :58:38.
:58:38. > :58:45.political. Just time be far we go Simon Jenkins, what happens. They
:58:45. > :58:50.get fatter. I am still the same weight as I went in. Thanks to both
:58:50. > :58:55.of you and thanks to my guests. Particularly Simon Jenkins. The