:00:41. > :00:46.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Could Gategate yet
:00:46. > :00:50.claim the scalp of Andrew Mitchell? He is meeting the police union this
:00:50. > :00:55.afternoon to give his side of the story but will he survive?
:00:55. > :01:00.We have gone from hug a hoodie to bash a burglar. Does this signal a
:01:00. > :01:03.change of direction for the Tories? Will last the standard-bearer of
:01:03. > :01:07.white van conservatism. A massive hike of energy prices
:01:07. > :01:12.from British Gas, can the Government to anything to ease the
:01:12. > :01:15.pain for hard-pressed consumers? And we visit Nick Clegg's Sheffield
:01:15. > :01:25.constituency. He told his party to go back to their constituencies and
:01:25. > :01:27.
:01:27. > :01:34.prepare for the trail. Well, he should know. Judas, man! Judaists!
:01:34. > :01:38.-- Judas. Politics is a rough game. All that in the next hour. With us
:01:38. > :01:41.for the programme is Sue Cameron from the Financial Times and Nick
:01:41. > :01:45.Watt from the Guardian. Starting with the fate of Andrew Mitchell,
:01:45. > :01:50.the Chief Whip, this morning the Telegraph joined the Sun in calling
:01:50. > :01:53.for his resignation. As a mention this afternoon, he is meeting
:01:53. > :01:57.representatives of the police confederation in his constituency,
:01:57. > :02:00.who want to hear a full account of what he said two officers at the
:02:00. > :02:08.Downing Street gate and whether he used the word, pleb. We will be
:02:08. > :02:15.talking to one of those attending the meeting. Nick Watt, imagine the
:02:15. > :02:19.scene next Wednesday. Prime Minister's Questions. Andrew
:02:19. > :02:23.Mitchell, their ears, very close to the Prime Minister. How will that
:02:23. > :02:30.be handled when he stands up, the Prime Minister, and has to face
:02:30. > :02:35.questions? Andrew Mitchell has modelled his career on France's her
:02:35. > :02:39.cart, the great Chris Wood -- Chief Whip played by a Ian Richardson. If
:02:39. > :02:45.he was here, he was say the position is difficult. I think it
:02:45. > :02:48.is very difficult. He is determined to hang on. Downing Street is
:02:48. > :02:54.determined. They say he asked to hang on and the individual officer
:02:54. > :02:58.is not watching a complaint. It is the police confederation that are
:02:58. > :03:03.driving at. He denies having said there were pleb but if he did say
:03:03. > :03:07.that, that is toxic for the Conservatives. -- having said the
:03:07. > :03:14.word pleb. I have to apologise, Sue Cameron at the Telegraph. I have
:03:14. > :03:21.just been reminded. Picking up on backbenchers, how has his authority,
:03:22. > :03:25.or if it has been eroded, been eroded in the eyes of backbenchers,
:03:25. > :03:29.when he has to manage them? I think what will happen is that he has to
:03:29. > :03:35.be given a few months to see if he can establish the respect and
:03:35. > :03:39.authority that he needs to be a good Chief Whip. At the it would be
:03:39. > :03:43.absolutely disastrous for him to go now. -- I think it would be
:03:43. > :03:47.absolutely disastrous. It would damage the Prime Minister. However
:03:47. > :03:51.rude he was, and clearly he should not have said whatever he said,
:03:51. > :03:54.even he would acknowledge that, I do not think that it is a
:03:54. > :04:00.significant reason -- sufficient reason for a Cabinet minister to
:04:00. > :04:07.resign. The police have got their own agenda. The Telegraph is keen
:04:07. > :04:15.for him to go, because there is a view that he is toxic when he stays,
:04:15. > :04:20.too. I still think, personally, that he should stay on for a while.
:04:20. > :04:24.I do think that they will look very weak if they let him go. And also,
:04:24. > :04:30.Cameron, to be fair to him, there is an element of lynch-mob about
:04:30. > :04:33.all this. We're going to get him, we're going to get him. If the
:04:33. > :04:43.Prime Minister gives into that, that is dangerous. You mentioned
:04:43. > :04:46.
:04:46. > :04:50.the word pled. Not the first person to focus on that. -- pled. Some
:04:50. > :04:55.people in focus groups said that it was the "Know your place" line that
:04:55. > :04:58.was more harmful. In a way, doesn't that queer the pitch for the
:04:58. > :05:05.Conservatives, trying to say they're not worried about class
:05:05. > :05:09.warfare? And yet here we have, allegedly, one of their tribe
:05:09. > :05:13.saying that a policeman should know his place. This is why the timing
:05:13. > :05:17.is so spectacularly awful. David Cameron is aware of the dangers. In
:05:17. > :05:22.his speech last year he said he was in favour of privilege and of
:05:22. > :05:26.spreading privilege to everyone. It is absolutely toxic. Know your
:05:26. > :05:31.place, that plays into that agenda. It is important to say that Andrew
:05:31. > :05:36.Mitchell denies the words attributed to him. That meeting
:05:36. > :05:38.this afternoon will be interesting. This week, David Cameron's
:05:39. > :05:42.Conservatives showed their tougher side. The Tories may have been
:05:42. > :05:46.meeting in Birmingham but as far as the way forward is concerned, the
:05:46. > :05:52.only way is Essex. Out go fruit smoothies, windmills on Number Ten,
:05:52. > :05:57.hugging hoodies and huskies. And gay marriage did not get a mention
:05:57. > :06:01.in the Prime Minister's speech. David is driving a new brand of
:06:01. > :06:09.white van conservatism. And this tabloid Toryism has some stark
:06:09. > :06:11.messages. Ken Clarke focused on reducing the prison population,
:06:11. > :06:17.reducing the prison population, replaced with Chris Grayling
:06:17. > :06:20.talking about other sentences. The Chancellor told Conservatives but
:06:20. > :06:26.those on benefits would lose �10 billion in the next round of
:06:26. > :06:29.austerity. The message of work, not welfare, was underlined in the
:06:29. > :06:32.welfare, was underlined in the Prime Minister's speech. We do not
:06:32. > :06:42.preach about one nation but practice class war. We get behind
:06:42. > :06:53.
:06:53. > :06:57.people who want to get on in life. A's -- APPLAUSE.
:06:57. > :07:01.That is right, the jurors, the risk-takers, the young people who
:07:01. > :07:05.dream of their first pay cheque, their first home. Those people who
:07:05. > :07:09.are ready and willing to work hard and get those things. While the
:07:09. > :07:14.other intellectuals might Spear at people who want to get on in life,
:07:14. > :07:18.we salute you. They cost the party of the better-off. No, we are the
:07:18. > :07:22.party of the want to be better off, those who strive to make a better
:07:22. > :07:27.life for themselves, and we should never be ashamed of saying so.
:07:27. > :07:32.was the Prime Minister. With us is the self-styled white van
:07:32. > :07:35.Conservative MP, Robert Southam, and Ryan Shawcross from a
:07:35. > :07:39.Conservative campaigning group. First of all, you could say gay
:07:39. > :07:45.marriage, the green agenda, hug a hoodie, all noticeably absent from
:07:45. > :07:48.the speech. As the modernising agenda been dumped? This is the
:07:48. > :07:52.mistake commentators have made. You can be strong and compassionate at
:07:52. > :07:56.the same time. When I talk about white van conservatism, I'm talking
:07:56. > :08:00.about the person who wakes up at 5:00am to go to work and comes back
:08:00. > :08:04.at 5pm or 6pm and his wife goes out to work as well. They are doing
:08:04. > :08:10.that to keep their heads above water. We have to help them, the
:08:10. > :08:14.people who are striving, working hard and playing hard. Do you think
:08:14. > :08:19.those other issues are sidelined? Better to dump it at this stage?
:08:19. > :08:25.You can be strong and compassionate at the same time. Why not mention
:08:25. > :08:28.it in the speech? We used to hear so much about blue going green, we
:08:28. > :08:32.used to hear a lot more about the gay marriage issue, and hugger
:08:32. > :08:40.hoodie. If you look at the Prime Minister's speech, it is strongly
:08:40. > :08:43.about public Conservatives. -- public services. We care strongly
:08:44. > :08:47.about the public sector. We can be strong and compassionate, it is not
:08:47. > :08:53.one or the other. Do you think the modernising agenda has been dumped,
:08:53. > :09:02.Brian? I do not think it has. In fairness, there is only so much
:09:02. > :09:08.David Cameron can say in his speech. Modernisation has always been a
:09:08. > :09:13.problem. It is not just about green issues and gay issues, but in fact
:09:14. > :09:17.I was working for the Tories and their manifesto was full of issues
:09:17. > :09:21.about education and health, and it has always been a broad package.
:09:21. > :09:24.These things are important, gay marriage is an issue, and things
:09:24. > :09:29.about welfare and education. you did not win the election.
:09:29. > :09:35.did not. With those issues or that broad-spectrum. Is that why Robert
:09:35. > :09:39.is right to vote for more on striving and aspiration? I do not
:09:39. > :09:42.accept the premise of the question which is bad somehow the strivers
:09:42. > :09:46.are not bothered about green and gay issues. They are very
:09:46. > :09:50.compassionate, for four people. They care about those things and
:09:50. > :09:55.they care about the cost of living and childcare, education. It needs
:09:55. > :09:59.to be a broad package. I accept that we did not win the election
:09:59. > :10:03.and that is because people do not trust the Tory brand. They think we
:10:03. > :10:09.care about spreadsheets and Jaguars. But actually we are motivated by
:10:09. > :10:14.our hearts as well as our heads. the base of that, being the party
:10:14. > :10:19.of the rich, does it appeal to aspirational Tories and the white
:10:19. > :10:23.van man to cut the top rate of tax? The question is, how much money
:10:23. > :10:27.does the Government get? It is not about who you take the money from,
:10:27. > :10:30.it is about how much money goes into the Treasury. If you can get
:10:30. > :10:34.the rich to pay more, that is a different issue. What aspirational
:10:34. > :10:38.people want is law tax for earners. That is what we have done. They
:10:38. > :10:47.want apprenticeships, and we have invested in 100,000 of them. They
:10:47. > :10:51.want academies, good schools. Those other things that attract voters.
:10:51. > :10:54.The issue is how much money the Government gets. The government say
:10:54. > :10:58.they can get five times more money in by cutting the band for very
:10:58. > :11:01.rich people. We have cut taxes for low earners by raising the
:11:01. > :11:08.threshold and it would like us to go further and restore the 10p rate
:11:08. > :11:13.for lower earners. We have to show people that, to use a Blairite
:11:13. > :11:18.phrase, taxes for the many, not the few. David Cameron spoke about his
:11:18. > :11:22.background, and from the criticism put forward by a Labour. You have
:11:22. > :11:26.said that white van Conservatism triumphs over Metropolitan
:11:26. > :11:32.intellectualism. But David Cameron and George Osborne came out of the
:11:32. > :11:35.Notting Hill lead. I was talking about the Labour Party. In the two
:11:35. > :11:39.years I have been an MP, not one person has ever asked me what
:11:39. > :11:42.school David Cameron came from. No one ever cares about that. It is
:11:42. > :11:48.the issues of the Notting Hill elite, rather than the background.
:11:48. > :11:51.What about the issues they were focused on, are the slightly out of
:11:51. > :11:56.touch with what people outside of the metropolitan elite are focused
:11:56. > :12:00.on? Those issues are what the commentators focused on. What the
:12:00. > :12:03.Prime Minister and the coalition has focused on, as I say, his lover
:12:03. > :12:11.taxes for lower earners, apprenticeships and better schools.
:12:11. > :12:15.-- is lower taxes. Brine, what do you think? The Environment
:12:15. > :12:22.Secretary is spec -- sceptical about the environment, what message
:12:22. > :12:26.does that send out to voters? Commentators talked about a shift
:12:26. > :12:31.to the right. Chris Grayling is very, very sophisticated on public
:12:31. > :12:36.service -- the public service side. He has been in the Department for
:12:36. > :12:40.Work and Pensions, doing -- developing this programme. But he
:12:40. > :12:43.will work in the same way on justice. What about what Jeremy
:12:43. > :12:47.Hunt said about climate change and abortion? I think he was talking in
:12:47. > :12:51.a personal capacity. Is it appropriate? I do not agree. I do
:12:51. > :12:55.not think we need to cut the limit from 24 weeks. A big the evidence
:12:55. > :13:00.suggests that where it is at the moment is right. It is his personal
:13:00. > :13:04.take and we should respect that. Owen Paterson has personal beliefs
:13:04. > :13:07.on climate change and we should respect that. There is a Department
:13:07. > :13:10.for energy and climate change which she is not in, headed by other
:13:10. > :13:15.Tories who were very passionate about the climate change agenda.
:13:15. > :13:19.That will be moving forward. It is a right -- it is right to have a
:13:19. > :13:25.mix of use. Does that fit with the battle to occupy the centre ground?
:13:25. > :13:31.The centre ground is broad. You are talking about being right of
:13:31. > :13:35.centre? I am not. Scrap the left and right. It is about addressing
:13:36. > :13:38.issues which are meaningful for the population. Yes, they want to be
:13:38. > :13:44.tough on crime but they care about the marriage and the environment.
:13:45. > :13:53.It is about doing both. Is there a danger that some critics will be
:13:53. > :13:58.able to label the Tory party as the nasty party? Even if it is rhetoric,
:13:58. > :14:04.if you think of further welfare cuts to the tune of �10 billion,
:14:04. > :14:12.the continued freeze in public- sector pay. Isn't that the danger
:14:12. > :14:15.for the voters? The danger is not a great. It is the age of austerity.
:14:15. > :14:19.-- not that great. From the beginning, the coalition won the
:14:19. > :14:24.battle to convince people we had to cut the deficit. I think one of the
:14:24. > :14:27.strong things about David Cameron's speech in particular was that it
:14:27. > :14:32.gave a narrative to a lot of the reforms that they are doing, and
:14:32. > :14:36.put them in the context of ordinary people, not just the toffs, but the
:14:36. > :14:41.reason they are trying to improve education standards, cut down on
:14:41. > :14:45.scroungers, which is very popular with voters. All the polls show
:14:45. > :14:51.that. The reason for that is to help those who aspire for a better
:14:51. > :14:55.life. The reason the speech was so successful, one of them, was that
:14:55. > :15:00.he managed to humanise it and to explain that there was a purpose to
:15:00. > :15:04.austerity other than just cutting for the sake of it. I think giving
:15:04. > :15:10.hope to ordinary people. Policy- wise, there was not much policy, if
:15:10. > :15:14.any, in David Cameron's speech. It was not the time, that was the
:15:14. > :15:18.narrative. In terms of moving to the right, and the absence of those
:15:18. > :15:22.other issues he used to talk about, is that just the passage of time or
:15:22. > :15:27.is a deliberate? I c lurches to the right, we make talking about
:15:27. > :15:31.Britain becoming a foreign land. This is not a lurch to the right. -
:15:31. > :15:34.- William Hague are talking about Britain. It is certainly a
:15:34. > :15:37.repositioning. The important thing is that the Conservatives are not
:15:37. > :15:40.scared of the Labour Party. They looked at Ed Miliband's speech at
:15:40. > :15:44.the thought it was good but the fundamentals have not changed. They
:15:44. > :15:46.are not scared of him and they do not feel that they need to do what
:15:46. > :15:55.David Cameron did when he was scared of Tony Blair, and therefore
:15:55. > :15:58.he can be talking but these core issues. But another important thing
:15:58. > :16:03.about William Hague is that his lurch to the right was about
:16:03. > :16:07.shoring up his position within the Conservative Party. Every single
:16:07. > :16:12.word he is up to run, it is going through Andrew Cooper, the director
:16:12. > :16:15.of strategy. -- what he is uttering. Everything goes through him.
:16:15. > :16:24.Everything will have been polled and they will say they are on the
:16:24. > :16:34.money. On the issue of gay marriage, should that be quietly dropped?
:16:34. > :16:38.
:16:38. > :16:42.$:/STARTFEED. The Government are right to focus on aspiration and
:16:42. > :16:48.helping strivers. If we're talking about a campaign from the centre,
:16:48. > :16:50.though, Ryan, hasn't an incident like Andrew Mitchell's gate-gate
:16:50. > :16:54.retoxified the brand? Andrew Mitchell was very rude. He's
:16:54. > :17:00.apologised for that. It could be seen as very damaging. However, I
:17:00. > :17:05.wasn't there. I didn't see what happened. People want to situation
:17:05. > :17:10.to rest now. You say people want it to rest. Who? Politicians want it
:17:10. > :17:16.to rest. People probably until there is no new evidence about
:17:16. > :17:19.what's happened shouldn't come to a judgment. We shouldn't quickly come
:17:19. > :17:23.to a judgment. Has this affected Andrew Mitchell's position within
:17:23. > :17:27.the party? You could say the same when Gordon Brown called an old
:17:27. > :17:32.lady a bigot. Sure. People did carry on hounding him the rest of
:17:32. > :17:36.his life. The fact is he apologised for calling her a bigot. Andrew
:17:36. > :17:42.Mitchell has apologised with what happened to the police. It's time
:17:42. > :17:48.to move on. He hasn't apologised for the pleb bit. Has it hindered
:17:48. > :17:51.his ability to move on as Chief Whip? I think it's time to move on.
:17:51. > :17:57.He's apologised in the same way Gordon Brown apologised for what he
:17:57. > :18:00.did. Gordon Brown went on to lose the election. Is it a possible
:18:00. > :18:04.standing amongst your colleagues? think his apology is welcome. It's
:18:04. > :18:08.time to move on. Very few people have talked to me about this on the
:18:08. > :18:14.street. This is not the thing people are concerned about. People
:18:14. > :18:17.are much more concerned about the cost of living. Thank you very much.
:18:17. > :18:24.Given all the Prime Minister's efforts to appeal to the striving
:18:24. > :18:30.classes, the Mitchell affair must be proving to be more than an ir80
:18:30. > :18:35.distraction. He's due to meet members of the Police Federation.
:18:35. > :18:39.Kailai, who will be at the meeting, joins us from Birmingham. What do
:18:39. > :18:45.you want to hear? Good afternoon. We simply want to ask Mr Mitchell
:18:45. > :18:49.exactly what he said outside the gates of Downing Street eight weeks
:18:49. > :18:52.ago. There has been a lot of talk about the language issued. Our
:18:52. > :18:55.concern is that of integrity, both of police officers and Cabinet
:18:55. > :18:59.Ministers. Someone in this incident isn't telling the truth, and we'd
:18:59. > :19:03.like to find out who it is. course, it could either be Andrew
:19:03. > :19:07.Mitchell or the police officer involved who took down the so-
:19:07. > :19:10.called transcript of that encounter. Yes, the police officers involved
:19:10. > :19:16.made notes of what happened at the time. Mr Mitchell, of course,
:19:16. > :19:19.although he has apologised - that's been accompanied by repeated
:19:19. > :19:23.denials of the language used, but he won't tell us exactly what he
:19:23. > :19:28.said. As I say, that's one of the questions we'll be asking him.
:19:28. > :19:32.have been discussing it. He has apologised and actually the police
:19:32. > :19:39.officer who bore the brunt of the outburst has accepted that apology.
:19:39. > :19:43.What right have you to keep on at this issue? I have to stress I
:19:43. > :19:46.don't represent Metropolitan police officers but we think the issue of
:19:46. > :19:49.integrity is significant. Society demands police officers are honest.
:19:49. > :19:52.They should expect the same standards of Cabinet Ministers.
:19:52. > :19:57.That's what we have to resolve. Somebody here isn't telling the
:19:57. > :20:02.truth. Is this becoming a political exercise on your behalf? We have
:20:02. > :20:08.spent days and days on this issue about who said what. People have
:20:08. > :20:12.apologised. It has been accepted, and yet here we are weeks later
:20:12. > :20:16.still discussing the minutiae of what was said, not to diminish
:20:16. > :20:21.words that were bandied about, if they were bandied about at the time,
:20:21. > :20:25.but are you now at risk of become accused of being political about an
:20:25. > :20:28.issue that's really been gone over enough? This is absolutely not a
:20:28. > :20:35.political campaign of any sort, I have to stress. This is about the
:20:35. > :20:38.integrity of police officers. We have officers' notes that are being
:20:38. > :20:44.described by a Cabinet Minister as not being accurate. I would like
:20:44. > :20:46.that issue resolved. It really is as simple as that. If you're not
:20:46. > :20:49.satisfied with Andrew Mitchell's account, what happens next? We have
:20:50. > :20:54.detailed accounts from police officers. Unless Mr Mitchell is
:20:54. > :20:58.going to accept they're accurate - we believe they are - I don't want
:20:58. > :21:00.to prejudge what happens tonight. We're going to push him for an
:21:00. > :21:04.explanation of what happened outside Downing Street three weeks
:21:04. > :21:07.ago. You have prejudged it because, as you have said, he's denied the
:21:07. > :21:13.account by the police officer, so unless Andrew Mitchell says, "I
:21:13. > :21:19.made a mistake. I did say those words," then what action are you
:21:19. > :21:22.going to take subsequently? We want him to explain what he said outside
:21:22. > :21:27.Downing Street. He's consistently refused to do that. If he refuses
:21:27. > :21:34.again or doesn't quite meet with what you were expect, what are you
:21:34. > :21:39.going to do? In this case, he has to resign. Do you think this is a -
:21:39. > :21:44.- there is a risk this is becoming a political exercise? Of course it
:21:44. > :21:47.is. On the question of pay and integrity, I think it's a bit rich
:21:47. > :21:53.because only this morning we have had Hillsboro, police covering up
:21:53. > :22:00.for 23 years. There is going to be an investigation. The inquire yous
:22:00. > :22:10.are going to look at them committing manslaughter perhaps. We
:22:10. > :22:13.have only just gotten over that baton-waving bobby who hit poor Ian
:22:13. > :22:16.Tomlinson, to when died. He has been left. There is also the
:22:16. > :22:20.question of what the police were doing. I don't think it was the
:22:20. > :22:23.people on the gate. I am told it was more senior officers leaking
:22:23. > :22:27.what was in their notebooks because what was in a police notebook - I
:22:27. > :22:31.don't think it applies here, but potentially can be used as
:22:31. > :22:34.evidence... Ken, what do you say to that? Lots of issues raised there.
:22:34. > :22:39.Let's take the Chief Constable of Cleveland. He lost his job only a
:22:39. > :22:43.week ago largely through dishonesty. He went through the discipline
:22:43. > :22:48.process and was dismissed as a result. We cannot change the
:22:48. > :22:51.standards - IPCC has announced today there will be discipline
:22:51. > :22:55.inquiries into what happened at Hillsboro - and rightly so. And we
:22:55. > :22:59.want to see the same sort of standards applied to what happened
:22:59. > :23:04.outside Downing Street. I mean, a cover-up for Hillsboro is not on
:23:04. > :23:09.the same par in any sense with a Cabinet Minister, wrongly of course,
:23:09. > :23:12.but losing his temper. It's not on the same planet. What do you say to
:23:12. > :23:20.that? Some people say this was an outburst of temper and nothing more.
:23:20. > :23:24.Yes, again, but it is the question of Mr Mitchell denying what the
:23:24. > :23:30.officer's account is correct. It is an issue of integrity. Now, that is
:23:30. > :23:32.massively significant for us. do you say? It is hilarious to hear
:23:32. > :23:35.the Police Federation saying they're not a political
:23:35. > :23:40.organisation. They're an intensely political organisation. They're a
:23:40. > :23:43.trade union. They paid for posters to be put up outside the political
:23:43. > :23:47.party conference last week. Of course they are. What I find creepy
:23:47. > :23:50.about this is the idea that the police should decide who is in the
:23:50. > :23:54.Cabinet. I tell you who decides who is in the Cabinet. It's the Prime
:23:54. > :23:57.Minister who is elected by the people, not by the police. If Mr
:23:57. > :24:01.Mitchell did say all of these things, of course his position is
:24:01. > :24:03.difficult, and of course, he's going to face a real fight, but
:24:04. > :24:08.Parliament and the Prime Minister will decide, not the police. You're
:24:08. > :24:11.going to lose support over this, aren't you? In the end, the public
:24:11. > :24:15.who did support the line and feel that police officers should be
:24:15. > :24:19.treated with respect, you'll lose this in the end, and you'll lose
:24:19. > :24:23.face? I don't think we will. We have seen The Daily Telegraph
:24:23. > :24:27.online poll today - 10,000 people have responded to that over 9,000
:24:27. > :24:34.think Mr Mitchell has to resign. That's an indication of the public
:24:34. > :24:37.interest in this, and the view that the public have. All right. Thought
:24:37. > :24:41.that meeting obviously take place this afternoon.
:24:42. > :24:45.Now with the night drawing in and winter almost upon us, it's time to
:24:46. > :24:55.wrap up warm and turn up the heating. In recent years energy
:24:56. > :24:56.
:24:56. > :24:58.price rises have become a regular feature of the changing seasons.
:24:58. > :25:01.Today, British Gas announced that they will be raising gas and
:25:01. > :25:04.electricity prices by an average of 6% on November 16th, meaning an
:25:04. > :25:07.average price increase of around �80 per household. Earlier, the BBC
:25:07. > :25:10.spoke to the Energy Minister Greg Barker and asked him what the
:25:10. > :25:11.Government is doing to reduce energy bills. Here's what he had to
:25:11. > :25:14.say. We're taking practical action to
:25:14. > :25:17.help people in the short term. We're legislating to reform the
:25:17. > :25:21.electricity markets. We're also about to roll out the biggest home
:25:21. > :25:25.efficiency programme ever seen in this country. The roll-out of the
:25:25. > :25:29.Green Deal will transform the energy efficiency of people's homes,
:25:29. > :25:33.and although that won't help bring prices down, it will mean that
:25:33. > :25:40.consumers use less energy, so their bills should come down. Joining me
:25:40. > :25:44.now is Richard Lloyd, Executive Director at consumer group Which?
:25:44. > :25:48.Can the Government actually do anything about this? White House
:25:48. > :25:52.rises have been going on now for year, and they can't make them come
:25:52. > :25:57.down. Well, what Ministers will say is, we're reforming the energy
:25:57. > :26:01.market. We're doing things to help people save money. But that's such
:26:01. > :26:04.a poor answer to people today hearing they're going to be
:26:04. > :26:07.clobbered by this inflation rise from British Gas. I wouldn't be
:26:07. > :26:11.surprised if later today or perhaps in the next couple of days we hear
:26:11. > :26:16.more of the big six energy companies announcing similar price
:26:16. > :26:21.rises, so the question for the Ministers is what are you doing to
:26:21. > :26:24.make this market competitive so it works for consumers so there is
:26:24. > :26:34.competitive pressure on those big, lazy companies to be more efficient
:26:34. > :26:34.
:26:34. > :26:37.and keep their price down? The answer is the public don't believe
:26:37. > :26:41.Ministers will do anything about it. They have to get their act together
:26:41. > :26:45.on this one. Are they in the process of getting it together? Are
:26:45. > :26:50.they in the process of opening it up? Everything seems long term. As
:26:50. > :26:55.you say, people are struggling and they will struggle now. They're in
:26:55. > :26:59.a bit of a dilemma because on one hand they're trying to attract �2
:26:59. > :27:04.billion of investment into rebuilding our ramshackle
:27:04. > :27:09.infrastructure. It is in a complete mess. On the other hand, they need
:27:09. > :27:12.to protect the consumer's interests here. There is no need to get
:27:12. > :27:15.private investment in if consumers can't afford their bills. They have
:27:15. > :27:20.to strike a balance. What we need to see is much more pro-consumer
:27:20. > :27:24.reform of the market so it is genuinely competitive at the same
:27:24. > :27:28.time as attracting this investment into rebuilding infrastructure.
:27:28. > :27:31.It's a difficult balance, but this is what Ministers are for surely.
:27:31. > :27:35.We have heard from British Gas who are saying their profit margins are
:27:35. > :27:39.far lower than they were, they are putting that money into investment.
:27:39. > :27:44.We can't see any of that on our bill, how much goes into investment,
:27:44. > :27:47.and of course, they go on time and time again about the White House of
:27:48. > :27:53.wholesale energy, that that is what's making them put the price up
:27:53. > :27:55.for the consumer. I don't think anyone believes that when British
:27:55. > :27:59.Gas's parent company Centrica is announcing very, very healthy
:27:59. > :28:03.profits and there is this capacity - this lack of transparency about
:28:03. > :28:07.how the business works and when wholesale prices are going up, your
:28:07. > :28:11.domestic bills are rocketing up. When they fall, somehow our
:28:11. > :28:17.domestic prices don't fall quite so fast. They're not being straight
:28:17. > :28:20.with us? The consumers tell us at Which there's complete lack of
:28:20. > :28:23.transparency about what's going on here. It doesn't seem fair to
:28:23. > :28:28.people their domestic prices are going up so fast when the parent
:28:28. > :28:35.company is announcing such profits. If we had a more competitive energy
:28:35. > :28:40.market there would be more pressure on British Gas to keep those prices
:28:40. > :28:44.down. One of the things viewers complain about all the time is the
:28:44. > :28:48.Government's green prices and how much they're costing consumers and
:28:48. > :28:58.why can't we see it on the bill? The Government would argue this is
:28:58. > :29:03.going towards people's long-term - but they don't know how much it's
:29:03. > :29:06.going subsidise people's green subsidies. It is really hard to
:29:06. > :29:09.figure it out. What we have been saying to the companies is if
:29:09. > :29:13.you're going to blame British Gas and the Government for some of this
:29:13. > :29:17.price increase, spread it out. Tell us in our bills in a summary
:29:17. > :29:20.exactly what this price is composed of, whether it's social policy,
:29:20. > :29:25.environmental policy, wholesale price, your profit? Surely, it's
:29:25. > :29:30.not beyond you to spell that out, so there's bit more transparency in
:29:30. > :29:33.here. Sue, how can the Government go on appealing to the aspirational
:29:33. > :29:37.voter, to the striver who is working hard when they can't seem
:29:37. > :29:42.to do anything about rising energy prices, rising petrol price and
:29:42. > :29:47.rising food prices? Probably the three most important things to the
:29:47. > :29:52.average consumer. I think on the energy front, I can - you can quite
:29:52. > :29:56.see why consumers get upset when Centrica has made big profits, but
:29:56. > :30:00.you have to remember Centrica are the parent company of British Gas.
:30:00. > :30:05.They're a global company. Its profits come from other countries.
:30:05. > :30:08.And if, for instance, they were making big profits here, then using
:30:08. > :30:11.them to subsidise the Americans, everybody here would go mad. They
:30:11. > :30:15.can't do it the other way around. I think British Gas is having to
:30:15. > :30:21.invest a lot in the grid. We don't want to have black-outs. They're
:30:21. > :30:23.having to pay more for gas. Do you think the prices are justifiable?
:30:23. > :30:28.think it's very difficult. There has been stories that the
:30:28. > :30:33.Government is going to encourage the use of building of new gas
:30:33. > :30:38.power stations, which might help to bring down price. But let's - let's
:30:38. > :30:43.see if that happens. But is Government impotent? That's the
:30:43. > :30:47.point. Is Government impotent... Pretty much it is. Let's be honest.
:30:47. > :30:51.Energy prices are massively and incredibly sensitive to the good
:30:51. > :30:55.old supply and demand. We face in this country two real problems that
:30:55. > :30:59.aren't going to go away. One is North Sea gas and oil prices are
:30:59. > :31:02.heading downwards. What is heading upwards is demand for energy in the
:31:02. > :31:05.developing countries of China and India. That is only going to go up.
:31:05. > :31:10.If you have demand going up and supply going down, guess what
:31:10. > :31:14.happens? The price goes up. There is nothing you can do about that.
:31:14. > :31:17.You have to admit these are big, bloated formerly public sector
:31:17. > :31:23.companies that have very little competitive pressure on them to be
:31:23. > :31:26.efficient... Not for a moment - I'm not for a moment defending the big
:31:26. > :31:30.six, and Ed Miliband has made fantastic speeches criticising them
:31:30. > :31:34.saying they should be more efficient. But energy prices are
:31:34. > :31:37.decided on the global market. There is not much we can do about
:31:38. > :31:41.it. Everyone expects and knows energy prices are on the way up
:31:41. > :31:46.because of commodity prices, but are consumers in the end being hit
:31:46. > :31:50.unfairly and unfairly hard at a time people can least afford it?
:31:50. > :31:52.have a feeling you might be back on if the set on this in the future.
:31:52. > :31:54.Thank you. The Government's plan to reform the
:31:54. > :31:57.NHS proved hugely controversial, politically difficult, and of
:31:57. > :32:00.course, their creator, Andrew Lansley, has been moved from his
:32:00. > :32:04.job as Health Secretary. The Bill did, however, make it on to the
:32:04. > :32:06.statute book, but when will you and Notice any difference, and when
:32:06. > :32:10.will we know whether or not it's working?'' The independent and
:32:10. > :32:20.highly respected think-tank The No-holds-barred assessment of the
:32:20. > :32:23.
:32:23. > :32:27.potential impact of those reforms - The aim was simple. A radical
:32:27. > :32:31.reform of the NHS designed to increase efficiency, promote choice
:32:31. > :32:35.and deliver the best possible care for patients. Yet less than six
:32:35. > :32:41.months after it came into being, its architect, Andrew Lansley, was
:32:41. > :32:44.sacked as Health Secretary. To say that independent experts have set a
:32:44. > :32:48.low pass for success is putting it mildly. Success for the Government
:32:49. > :32:53.will involve keeping the show on the road, maintaining good
:32:53. > :32:58.standards of patient care, freeing up money from areas that are
:32:58. > :33:01.wasteful at the moment and finding them -- finding the resources to
:33:01. > :33:05.invest in new priorities. If the Government is able to drive those
:33:05. > :33:10.improvements, then the rationale for reforms will be justified. At
:33:10. > :33:14.this stage, no one can tell whether that will be the outcome. The NHS
:33:14. > :33:18.insists that it will be able to cope with any glitches that arise
:33:18. > :33:24.from the reforms. We will intervene if we believe things are going off
:33:24. > :33:29.track. Obviously, to protect local populations and patients, so we can
:33:29. > :33:36.do anything from putting other people into the group to run it, on
:33:36. > :33:40.our behalf, so we have those powers, and we will use them. Jeremy Hunt,
:33:40. > :33:45.have you got the Health Secretary job? Jeremy Hunt may have more than
:33:45. > :33:50.the future of the NHS in his hands. It is the biggest privilege of my
:33:50. > :33:55.life. The political stakes -- the political stakes are really high.
:33:55. > :34:02.It is hard to exaggerate the importance of the NHS for the
:34:02. > :34:05.Government. The challenge is damage limitation -- damage-limitation. To
:34:05. > :34:11.persuade staff that there are benefits of these changes even
:34:11. > :34:18.though there is deep scepticism. believe in the NHS is to believe in
:34:18. > :34:23.its reform. Not my words, but those of Lord D'Arcy, the Labour health
:34:23. > :34:27.minister under Andy Burnham. Now he is in opposition, Andy Burnham
:34:27. > :34:31.sings a different tune. Would things really be that different
:34:31. > :34:34.under Labour? Labour could go back on these reforms and there is a
:34:34. > :34:39.clear commitment to repeal the gargantuan Health and Social Care
:34:39. > :34:43.Act, and to go off in a different direction. That implies another
:34:43. > :34:47.major reorganisation of the Health Service and Labour has said it does
:34:47. > :34:51.not want to promote structural change. It is going to be hard to
:34:51. > :34:54.fulfil that promise and repeal the Act at the same time. According to
:34:54. > :34:58.the Professor, the biggest challenge is not the reforms
:34:58. > :35:03.themselves, it is the economic Times where working in. And his
:35:03. > :35:08.message is stark. I think in a year or two, the health service will do
:35:08. > :35:13.very well indeed to maintain current standards of patient care.
:35:13. > :35:17.Declining rates of hospital been acquired infections, many areas of
:35:17. > :35:22.care have improved. -- hospital acquired infections. But the
:35:22. > :35:25.funding pressures are huge. We have never had a period like this before
:35:25. > :35:30.and if they Health Service is still able to maintain the standards in
:35:30. > :35:36.two years, it will be a miracle, frankly. To battle it out on the
:35:36. > :35:41.health policy, Diane Abbott is here, and Dr Dan Poulter is in our
:35:41. > :35:44.Ipswich studio. First of all, we heard Professor Ham saying it would
:35:44. > :35:50.be a miracle if in a your two, the Health Service maintains its
:35:50. > :35:56.current standards. -- in a year or two. That is a damning indictment.
:35:56. > :36:04.This is not a new criticism. We have had the same concerns raised
:36:04. > :36:09.for the last five or 10 years. Each year, the NHS does well in
:36:09. > :36:12.maintaining quality patient care. As it not been able to do that
:36:12. > :36:16.because of vast amounts of money and investment into the health
:36:16. > :36:21.service? As a result, we are seeing shorter waiting times, a reduction
:36:21. > :36:24.in hospital acquired infections. That rate of investment will be cut
:36:24. > :36:27.dramatically even if there is a slight increase, and you will be
:36:27. > :36:35.blamed. This government is continuing to make sure that we
:36:35. > :36:39.protect the budget and continue to invest. But at a law degree. -- a
:36:39. > :36:42.law degree. The Labour party have never confirmed that they would not
:36:42. > :36:46.do the same. We're doing the best to make sure we continue to invest
:36:46. > :36:49.in patients. The question is, what does good health care look like in
:36:49. > :36:54.a few years' time? People are living a lot longer, with multiple
:36:54. > :36:57.medical conditions, diabetes, dementia, heart disease. We have to
:36:57. > :37:00.make sure we have a health service that is in a better place to look
:37:00. > :37:05.after those people. That means that more care has to be delivered in
:37:05. > :37:09.the community, to keep people well at home rather than picking up the
:37:09. > :37:13.pieces when they get on well. These reforms will put us in a better
:37:13. > :37:17.place. So you will challenge Professor Ham when he said it will
:37:17. > :37:21.be a miracle if those standards are maintained? You can categorically
:37:21. > :37:29.say that the current standard, using waiting times and infections,
:37:29. > :37:32.for example, they will be maintained? Absolutely. We have had
:37:32. > :37:38.the same challenge has, historically, and each year, the
:37:38. > :37:42.NHS continues to meet those challenges. Of these reforms will
:37:42. > :37:49.put us in a better place to look after that a challenge that we face,
:37:49. > :37:53.how we look after all the people. - - that big challenge. He seems
:37:53. > :37:57.pretty confident that nothing will change. He sounds pretty callous,
:37:57. > :38:01.to me. It is not good enough to say that we have had tough times before
:38:01. > :38:05.and the NHS staff have struggled through. My mother was a nurse and
:38:05. > :38:09.I can tell the doctor that NHS staff are tired of these top-down
:38:09. > :38:13.reorganisations. There are very frightened about the financial
:38:13. > :38:18.situation. Staff should not be expected to struggle through. This
:38:18. > :38:21.government should never have imposed a top-down reorganisation,
:38:21. > :38:26.which will cost �3 billion and caused chaos at a time when,
:38:26. > :38:29.inevitably, they're going to have to find savings. Andy Burnham
:38:29. > :38:33.saying he will repeal the Health and Social Care Act, that will
:38:33. > :38:39.trigger another top down reorganisation, surely? Why not?
:38:39. > :38:46.What is Labour asking for? We are asking to repeal part three of the
:38:46. > :38:54.Bill, if the part of the bill -- the part of the Bill... It is not
:38:54. > :39:00.about reorganisation. The thing about all this jargon, we're not
:39:00. > :39:05.going to reorganise again. What we're going to do is limit the role
:39:05. > :39:08.of the private sector. This government is poised to have the
:39:08. > :39:12.private sector run ragged. All hospitals will be able to add up to
:39:12. > :39:16.49% of the reactivity in the private sector. We will reintroduce
:39:16. > :39:21.the powers of the Secretary of State for Health so it is a Jemma
:39:21. > :39:26.Lowe and National Health Service. Without it costing anything? Yes. -
:39:26. > :39:31.- genuine National Health Service. The powers of the city-state do not
:39:31. > :39:35.have a cost attached. We were never opposed to having GPs more involved.
:39:35. > :39:38.You could have done it quite easily by putting more GPs on PCTs.
:39:38. > :39:42.problem is the Government has alienated sectors of the health
:39:43. > :39:47.sector. As a former doctor, what is your impression of the relations
:39:47. > :39:54.between doctors and ministers? still intends to keep practising in
:39:54. > :39:58.the NHS. You have prematurely retired! It is important that we
:39:59. > :40:02.have ministers. Ministers to understand what frontline
:40:02. > :40:06.professionals are thinking and saying. But they said they did not
:40:06. > :40:09.like it. We know that under the previous government, we had a
:40:09. > :40:12.government determined to impose things on the healthcare profession.
:40:12. > :40:15.This government is saying that it is down to doctors and nurses and
:40:15. > :40:20.health care professionals, people who understand the needs of
:40:20. > :40:24.patients. Why did they not support you? We have many doctors and
:40:24. > :40:27.nurses getting on with these reforms, just as I speak and we are
:40:27. > :40:33.speaking now, who believe that having clinical leadership running
:40:33. > :40:38.the NHS is a good thing. And making sure that we face up to that a
:40:38. > :40:41.challenge, how we better look after older people. And we're getting on
:40:41. > :40:45.with that and delivering that today and that is something we need to
:40:45. > :40:50.face up to and recognise, that the NHS is going to be in a better
:40:50. > :40:52.place to look after patients in the years ahead. Do you agree with your
:40:52. > :40:57.colleague when she says that the Government had screwed up the
:40:57. > :41:02.presentation of these changes? think what we sob was that we had
:41:02. > :41:07.very good reforms that will cut out waste and bureaucracy. But what
:41:07. > :41:11.about her quote that "Screwed up the presentation of the changes".
:41:11. > :41:16.have made it very clear, and Diane Abbott just made the point that we
:41:16. > :41:21.have been worried about the four private sector being involved in
:41:21. > :41:28.the process. Why was she, then, part of a government which used the
:41:29. > :41:32.private sector? You may not have been part of the government but you
:41:32. > :41:36.are part of the Labour Party and Labour did introduce that. Full
:41:36. > :41:42.disclosure, I was never a minister under Tony Blair. But you did start
:41:42. > :41:46.that process. When we used the private sector, it was managed and
:41:46. > :41:51.limited. We're talking about 49% of activity. But Dan Poulter is
:41:51. > :41:54.ignoring the fact that the latest Ipsos MORI poll puts us 30 points
:41:54. > :41:58.ahead in terms of managing health care. Doctors and nurses do not
:41:58. > :42:02.have confidence in what they're doing and the public do not. Every
:42:02. > :42:05.single, nearly every single Royal College came out against these
:42:05. > :42:08.reforms because they will be a mess and they will make it harder to
:42:08. > :42:12.make the changes we need to make. And Andy Burnham and Labour will
:42:12. > :42:15.make this a big issue at the 2015 election. It is going to be very
:42:15. > :42:19.uncomfortable, isn't it, however much the Tories say they are the
:42:19. > :42:23.party of the NHS, to make this positive. They will make it
:42:23. > :42:29.difficult because the NHS, whoever is in government, is having a
:42:29. > :42:36.difficult time. We're talking about David Nicholson's challenge, �20
:42:36. > :42:39.million of -- �22 billion of savings. Any party in power will
:42:39. > :42:42.face those challenges. The problem for the Conservatives is that the
:42:42. > :42:47.introduced to these reforms and there will be difficulties. Labour
:42:47. > :42:51.and others will say, "We know why we have these changes". About the
:42:51. > :42:53.Budget, the reason the NHS budget has to be higher than the general
:42:53. > :42:58.level of inflation is that inflation within the health
:42:58. > :43:05.service... But Labour will want to protect it. If you were in power,
:43:05. > :43:12.you would have the same pressures. But top-down... Because of the way
:43:12. > :43:17.the reforms were done, which were totally unnecessary, there is
:43:17. > :43:25.general agreement with doctors and nurses. No problem about that. What
:43:25. > :43:29.is going to happen, when problems arise with the cutbacks, never mind
:43:29. > :43:32.the cutbacks, everyone will bring the reforms and that will be bad
:43:32. > :43:37.for the Government. -- blame the reforms. The result was a problem
:43:37. > :43:44.at election time. It is always going to be blamed on the Tory
:43:44. > :43:50.reforms. What do you make of your boss's comments on abortion? Every
:43:50. > :43:53.MP is entitled to their own opinion. Was it appropriate for the Health
:43:53. > :43:57.Secretary to give his personal opinion on a 12 week limit? He has
:43:57. > :44:02.been on record before on this issue. Of but he was not Health Secretary.
:44:02. > :44:06.The Government's position is that we're not changing the rules for a
:44:06. > :44:10.portion. It is important and I know that it is important for the 1967
:44:10. > :44:13.Act, which was introduced for a reason, to protect women and look
:44:13. > :44:17.after their best interests. We should not force women, whatever
:44:18. > :44:21.the moralities are, to suffer the indignity of a backstreet abortion
:44:21. > :44:26.and the health consequences that that has. The abortion law is
:44:26. > :44:31.staying as it is. No vote on the issue? No. Where you stand on the
:44:31. > :44:33.time limit for abortion? -- where do you stand. I have given you my
:44:33. > :44:38.position and the position of the Government. That is also your
:44:38. > :44:44.position? Absolutely. We need to protect women and remember why the
:44:44. > :44:47.1967 Act was brought in, regardless of the moral act -- moral the
:44:47. > :44:50.arguments. That Act was brought in to protect the indignity of women
:44:50. > :44:53.having to seek backstreet abortions because they have found themselves
:44:53. > :44:59.in difficult circumstances and making sure that when it comes down
:44:59. > :45:02.to it, actually we look after the medical interests of women. The
:45:03. > :45:05.Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are not changing the
:45:05. > :45:10.Government's position on the time limit for abortions. That is pretty
:45:10. > :45:14.clear, Diane Abbott. Jeremy Hunt has expressed his views but it will
:45:14. > :45:18.not change government policy. Jeremy Hunt is trying to calm
:45:18. > :45:22.things down. The first thing he does is release and in century
:45:22. > :45:25.statement. Of course Dan Poulter will take his position, because
:45:25. > :45:35.that is the position of the Royal College of gynaecologists. They
:45:35. > :45:44.
:45:44. > :45:48.know a tiny bit more about this and MPs will return to Westminster
:45:48. > :45:52.Monday. Nick Clegg was seen to have had a good one, answering his
:45:52. > :45:54.critics over his leadership and direction of the party but were his
:45:54. > :45:59.constituents in Sheffield impressed?
:45:59. > :46:03.MUSIC He was working as a lekturer in a
:46:04. > :46:08.politics department when the residence of Sheffield Halam met
:46:08. > :46:12.Nick Clegg. It all started so well. He was elected as their MP in 2005.
:46:12. > :46:17.The residence of this constituency, one of the most affluent outside of
:46:17. > :46:22.the south-east of England - made him feel at home. He even took part
:46:22. > :46:26.in the local pantomime. I'm Clegg, a slightly witless Prince. Come the
:46:26. > :46:30.2010 general election it seemed everyone agreed with Nick Clegg.
:46:30. > :46:37.During the Prime Ministerial debates he kicked Dave and Gordon
:46:37. > :46:42.into next week, suddenly seeing him down the Broom Hill tavern was as
:46:42. > :46:46.cool as seeing one of the arctic monkeys. But a professor says
:46:46. > :46:49.success came at a price. There's the general pressures from being in
:46:49. > :46:54.Government - all politicians find out that winning office is very
:46:54. > :46:58.easy to governing but then he's got an added issue that before the
:46:58. > :47:02.election he made a very explicit, public plem about no tuition fees.
:47:02. > :47:07.He tolds a student seat, then he went back on his word. Nick Clegg
:47:07. > :47:13.told his party conference to go back to their constituencies and
:47:13. > :47:17.prepare for vitriol and abuse. And he should know. He's had dog mess
:47:17. > :47:25.put through the door in his old home in his constituency. He's even
:47:25. > :47:32.been spat on and heckled in the street. You're a Judas. Judas!
:47:32. > :47:36.Clegg, the Judas. The lead singer of the Sheffield band Reverend and
:47:36. > :47:42.the Makers supported the Lib Dems in the last election. I just feel
:47:42. > :47:46.used. As a northern working-class person that the same people run
:47:46. > :47:50.things - and really it seems like the Liberal Democrats have
:47:50. > :47:53.facilitated that. Some people in Sheffield do still agree with Nick.
:47:53. > :47:56.Paul Scriven, the now former Lib Dem leader of Sheffield City
:47:56. > :48:01.Council lost that job when the control of the council went to
:48:01. > :48:05.Labour in 20 Len. In the last local elections, he even lost his council
:48:05. > :48:09.seat. What I do know about Nick is this - he can go to bed every night,
:48:09. > :48:12.look at himself in the mirror and say, I'm doing this for the country,
:48:12. > :48:15.and I'm doing the right thing rather than the short-term
:48:15. > :48:19.political thing. That kind of integrity will see him through.
:48:19. > :48:22.Nick Clegg has got a majority of just over 15,000 here in Halam,
:48:22. > :48:26.making it one of the safest Lib Dem seats in the country. Based on the
:48:26. > :48:31.last general election results, Labour would need a swing of about
:48:31. > :48:35.18.5% to unseat the Deputy Prime Minister - difficult but not
:48:35. > :48:40.impossible. In fact, the Lib Dems took the seat here in '97 with an
:48:40. > :48:44.identical swing that will give a lot of people a lot of interest and
:48:44. > :48:49.as soon as the seat becomes known as it's contestable, particularly
:48:49. > :48:57.if aing I big-name independent decides to go for it, it might enbe
:48:57. > :49:03.that Nick Clegg decides I won't even bother playing this game.
:49:03. > :49:08.Nick Clegg's Nick Cleggs believe - singing "I'm sorry" might not be
:49:08. > :49:11.appropriate. "Don't you want me baby" might be more appropriate. As
:49:11. > :49:16.the song goes - # It's me who put you where you are
:49:16. > :49:22.# I can put you back there too # Carefully chosen music there, and
:49:22. > :49:25.the Lib Dems' former campaign director is with me now, Chris
:49:25. > :49:29.Renard. We heard there a majority of just over 15,000 for Nick Clegg,
:49:29. > :49:31.but that could be very difficult to sustain in 2015, the election. Is
:49:32. > :49:36.there any chance of Nick Clegg stepping down before that rather
:49:36. > :49:40.than the risk of losing his seat am sure not. That was clear in the
:49:40. > :49:44.conference this year. I think the nature of the apology he made over
:49:45. > :49:51.tuition fees is clear he's going to lead the party in the next election.
:49:51. > :49:57.Look at the local election results in the constituency in 2012 were
:49:57. > :50:01.very difficult for the party but good for them in the Halam
:50:01. > :50:06.constituency. It reflects the different results in seats held by
:50:06. > :50:09.Liberal Democrat MPs. By and large they did well. Can you still appeal
:50:09. > :50:13.effectively to the anti-Tory vote? Yes, but it depends whether you're
:50:13. > :50:17.chosen between what we have at the moment or an overall Conservative
:50:17. > :50:20.majority. An overall Conservative majority wouldn't be interested in
:50:20. > :50:23.protecting the vulnerable, wouldn't deliver a fair society, wouldn't
:50:23. > :50:26.deliver tax cuts for people on middle and low incomes, wouldn't do
:50:26. > :50:29.anything for the environment. I think perhaps a coalition is
:50:29. > :50:33.difficult but a majority for the Conservatives or Labour would be
:50:33. > :50:38.much worse. You agree with Nick Clegg who said when asked whether
:50:38. > :50:43.he'd accept �10 billion of further welfare cuts and taking housing
:50:43. > :50:46.benefit away from under 25s, "I knock both ideas on the head?"
:50:46. > :50:50.Absolutely but a Conservative majority Government would be doing
:50:50. > :50:53.just that. He'll be associated with that, won't he? If those are the
:50:53. > :50:57.proposals put forward isn't the problem for Nick Clegg that he's
:50:57. > :51:00.associated with it, whatever he says in a run-up to an election?
:51:00. > :51:03.The worse thing would be if we were making tax cuts for very wealthy
:51:03. > :51:07.people which the Conservatives would like to do. That's what
:51:07. > :51:11.they're doing into the -- going into the next election saying. They
:51:11. > :51:17.say they want to reduce the tax burden for the richest in the
:51:17. > :51:22.country the Liberal Democrats will go into the next election saying we
:51:22. > :51:26.should protect the most vulnerable. You have lost votes - I don't know
:51:26. > :51:29.the number - to, primarily because there will be Labour voters who
:51:29. > :51:33.associate you with a Tory-lead Government, particularly in the
:51:33. > :51:38.north and in Scotland, you're being wiped out by Labour at a local
:51:38. > :51:44.level. That doesn't bode well for national politics. Some people have
:51:44. > :51:48.joked the Lib Dems have waited 90 years for mid-term Government
:51:48. > :51:52.unpopularity other parties have experienced on many occasions.
:51:52. > :51:56.it has been decimated, the seats you have fought so hard for - at
:51:56. > :52:00.the peak of the next election - they're going to be wiped out
:52:00. > :52:04.That's not right. The midterm poll position is generally a good
:52:04. > :52:06.election. You go back the last five Parliament and the midterm poll
:52:06. > :52:09.election is different to the general election. There are two
:52:09. > :52:12.sides of the coin. Yes, it's difficult for the Lib Dems at the
:52:13. > :52:15.moment in midterm in seats where we're facing the Labour Party, but
:52:15. > :52:21.Lib Dem MPs facing the Conservatives have been doing well
:52:21. > :52:27.in the local elections, and even this May which was a bad set of
:52:27. > :52:32.local elections for us we made gains with MPs, Lib Dem councils
:52:32. > :52:35.and where we face Conservatives. think obviously they have a problem
:52:35. > :52:42.as to what they can, do but I think what Chris just said is important.
:52:42. > :52:47.The thing about Sheffield Halam, Nick Clegg's seat, is historically
:52:47. > :52:51.it has been a very, very strong Tory seat. A safe Tory seat? Not in
:52:51. > :52:56.that seat. It is in other parts of the country, but not there. It
:52:56. > :53:00.seems to me inconceivable - I mean, in 1997 they voted Lib Dem because
:53:00. > :53:03.they couldn't bear to go over to Labour. So I mean, why would they
:53:03. > :53:10.now vote - revert to being Tories? Because it was Tories that forced
:53:10. > :53:14.Nick Clegg to do tuition fees - do a turnaround on tuition fees. The
:53:14. > :53:17.Tories - they're not going to vote Tory. No chance of Nick Clegg
:53:17. > :53:20.losing his seat? The people of Sheffield were deciding whether
:53:20. > :53:24.colleague leg would remain an MP he'd lose because it's a Labour
:53:24. > :53:29.city. It's not the people of Sheffield but the people of Halam,
:53:29. > :53:34.which is a formerly a Tory seat, and they detest the Labour Party.
:53:34. > :53:38.He has a good chance. This big question of will he stand at the
:53:38. > :53:41.next election? Of course he will. The question is whether he be
:53:41. > :53:45.leader of the Liberal Democrat at the next election? Clearly, if
:53:45. > :53:48.things don't improve over the next year or so, his position might be
:53:48. > :53:53.difficult. I don't think so. Of course he will be. A lot of people
:53:53. > :53:58.are saying they'd like Vince Cable to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
:53:59. > :54:02.There is a case for saying he'd be a better Chancellor than Ed Balls
:54:02. > :54:06.but if they think that they need to vote for him next time. We have 57
:54:06. > :54:11.seats in Parliament and the Conservatives, 307. Thank you very
:54:11. > :54:15.much. Cameron versus Bojo, a failed
:54:15. > :54:21.merger in aerospace and accusations of political misogyny in Australia.
:54:21. > :54:26.Who would have thought it? Here is the week in 60 seconds.
:54:26. > :54:30.David Cameron opted for the traditional lectern for his big
:54:30. > :54:36.speech to the Tory faithful on Wednesday. For some, it went down
:54:36. > :54:40.rather well. It's the messiah that Britain needed. Cameron is the
:54:40. > :54:45.messiah? It's the messiah Britain needed. Some think this chap is the
:54:45. > :54:48.Messiah. Others think he's just a naughty boy. But the so-called
:54:48. > :54:53.blond-haired mop was on his best behaviour. Well, if I am a mop,
:54:53. > :54:59.Dave, you're a broom, a broom cleaning up the mess left by the
:54:59. > :55:06.Labour Government. Fantastic jab you're doing. Elsewhere merger
:55:06. > :55:10.between BAE and EADF crashed and burned causing embarrassment for
:55:10. > :55:13.politicians. Australia's Opposition Leader was forced to endure a
:55:13. > :55:16.dressing down from the Prime Minister. I was offended when the
:55:16. > :55:26.leader of the opposition went outside in the front of Parliament
:55:26. > :55:28.
:55:28. > :55:32.and stood next to a sign that said, Stand up for yourself, lady. Now,
:55:32. > :55:40.if all that wasn't exciting enough, we have learned the European Union
:55:40. > :55:44.has won the Nobel Prize. Norwegian Committee has decided
:55:44. > :55:48.that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European
:55:48. > :55:52.Union. With us is someone I know who would like to offer his
:55:52. > :55:55.congratulations, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage. Here is your
:55:55. > :55:58.opportunity to congratulate them on winning that prize. Astonishing,
:55:58. > :56:05.isn't it? I suspect the Nobel Prize will be brought into disrepute by
:56:05. > :56:09.this. A few days ago Angela Merkel went to Athens to be greeted with
:56:09. > :56:16.Molotov cocktails, a violent demonstration and unbelievably
:56:16. > :56:20.people dressed up in Nazi uniforms. The Germans are being rude about
:56:20. > :56:24.the Greeks and vice versa, so we're seeing disharmony caused by this.
:56:24. > :56:29.So peace breaking out everywhere - defend this prize. He should go and
:56:29. > :56:33.accept this award on behalf of the European Union. Would you go and
:56:33. > :56:40.accept it, Nigel Farage? I think I would struggle to accept that, no,
:56:40. > :56:47.it will be Mr Van Rompoy or - the one thing I can be certain of is
:56:47. > :56:55.the person who picks up this award will be someone unelected and in
:56:55. > :57:00.support of the nation states abroad. It really devalues the currency.
:57:00. > :57:05.Honestly! I have to apologise for Sue's language. I missed that.
:57:05. > :57:09.is 50 years too late. When they gave it when the Treaty of Rome was
:57:09. > :57:12.signed saying you're going to solve your problems on the battlefield
:57:12. > :57:16.not at the conference table as David Cameron said in his speech,
:57:16. > :57:22.great the problem is there has been disaster since then. What happened
:57:22. > :57:25.in Europe's backyard? The war in the former Yugoslavia. It took the
:57:25. > :57:30.United States bombing Bosnia to get the Serbs to the table, not the
:57:30. > :57:33.European Union. Isn't the lesson of Yugoslavia if you artificially try
:57:33. > :57:37.to bring people together and impose a new flag on them without consent
:57:37. > :57:42.it leads to civil war, and tragically the European Union is
:57:42. > :57:45.doing the same thing. Barroso was clear last month - nation state
:57:45. > :57:49.democracy must go. It must be transferred to people like him.
:57:49. > :57:55.Fine, you can do that if if the people want that but there is no
:57:55. > :58:00.evidence... Isn't the attempt to say that the people of Ireland,
:58:00. > :58:05.Portugal and Greece want to stay in the euro and somehow
:58:05. > :58:08.psychologically this will help them? It wasn't the Nobel Prize for
:58:08. > :58:12.economics. They certainly wouldn't get that under any circumstances.
:58:12. > :58:18.Do we get any of it, the prize money? I don't know what'll happen
:58:18. > :58:22.to it. If you divide it up across the people of the nation states you
:58:22. > :58:27.get 0.002... Think of all of those underpaid bureaucrats in Brussels.
:58:27. > :58:31.They could do with some help. they could help pay off my fine,
:58:31. > :58:38.having been rude to... How much was that fine? 3,000 euros, just for
:58:38. > :58:43.saying... Have you paid it? Yes. Just for saying the chap had the
:58:43. > :58:47.charisma of a damp rag. Don't say it again! You'll be fined. That's