12/10/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Could Gategate yet

claim the scalp of Andrew Mitchell? He is meeting the police union this

afternoon to give his side of the story but will he survive?

We have gone from hug a hoodie to bash a burglar. Does this signal a

change of direction for the Tories? Will last the standard-bearer of

white van conservatism. A massive hike of energy prices

from British Gas, can the Government to anything to ease the

pain for hard-pressed consumers? And we visit Nick Clegg's Sheffield

constituency. He told his party to go back to their constituencies and

prepare for the trail. Well, he should know. Judas, man! Judaists!

-- Judas. Politics is a rough game. All that in the next hour. With us

for the programme is Sue Cameron from the Financial Times and Nick

Watt from the Guardian. Starting with the fate of Andrew Mitchell,

the Chief Whip, this morning the Telegraph joined the Sun in calling

for his resignation. As a mention this afternoon, he is meeting

representatives of the police confederation in his constituency,

who want to hear a full account of what he said two officers at the

Downing Street gate and whether he used the word, pleb. We will be

talking to one of those attending the meeting. Nick Watt, imagine the

scene next Wednesday. Prime Minister's Questions. Andrew

Mitchell, their ears, very close to the Prime Minister. How will that

be handled when he stands up, the Prime Minister, and has to face

questions? Andrew Mitchell has modelled his career on France's her

cart, the great Chris Wood -- Chief Whip played by a Ian Richardson. If

he was here, he was say the position is difficult. I think it

is very difficult. He is determined to hang on. Downing Street is

determined. They say he asked to hang on and the individual officer

is not watching a complaint. It is the police confederation that are

driving at. He denies having said there were pleb but if he did say

that, that is toxic for the Conservatives. -- having said the

word pleb. I have to apologise, Sue Cameron at the Telegraph. I have

just been reminded. Picking up on backbenchers, how has his authority,

or if it has been eroded, been eroded in the eyes of backbenchers,

when he has to manage them? I think what will happen is that he has to

be given a few months to see if he can establish the respect and

authority that he needs to be a good Chief Whip. At the it would be

absolutely disastrous for him to go now. -- I think it would be

absolutely disastrous. It would damage the Prime Minister. However

rude he was, and clearly he should not have said whatever he said,

even he would acknowledge that, I do not think that it is a

significant reason -- sufficient reason for a Cabinet minister to

resign. The police have got their own agenda. The Telegraph is keen

for him to go, because there is a view that he is toxic when he stays,

too. I still think, personally, that he should stay on for a while.

I do think that they will look very weak if they let him go. And also,

Cameron, to be fair to him, there is an element of lynch-mob about

all this. We're going to get him, we're going to get him. If the

Prime Minister gives into that, that is dangerous. You mentioned

the word pled. Not the first person to focus on that. -- pled. Some

people in focus groups said that it was the "Know your place" line that

was more harmful. In a way, doesn't that queer the pitch for the

Conservatives, trying to say they're not worried about class

warfare? And yet here we have, allegedly, one of their tribe

saying that a policeman should know his place. This is why the timing

is so spectacularly awful. David Cameron is aware of the dangers. In

his speech last year he said he was in favour of privilege and of

spreading privilege to everyone. It is absolutely toxic. Know your

place, that plays into that agenda. It is important to say that Andrew

Mitchell denies the words attributed to him. That meeting

this afternoon will be interesting. This week, David Cameron's

Conservatives showed their tougher side. The Tories may have been

meeting in Birmingham but as far as the way forward is concerned, the

only way is Essex. Out go fruit smoothies, windmills on Number Ten,

hugging hoodies and huskies. And gay marriage did not get a mention

in the Prime Minister's speech. David is driving a new brand of

white van conservatism. And this tabloid Toryism has some stark

messages. Ken Clarke focused on reducing the prison population,

reducing the prison population, replaced with Chris Grayling

talking about other sentences. The Chancellor told Conservatives but

those on benefits would lose �10 billion in the next round of

austerity. The message of work, not welfare, was underlined in the

welfare, was underlined in the Prime Minister's speech. We do not

preach about one nation but practice class war. We get behind

people who want to get on in life. A's -- APPLAUSE.

That is right, the jurors, the risk-takers, the young people who

dream of their first pay cheque, their first home. Those people who

are ready and willing to work hard and get those things. While the

other intellectuals might Spear at people who want to get on in life,

we salute you. They cost the party of the better-off. No, we are the

party of the want to be better off, those who strive to make a better

life for themselves, and we should never be ashamed of saying so.

was the Prime Minister. With us is the self-styled white van

Conservative MP, Robert Southam, and Ryan Shawcross from a

Conservative campaigning group. First of all, you could say gay

marriage, the green agenda, hug a hoodie, all noticeably absent from

the speech. As the modernising agenda been dumped? This is the

mistake commentators have made. You can be strong and compassionate at

the same time. When I talk about white van conservatism, I'm talking

about the person who wakes up at 5:00am to go to work and comes back

at 5pm or 6pm and his wife goes out to work as well. They are doing

that to keep their heads above water. We have to help them, the

people who are striving, working hard and playing hard. Do you think

those other issues are sidelined? Better to dump it at this stage?

You can be strong and compassionate at the same time. Why not mention

it in the speech? We used to hear so much about blue going green, we

used to hear a lot more about the gay marriage issue, and hugger

hoodie. If you look at the Prime Minister's speech, it is strongly

about public Conservatives. -- public services. We care strongly

about the public sector. We can be strong and compassionate, it is not

one or the other. Do you think the modernising agenda has been dumped,

Brian? I do not think it has. In fairness, there is only so much

David Cameron can say in his speech. Modernisation has always been a

problem. It is not just about green issues and gay issues, but in fact

I was working for the Tories and their manifesto was full of issues

about education and health, and it has always been a broad package.

These things are important, gay marriage is an issue, and things

about welfare and education. you did not win the election.

did not. With those issues or that broad-spectrum. Is that why Robert

is right to vote for more on striving and aspiration? I do not

accept the premise of the question which is bad somehow the strivers

are not bothered about green and gay issues. They are very

compassionate, for four people. They care about those things and

they care about the cost of living and childcare, education. It needs

to be a broad package. I accept that we did not win the election

and that is because people do not trust the Tory brand. They think we

care about spreadsheets and Jaguars. But actually we are motivated by

our hearts as well as our heads. the base of that, being the party

of the rich, does it appeal to aspirational Tories and the white

van man to cut the top rate of tax? The question is, how much money

does the Government get? It is not about who you take the money from,

it is about how much money goes into the Treasury. If you can get

the rich to pay more, that is a different issue. What aspirational

people want is law tax for earners. That is what we have done. They

want apprenticeships, and we have invested in 100,000 of them. They

want academies, good schools. Those other things that attract voters.

The issue is how much money the Government gets. The government say

they can get five times more money in by cutting the band for very

rich people. We have cut taxes for low earners by raising the

threshold and it would like us to go further and restore the 10p rate

for lower earners. We have to show people that, to use a Blairite

phrase, taxes for the many, not the few. David Cameron spoke about his

background, and from the criticism put forward by a Labour. You have

said that white van Conservatism triumphs over Metropolitan

intellectualism. But David Cameron and George Osborne came out of the

Notting Hill lead. I was talking about the Labour Party. In the two

years I have been an MP, not one person has ever asked me what

school David Cameron came from. No one ever cares about that. It is

the issues of the Notting Hill elite, rather than the background.

What about the issues they were focused on, are the slightly out of

touch with what people outside of the metropolitan elite are focused

on? Those issues are what the commentators focused on. What the

Prime Minister and the coalition has focused on, as I say, his lover

taxes for lower earners, apprenticeships and better schools.

-- is lower taxes. Brine, what do you think? The Environment

Secretary is spec -- sceptical about the environment, what message

does that send out to voters? Commentators talked about a shift

to the right. Chris Grayling is very, very sophisticated on public

service -- the public service side. He has been in the Department for

Work and Pensions, doing -- developing this programme. But he

will work in the same way on justice. What about what Jeremy

Hunt said about climate change and abortion? I think he was talking in

a personal capacity. Is it appropriate? I do not agree. I do

not think we need to cut the limit from 24 weeks. A big the evidence

suggests that where it is at the moment is right. It is his personal

take and we should respect that. Owen Paterson has personal beliefs

on climate change and we should respect that. There is a Department

for energy and climate change which she is not in, headed by other

Tories who were very passionate about the climate change agenda.

That will be moving forward. It is a right -- it is right to have a

mix of use. Does that fit with the battle to occupy the centre ground?

The centre ground is broad. You are talking about being right of

centre? I am not. Scrap the left and right. It is about addressing

issues which are meaningful for the population. Yes, they want to be

tough on crime but they care about the marriage and the environment.

It is about doing both. Is there a danger that some critics will be

able to label the Tory party as the nasty party? Even if it is rhetoric,

if you think of further welfare cuts to the tune of �10 billion,

the continued freeze in public- sector pay. Isn't that the danger

for the voters? The danger is not a great. It is the age of austerity.

-- not that great. From the beginning, the coalition won the

battle to convince people we had to cut the deficit. I think one of the

strong things about David Cameron's speech in particular was that it

gave a narrative to a lot of the reforms that they are doing, and

put them in the context of ordinary people, not just the toffs, but the

reason they are trying to improve education standards, cut down on

scroungers, which is very popular with voters. All the polls show

that. The reason for that is to help those who aspire for a better

life. The reason the speech was so successful, one of them, was that

he managed to humanise it and to explain that there was a purpose to

austerity other than just cutting for the sake of it. I think giving

hope to ordinary people. Policy- wise, there was not much policy, if

any, in David Cameron's speech. It was not the time, that was the

narrative. In terms of moving to the right, and the absence of those

other issues he used to talk about, is that just the passage of time or

is a deliberate? I c lurches to the right, we make talking about

Britain becoming a foreign land. This is not a lurch to the right. -

- William Hague are talking about Britain. It is certainly a

repositioning. The important thing is that the Conservatives are not

scared of the Labour Party. They looked at Ed Miliband's speech at

the thought it was good but the fundamentals have not changed. They

are not scared of him and they do not feel that they need to do what

David Cameron did when he was scared of Tony Blair, and therefore

he can be talking but these core issues. But another important thing

about William Hague is that his lurch to the right was about

shoring up his position within the Conservative Party. Every single

word he is up to run, it is going through Andrew Cooper, the director

of strategy. -- what he is uttering. Everything goes through him.

Everything will have been polled and they will say they are on the

money. On the issue of gay marriage, should that be quietly dropped?

$:/STARTFEED. The Government are right to focus on aspiration and

helping strivers. If we're talking about a campaign from the centre,

though, Ryan, hasn't an incident like Andrew Mitchell's gate-gate

retoxified the brand? Andrew Mitchell was very rude. He's

apologised for that. It could be seen as very damaging. However, I

wasn't there. I didn't see what happened. People want to situation

to rest now. You say people want it to rest. Who? Politicians want it

to rest. People probably until there is no new evidence about

what's happened shouldn't come to a judgment. We shouldn't quickly come

to a judgment. Has this affected Andrew Mitchell's position within

the party? You could say the same when Gordon Brown called an old

lady a bigot. Sure. People did carry on hounding him the rest of

his life. The fact is he apologised for calling her a bigot. Andrew

Mitchell has apologised with what happened to the police. It's time

to move on. He hasn't apologised for the pleb bit. Has it hindered

his ability to move on as Chief Whip? I think it's time to move on.

He's apologised in the same way Gordon Brown apologised for what he

did. Gordon Brown went on to lose the election. Is it a possible

standing amongst your colleagues? think his apology is welcome. It's

time to move on. Very few people have talked to me about this on the

street. This is not the thing people are concerned about. People

are much more concerned about the cost of living. Thank you very much.

Given all the Prime Minister's efforts to appeal to the striving

classes, the Mitchell affair must be proving to be more than an ir80

distraction. He's due to meet members of the Police Federation.

Kailai, who will be at the meeting, joins us from Birmingham. What do

you want to hear? Good afternoon. We simply want to ask Mr Mitchell

exactly what he said outside the gates of Downing Street eight weeks

ago. There has been a lot of talk about the language issued. Our

concern is that of integrity, both of police officers and Cabinet

Ministers. Someone in this incident isn't telling the truth, and we'd

like to find out who it is. course, it could either be Andrew

Mitchell or the police officer involved who took down the so-

called transcript of that encounter. Yes, the police officers involved

made notes of what happened at the time. Mr Mitchell, of course,

although he has apologised - that's been accompanied by repeated

denials of the language used, but he won't tell us exactly what he

said. As I say, that's one of the questions we'll be asking him.

have been discussing it. He has apologised and actually the police

officer who bore the brunt of the outburst has accepted that apology.

What right have you to keep on at this issue? I have to stress I

don't represent Metropolitan police officers but we think the issue of

integrity is significant. Society demands police officers are honest.

They should expect the same standards of Cabinet Ministers.

That's what we have to resolve. Somebody here isn't telling the

truth. Is this becoming a political exercise on your behalf? We have

spent days and days on this issue about who said what. People have

apologised. It has been accepted, and yet here we are weeks later

still discussing the minutiae of what was said, not to diminish

words that were bandied about, if they were bandied about at the time,

but are you now at risk of become accused of being political about an

issue that's really been gone over enough? This is absolutely not a

political campaign of any sort, I have to stress. This is about the

integrity of police officers. We have officers' notes that are being

described by a Cabinet Minister as not being accurate. I would like

that issue resolved. It really is as simple as that. If you're not

satisfied with Andrew Mitchell's account, what happens next? We have

detailed accounts from police officers. Unless Mr Mitchell is

going to accept they're accurate - we believe they are - I don't want

to prejudge what happens tonight. We're going to push him for an

explanation of what happened outside Downing Street three weeks

ago. You have prejudged it because, as you have said, he's denied the

account by the police officer, so unless Andrew Mitchell says, "I

made a mistake. I did say those words," then what action are you

going to take subsequently? We want him to explain what he said outside

Downing Street. He's consistently refused to do that. If he refuses

again or doesn't quite meet with what you were expect, what are you

going to do? In this case, he has to resign. Do you think this is a -

- there is a risk this is becoming a political exercise? Of course it

is. On the question of pay and integrity, I think it's a bit rich

because only this morning we have had Hillsboro, police covering up

for 23 years. There is going to be an investigation. The inquire yous

are going to look at them committing manslaughter perhaps. We

have only just gotten over that baton-waving bobby who hit poor Ian

Tomlinson, to when died. He has been left. There is also the

question of what the police were doing. I don't think it was the

people on the gate. I am told it was more senior officers leaking

what was in their notebooks because what was in a police notebook - I

don't think it applies here, but potentially can be used as

evidence... Ken, what do you say to that? Lots of issues raised there.

Let's take the Chief Constable of Cleveland. He lost his job only a

week ago largely through dishonesty. He went through the discipline

process and was dismissed as a result. We cannot change the

standards - IPCC has announced today there will be discipline

inquiries into what happened at Hillsboro - and rightly so. And we

want to see the same sort of standards applied to what happened

outside Downing Street. I mean, a cover-up for Hillsboro is not on

the same par in any sense with a Cabinet Minister, wrongly of course,

but losing his temper. It's not on the same planet. What do you say to

that? Some people say this was an outburst of temper and nothing more.

Yes, again, but it is the question of Mr Mitchell denying what the

officer's account is correct. It is an issue of integrity. Now, that is

massively significant for us. do you say? It is hilarious to hear

the Police Federation saying they're not a political

organisation. They're an intensely political organisation. They're a

trade union. They paid for posters to be put up outside the political

party conference last week. Of course they are. What I find creepy

about this is the idea that the police should decide who is in the

Cabinet. I tell you who decides who is in the Cabinet. It's the Prime

Minister who is elected by the people, not by the police. If Mr

Mitchell did say all of these things, of course his position is

difficult, and of course, he's going to face a real fight, but

Parliament and the Prime Minister will decide, not the police. You're

going to lose support over this, aren't you? In the end, the public

who did support the line and feel that police officers should be

treated with respect, you'll lose this in the end, and you'll lose

face? I don't think we will. We have seen The Daily Telegraph

online poll today - 10,000 people have responded to that over 9,000

think Mr Mitchell has to resign. That's an indication of the public

interest in this, and the view that the public have. All right. Thought

that meeting obviously take place this afternoon.

Now with the night drawing in and winter almost upon us, it's time to

wrap up warm and turn up the heating. In recent years energy

price rises have become a regular feature of the changing seasons.

Today, British Gas announced that they will be raising gas and

electricity prices by an average of 6% on November 16th, meaning an

average price increase of around �80 per household. Earlier, the BBC

spoke to the Energy Minister Greg Barker and asked him what the

Government is doing to reduce energy bills. Here's what he had to

say. We're taking practical action to

help people in the short term. We're legislating to reform the

electricity markets. We're also about to roll out the biggest home

efficiency programme ever seen in this country. The roll-out of the

Green Deal will transform the energy efficiency of people's homes,

and although that won't help bring prices down, it will mean that

consumers use less energy, so their bills should come down. Joining me

now is Richard Lloyd, Executive Director at consumer group Which?

Can the Government actually do anything about this? White House

rises have been going on now for year, and they can't make them come

down. Well, what Ministers will say is, we're reforming the energy

market. We're doing things to help people save money. But that's such

a poor answer to people today hearing they're going to be

clobbered by this inflation rise from British Gas. I wouldn't be

surprised if later today or perhaps in the next couple of days we hear

more of the big six energy companies announcing similar price

rises, so the question for the Ministers is what are you doing to

make this market competitive so it works for consumers so there is

competitive pressure on those big, lazy companies to be more efficient

and keep their price down? The answer is the public don't believe

Ministers will do anything about it. They have to get their act together

on this one. Are they in the process of getting it together? Are

they in the process of opening it up? Everything seems long term. As

you say, people are struggling and they will struggle now. They're in

a bit of a dilemma because on one hand they're trying to attract �2

billion of investment into rebuilding our ramshackle

infrastructure. It is in a complete mess. On the other hand, they need

to protect the consumer's interests here. There is no need to get

private investment in if consumers can't afford their bills. They have

to strike a balance. What we need to see is much more pro-consumer

reform of the market so it is genuinely competitive at the same

time as attracting this investment into rebuilding infrastructure.

It's a difficult balance, but this is what Ministers are for surely.

We have heard from British Gas who are saying their profit margins are

far lower than they were, they are putting that money into investment.

We can't see any of that on our bill, how much goes into investment,

and of course, they go on time and time again about the White House of

wholesale energy, that that is what's making them put the price up

for the consumer. I don't think anyone believes that when British

Gas's parent company Centrica is announcing very, very healthy

profits and there is this capacity - this lack of transparency about

how the business works and when wholesale prices are going up, your

domestic bills are rocketing up. When they fall, somehow our

domestic prices don't fall quite so fast. They're not being straight

with us? The consumers tell us at Which there's complete lack of

transparency about what's going on here. It doesn't seem fair to

people their domestic prices are going up so fast when the parent

company is announcing such profits. If we had a more competitive energy

market there would be more pressure on British Gas to keep those prices

down. One of the things viewers complain about all the time is the

Government's green prices and how much they're costing consumers and

why can't we see it on the bill? The Government would argue this is

going towards people's long-term - but they don't know how much it's

going subsidise people's green subsidies. It is really hard to

figure it out. What we have been saying to the companies is if

you're going to blame British Gas and the Government for some of this

price increase, spread it out. Tell us in our bills in a summary

exactly what this price is composed of, whether it's social policy,

environmental policy, wholesale price, your profit? Surely, it's

not beyond you to spell that out, so there's bit more transparency in

here. Sue, how can the Government go on appealing to the aspirational

voter, to the striver who is working hard when they can't seem

to do anything about rising energy prices, rising petrol price and

rising food prices? Probably the three most important things to the

average consumer. I think on the energy front, I can - you can quite

see why consumers get upset when Centrica has made big profits, but

you have to remember Centrica are the parent company of British Gas.

They're a global company. Its profits come from other countries.

And if, for instance, they were making big profits here, then using

them to subsidise the Americans, everybody here would go mad. They

can't do it the other way around. I think British Gas is having to

invest a lot in the grid. We don't want to have black-outs. They're

having to pay more for gas. Do you think the prices are justifiable?

think it's very difficult. There has been stories that the

Government is going to encourage the use of building of new gas

power stations, which might help to bring down price. But let's - let's

see if that happens. But is Government impotent? That's the

point. Is Government impotent... Pretty much it is. Let's be honest.

Energy prices are massively and incredibly sensitive to the good

old supply and demand. We face in this country two real problems that

aren't going to go away. One is North Sea gas and oil prices are

heading downwards. What is heading upwards is demand for energy in the

developing countries of China and India. That is only going to go up.

If you have demand going up and supply going down, guess what

happens? The price goes up. There is nothing you can do about that.

You have to admit these are big, bloated formerly public sector

companies that have very little competitive pressure on them to be

efficient... Not for a moment - I'm not for a moment defending the big

six, and Ed Miliband has made fantastic speeches criticising them

saying they should be more efficient. But energy prices are

decided on the global market. There is not much we can do about

it. Everyone expects and knows energy prices are on the way up

because of commodity prices, but are consumers in the end being hit

unfairly and unfairly hard at a time people can least afford it?

have a feeling you might be back on if the set on this in the future.

Thank you. The Government's plan to reform the

NHS proved hugely controversial, politically difficult, and of

course, their creator, Andrew Lansley, has been moved from his

job as Health Secretary. The Bill did, however, make it on to the

statute book, but when will you and Notice any difference, and when

will we know whether or not it's working?'' The independent and

highly respected think-tank The No-holds-barred assessment of the

potential impact of those reforms - The aim was simple. A radical

reform of the NHS designed to increase efficiency, promote choice

and deliver the best possible care for patients. Yet less than six

months after it came into being, its architect, Andrew Lansley, was

sacked as Health Secretary. To say that independent experts have set a

low pass for success is putting it mildly. Success for the Government

will involve keeping the show on the road, maintaining good

standards of patient care, freeing up money from areas that are

wasteful at the moment and finding them -- finding the resources to

invest in new priorities. If the Government is able to drive those

improvements, then the rationale for reforms will be justified. At

this stage, no one can tell whether that will be the outcome. The NHS

insists that it will be able to cope with any glitches that arise

from the reforms. We will intervene if we believe things are going off

track. Obviously, to protect local populations and patients, so we can

do anything from putting other people into the group to run it, on

our behalf, so we have those powers, and we will use them. Jeremy Hunt,

have you got the Health Secretary job? Jeremy Hunt may have more than

the future of the NHS in his hands. It is the biggest privilege of my

life. The political stakes -- the political stakes are really high.

It is hard to exaggerate the importance of the NHS for the

Government. The challenge is damage limitation -- damage-limitation. To

persuade staff that there are benefits of these changes even

though there is deep scepticism. believe in the NHS is to believe in

its reform. Not my words, but those of Lord D'Arcy, the Labour health

minister under Andy Burnham. Now he is in opposition, Andy Burnham

sings a different tune. Would things really be that different

under Labour? Labour could go back on these reforms and there is a

clear commitment to repeal the gargantuan Health and Social Care

Act, and to go off in a different direction. That implies another

major reorganisation of the Health Service and Labour has said it does

not want to promote structural change. It is going to be hard to

fulfil that promise and repeal the Act at the same time. According to

the Professor, the biggest challenge is not the reforms

themselves, it is the economic Times where working in. And his

message is stark. I think in a year or two, the health service will do

very well indeed to maintain current standards of patient care.

Declining rates of hospital been acquired infections, many areas of

care have improved. -- hospital acquired infections. But the

funding pressures are huge. We have never had a period like this before

and if they Health Service is still able to maintain the standards in

two years, it will be a miracle, frankly. To battle it out on the

health policy, Diane Abbott is here, and Dr Dan Poulter is in our

Ipswich studio. First of all, we heard Professor Ham saying it would

be a miracle if in a your two, the Health Service maintains its

current standards. -- in a year or two. That is a damning indictment.

This is not a new criticism. We have had the same concerns raised

for the last five or 10 years. Each year, the NHS does well in

maintaining quality patient care. As it not been able to do that

because of vast amounts of money and investment into the health

service? As a result, we are seeing shorter waiting times, a reduction

in hospital acquired infections. That rate of investment will be cut

dramatically even if there is a slight increase, and you will be

blamed. This government is continuing to make sure that we

protect the budget and continue to invest. But at a law degree. -- a

law degree. The Labour party have never confirmed that they would not

do the same. We're doing the best to make sure we continue to invest

in patients. The question is, what does good health care look like in

a few years' time? People are living a lot longer, with multiple

medical conditions, diabetes, dementia, heart disease. We have to

make sure we have a health service that is in a better place to look

after those people. That means that more care has to be delivered in

the community, to keep people well at home rather than picking up the

pieces when they get on well. These reforms will put us in a better

place. So you will challenge Professor Ham when he said it will

be a miracle if those standards are maintained? You can categorically

say that the current standard, using waiting times and infections,

for example, they will be maintained? Absolutely. We have had

the same challenge has, historically, and each year, the

NHS continues to meet those challenges. Of these reforms will

put us in a better place to look after that a challenge that we face,

how we look after all the people. - - that big challenge. He seems

pretty confident that nothing will change. He sounds pretty callous,

to me. It is not good enough to say that we have had tough times before

and the NHS staff have struggled through. My mother was a nurse and

I can tell the doctor that NHS staff are tired of these top-down

reorganisations. There are very frightened about the financial

situation. Staff should not be expected to struggle through. This

government should never have imposed a top-down reorganisation,

which will cost �3 billion and caused chaos at a time when,

inevitably, they're going to have to find savings. Andy Burnham

saying he will repeal the Health and Social Care Act, that will

trigger another top down reorganisation, surely? Why not?

What is Labour asking for? We are asking to repeal part three of the

Bill, if the part of the bill -- the part of the Bill... It is not

about reorganisation. The thing about all this jargon, we're not

going to reorganise again. What we're going to do is limit the role

of the private sector. This government is poised to have the

private sector run ragged. All hospitals will be able to add up to

49% of the reactivity in the private sector. We will reintroduce

the powers of the Secretary of State for Health so it is a Jemma

Lowe and National Health Service. Without it costing anything? Yes. -

- genuine National Health Service. The powers of the city-state do not

have a cost attached. We were never opposed to having GPs more involved.

You could have done it quite easily by putting more GPs on PCTs.

problem is the Government has alienated sectors of the health

sector. As a former doctor, what is your impression of the relations

between doctors and ministers? still intends to keep practising in

the NHS. You have prematurely retired! It is important that we

have ministers. Ministers to understand what frontline

professionals are thinking and saying. But they said they did not

like it. We know that under the previous government, we had a

government determined to impose things on the healthcare profession.

This government is saying that it is down to doctors and nurses and

health care professionals, people who understand the needs of

patients. Why did they not support you? We have many doctors and

nurses getting on with these reforms, just as I speak and we are

speaking now, who believe that having clinical leadership running

the NHS is a good thing. And making sure that we face up to that a

challenge, how we better look after older people. And we're getting on

with that and delivering that today and that is something we need to

face up to and recognise, that the NHS is going to be in a better

place to look after patients in the years ahead. Do you agree with your

colleague when she says that the Government had screwed up the

presentation of these changes? think what we sob was that we had

very good reforms that will cut out waste and bureaucracy. But what

about her quote that "Screwed up the presentation of the changes".

have made it very clear, and Diane Abbott just made the point that we

have been worried about the four private sector being involved in

the process. Why was she, then, part of a government which used the

private sector? You may not have been part of the government but you

are part of the Labour Party and Labour did introduce that. Full

disclosure, I was never a minister under Tony Blair. But you did start

that process. When we used the private sector, it was managed and

limited. We're talking about 49% of activity. But Dan Poulter is

ignoring the fact that the latest Ipsos MORI poll puts us 30 points

ahead in terms of managing health care. Doctors and nurses do not

have confidence in what they're doing and the public do not. Every

single, nearly every single Royal College came out against these

reforms because they will be a mess and they will make it harder to

make the changes we need to make. And Andy Burnham and Labour will

make this a big issue at the 2015 election. It is going to be very

uncomfortable, isn't it, however much the Tories say they are the

party of the NHS, to make this positive. They will make it

difficult because the NHS, whoever is in government, is having a

difficult time. We're talking about David Nicholson's challenge, �20

million of -- �22 billion of savings. Any party in power will

face those challenges. The problem for the Conservatives is that the

introduced to these reforms and there will be difficulties. Labour

and others will say, "We know why we have these changes". About the

Budget, the reason the NHS budget has to be higher than the general

level of inflation is that inflation within the health

service... But Labour will want to protect it. If you were in power,

you would have the same pressures. But top-down... Because of the way

the reforms were done, which were totally unnecessary, there is

general agreement with doctors and nurses. No problem about that. What

is going to happen, when problems arise with the cutbacks, never mind

the cutbacks, everyone will bring the reforms and that will be bad

for the Government. -- blame the reforms. The result was a problem

at election time. It is always going to be blamed on the Tory

reforms. What do you make of your boss's comments on abortion? Every

MP is entitled to their own opinion. Was it appropriate for the Health

Secretary to give his personal opinion on a 12 week limit? He has

been on record before on this issue. Of but he was not Health Secretary.

The Government's position is that we're not changing the rules for a

portion. It is important and I know that it is important for the 1967

Act, which was introduced for a reason, to protect women and look

after their best interests. We should not force women, whatever

the moralities are, to suffer the indignity of a backstreet abortion

and the health consequences that that has. The abortion law is

staying as it is. No vote on the issue? No. Where you stand on the

time limit for abortion? -- where do you stand. I have given you my

position and the position of the Government. That is also your

position? Absolutely. We need to protect women and remember why the

1967 Act was brought in, regardless of the moral act -- moral the

arguments. That Act was brought in to protect the indignity of women

having to seek backstreet abortions because they have found themselves

in difficult circumstances and making sure that when it comes down

to it, actually we look after the medical interests of women. The

Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are not changing the

Government's position on the time limit for abortions. That is pretty

clear, Diane Abbott. Jeremy Hunt has expressed his views but it will

not change government policy. Jeremy Hunt is trying to calm

things down. The first thing he does is release and in century

statement. Of course Dan Poulter will take his position, because

that is the position of the Royal College of gynaecologists. They

know a tiny bit more about this and MPs will return to Westminster

Monday. Nick Clegg was seen to have had a good one, answering his

critics over his leadership and direction of the party but were his

constituents in Sheffield impressed?

MUSIC He was working as a lekturer in a

politics department when the residence of Sheffield Halam met

Nick Clegg. It all started so well. He was elected as their MP in 2005.

The residence of this constituency, one of the most affluent outside of

the south-east of England - made him feel at home. He even took part

in the local pantomime. I'm Clegg, a slightly witless Prince. Come the

2010 general election it seemed everyone agreed with Nick Clegg.

During the Prime Ministerial debates he kicked Dave and Gordon

into next week, suddenly seeing him down the Broom Hill tavern was as

cool as seeing one of the arctic monkeys. But a professor says

success came at a price. There's the general pressures from being in

Government - all politicians find out that winning office is very

easy to governing but then he's got an added issue that before the

election he made a very explicit, public plem about no tuition fees.

He tolds a student seat, then he went back on his word. Nick Clegg

told his party conference to go back to their constituencies and

prepare for vitriol and abuse. And he should know. He's had dog mess

put through the door in his old home in his constituency. He's even

been spat on and heckled in the street. You're a Judas. Judas!

Clegg, the Judas. The lead singer of the Sheffield band Reverend and

the Makers supported the Lib Dems in the last election. I just feel

used. As a northern working-class person that the same people run

things - and really it seems like the Liberal Democrats have

facilitated that. Some people in Sheffield do still agree with Nick.

Paul Scriven, the now former Lib Dem leader of Sheffield City

Council lost that job when the control of the council went to

Labour in 20 Len. In the last local elections, he even lost his council

seat. What I do know about Nick is this - he can go to bed every night,

look at himself in the mirror and say, I'm doing this for the country,

and I'm doing the right thing rather than the short-term

political thing. That kind of integrity will see him through.

Nick Clegg has got a majority of just over 15,000 here in Halam,

making it one of the safest Lib Dem seats in the country. Based on the

last general election results, Labour would need a swing of about

18.5% to unseat the Deputy Prime Minister - difficult but not

impossible. In fact, the Lib Dems took the seat here in '97 with an

identical swing that will give a lot of people a lot of interest and

as soon as the seat becomes known as it's contestable, particularly

if aing I big-name independent decides to go for it, it might enbe

that Nick Clegg decides I won't even bother playing this game.

Nick Clegg's Nick Cleggs believe - singing "I'm sorry" might not be

appropriate. "Don't you want me baby" might be more appropriate. As

the song goes - # It's me who put you where you are

# I can put you back there too # Carefully chosen music there, and

the Lib Dems' former campaign director is with me now, Chris

Renard. We heard there a majority of just over 15,000 for Nick Clegg,

but that could be very difficult to sustain in 2015, the election. Is

there any chance of Nick Clegg stepping down before that rather

than the risk of losing his seat am sure not. That was clear in the

conference this year. I think the nature of the apology he made over

tuition fees is clear he's going to lead the party in the next election.

Look at the local election results in the constituency in 2012 were

very difficult for the party but good for them in the Halam

constituency. It reflects the different results in seats held by

Liberal Democrat MPs. By and large they did well. Can you still appeal

effectively to the anti-Tory vote? Yes, but it depends whether you're

chosen between what we have at the moment or an overall Conservative

majority. An overall Conservative majority wouldn't be interested in

protecting the vulnerable, wouldn't deliver a fair society, wouldn't

deliver tax cuts for people on middle and low incomes, wouldn't do

anything for the environment. I think perhaps a coalition is

difficult but a majority for the Conservatives or Labour would be

much worse. You agree with Nick Clegg who said when asked whether

he'd accept �10 billion of further welfare cuts and taking housing

benefit away from under 25s, "I knock both ideas on the head?"

Absolutely but a Conservative majority Government would be doing

just that. He'll be associated with that, won't he? If those are the

proposals put forward isn't the problem for Nick Clegg that he's

associated with it, whatever he says in a run-up to an election?

The worse thing would be if we were making tax cuts for very wealthy

people which the Conservatives would like to do. That's what

they're doing into the -- going into the next election saying. They

say they want to reduce the tax burden for the richest in the

country the Liberal Democrats will go into the next election saying we

should protect the most vulnerable. You have lost votes - I don't know

the number - to, primarily because there will be Labour voters who

associate you with a Tory-lead Government, particularly in the

north and in Scotland, you're being wiped out by Labour at a local

level. That doesn't bode well for national politics. Some people have

joked the Lib Dems have waited 90 years for mid-term Government

unpopularity other parties have experienced on many occasions.

it has been decimated, the seats you have fought so hard for - at

the peak of the next election - they're going to be wiped out

That's not right. The midterm poll position is generally a good

election. You go back the last five Parliament and the midterm poll

election is different to the general election. There are two

sides of the coin. Yes, it's difficult for the Lib Dems at the

moment in midterm in seats where we're facing the Labour Party, but

Lib Dem MPs facing the Conservatives have been doing well

in the local elections, and even this May which was a bad set of

local elections for us we made gains with MPs, Lib Dem councils

and where we face Conservatives. think obviously they have a problem

as to what they can, do but I think what Chris just said is important.

The thing about Sheffield Halam, Nick Clegg's seat, is historically

it has been a very, very strong Tory seat. A safe Tory seat? Not in

that seat. It is in other parts of the country, but not there. It

seems to me inconceivable - I mean, in 1997 they voted Lib Dem because

they couldn't bear to go over to Labour. So I mean, why would they

now vote - revert to being Tories? Because it was Tories that forced

Nick Clegg to do tuition fees - do a turnaround on tuition fees. The

Tories - they're not going to vote Tory. No chance of Nick Clegg

losing his seat? The people of Sheffield were deciding whether

colleague leg would remain an MP he'd lose because it's a Labour

city. It's not the people of Sheffield but the people of Halam,

which is a formerly a Tory seat, and they detest the Labour Party.

He has a good chance. This big question of will he stand at the

next election? Of course he will. The question is whether he be

leader of the Liberal Democrat at the next election? Clearly, if

things don't improve over the next year or so, his position might be

difficult. I don't think so. Of course he will be. A lot of people

are saying they'd like Vince Cable to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

There is a case for saying he'd be a better Chancellor than Ed Balls

but if they think that they need to vote for him next time. We have 57

seats in Parliament and the Conservatives, 307. Thank you very

much. Cameron versus Bojo, a failed

merger in aerospace and accusations of political misogyny in Australia.

Who would have thought it? Here is the week in 60 seconds.

David Cameron opted for the traditional lectern for his big

speech to the Tory faithful on Wednesday. For some, it went down

rather well. It's the messiah that Britain needed. Cameron is the

messiah? It's the messiah Britain needed. Some think this chap is the

Messiah. Others think he's just a naughty boy. But the so-called

blond-haired mop was on his best behaviour. Well, if I am a mop,

Dave, you're a broom, a broom cleaning up the mess left by the

Labour Government. Fantastic jab you're doing. Elsewhere merger

between BAE and EADF crashed and burned causing embarrassment for

politicians. Australia's Opposition Leader was forced to endure a

dressing down from the Prime Minister. I was offended when the

leader of the opposition went outside in the front of Parliament

and stood next to a sign that said, Stand up for yourself, lady. Now,

if all that wasn't exciting enough, we have learned the European Union

has won the Nobel Prize. Norwegian Committee has decided

that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European

Union. With us is someone I know who would like to offer his

congratulations, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage. Here is your

opportunity to congratulate them on winning that prize. Astonishing,

isn't it? I suspect the Nobel Prize will be brought into disrepute by

this. A few days ago Angela Merkel went to Athens to be greeted with

Molotov cocktails, a violent demonstration and unbelievably

people dressed up in Nazi uniforms. The Germans are being rude about

the Greeks and vice versa, so we're seeing disharmony caused by this.

So peace breaking out everywhere - defend this prize. He should go and

accept this award on behalf of the European Union. Would you go and

accept it, Nigel Farage? I think I would struggle to accept that, no,

it will be Mr Van Rompoy or - the one thing I can be certain of is

the person who picks up this award will be someone unelected and in

support of the nation states abroad. It really devalues the currency.

Honestly! I have to apologise for Sue's language. I missed that.

is 50 years too late. When they gave it when the Treaty of Rome was

signed saying you're going to solve your problems on the battlefield

not at the conference table as David Cameron said in his speech,

great the problem is there has been disaster since then. What happened

in Europe's backyard? The war in the former Yugoslavia. It took the

United States bombing Bosnia to get the Serbs to the table, not the

European Union. Isn't the lesson of Yugoslavia if you artificially try

to bring people together and impose a new flag on them without consent

it leads to civil war, and tragically the European Union is

doing the same thing. Barroso was clear last month - nation state

democracy must go. It must be transferred to people like him.

Fine, you can do that if if the people want that but there is no

evidence... Isn't the attempt to say that the people of Ireland,

Portugal and Greece want to stay in the euro and somehow

psychologically this will help them? It wasn't the Nobel Prize for

economics. They certainly wouldn't get that under any circumstances.

Do we get any of it, the prize money? I don't know what'll happen

to it. If you divide it up across the people of the nation states you

get 0.002... Think of all of those underpaid bureaucrats in Brussels.

They could do with some help. they could help pay off my fine,

having been rude to... How much was that fine? 3,000 euros, just for

saying... Have you paid it? Yes. Just for saying the chap had the

charisma of a damp rag. Don't say it again! You'll be fined. That's