:00:40. > :00:43.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:43. > :00:45.More coalition trouble this morning with the Lib Dems threatening to
:00:45. > :00:52.withdraw support for parliamentary boundary changes if Tory MPs derail
:00:52. > :01:02.plans for Lords Reform. We'll talk to a Tory rebel who's not for
:01:02. > :01:04.
:01:04. > :01:07.turning. After the anger and acrimony, the Inquiry. But after
:01:07. > :01:11.Balls and Osborne's bust-up, can MPs really get to the bottom of the
:01:11. > :01:14.banking scandal? As the Met Office forecasts a month's rainfall in the
:01:14. > :01:17.next two days in parts of the UK, many homeowners will be living in
:01:17. > :01:20.fear of floods. But with a deal between Government and the
:01:20. > :01:27.insurance industry expiring in less than a year, could they soon be
:01:27. > :01:31.left high and dry - or low and wet - when the waters rise?
:01:31. > :01:36.And it's a long way from anarchy in the UK as Johnny Rotten joins the
:01:36. > :01:38.Question Time panel. So how did the punk legend do? We ask his fellow
:01:38. > :01:48.panellist, and something of a rocker himself, Alan Johnson, for
:01:48. > :01:48.
:01:48. > :01:53.his verdict. So all that's coming up in the next
:01:53. > :01:57.half hour. With us for the whole programme today, Amber Elliott from
:01:57. > :02:06.Total Politics magazine and our old friend Ian Collins. Total madness!
:02:06. > :02:09.And our old friend Ian Collins. You are our old friend? Yeah! Now, the
:02:09. > :02:17.coalition air is thick with threats and intrigue this morning. No
:02:17. > :02:20.change there, then. According to sources to Nick Clegg, there could
:02:20. > :02:23.be "serious consequences". The Liberal Democrats via an interview
:02:23. > :02:25.given by one of the Deputy Prime Minister's departing advisers are
:02:25. > :02:28.warning David Cameron that changes to Parliamentary boundaries much
:02:28. > :02:35.prized by Conservatives could be at risk if Tory MPs derail the Lib
:02:35. > :02:39.Dem's pet project, House of Lords reform.
:02:39. > :02:46.We're going to be joined by one of the rebels that the Lib Dems want
:02:46. > :02:51.to warn off, Peter Bone, MP. Good morning. Good morning to you. Are
:02:51. > :02:56.you frightened, going to act? Are you going to retaliate as a result
:02:56. > :03:00.of this threat? Quaking in my poots, I think, the threat from the
:03:00. > :03:05.Liberals. They just can't be trusted. The deal was they got this
:03:05. > :03:09.wretched AV vote in return for the boundary review. They all voted for
:03:09. > :03:13.that bill. I actually voted against the bill, and now because they
:03:13. > :03:18.didn't get what they wanted in the AV they're now saying it's all
:03:18. > :03:21.about House of Lords reform. Hold on. That was in the coalition
:03:21. > :03:25.agreement. House of Lords reform, bringing forward proposals, seating
:03:25. > :03:29.agreement, but nothing about that. You had the Prime Minister saying
:03:29. > :03:35.it was a third term priority. had a manifesto too. Why are you
:03:35. > :03:38.renegging on it? You did not say that. Your manifesto said you would
:03:38. > :03:43.seek a consensus on House of Lords reform. It's only because of people
:03:43. > :03:49.like you we don't have a consensus. A consensus is a consensus. We're
:03:49. > :03:52.still seeking it, haven't quite made it yet. Do you take the threat
:03:52. > :03:56.seriously? Because it's pretty hard in the current system for the
:03:56. > :04:01.Tories to get an overall majority even if you do well in the polls.
:04:01. > :04:04.If you don't get boundary reform, it's almost mission impossible.
:04:04. > :04:07.don't agree. I think if we had a strong Conservative Government,
:04:07. > :04:11.perhaps as a minority Government for six months to a year then went
:04:11. > :04:14.to the country, we'd get an overwhelming vote and have a clear-
:04:15. > :04:18.cut Conservative majority. I think the Liberals messing around like
:04:18. > :04:21.this just proves the sooner we get to a minority Government, the
:04:21. > :04:25.better. How high would you put the chances of getting a Conservative
:04:25. > :04:28.Government? I think if we govern as a minority Government and for
:04:28. > :04:31.instance brought in definite plans for an EU referendum, a bill of
:04:31. > :04:36.rights, tougher on immigration and things like that... You're not
:04:36. > :04:39.going to get any of that are you? Not with the Liberals. Not getting
:04:39. > :04:42.it even from David Cameron. I don't know. If he was free to be
:04:42. > :04:46.Conservative Prime Minister, we could govern and put our case to
:04:46. > :04:50.the country in due course, and I think that's - nobody really
:04:50. > :04:53.seriously thinks this coalition can stagger on to 2015 when you can't
:04:53. > :05:00.trust for one moment the Liberal Democrat members of it. Is this
:05:00. > :05:04.just the normal sort of coalition politics, or do we take seriously
:05:04. > :05:08.the Lib Dem threat? I think, you know, it's quite fun politics,
:05:08. > :05:12.really, because Nick Clegg has upped the ante without saying a
:05:12. > :05:14.word. You have had his advisor who left yesterday, and he's put the
:05:14. > :05:19.situation out there where the Lib Dems have said, look, if you don't
:05:19. > :05:22.do this for us, we'll stop boundary review - stop the boundary changes.
:05:22. > :05:28.Would you leave them? I think this is just the beginning step. Given
:05:28. > :05:31.it's a here-today-gone-tomorrow advisor following Steve Hilton to
:05:31. > :05:35.the United States. It's great for Nick Clegg because if it doesn't
:05:35. > :05:40.work out he can say it was just my advisor. That's why you wonder what
:05:40. > :05:44.it's all about, Alfie, even though your name not Alfie! Because when I
:05:44. > :05:48.interviewed Nick Clegg on the Sunday Politics and said, "If you
:05:48. > :05:54.don't get Lords reform, will you retaliate?" He said, "One of the
:05:54. > :05:58.good things about this coalition is we don't in for tit for tat
:05:58. > :06:01.retaliation." Peter Bone needs to have a word with Mrs Bone on this
:06:01. > :06:05.occasion because they seem to have lost the idea of what a coalition
:06:05. > :06:09.is all about. If Peter thinks seriously the Conservatives can
:06:09. > :06:13.govern with 50 less seats in a minority Government such as that I
:06:13. > :06:18.am afraid he's living in cloud coup-coup land. One final thing -
:06:18. > :06:22.stand back from it all and give me your prediction, when this
:06:22. > :06:25.timetable - call it the guillotine notion determine debate on the
:06:25. > :06:28.House of Lords reform comes before, there will be Tory rebellions,
:06:28. > :06:34.given that Labour will abstain or vote against, will you have enough
:06:34. > :06:37.rebels to win this vote to stop Lords reform in its tracks?
:06:37. > :06:41.wouldn't stop Lords reform in its tracks, but it would cause problems.
:06:41. > :06:45.Will you? I think there is enough votes it in, but I don't think in
:06:45. > :06:49.the end the Government will move the programme motion. Why move a
:06:49. > :06:52.motion when you know you're going to be beaten? Carry on with the
:06:52. > :06:58.legislation... That would mean the Lords reform would carry on in the
:06:58. > :07:03.House and gum up the works. We'll see how much it does. Remember, all
:07:03. > :07:08.parties before the election were in favour of scrutinising legislation
:07:08. > :07:12.fully, full scrutiny. What does it matter that MPs stayed through the
:07:12. > :07:14.night to look at it? It's about time you did some work. Good to see
:07:14. > :07:18.you. Now, there is another inquiry on
:07:18. > :07:20.the way - this time about the rate- rigging scandal that took down Bob
:07:20. > :07:22.Diamond this week. But agreement did not come easy.
:07:22. > :07:25.Yesterday's debate on the banking inquiry was dominated by
:07:25. > :07:27.acrimonious exchanges between Ed Balls and George Osborne about
:07:27. > :07:30.comments by the Chancellor alleging that his Shadow had questions to
:07:30. > :07:40.answer over pressure put on Barclays to lower the LIBOR rate in
:07:40. > :07:43.
:07:43. > :07:50.2008. It was quite a piece of parliamentary theatre.
:07:50. > :07:54.Impugned my integrity - he has said - no, and he has made an allegation
:07:54. > :07:58.in The Spectator and all over the newspapers. He has no evidence -
:07:58. > :08:02.because there isn't any because it's untrue - and he knew there was
:08:02. > :08:07.no evidence because he knew it was untrue, and he said it anyway
:08:07. > :08:13.because that is the character of the man, Madam Deputy Speaker.
:08:13. > :08:19.idea that I am going do take lessons in integrity from a man who
:08:19. > :08:21.smeared his way through 13 years of Labour Government, who half the
:08:21. > :08:29.people who ever served in him thinks he was a disgrace in his
:08:29. > :08:32.post is another thing. Another quiet day in Westminster.
:08:32. > :08:35.Where does this all leave the banking inquiry? Well, Labour had
:08:35. > :08:37.wanted a judge-led public inquiry. But after the Government won the
:08:37. > :08:40.vote in the Commons, the opposition offered qualified support to a
:08:40. > :08:42.parliamentary inquiry led by the Tory Treasury Select Committee
:08:42. > :08:44.chair Andrew Tyrie. Questions remain about the effectiveness of a
:08:44. > :08:54.parliamentary inquiry following criticism of Mr Tyrie's Committee's
:08:54. > :08:54.
:08:54. > :08:57.cross-examination of Bob Diamond. If you could call it a cross-
:08:57. > :09:00.examination. It's also unclear whether a politician-led inquiry
:09:00. > :09:02.can overcome the increasingly partisan tone of the debate about
:09:02. > :09:06.where responsibility lies for the rate-rigging and wider banking
:09:06. > :09:08.scandal. With us now is Michael Fallon,
:09:08. > :09:18.Conservative Deputy Chairman and Chris Leslie, Shadow Financial
:09:18. > :09:19.
:09:19. > :09:23.Secretary. Welcome to you both. Let's not go through the whole
:09:23. > :09:26.argument again we had yesterday afternoon. We're going to have a
:09:26. > :09:30.parliamentary inquiry. The Government wants it. Labour will
:09:30. > :09:35.reluctantly go along. Do you have a view as to what shape this
:09:35. > :09:39.parliamentary inquiry should now take? Obviously, we would have
:09:39. > :09:45.preferred the judicial, but given we are where we are, there are a
:09:45. > :09:49.number of things to be resolved. There is the question of is there
:09:49. > :09:52.going to be officials and secretariat? Couldn't be Treasury
:09:52. > :09:57.officials. They're in the frame. think the Chancellor said there
:09:57. > :10:00.were going to be discussions in the usual channels. We want to see what
:10:00. > :10:04.those are. I have to say, you mentioned in the outset, because
:10:04. > :10:07.this is more than just Barclays, because we're talking about
:10:07. > :10:13.potentially dozens of banks around the world being involved in this, I
:10:13. > :10:16.think the public will be saying, you know, is this an inquiry with
:10:16. > :10:22.sufficient independent importance and stature? I understand that is
:10:22. > :10:27.why we are still... As you said, we are where we are. We had that
:10:27. > :10:32.debate yesterday. Let's not go over old cold milk here. Do you have an
:10:32. > :10:36.idea what - how this inquiry should be constituted? Should it have an
:10:36. > :10:42.independent secretariat? Should it - people testify under oath, which
:10:42. > :10:47.doesn't usually happen? Should there be a QC to teach you how to
:10:47. > :10:49.ask questions? Look, Labour have backed down on the inquiry they
:10:49. > :10:52.wanted. We have agreed we have parliamentary inquiry. In turn
:10:53. > :10:56.we're happy to listen to Labour if they have constructive suggestions
:10:56. > :11:02.about how this inquiry should be framed. In answer to your questions,
:11:02. > :11:05.yes, more resources can be provided. Parliament cost could do that the
:11:05. > :11:10.National Audit Office might be able to help. Your second question I
:11:10. > :11:14.think was on... Should people testify under oath? They can
:11:14. > :11:18.testify under oath. The Parliament can require that at the moment.
:11:18. > :11:22.has the power to do that. It does. Finally, I think you said, should
:11:22. > :11:27.we have a lawyer involved? You can have a lawyer advising the
:11:27. > :11:32.committee. You do have that. Should you have a prominent QC there to
:11:32. > :11:35.advise you as a team, to have back- up questions? Certainly to advice.
:11:35. > :11:39.I don't think our concessions would understand that we would have to
:11:39. > :11:44.hire somebody to ask the questions for us. Certainly, you could have
:11:44. > :11:47.legal advice. The Treasury Select Committee already has a lawyer who
:11:47. > :11:51.advises. The difficulty is, is this the right moment to be trying to
:11:51. > :11:55.sort of forge a new way of Constitutionally investigating this
:11:55. > :11:58.within a parliamentary process - oaths and QCs, and so forth. It
:11:58. > :12:02.would have been better - and the public expect - it should have been
:12:02. > :12:07.straight away, get into that independent judicial inquiry where
:12:07. > :12:11.the rules are already set out. You're revisiting yesterday.
:12:11. > :12:16.can't repeat it three times when we heard it endlessly yesterday. You
:12:16. > :12:20.may be right or wrong, but we are where we are. I am trying to decide,
:12:20. > :12:25.what should the scope of the inquiry be? What lessons can we
:12:25. > :12:31.learn given we have legislation going through. We have already had
:12:31. > :12:35.a judicial inquiry going on by the States. The facts are out there.
:12:35. > :12:41.What we need to do is know how to change the legislation already in
:12:41. > :12:45.front of Parliament to learn the lessons. The inquiry we have had
:12:45. > :12:50.sparked off by the Americans, not the British, was about particular
:12:50. > :12:54.LIBOR fiddling - two types of fiddling - one by officials, one by
:12:54. > :12:58.rogue traders. We have not had an inquiry into why the culture of the
:12:58. > :13:02.City has been dragged down to the level now where every day we open
:13:02. > :13:07.our papers and some other bank is having its collar felt for mis-
:13:07. > :13:11.selling, cheating, lying and paying themselves shed loads of money they
:13:11. > :13:14.don't deserve. Exactly. We have legislation, Andrew, in front of
:13:14. > :13:20.Parliament at the moment to better regulate the City, so we need to
:13:20. > :13:24.learn very quickly from this inquiry. Which isn't good enough.
:13:24. > :13:28.Which isn't good enough. Speed is of the essence. We have learned the
:13:28. > :13:35.lessons. We can get them into the bill in front of Parliament. After
:13:35. > :13:41.the Trace Select Committee in front of Bob Diamond where you barely
:13:41. > :13:45.laid a finger on him, do you think you need a QC to do this? There
:13:45. > :13:48.were three different aspects to the LIBOR inquiry - 2005, 2007 and 2008,
:13:49. > :13:51.and each member was per suing their own line of questioning. Of course,
:13:51. > :13:55.that can be better organised. One of the advantages of this
:13:55. > :13:58.particular new committee is there will be more expertise there. There
:13:58. > :14:03.will be somebody there from the House of Lords there as well. It
:14:03. > :14:08.will be smaller, more focused, a slightly narrower inquiry. It can
:14:08. > :14:12.get on with this every week now until Christmas. Is it Labour's
:14:12. > :14:17.contention that in the autumn of 2008 the Government played no part
:14:17. > :14:20.whatsoever in trying to get the LIBOR rate down? Well, I mean,
:14:20. > :14:24.there is a distinction between governments of all parties who will
:14:24. > :14:29.want to have a view about the level of interest rates, unemployment
:14:29. > :14:33.inflation and then a suggestion - no, no, this is important - then a
:14:33. > :14:36.suggestion that somehow manipulating or fraudulently
:14:36. > :14:41.fiddling figures has to be the route to be pursued. That's not
:14:41. > :14:46.what I asked you. I am not asking you have... Absolutely. I am asking
:14:46. > :14:52.you is it Labour's position that it was not your policy to depress
:14:52. > :14:55.LIBOR in the autumn of 2008? governments want to make sure
:14:55. > :14:59.interest rates are affordable. That's not the answer to my
:14:59. > :15:05.question. The key allegation the chance loor was insinuating is
:15:05. > :15:09.somehow key individual Ministers including Ed Balls had been somehow
:15:09. > :15:16.complicit in the manipulation fraudulently... No, no, that's not
:15:16. > :15:23.the allegation. Is it your position that Mr Balls or Ms Vadera or
:15:23. > :15:26.anybody else played no part whatsoever, directly or indirectly,
:15:26. > :15:31.in influencing LIBOR policy? We'll go through them. Ed Balls has said
:15:31. > :15:37.he's not had those conversations about LIBOR... I didn't ask you. I
:15:37. > :15:40.said indirectly or directly? She's gone on the record and talked
:15:40. > :15:44.about... She said it was a concern. The paper she commented upon.
:15:44. > :15:47.Phillip Hammond, for example, a Shadow Chief Secretary, also talked
:15:47. > :15:51.about LIBOR... You were the Government, Chris. There is a
:15:51. > :15:57.difference between saying interest rates should be affordable and
:15:57. > :16:02.implying you should somehow... sorry. A criminal approach to
:16:02. > :16:07.fiddling the figures. Nobody wanted to do that. The issue is not should
:16:07. > :16:10.interest rates be affordable. was. You need to reread your
:16:10. > :16:14.history. The issue was wholesale lending for the banks had
:16:14. > :16:18.completely dried up and the LIBOR rate was going through the roof. It
:16:18. > :16:22.was a matter of life or death. It was not about affordability. I ask
:16:22. > :16:27.you one more time - are you saying the Labour Government at no stage
:16:27. > :16:32.directly or indirectly put pressure on the bank to lower LIBOR?
:16:32. > :16:38.Diamond himself said in response to a question from Michael, were
:16:38. > :16:43.Ministers putting pressure on you to fiddle LIBOR? His answer was, "I
:16:43. > :16:47.didn't believe that no." Diamond being instructing, which is
:16:47. > :16:51.entirely different. The answer you're looking for, for indirectly
:16:51. > :16:56.is yes, because he was the City Minister. You can't be the
:16:56. > :17:01.Government and have no indirect connection between what's going on.
:17:01. > :17:05.Do you understand the interest between fiddling figures? It wasn't
:17:05. > :17:10.George Osborne's best moment. Somehow he was sitting around the
:17:10. > :17:14.table with a calculator and abacus trying to instrument what the rate
:17:14. > :17:19.should be is preposterous. The Government of the day were not
:17:19. > :17:24.indirectly linked at some level with what is going on in the City -
:17:24. > :17:27.you must know that. Part of the problem is we seem to be doing an
:17:27. > :17:32.inquiry before anyone started an inquiry. Yesterday in the Commons
:17:32. > :17:35.we had a situation where it was sort of very unparliamentary to a
:17:35. > :17:42.certain extent. It got very personal. The worry with this is it
:17:42. > :17:46.sets a precedent. You then go into an inquiry which is a parliamentary
:17:46. > :17:49.inquiry... If someone accused you of fiddling figures you would want
:17:49. > :17:54.to defend your position. George Osborne overplayed his position. I
:17:54. > :17:59.have spoken to Conservative MPs who tell me he's overplayed his hand.
:17:59. > :18:06.Some were on the record. Yesterday we saw Ed Balls who can be very
:18:06. > :18:12.tribal - he's not so good at taking it. We're finished. But here's a
:18:12. > :18:15.prediction. We'll come back do this. As you may have noticed, it is
:18:15. > :18:25.chucking it down out there. According to the forecast, parts of
:18:25. > :18:27.
:18:27. > :18:30.the UK can expect a month's worth of rain in the next 48 hours. The
:18:31. > :18:34.Met Office told us it would be dry. It is what makes the British summer
:18:34. > :18:37.great! But for many whose homes are at risk of flood, the threatened
:18:37. > :18:40.downpour is serious stuff. And it could get worse if a deal on flood
:18:40. > :18:42.insurance between the government and the industry expires next year.
:18:42. > :18:44.Here is Len Tingle, our political editor in Yorkshire.
:18:44. > :18:50.This man demonstrates brand new flood defences just fitted to his
:18:50. > :18:56.front door. Affected, he hopes, to keep out the water. Five years ago,
:18:56. > :19:01.this is what happened to his street. This is just outside Barnsley in
:19:01. > :19:06.South Yorkshire. The nearby river burst its banks and locals were
:19:06. > :19:11.rescued by boat, waves up to five feet high burst through doors, and
:19:11. > :19:16.destroyed everything in sight. There had not been a single flat
:19:16. > :19:21.here since the 1950s. The Environment Agency says it cannot
:19:21. > :19:27.reduce the risk of it happening again to less than once every 25
:19:27. > :19:34.years. That is a risk too far for insurance companies. I would need
:19:34. > :19:39.to pay 800, 900 pounds more. could be far worse. Across all
:19:39. > :19:44.affected areas, at temporary deal between the government and effected
:19:44. > :19:48.insurers are keeping coverage in place. The deal runs out next year
:19:48. > :19:55.and the insurers want a new one, with government agreeing to
:19:55. > :20:01.underwrite property in the highest areas. If we ever managed to get
:20:01. > :20:06.insurance again. This man is the Finance Minister. Last week he
:20:06. > :20:11.toured some of the latest area has to be inundated. Here he is near
:20:11. > :20:18.Halifax in West Yorkshire. We are reducing the spending over four
:20:18. > :20:22.years by 6%. It is a real priority for us. Broadly speaking, we're
:20:22. > :20:27.spending similar amounts as the previous government because we're
:20:27. > :20:31.spending the money smarter. couple of days later, the Prime
:20:31. > :20:37.Minister visited and neighbouring town. He had a clear message for
:20:37. > :20:42.the insurers. We need a clear deal with the insurance companies so
:20:42. > :20:48.that they do what it says on the 10, they provide people with insurance.
:20:48. > :20:52.Labour warns of falling insurance crisis. At a flat summit in Hull,
:20:52. > :20:57.there were claims that government spending cuts are deeper than
:20:57. > :21:05.admitted. Spending on flood defences was cut by this Government
:21:05. > :21:11.by more than 30 %. The insurance industry have accepted that but
:21:11. > :21:17.they have said, do not expect us to take up the risk. As the
:21:17. > :21:22.politicians and insurers argue, the tide of fear and uncertainty grows.
:21:22. > :21:27.These pictures must have made many reach for their insurance policies.
:21:27. > :21:30.The fear is that if there is next time, those policies may not exist.
:21:30. > :21:35.Len Tingle there. And Aidan Kerr, who is Head of Property at the
:21:35. > :21:39.Association of British Insurers, joins us. Good morning. If the
:21:39. > :21:44.current agreement is not replace, will you simply stop insuring those
:21:44. > :21:50.at risk? We're committed to ensuring those who are at risk of
:21:50. > :21:57.flux. But the fact is that the risk is increasing over time. --
:21:57. > :22:06.insuring. But if you do not get that agreement with government,
:22:06. > :22:11.will you stop providing insurance? Insurance will always be available
:22:11. > :22:18.but as the risk increases, the cost will go up. The issue is about
:22:18. > :22:25.affordability. I think I would take that as a no. Does the Government
:22:25. > :22:28.need to ensure that no household in the UK becomes uninsurable? It is a
:22:28. > :22:33.joint responsibility between the government and the insurance
:22:33. > :22:37.industry. What do you need from the government? They a government needs
:22:37. > :22:44.to work with the insurance industry as they have been doing so far.
:22:44. > :22:47.What does it need to do? It needs to work with us to develop a model.
:22:47. > :22:53.We need to agree with government a kind of pooling system that allows
:22:53. > :22:57.those most at risk to be supported by the market more widely. If you
:22:57. > :23:06.have such a system, and the taxpayers going to be or on the
:23:06. > :23:10.line for this? -- are going to be responsible for this? The insurance
:23:10. > :23:14.industry would still hold on to a lot of the risk. There is always a
:23:15. > :23:20.risk of flooding. I was interviewing a meteorologist last
:23:20. > :23:26.weekend he was saying that every year we have this conversation. The
:23:26. > :23:34.risk is always there. You pick and choose where you want to pay and
:23:34. > :23:38.who you want to insure. For most people come my insurance is very it
:23:38. > :23:43.affordable. Flood insurance is part of a standard home insurance
:23:43. > :23:48.package. Where it has happened, people can still get their
:23:48. > :23:54.insurance renewed. The problem with the packages there is no
:23:54. > :24:04.stipulation as to how much that will cost. So you do not want to
:24:04. > :24:05.
:24:05. > :24:11.take the risk? Your parents fear a flood risk. It they live in St Ives.
:24:11. > :24:15.What would you say? There are 5.2 million homes at risk of flooding.
:24:16. > :24:19.The Government is planning to cut flood defences. You have a
:24:19. > :24:23.situation where the last government agreed a deal where they would keep
:24:23. > :24:27.up flood defences in return for insurance companies subsidising
:24:27. > :24:33.homes at risk, but we have a situation where this government is
:24:33. > :24:38.a bit more free-market about it and not keen on the idea. That leaves
:24:38. > :24:42.people in a difficult situation. They buy annual sled insurance and
:24:42. > :24:48.in one year's time, they do not know what will happen. Do you think
:24:48. > :24:49.you will get a deal with the government? I certainly hope so.
:24:49. > :24:52.Thaw This week, scientists in
:24:52. > :24:55.Switzerland found the God particle, Andy Murray reached the semifinal
:24:55. > :24:57.at Wimbledon and we learnt that TomKat were no more. But what else
:24:57. > :25:06.has been happening in the Westminster village, I hear you
:25:06. > :25:10.ask? Here is the Week In 60 seconds. The former Defence Secretary Liam
:25:10. > :25:17.Fox sparked a debate about a potential referendum on Europe. It
:25:17. > :25:21.sounded a bit like the hokey-cokey. The now ex-boss of Barclays
:25:21. > :25:25.appeared in front of the parliamentary committee to be
:25:25. > :25:30.questioned over the interest-rate fixing debacle. He is such a
:25:30. > :25:36.diamond geezer, as he was on first- name terms with everyone.
:25:36. > :25:40.George, this was reprehensible behaviour. Nick Clegg gave his
:25:40. > :25:46.response on the scandal to the children's programme Newsround.
:25:46. > :25:51.They have got to be responsible for when things go wrong. He said that
:25:51. > :25:56.being in power may 10 feel like he had had a lobotomy. All the really
:25:56. > :26:02.big brains head for Question Time, and John Lydon of the sex Pistols,
:26:02. > :26:06.who disappointed many of his fans by being sane. I do not want my
:26:06. > :26:09.drugs taxed. And to discuss John Lydon, aka
:26:09. > :26:12.Rotten's, performance on Question Time last night, we can speak to
:26:12. > :26:22.his fellow panellist, and something of a rock 'n' roller himself, Alan
:26:22. > :26:30.
:26:30. > :26:37.Johnsosn, who joins us from Hull. Good morning. How it did he do?
:26:37. > :26:41.did all right. It is always easier for someone who is not a politician,
:26:41. > :26:45.because they do not have a constituency to answer to, they are
:26:45. > :26:52.not expected to take blame for things that happen in the past, at
:26:52. > :26:56.the moment are in the future. But I thought he captured the mood. I
:26:56. > :27:03.would think this because I agree with him about having a judge led
:27:03. > :27:08.inquiry. He was nervous beforehand. He had a go about the smoking ban
:27:08. > :27:14.beforehand with me but I do not reveal green room conversations.
:27:15. > :27:20.Did he makes sense on the big issues of our time? Yes, he did. He
:27:20. > :27:26.made sense on banking and he had important things to say. He puts on
:27:26. > :27:30.a bit of an act that he is an anarchist, but actually, there is
:27:30. > :27:36.some establishment in hand. We had this amazing drug confession as
:27:36. > :27:44.well, but that came from the Tory MP who was on the programme. What
:27:44. > :27:49.did you make of him? I want to watch wise old men like Alan
:27:49. > :27:54.Johnson to impart his wisdom. I thought it was preposterous. He
:27:54. > :27:59.wheeled out some vacuous platitudes. He did at this thing that you can
:27:59. > :28:06.do it on a show when you're not a politician, you can come to a
:28:06. > :28:11.crescendo at the end Divya point. He even interrupted the audience.
:28:11. > :28:19.If people want to be entertained, E C was entertaining. It is Question
:28:19. > :28:26.Time, it is not supposed to be entertaining. Alan Johnson, are you
:28:26. > :28:31.telling me that John Lydon is your adviser on banking policy now?
:28:31. > :28:37.but the name is quite appropriate, because something rotten is