:00:38. > :00:43.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. President Obama
:00:43. > :00:46.tells America "we are failing to protect our children". But has he
:00:46. > :00:51.the power to introduce new guns laws following the terrible scenes
:00:51. > :00:54.in Connecticut? Nick Clegg has been setting out how the Liberal
:00:54. > :00:57.Democrats will act in the second half of this Parliament. But will
:00:57. > :01:01.it be enough to stop his party slipping even further behind in the
:01:01. > :01:05.polls? Is the Civil Service in danger of being politicised? We'll
:01:05. > :01:08.take a look at Government plans to shake up the mandarins. And 'tis
:01:08. > :01:16.the season to be jolly. But are Government cuts threatening our
:01:16. > :01:19.Christmas lights? All that in the hour, and with us
:01:19. > :01:25.for today is our special guest, the historian and cross bench peer,
:01:25. > :01:28.Peter Hennessy. But first, America. Last week's
:01:28. > :01:31.terrible mass killing at a primary school in Newtown, Connecticut has
:01:31. > :01:35.touched the entire country and indeed the world. The newspapers
:01:35. > :01:39.today are full of the pictures of the 20 children - most of them just
:01:39. > :01:43.six or seven years old - and their six teachers, who were gunned down
:01:43. > :01:46.by Adam Lanza. But this is a nation where many have deeply held beliefs
:01:46. > :01:49.in the value of owning guns, and the second amendment to the US
:01:49. > :01:59.constitution makes it very difficult to take them off the
:01:59. > :02:04.
:02:04. > :02:14.streets. President Obama gave his reaction. The can't tolerate this
:02:14. > :02:14.
:02:14. > :02:20.any more. These tragedies must end. To end them, we must change. We
:02:20. > :02:27.will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that
:02:27. > :02:32.is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the
:02:32. > :02:38.world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But
:02:38. > :02:48.that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better
:02:48. > :02:51.
:02:51. > :02:54.than this. What can be done? Peter Hennessy is here and listening to
:02:54. > :02:59.all this from our studios in Salford is the former American Talk
:02:59. > :03:05.Show host, Charlie Wolf. What has he got in terms of power to
:03:05. > :03:10.introduce new gun laws? If it is one of the great paradoxes that the
:03:10. > :03:13.single most powerful person in the world can't prevail very often in
:03:13. > :03:21.their own country, and the National Rifle Association is one of the
:03:21. > :03:24.most effective groups in the world. The right to bear arms is
:03:24. > :03:32.instinctive within many American people and I remember when I
:03:32. > :03:39.visited the United States in 1968, just after Robert Kennedy had been
:03:39. > :03:44.assassinated. There were calls for gun law control to be tightened,
:03:44. > :03:48.but the Federal provisions of very inadequate. For someone who really
:03:48. > :03:53.loves the United States as I do, it is unbearable to see these
:03:53. > :03:57.tragedies - it is unbearable for anybody, but the constitutional
:03:57. > :04:01.enjoyment is such that it will make it very difficult even for this
:04:01. > :04:05.most persuasive of precedence on the back of this unspeakable
:04:05. > :04:13.tragedy to shift the moving parts in such a way that something better
:04:13. > :04:20.might emerge. Charlie, the numbers speak for themselves, something
:04:20. > :04:25.like 62 mass killings since the 1980s. However powerful the gun
:04:25. > :04:32.lobby is, surely new laws have to be brought in? I think that is a
:04:32. > :04:37.myth. It is a deep-rooted feeling and a constitutional item. I am not
:04:37. > :04:43.a gun owner but I do support the Second Amendment and I would not
:04:43. > :04:48.give up that liberty not very quickly at all. Why not? In our
:04:48. > :04:52.system of checks and balances, the power rests with the people. The
:04:52. > :04:59.founding fathers knew that self- defence and the right to bear arms
:04:59. > :05:03.was a natural more so this is as important to us as the First
:05:03. > :05:12.Amendment and free speech and the fifth amendment on not being able
:05:12. > :05:18.to self- incriminate, these are part and parcel of the power,
:05:18. > :05:23.natural powers that we are endowed with by our Creator. If, in
:05:23. > :05:33.situations like this, is there and acceptance that there will be more
:05:33. > :05:36.
:05:36. > :05:40.killings of this nature because gums are in American homes? -- guns.
:05:41. > :05:45.Not necessarily, I have been reading a study that says this
:05:45. > :05:53.feeling that more weapons equals more crime, the evidence doesn't
:05:53. > :06:03.support that. Of the last nine or 12 incidents we have had, all but
:06:03. > :06:05.
:06:05. > :06:08.the one in Arizona were all in areas that have no gums available.
:06:08. > :06:18.Connecticut has the fourth strongest come laws in America.
:06:18. > :06:24.
:06:24. > :06:33.Then why was the home of Adam Lanza, why did it have so many in it? It
:06:33. > :06:37.had a semi-automatic machine gun. semi-automatic is not a gun. There
:06:37. > :06:44.were comes in that house. legally have the right to keep
:06:44. > :06:53.those. It is agreed on all sides that you don't want to see the Adam
:06:53. > :06:58.Lanzas of this world having weapons. It is a two-track system. On the
:06:58. > :07:02.one hand you want to make sure the criminals, people there are not
:07:03. > :07:06.mentally stable, and getting them, but at the same time you want to
:07:06. > :07:09.make sure that responsible gun owners have their powers
:07:09. > :07:15.strengthened to make sure they can protect themselves against these
:07:15. > :07:20.people. How do you do that? It sounds to me like you need laws,
:07:20. > :07:26.even if it is to limit ownership so that they are not regularly in your
:07:26. > :07:33.average American house. I certainly think so, but the Federal provision
:07:33. > :07:39.is week which means you can't keep them out of state. It is a free
:07:39. > :07:42.flow of movement and the Federal come more is inadequate. We could
:07:42. > :07:48.hold our governments to account perfectly well in the United
:07:48. > :07:52.Kingdom without festooning ourselves with weapons. You have to
:07:52. > :07:58.understand our system and our history. We were under the caution
:07:58. > :08:02.of your government of King George the Third and we had to fight a
:08:02. > :08:05.revolution to become free. It is important that one of the reasons
:08:05. > :08:11.EC governments being held in power democratically is because people
:08:11. > :08:15.have the power. I don't want to see a modern day Nazi Germany so it
:08:15. > :08:19.does happen. It is possible even in modern history for these things to
:08:19. > :08:28.happen so it is important for the American people that we hold the
:08:28. > :08:37.power. It is a natural right of self-defence. Because one or two
:08:37. > :08:42.people have violated the law... is more than one or two. It is
:08:42. > :08:52.still a very small percentage. the basis, would you like more
:08:52. > :08:54.
:08:54. > :08:59.people to have guns? It is part of a conversation that should be had.
:08:59. > :09:03.I don't think every school should be made into a fortress, but you
:09:03. > :09:08.talk about a balance and an assessment of risk. This place had
:09:08. > :09:12.security in place, a locked door policy but he shot his way in
:09:12. > :09:18.through a glass door. There needs to be a wider conversation about
:09:18. > :09:23.culture as well. Over half of the top 25 Gunning incidents have been
:09:23. > :09:27.in the last 20 years. Something has changed in our culture, and I think
:09:27. > :09:34.that has a lot to do with reality television, with the fact that
:09:34. > :09:38.these kids have no empathy any more. You can blow someone up on the X
:09:38. > :09:43.box and not think anything of it. Thorpe it is difficult to combat,
:09:43. > :09:47.if that is the deeply held belief of so many Americans to have this
:09:47. > :09:51.instinctive right. President Obama doesn't stand a chance if he wants
:09:51. > :09:56.to change that. He is running against feelings that have been
:09:56. > :10:02.powerful since the 18th century, but Charlie, we haven't threatened
:10:02. > :10:07.you since you beat us in the war of independence. Our country has been
:10:07. > :10:12.attacked physically with a scattering of bombs in the Second
:10:12. > :10:16.World War but we don't have the same mentality is you. Can you
:10:16. > :10:20.understand what you look like in your country? You are a patriot,
:10:20. > :10:27.which has a wonderful thing to be, but can you begin to understand how
:10:27. > :10:33.bizarre and ghastly these attitudes look to us in Europe? Small
:10:33. > :10:40.correction, you haven't threatened us since 1812, a small point. 200
:10:40. > :10:44.years ago, I think. Not that we have forgotten or anything. There
:10:44. > :10:50.is a cultural difference, and just as we have to respect your culture
:10:50. > :10:56.over here, you have to respect ours. Watching the coverage over here,
:10:56. > :11:01.sometimes I think the press are trying to imprint or project their
:11:01. > :11:08.culture on to America and we are not going to ban handguns, it is
:11:08. > :11:11.not possible. There is a better chance of changing the laws of
:11:11. > :11:19.gravity and it is better to look at the wider picture and say what can
:11:19. > :11:27.we do? It is far-fetched to say they are ghastly the laws. We are
:11:27. > :11:33.free and sovereign nation and that is what is important. A producer on
:11:33. > :11:37.BBC Radio Scotland asked if the World Cup pressure America into
:11:37. > :11:40.giving up their handguns. We are a sovereign nation and that is
:11:40. > :11:44.paramount to us. Today, Nick Clegg celebrates his
:11:44. > :11:47.fifth anniversary as leader of the Liberal Democrats. And today, half
:11:47. > :11:50.way through the expected lifetime of the coalition Government, he's
:11:50. > :11:54.been setting out how he expects his party to tackle the rest of the
:11:54. > :11:56.term. Mr Clegg wants to show that act two of the coalition with the
:11:56. > :12:00.Conservatives is going to be very different, and it certainly looks
:12:00. > :12:03.like it could be rich with dramatic tension. Act one was all about
:12:03. > :12:05.showing that the Lib Dems could get on with the serious business of
:12:05. > :12:08.governing in the national interest alongside David Cameron's Tories
:12:08. > :12:11.But Clegg is setting the scene for more disagreements with the
:12:11. > :12:13.Conservatives and even Government policy in the next stage of the so-
:12:13. > :12:16.called differentiation strategy Mr Clegg will make the point by
:12:16. > :12:18.claiming to have blocked "draconian welfare cuts", and he'll say he
:12:18. > :12:28.wants to means-test benefits for elderly wealthy people, something
:12:28. > :12:29.
:12:29. > :12:32.David Cameron has resisted. At the moment this play seems to be
:12:32. > :12:37.turning into a tragedy for the Lib Dems, with polls over the weekend
:12:37. > :12:39.putting them in fourth place behind UKIP. And with local elections due
:12:39. > :12:43.in the spring, Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes admitted
:12:43. > :12:50.yesterday that there is a "bit of chatter" about Mr Clegg's position.
:12:50. > :12:56.Let's have a listen to what Nick Clegg had to say this morning.
:12:56. > :13:03.is at times like these that Britain needs a party rooted in the centre
:13:03. > :13:11.ground, which anchors the country there. The Liberal Democrats are
:13:11. > :13:16.that party. We are not centre ground Tories, the centre ground is
:13:16. > :13:20.our home. Whilst all the parties Disa at the centre ground under
:13:20. > :13:25.pressure, the Liberal Democrats have done the reverse. Under
:13:25. > :13:29.pressure, we have moved towards the centre. Our political correspondent,
:13:30. > :13:38.Chris Mason, was listening to the whole speech. What struck you about
:13:38. > :13:43.the speed? Nick Clegg painting in loud shades of yellow, trying to
:13:43. > :13:46.distinguish himself from the Conservatives and Labour, to say
:13:46. > :13:54.there is distinct political territory that the Liberal
:13:54. > :14:04.Democrats occupy. We have also heard the sound buy eight we were
:14:04. > :14:10.
:14:10. > :14:14.here again and again. -- the sound bite. In terms of coalition, I got
:14:14. > :14:19.a sense this was clear acceptance that a vote for the Liberal
:14:19. > :14:23.Democrats is a vote for coalition. Yes, central to his pitch, he
:14:23. > :14:29.didn't say this in as many words but it is ultimately obvious, that
:14:29. > :14:33.the Liberal Democrats have to prove that coalition governments can work.
:14:33. > :14:36.Much of the first couple of years of this government has been about
:14:36. > :14:40.doing that, but at the same time they have to prove it can work
:14:40. > :14:43.without leaving their party in a state where it is time the unlikely
:14:43. > :14:48.they might be part of another government any time soon and
:14:48. > :14:51.getting that balancing act right is rather tricky. We saw Nick Clegg
:14:51. > :14:55.using the case-study of welfare reform which matters so much to so
:14:55. > :15:01.many people because of the extent to which the welfare state matters
:15:01. > :15:05.in people's pockets every week, to say there is a difference between
:15:05. > :15:10.us and the Conservatives, and us and Labour. He spoke about the
:15:10. > :15:15.fantasy world that he felt some of those on the Left occupied. You
:15:15. > :15:24.could almost say his strategy was trying to fumble for a third way,
:15:24. > :15:30.but I guess that term has been used With us now is the former Lib Dem
:15:30. > :15:34.chief executive, Lord Rennard. Coalition, a vote for the Liberal
:15:34. > :15:38.Democrats in 2015 will be a vote for a coalition government. I think
:15:38. > :15:42.Nick Clegg was saying that coalition has been difficult for
:15:42. > :15:45.the Liberal Democrats, but he is spelling out that an overall
:15:45. > :15:49.majority for Labour or the Conservatives would be a disaster.
:15:49. > :15:53.He was saying you cannot trust Labour on the economy, the Liberal
:15:53. > :15:57.Democrats are working for a strong economy. You could not trust the
:15:57. > :16:02.Conservative Party to protect the vulnerable, they do not support a
:16:02. > :16:08.fairer society. So vote for the Liberal Democrats to stop the other
:16:08. > :16:11.parties implementing what they want to do, all the more mad elements?
:16:11. > :16:18.Certainly, the Liberal Democrats would stop the mad and immense...
:16:18. > :16:22.What sort of manifesto commitment is that?! I think there are a lot
:16:22. > :16:25.of people who want to stop the madness of the Conservatives and
:16:25. > :16:29.the Labour Party, but there are positive things that people want to
:16:29. > :16:32.see. They believe the way to a stronger economy is through a
:16:32. > :16:37.fairer tax system, and the Liberal Democrats have been responsible for
:16:37. > :16:41.making sure that by next April, people on middle and lower incomes
:16:41. > :16:46.will be paying �600 per year less tax, and that will be a big boost
:16:46. > :16:51.to our economy and a fairer society. In terms of differentiation, what
:16:51. > :16:55.will we see over the next two years in terms of a different strategy
:16:55. > :16:59.compared to the Conservatives? Lib Dems have first to show that
:16:59. > :17:03.coalition government can be stable and can be strong and can take
:17:03. > :17:07.tough decisions. Some will say that could not be the case, but what we
:17:07. > :17:11.will see from the Liberal Democrats is continuing to push for economic
:17:11. > :17:16.rejuvenation. Which has not happened, you admit, up until now,
:17:16. > :17:19.so the whole raison d'etre of collision, working in the national
:17:19. > :17:23.interest, they say they're going to miss all their targets, so that has
:17:23. > :17:28.not worked. There has not been enough of it, but the pressure for
:17:28. > :17:32.growth is coming from the Lib Dem side. At the same time, we want to
:17:32. > :17:36.protect the vulnerable. People who cannot work should be protected. We
:17:36. > :17:41.want to make sure it pays to work, a principal Labour did not have in
:17:41. > :17:45.office. Your impressions of the speech, this idea of more
:17:45. > :17:49.differentiation, and yet the backdrop for 2015 is that you will
:17:50. > :17:56.get coalition government if U-boat for the Liberal Democrats. Not the
:17:56. > :18:00.most inspiring message. It is not Mr Gladstone on stilts, is it?
:18:00. > :18:05.Classic Liberal Democrat territory, which is we are the herbivores of
:18:05. > :18:09.British politics, not red or blue. My dear friend Chris is the
:18:09. > :18:14.incarnation of herbivorous values, and that is why everyone is fond of
:18:14. > :18:18.him. It is fascinating for me, because essentially you have a
:18:18. > :18:21.herbivorous party in with a carnivorous party. They did it in
:18:21. > :18:28.the national interest, and I was in favour of the coalition, given the
:18:28. > :18:32.parliamentary arithmetic of 2010. But it must be a terrible emotional
:18:32. > :18:38.strain, and I understand the need to differentiate. But the pathway
:18:38. > :18:43.to 2015, ideas have been floated that the differentiation will take
:18:43. > :18:46.the form of the coalition breaking up short of that, and I would be
:18:46. > :18:51.interested if Chris could guide us through the possibilities, a
:18:51. > :18:55.confident and supply deal? With the Conservatives in the minority for
:18:55. > :19:00.the last year? Or would it be an attempt to activate that remarkable
:19:00. > :19:07.mechanism that you have got to go through in the Commons with 66% of
:19:07. > :19:11.all MPs voting for the end of the government? That really intrigues
:19:11. > :19:16.me as well. Beyond Nick Clegg's herbivorous speech, the usual
:19:16. > :19:20.importance Of being Earnest, which he does extremely well, there is
:19:20. > :19:25.the wider constitutional question, and we have never had to face that
:19:25. > :19:31.before, because it is new. It is new in the UK, of course, but not
:19:31. > :19:35.unusual to most of Western Europe. Will the coalition for...? It is a
:19:35. > :19:39.five-year agreement, and we have a deal to fit in with that. In most
:19:39. > :19:43.European countries, countries which by and large have done rather
:19:43. > :19:48.better than as since the end of World War II, have had PR,
:19:48. > :19:52.coalitions, and it is understood... Better than as in what sense?
:19:52. > :19:57.Economic growth, delivery of healthcare systems, education. They
:19:57. > :20:00.have done better than us, and they have done better when it is more
:20:00. > :20:04.widely understood that parties work together where they agree and also
:20:04. > :20:07.have differences, as Nick Clegg explained this morning. We often
:20:08. > :20:13.hear the Liberal Democrat say that a slump in support is the price of
:20:13. > :20:16.being in government, when is it a price not worth paying? I think in
:20:16. > :20:20.2015, I hope we will have the leadership debates, Nick Clegg will
:20:20. > :20:26.be able to say, a lot of things have happened in this country
:20:26. > :20:30.because we were in government, tax cuts... But at what level of
:20:30. > :20:34.support, below 10% fairly consistently, UKIP challenging you
:20:34. > :20:40.for third place, in various polls, when does that become a price not
:20:40. > :20:43.worth paying for the party and the grassroots members? I did a paper
:20:43. > :20:47.for Paddy Ashdown in 1988, considering the possibility of
:20:48. > :20:51.coalition, and I said the Lib Dems might well go down to 10% in mid-
:20:51. > :20:56.term as a result of coalition. If you look at by-elections, the
:20:56. > :20:59.elections last month in November, across Great Britain, the Liberal
:20:59. > :21:06.Democrats gained a seat. Labour lost two, the Conservatives last
:21:06. > :21:09.eight. In the most recent by- elections, the Liberal Democrat
:21:09. > :21:14.polling has been dire, I mean it has been. If the Parling position
:21:14. > :21:19.is where it is now after the 2013 local elections, cannot Nick Clegg
:21:19. > :21:23.stay? If you look at the results in the Lib Dem seats, we have done
:21:23. > :21:27.very well fighting the Conservatives. I do not think the
:21:27. > :21:32.party... So you think Simon Hughes is wrong, chattering about
:21:32. > :21:36.leadership. There is no chattering about a change of leader. Then
:21:36. > :21:41.maybe people think, after Nick Clegg, after past 10 years, they
:21:41. > :21:45.might become leader, but there is no chattering. Why is Simon Hughes
:21:45. > :21:49.so wrong? He is the deputy leader. The talks to a lot of people, and I
:21:49. > :21:53.think he has been listening to people saying, we are a great party,
:21:53. > :21:57.we will hopefully be successful at the next election, and there will
:21:57. > :22:02.be a leader after Nick Clegg. Everyone knows there will be a
:22:02. > :22:04.leader after Nick Clegg. So Simon Hughes is wrong. What you say about
:22:04. > :22:09.the chattering reported, Simon Hughes saying people are talking
:22:09. > :22:12.about leadership, as a result of these very poor election results?
:22:12. > :22:16.Well, a lot of people talk about leadership or the time, because
:22:16. > :22:20.that is what gets activists out of bed in the morning, the muttering,
:22:20. > :22:25.the drizzle of complaint about life being so war. You can hardly blame
:22:25. > :22:28.them. All three leaders have them rolling detractors, that is what
:22:28. > :22:32.political parties are about, a displacement activity for the
:22:32. > :22:37.disturbed. You should not be surprised that this is in the
:22:37. > :22:41.background. It is not happening at all, and I know from my experience
:22:41. > :22:46.as chief executive, when there is chattering, and there was with
:22:46. > :22:49.previous leaders... It gets beyond chattering, though, it becomes a
:22:49. > :22:54.roar before leaders go. It has in the past, but there's nothing
:22:54. > :22:59.significance now. Nick Clegg was saying that the Lib Dems have
:22:59. > :23:03.curbed the most draconian welfare cuts from the Tories. For example,
:23:03. > :23:08.the idea that child benefit may be restricted to families with two
:23:08. > :23:11.children. I think that is a pretty anti-family policy for the
:23:11. > :23:16.Conservative Party. Also to protect young people leaving home, seeking
:23:16. > :23:20.a job, so to suggest that you should not be able to claim housing
:23:20. > :23:24.benefit and a 25, I think that would be wrong, so supporting
:23:24. > :23:27.families and supporting young people. The Liberal Democrat have
:23:27. > :23:31.supported every significant government welfare reform. It is an
:23:31. > :23:37.exaggeration to say there is a huge difference between what Nick Clegg
:23:37. > :23:39.thinks and what David Cameron thing somewhere fair, the universal
:23:39. > :23:43.credit, Disability living Allowance, cap one House of benefits, Nick
:23:43. > :23:48.Clegg is supporting one of those things, it is just a difference of
:23:48. > :23:52.language. It is a difference of policy. A of those, that list,
:23:52. > :23:56.which policy is different from the Liberal Democrats? You have listed
:23:56. > :24:00.those things where we have agreed with the principles of things like
:24:00. > :24:03.a cap on housing benefit and on welfare benefits. I think that is
:24:03. > :24:08.fair and good for the country, and most people recognise that it
:24:08. > :24:10.should pay to work rather than be on benefits. But at the same time
:24:10. > :24:15.the Liberal Democrats are saying, and the Conservatives may not, if
:24:15. > :24:18.you cannot work, you should not be penalised. You should be looked
:24:18. > :24:23.after in work and encouraged us well and support it. We are going
:24:23. > :24:27.to come back to this a little later. For now, thank you very much.
:24:27. > :24:30.Who runs government? That question pitching the politicians against
:24:30. > :24:34.the officials of the civil service has been serious debate and the
:24:34. > :24:37.birth of magical satire from Yes Minister to The Thick Of It for
:24:37. > :24:41.years. Today there is a lack of humour about, with signs that the
:24:41. > :24:44.top officials in this government are getting increasingly frustrated
:24:44. > :24:49.with the Jan and how the future relationship between the two should
:24:49. > :24:52.change. -- the two. Giles has been wandering about in Whitehall.
:24:52. > :24:56.Civil servants and politicians often accuse each other of pulling
:24:56. > :25:00.in different directions, pointed out practical problems and policy
:25:00. > :25:05.to Sir Humphrey is part of the job, but to a politician it is just
:25:05. > :25:09.their way of saying no, Minister. In the season of goodwill to all
:25:09. > :25:13.men, a distinct air of ill-will has borne into Whitehall. In Whitehall
:25:13. > :25:16.and particularly here at the Cabinet Office, they boil battle of
:25:16. > :25:19.chess is going on between the government and the Civil Service.
:25:19. > :25:23.They are not talking about the little guys at the bottom, although
:25:23. > :25:27.many have already been removed from the system. We are not even talking
:25:28. > :25:32.about middle managers, although some have gone as well. No, we are
:25:33. > :25:36.talking about the people at the top, and the most controversial thing is
:25:36. > :25:43.that ministers want a say in who gets to the permanent secretaries,
:25:43. > :25:48.and that, for the Civil Service, is a real problem. Since the election,
:25:48. > :25:50.17 R 19 permanent secretary is have gone or moved, and plans for
:25:50. > :25:55.ministerial says so in who comes next have been rejected by the head
:25:55. > :25:59.of the Civil Service Commission, Sir David Normington, a former
:25:59. > :26:03.permanent secretary. The problem that the Sir Humphreys and those
:26:03. > :26:06.who want to defend that culture have is that the current system
:26:06. > :26:09.does not work. Public administration and those who
:26:09. > :26:14.preside over it ought to be publicly accountable. At the moment,
:26:14. > :26:18.they are not, they are a world unto themselves, it is the Civil Service
:26:18. > :26:22.Commission appointing people from the Civil Service, answering to the
:26:22. > :26:27.Civil Service. It is a closed shop and needs to be opened up. We are
:26:27. > :26:31.not dealing with something that is run for and by the Civil Service.
:26:32. > :26:37.We have a system. Why are people cautious? They are asking why it is
:26:37. > :26:40.necessary to change and what are the risks. Those seen to be the
:26:40. > :26:45.politicisation of an impartial system and a weakening of their
:26:45. > :26:49.perceived role speaking truth to power. They are not meant to be
:26:49. > :26:53.there as Yes, Minister, saying yes all the time. They are meant to
:26:53. > :26:56.have a challenge. There is a risk that people will see their careers
:26:56. > :27:00.being dominated by political process, they will team up with
:27:00. > :27:04.buddies with whom they have an affinity. How can it be right,
:27:04. > :27:07.Conservative or Labour, or a government elected by the people to
:27:07. > :27:13.find that it needs the permission of the permanent officials to make
:27:13. > :27:16.it happen? We need a system that allows reformers to commend, for
:27:16. > :27:20.ministers to select senior civil servants who want to make change
:27:20. > :27:23.happen. But the service Cisse merry-go-
:27:23. > :27:28.round of minister and official bodies together and dropped into
:27:28. > :27:32.departments they do not really know as the creation of in permanent
:27:32. > :27:35.secretaries. For experienced hands, that is a bad mix. The fundamental
:27:35. > :27:39.problem at the moment is not that he did it does not have enough
:27:39. > :27:43.volatility, it has far too much movement of both ministers and
:27:43. > :27:48.officials. This tension in government has switched back and
:27:48. > :27:53.forth for years, but right now some suggest that tension has developed
:27:53. > :28:00.the potential to snap. That was Giles reporting, and we
:28:00. > :28:04.are joined by Lord Reid, who held any number of cabinet portfolios
:28:04. > :28:07.under the last government. Why does this matter? One of the great
:28:07. > :28:12.virtues of the British tradition of government which comes from the
:28:12. > :28:14.Victorian era is that we believe in Crown Service, that up against
:28:14. > :28:19.elected ministers we have people recruited and promoted on the basis
:28:19. > :28:23.of merit. What they know, rather than what they believe. This is the
:28:23. > :28:29.governing marriage which has such does -- which has served us very
:28:29. > :28:32.well. As that very good film showed, those who get the equivalent of
:28:32. > :28:35.tenure by being Crown servants, their first duty is to speak truth
:28:35. > :28:40.and to power, tell ministers what they need to know rather than what
:28:40. > :28:44.they wish to hear. They do not want little echo chambers, ministers are
:28:44. > :28:51.all good ministers do not, they do not want people who will tell them
:28:51. > :28:55.about the beauty of their political thought. Only weak ministers need
:28:55. > :28:58.what Edmund Dell, a very tough labour minister, called the comfort
:28:58. > :29:01.blanket of politicised people around them to tell them how
:29:01. > :29:05.marvellous they are, only the deeply insecure would want anything
:29:05. > :29:09.other than the Crown said as we have got, and we are in danger of
:29:09. > :29:13.losing that. I am presuming you are not a deeply insecure minister, but
:29:13. > :29:16.you said the Home Office was not fit for purpose, the implication
:29:16. > :29:21.being that the Civil Service had not done their job falls but I was
:29:21. > :29:27.entirely in accord with my top civil servants. The words are used,
:29:27. > :29:30.and you quoted part of them, about the deficiency in systems and so on
:29:30. > :29:35.were provided for me by the top civil servant in the Home Office at
:29:35. > :29:39.the time. I asked him to be honest enough to give me an appraisal of
:29:39. > :29:44.the condition of the Home Office when he went in, and he did so, and
:29:44. > :29:48.that was actually reading what he had written to me. So Peter is
:29:48. > :29:54.absolutely right, I mean I had nine ministerial positions, eight of
:29:54. > :29:57.them at the Cabinet, some very tough permanent secretary is,
:29:57. > :30:02.including David Norman's son, including Richard, who has just
:30:02. > :30:06.been speaking. And on occasion, of course they would tell me things I
:30:06. > :30:10.did not like, but only weak ministers blame their civil
:30:10. > :30:15.servants, and there is a difference in roles. The ministers are there
:30:15. > :30:21.to lead. Civil servants are there to manage, they are there to speak
:30:21. > :30:31.truth and to power, there to absorb the technicalities of it, and if
:30:31. > :30:34.
:30:34. > :30:42.you cannot take people with you, do Would you have liked to say in the
:30:42. > :30:49.appointment? No, never. You never thought it would be useful to have
:30:49. > :30:55.a say during Tony Blair's time? if you want special advisers,
:30:55. > :31:01.people who are politicised, let them be known to be special
:31:01. > :31:06.advisers, let them be on short-term contracts, and when you go let them
:31:06. > :31:14.go as world. In the government which I served, it was contrary to
:31:14. > :31:18.what is implied by the Conservative spokesman, there was cued reform of
:31:18. > :31:22.the House of Lords, the Scottish parliament, it brought in a minimum
:31:23. > :31:27.wage, reformed the whole of the public services, and it did that
:31:27. > :31:32.with the permanent Civil Service, and it did it because ministers
:31:32. > :31:39.lead. Civil servants are there to manage the direction in which you
:31:39. > :31:45.move and tell you the downstream consequences. Are you saying they
:31:45. > :31:52.are never a brake on reform? Never a block? No, the government agenda
:31:52. > :31:56.should be put forward by ministers, that is what leadership is about.
:31:56. > :32:02.The Civil Service are there to give a degree of stability, to be
:32:02. > :32:10.neutral and impartial. I was deeply worried at the beginning of this
:32:10. > :32:14.government when suddenly it was announced they were getting round,
:32:14. > :32:19.or it was announced there would be early retirement for the Chief of
:32:19. > :32:23.Defence Staff. I have dealt with people who are Chief of Defence
:32:23. > :32:32.Staff, and that is the next step once you start crossing that red
:32:32. > :32:36.line. Charlie Guthrie, Mike Jackson, you know, these people were not
:32:36. > :32:43.horny-handed Socialists by any means. I suspect they may not even
:32:43. > :32:47.sure my political opinions but they were more oil and impartial. Maybe
:32:47. > :32:54.it does come down to the quality of the top level of the Civil Service.
:32:54. > :33:04.Is it time to look at wider pool of talent? It is quite a restrictive
:33:04. > :33:24.
:33:24. > :33:29.process for career civil servants In the civil service reform the UN,
:33:29. > :33:33.the idea of greater ministerial say, in the same bit of it is the same
:33:33. > :33:38.requirement and this will be a temptation for them, that when they
:33:38. > :33:43.feel they have a gap in expertise and knowledge, they can bring in
:33:43. > :33:52.people on short-term basis. The danger at is that that will be used
:33:52. > :33:57.as camouflage for bringing in The problem is a bit wider. The
:33:57. > :34:00.special advisers are the way to do it, the politicised bid. I have
:34:00. > :34:04.always been a great believer in then knowing things, rather than
:34:04. > :34:08.believing things. What can pay a 23-year-old with a political
:34:08. > :34:13.science degree teach my friend? Getting in people who really know
:34:13. > :34:17.the subject is a good idea. What depresses me, Jo, the governing
:34:17. > :34:22.marriage, there is the permanent Civil Service, the transient
:34:22. > :34:24.politicians and now at the special advisers. The relationships between
:34:25. > :34:29.the three parts have never been as poor as they are at the moment. It
:34:29. > :34:33.is very scratchy, and two and a half years into government there is
:34:33. > :34:38.a tendency to scapegoat. You blame the press office first, but these
:34:38. > :34:43.are tossers who cannot do it! Then you blame the career civil servants
:34:43. > :34:47.if you are an inadequate minister. It is almost choreographed, almost
:34:47. > :34:51.exactly to the day we have this civil service reform white paper.
:34:51. > :34:55.Two years into the coalition, blaming the staff. I can understand
:34:55. > :34:59.it must be frustrating, because it is a tiring business being minister,
:34:59. > :35:06.and in the Treasury just after the war Hugh Dalton, the Chancellor,
:35:06. > :35:11.had a great outburst. He caught the Treasury men... You need congenital
:35:11. > :35:15.snack pandas! It is not that simple, we have been here before, had good
:35:15. > :35:25.ministers know how to deal with that. The governing marriage needs
:35:25. > :35:30.
:35:30. > :35:36.serious marriage counselling. They What about the news the Queen will
:35:36. > :35:41.be an on server in Cabinet? Up they may get some useful contributions
:35:41. > :35:46.for a change if she is involved. There was advice given by Gerald
:35:46. > :35:52.Kaufman 30 years ago, and it was very succinct about the
:35:52. > :35:56.relationship between ministers and civil servants. Civil servants
:35:56. > :36:00.dislike two things about ministers - one is a minister who doesn't
:36:00. > :36:06.know what he wants to do. The second is a minister who knows what
:36:06. > :36:10.he wants to do, but will not listen to potential criticism and
:36:10. > :36:15.explanation of the downstream consequences. If you get a minister
:36:15. > :36:19.who knows what he wants to do, can assimilate information, can analyse
:36:19. > :36:28.it with the degree of intellectual rigour, and communicated in a way
:36:28. > :36:36.that carries people with him, that his leadership. It sounds like the
:36:36. > :36:39.Sir Humphrey model is completely wrong then. Thank you.
:36:39. > :36:41.Now, stop drinking the mulled wine and pay attention. If you hadn't
:36:41. > :36:44.realised, there's still almost an entire week of parliamentary
:36:44. > :36:47.business left. Here's what to expect in the week ahead. The Prime
:36:47. > :36:53.Minister begins his week by updating the House of Commons on
:36:53. > :36:56.one of his favourite subjects - Europe. Last week a summit kicked a
:36:56. > :36:59.decision on closer fiscal and economic integration into the 2013
:36:59. > :37:01.long grass. But finance ministers did manage to agree on the creation
:37:01. > :37:07.of a banking union within the eurozone. Tomorrow, the Queen will
:37:07. > :37:10.attend Cabinet as an observer. This is believed to be the first time
:37:10. > :37:13.this has happened since Queen Victoria's reign. And, in case you
:37:13. > :37:18.wondered, it is expected that she'll sit beside the Prime
:37:18. > :37:21.Minister. On Wednesday the Prime Minister and Ed Miliband come face
:37:21. > :37:25.to face for the last time this year, though don't expect there to be
:37:25. > :37:27.mince pies and brandy. It's also the day that Nick Pollard inquiry
:37:27. > :37:31.into Newsnight's aborted investigation into child sex abuse
:37:31. > :37:36.by Jimmy Savile is expected to be published. On Thursday, MPs pack up
:37:36. > :37:39.as the House rises. And on Friday, if the Mayans are right, it's the
:37:39. > :37:49.end of the world. Joining us from College Green outside Parliament is
:37:49. > :37:54.
:37:54. > :37:58.Kevin Maguire from the Mirror and Emily Ashton from the Sun. Kevin
:37:58. > :38:02.Maguire, one gay marriage, the backbench rebellion is clear but it
:38:02. > :38:09.will still pass the Commons, I would hazard a guess. What lasting
:38:09. > :38:15.damage, if any, will this do to David Cameron? Am sure it will pass
:38:15. > :38:25.the Commons because a sizable minority, not just a slim majority,
:38:25. > :38:29.will back this. I think it will cause some lasting damage because
:38:29. > :38:34.of the depth of the ill-feeling on his own side. It is getting people
:38:34. > :38:38.out of bed now, his right wing, and we saw him signing this letter with
:38:38. > :38:43.the House of Lords and some Labour MPs and it will keep on coming. It
:38:43. > :38:49.is the last bit of that caring, compassionate cream Wash he had
:38:49. > :38:53.during the election. He has shot the huskies, and it is only gay
:38:54. > :38:59.marriage he has got left so he can't back off and neither will his
:38:59. > :39:04.opponents so he will have to crush them at some point. On that basis,
:39:04. > :39:09.is this David Cameron being brave, doing the right thing as he puts it,
:39:09. > :39:15.modernising the party even if sections don't like it? It is a
:39:15. > :39:19.personal call for David Cameron. If he wasn't bothered it would not be
:39:19. > :39:24.worth the hassle but he obviously feels very strongly about it. It is
:39:24. > :39:29.a noble aim to push it through, and he will do even if it chokes up
:39:29. > :39:32.Parliament for months on end. As soon as it gets into the Lords, the
:39:32. > :39:42.Conservative Peers will not like it one little bit and they are saying
:39:42. > :39:43.
:39:43. > :39:47.there was no mandate for this. In no manifesto, it was in no
:39:47. > :39:52.manifesto so they can't force it through. A has there been chatter
:39:52. > :39:56.about Nick Clegg's leadership? There has been for some time. I
:39:56. > :40:01.don't want to say there will be a challenge, but the Liberal
:40:01. > :40:06.Democrats know they are struggling. Some polls show them in fourth
:40:06. > :40:09.place. We will be going to the general election in just over two
:40:09. > :40:15.years and they are struggling to give themselves a clear definition.
:40:15. > :40:18.Nick Clegg gave his speech today, wanting to claim some victories but
:40:18. > :40:23.at the same time he wants to say we are different to the Conservative
:40:23. > :40:29.Party. It is a difficult path for him to tread and he should have
:40:29. > :40:33.started down saying we will have a business relationship rather than a
:40:33. > :40:40.lovey-dovey relationship. I think he has left it too late. Do you
:40:40. > :40:45.think so, or is there time to make this differentiation work for him
:40:45. > :40:50.in the next few years? I think there is time. You can see him
:40:50. > :40:58.thinking I really need to sort this out, and differentiate what the Lib
:40:58. > :41:04.Dems stand for and what the Tories stand for. He reined back the cuts,
:41:04. > :41:08.and he has also done it on the drugs - backing a royal commission
:41:08. > :41:18.on drugs which David Cameron doesn't want and that is part of a
:41:18. > :41:23.grand strategy to differentiate the party for the -- from the Tories.
:41:23. > :41:28.It is an interesting strategy, as I was talking about earlier, to say
:41:28. > :41:33.we will soften the madder elements of the Labour Party and
:41:33. > :41:37.Conservative Party, but they don't want to alienate Labour completely
:41:37. > :41:43.at this point if they have to end up in government with them. Labour
:41:43. > :41:47.has always felt two weighs about the Lib Dems, we saw in 2010 a
:41:47. > :41:55.large part of the Labour Party didn't want to scramble a deal with
:41:56. > :42:02.them. They dislike the Liberal Democrats, very tribal. Then you
:42:02. > :42:10.get those Lib Dem friendly MPs like Lord Adonis, who says are not sure
:42:10. > :42:16.I would favour a coalition with the Lib Dems, I would favour a minority
:42:16. > :42:26.Labour government. Nick Clegg is in a very difficult position, and as
:42:26. > :42:26.
:42:26. > :42:30.austerity continues to buy eight, he might say a royal commission on
:42:30. > :42:37.drugs but that may not pass muster with the population with the
:42:37. > :42:43.decline of living standards. What can pass muster with the
:42:43. > :42:47.population? They have to show they are on the side of the working
:42:47. > :42:52.classes, and really want to put money back in people's pockets.
:42:52. > :42:57.With this benefit rise, the 1% rise in April, it is interesting they
:42:57. > :43:05.have suddenly started to back the Tories on that. It is an
:43:05. > :43:10.interesting manoeuvre they have achieved. Given most of those cuts
:43:10. > :43:16.will be on people in work, they could fall into their own benefits
:43:16. > :43:25.trap. Nearly the end of the parliamentary year, PMQs
:43:25. > :43:30.performances. Ed Miliband has got a lot better. The best bit of PMQs is
:43:30. > :43:35.watching David Cameron, who does not like to be challenged, and Ed
:43:35. > :43:40.Balls just really knows how to wind him up with his hand signals, flat
:43:40. > :43:48.lining economy, and insults from a seated position. That has been the
:43:48. > :43:52.best bit. The score from you, Emily? Last week's PMQs was so
:43:52. > :43:58.raucous on welfare, I'm not sure it will be that raucous on the end of
:43:58. > :44:02.term this week, I may be wrong, but Ed Miliband has shown he can
:44:02. > :44:08.perform most weeks now, although David Cameron has done well in
:44:08. > :44:11.recent weeks. Thank you. We had a lovely backdrop behind you.
:44:11. > :44:13.With me now is our Monday panel of MPs. The Conservative, George
:44:13. > :44:16.Hollingbery who is also Parliamentary Private Secretary to
:44:16. > :44:26.Theresa May, the Labour MP for East Lothian Fiona O'Donnell, and the
:44:26. > :44:31.veteran Lib Dem Sir Malcolm Bruce. Is it beneficial for Nick Clegg to
:44:31. > :44:36.be making a speech criticising siren voices amongst Conservative
:44:36. > :44:42.about draconian cuts? With is an internal issue, they have got to
:44:42. > :44:47.create some differentiation. Different tuition works two ways,
:44:47. > :44:50.doesn't it? We are clear where we want to go, but it is only right
:44:50. > :44:53.for me to a knowledge that the Liberal Democrats have had to take
:44:53. > :44:59.some difficult decisions and they have been brave about things like
:44:59. > :45:04.tuition fees, but to point out there are differences that this
:45:04. > :45:08.stage is entirely to be expected. What about the claims they are
:45:08. > :45:13.moderating the cruel aspect of the Conservative Party - is that how
:45:13. > :45:16.you see yourself? There are large numbers of Conservative MPs who
:45:16. > :45:21.understand the next general election will be won on the centre
:45:21. > :45:24.ground. The says you are not the centre ground. I think he is wrong.
:45:24. > :45:33.A large number of my colleagues will talk to me about the issues
:45:33. > :45:42.that matter to people across the country, and to characterise us as
:45:42. > :45:47.the stranger to the right is Do you accept that the Lib Dems are
:45:47. > :45:51.moderating Conservative policy on welfare reform? That is what Nick
:45:51. > :45:57.Clegg was claiming today. I expect he is making a case. I would like
:45:57. > :46:02.to hear how he mitigated tuition fees. What we have had �12,000 per
:46:02. > :46:07.year for tuition fees? He talked about and enabling society, and
:46:07. > :46:12.education is key to that. What did he do on that issue? I hope we will
:46:13. > :46:17.hear what they have been doing, and on VAT as well. He apologised,
:46:17. > :46:22.didn't he? The thing that went some way in terms of explaining what
:46:22. > :46:28.happened with tuition fees? -- do you think? It may explain it, but
:46:28. > :46:33.it does not excuse it. In terms of benefits, the cap of 1% is
:46:33. > :46:38.completely wiping out the benefits of raising the tax threshold,
:46:38. > :46:41.giving with one hand and taking away with the other. On that point,
:46:41. > :46:47.you say the Liberal Democrat have perhaps moderated conservative
:46:47. > :46:50.excesses on welfare reform, so why are you signing up to that cap?
:46:50. > :46:54.think the Conservatives would not have had any increase at all.
:46:54. > :46:59.that true? The Lib Dems are making sure that the poorest and most
:46:59. > :47:03.vulnerable are protected to some degree. But they are not. Many
:47:03. > :47:08.Conservative MPs are not like George, very many of them take a
:47:08. > :47:13.much more hardline, right-wing, uncaring stance, and I think the
:47:13. > :47:15.country would be poorer if those Conservatives prevailed. Monstrous
:47:15. > :47:20.characterisation of the Conservative Party. Even some of
:47:20. > :47:23.those MPs who are more of the right are extremely caring people,
:47:23. > :47:26.dealing with trafficking and all sorts of different issues that
:47:26. > :47:30.really matter. Is it that just because they have a particular
:47:30. > :47:34.political point of view and the economy and how it will work better,
:47:34. > :47:39.the fact that it is fair that people on benefit should have the
:47:39. > :47:47.same sort of crisis in income as people live and work, it is
:47:47. > :47:49.monstrous. It is the right thing to be doing at this time. Do you agree
:47:49. > :47:56.with the characterisation of people sitting with their blinds down
:47:56. > :47:59.while others go out to work? When you stigmatise people like that,
:47:59. > :48:05.particularly disabled people, sometimes some of the language is
:48:05. > :48:08.very unfortunate and makes people feel much worse, people who support
:48:08. > :48:12.voluntary organisations feel less inclined to give, and sometimes
:48:12. > :48:17.disabled people... You have signed up to it. We want to protect
:48:17. > :48:21.disabled people who cannot work. That is not happening. Why is it
:48:21. > :48:26.not? It is not happening for a start because a mother or father
:48:26. > :48:29.staying at home as a carer to look after a disabled adult, son or
:48:29. > :48:34.daughter, is going to be worse off because of what the Government is
:48:34. > :48:38.doing, and the Lib Dems are signing up to that. You cannot make
:48:38. > :48:41.everybody better off. You said people with disabilities, you're
:48:41. > :48:46.not protecting them. I am distinguishing between people who
:48:46. > :48:49.cannot work and people who need support to get into work. Some
:48:49. > :48:54.disabled people need support and want to work. Sometimes it is
:48:54. > :48:57.people simply looking for a job, like the under 25s, who might not
:48:57. > :49:02.be eligible for housing benefit if the Conservatives had their way. If
:49:03. > :49:06.they move home looking for a job, they should be encouraged.
:49:06. > :49:10.parent of a profoundly disabled young man or woman cannot go out
:49:10. > :49:14.and look for work because they are full-time carers. The other thing
:49:14. > :49:18.is they are contributing a huge amount to society and saving your
:49:18. > :49:22.government money by staying at home and looking after them. Many people
:49:22. > :49:26.would feel Labour has not had the courage to deal with the huge
:49:26. > :49:30.welfare bill, right from the outset. It is all very well talking about
:49:30. > :49:34.some of the details, but just the broad principle that Labour is not
:49:34. > :49:40.signed up to wholeheartedly in terms of universal credit and a cap
:49:40. > :49:43.on welfare. No, I don't agree. We were clear in the manifesto for the
:49:43. > :49:48.last election that people who can work, choosing not to go to work
:49:48. > :49:52.will not happen, but you have to create the jobs. And you need a
:49:52. > :49:56.scheme that works, whereas the Government's work programme is
:49:56. > :50:00.letting down the unemployed. marriage, do you agree with those
:50:00. > :50:05.who are accusing the Prime Minister of acting without a mandate on gay
:50:05. > :50:09.marriage? First of all, we had the contract for qualities in which
:50:09. > :50:12.this particular promise was made, the examination of the issue of gay
:50:12. > :50:16.marriage, and it has been looked at, and the Prime Minister is convinced
:50:16. > :50:22.that this is something he has to deliver. Do you agree with it?
:50:22. > :50:27.matter of principle, absolutely I do. Gay people should be allowed to
:50:27. > :50:30.call themselves married. What you save your colleagues to say that
:50:30. > :50:34.there is no mandate, this is not an issue that is important, and we
:50:35. > :50:41.should not be pushing it through? do not think you can say that
:50:41. > :50:45.equalities issues are not important. What you say Jon Collins? I cannot
:50:45. > :50:48.speak for all of my colleagues. There is a balancing of rights. Yes,
:50:48. > :50:51.it is important to create the qualities, but at the same time we
:50:51. > :50:55.have to understand that people on both sides of the argument are
:50:55. > :50:58.passionate about it, and I have written to my constituents who have
:50:58. > :51:02.corresponded with me, saying I want to be convinced that is not
:51:02. > :51:06.something that can be overturned in court, particularly courts which we
:51:06. > :51:11.do not control. I think the quadruple lock went a long way
:51:11. > :51:15.towards that, but I will wait to hear the arguments on both sides.
:51:15. > :51:17.Was the Government right to make it illegal for gay couples to marry in
:51:17. > :51:21.the Church of England or Church of Wales without consulting either
:51:21. > :51:25.church? I think it was strange that the judges were not consulted. I
:51:25. > :51:30.take the view that if you are against gay marriage, you should
:51:30. > :51:35.not marry somebody of the same sex! It is about religious freedom. I
:51:35. > :51:38.personally think that any church that wants to be able to marry
:51:38. > :51:43.people of the same-sex of different sexes should be able to do so.
:51:43. > :51:47.it was wrong of the Government, which surprised a lot of people, to
:51:47. > :51:52.bring in this illegality element, so the Church of England will not
:51:52. > :51:55.be able to marry gay couples. did surprise me, and the Lib Dems
:51:55. > :51:59.take a simple view that the government should not be able to
:51:59. > :52:03.determine who adults are able to love or marry. That should be a
:52:03. > :52:06.matter of personal conscience and choice. I think it should before a
:52:06. > :52:09.judge to decide if it wants to marry people of the same sex will
:52:09. > :52:14.only people of different sexes. I think that should be a matter of
:52:14. > :52:18.religious freedom. Ed Miliband urged David Cameron to fast-track
:52:18. > :52:21.legislation. If he is so committed, why isn't he within Labour MPs?
:52:21. > :52:26.Because it is a matter of conscience, and we're all going to
:52:26. > :52:30.agree on this, on both sides of the argument people have sincerely held
:52:30. > :52:35.convictions, and I think, you know, it would not be appropriate to whip
:52:35. > :52:41.Labour MPs on this issue. Right... Just one other thing, briefly,
:52:41. > :52:44.before we go, we sport about the polling, and on UKIP, Eric Pickles
:52:45. > :52:49.suggested UKIP should be taken seriously and the Conservatives can
:52:49. > :52:52.win back support by engaging with it, but the Transport Secretary
:52:52. > :52:56.told the Sunday Politics he would only start worrying when UKIP
:52:56. > :52:59.started winning by-elections. Conservative politician who does
:52:59. > :53:03.not take the threat of UKIP seriously is being foolish. Any
:53:03. > :53:06.number of seats with small majorities, we have to engage with
:53:06. > :53:10.the arguments, and I have been clear for a long time that it is
:53:10. > :53:13.not a matter of pandering to their views, but explaining to people
:53:13. > :53:16.where the weight of the argument sits on the key things that face
:53:16. > :53:20.the country, the economy, welfare, education, and all those issues
:53:20. > :53:23.which actually bother people every day. The government has been doing
:53:23. > :53:28.fantastic work in all those areas, and it is up to us to make that
:53:28. > :53:33.argument and it tell people that if they want to see a country in 10 or
:53:33. > :53:37.20 years' time they can be proud of, then a UKIP vote is not one to make.
:53:37. > :53:40.Are you looking forward to next week? The festive atmosphere on the
:53:40. > :53:43.high street with carol singers and Christmas lights? Would it spoil it
:53:44. > :53:48.for you if the limited Father Christmas was brought to you by
:53:48. > :53:51.Coca-Cola, McDonald's or Toys R Us? Austerity cuts are making councils
:53:51. > :53:54.think long and hard about giving their lights over to advertising.
:53:55. > :53:58.This week Eric Pickles will tell local authorities how much money
:53:58. > :54:03.they can expect, and he will not be mistaken for Santa Claus. Two years
:54:03. > :54:06.ago they were looking at cuts of 12%, and further savings are likely.
:54:06. > :54:15.For the Sunday Politics and the North East, Mark Denten has been
:54:15. > :54:21.Christmas lights in Newcastle, sparkly, pretty, a cost to the
:54:21. > :54:24.council here of �140,000 per year. But with �90 million worth of
:54:24. > :54:28.savings divined, the council is looking to cut the cost of
:54:28. > :54:32.Christmas. It will continue to pay for the light until 2013, but after
:54:32. > :54:38.that it will be up to commercial sponsors, and that means if you are
:54:38. > :54:41.a company, your name could be of there. The council says both brazen
:54:41. > :54:47.monument and the Tyne Bridge could carry temporary sponsorship to pay
:54:47. > :54:51.for the sparkly, twinkly things. -- Ray's Monument. We cannot turn away
:54:51. > :54:54.any support financially that will help our city. If you have got a
:54:54. > :54:58.business proposition to help keep the lights switched on, we want to
:54:58. > :55:02.hear from me now. In the past, we might have considered naming
:55:02. > :55:07.companies to be a bit gaudy, but to keep the lights switched on, it
:55:07. > :55:10.will have to be a little bit gaudy. Private companies already provide
:55:10. > :55:14.�50,000 every year towards the Christmas lights in the city. But
:55:14. > :55:20.what people want to see sponsors on local landmarks? I think it would
:55:20. > :55:26.be a shame, a real shame. I can see the position they're in. I suppose
:55:26. > :55:31.it would be all right. If it is not too big, if it does not fill up the
:55:31. > :55:34.whole Monument of the Tyne Bridge. It depends who is sponsoring its.
:55:34. > :55:38.It is not just Newcastle looking closely at the cost of Christmas
:55:38. > :55:44.lights. On South Tyneside, the budget has been held at �200,000
:55:44. > :55:50.this year. In Redcar and Cleveland, the budget has fallen to �50,000
:55:50. > :55:56.from �90,000. Carlisle's Christmas decorations now cost �37,900 this
:55:57. > :56:06.year, compared to over �51,000 last year. Sparkly, pretty and for our
:56:06. > :56:11.cash-strapped councils, increasingly unaffordable.
:56:11. > :56:14.Are you prepared for gaudy to keep the lights on? Oh, definitely. I am
:56:14. > :56:17.not going to spoil the Christmas party, it is all part of the
:56:17. > :56:23.experience of shopping in the dark of the winter months, I am all for
:56:23. > :56:27.it. So you would be happy for company names up in lights? I was
:56:27. > :56:32.in Oxford Street the other night, and Marmite are sponsoring that,
:56:32. > :56:37.love it or hate it. Is that what it says? Absolutely. A price worth
:56:37. > :56:41.paying? By love Christmas lights, my nephews and my mother-in-law
:56:41. > :56:45.love the Christmas lights. Piccadilly Circus is very well lit
:56:45. > :56:48.up with sponsored advertising, so I see no problems with having
:56:48. > :56:52.suitable sponsorship to keep the lights going. But what is suitable
:56:52. > :56:56.sponsorship? We do not want to go down the line of Greek football
:56:56. > :57:00.teams which now have a brothel and an undertaker sponsoring them, I
:57:00. > :57:05.would not like to say that on Christmas lights. That would give
:57:05. > :57:08.it a certain shyness a choir! Where you draw the line in who can have
:57:08. > :57:12.sponsorship questionnaire presumably it is a matter for local
:57:12. > :57:17.councils. If local businesses want to make contributions, well,
:57:17. > :57:21.fantastic. They are quite expensive, looking at the prices. They are
:57:21. > :57:24.more expensive than I thought they were. With local authorities in
:57:24. > :57:29.great difficulty, it is a sensible thing for them to decide themselves
:57:29. > :57:33.which local sponsors could do it. Often you see on roundabouts, you
:57:33. > :57:37.see very nice garden decoration sponsored by suitable companies.
:57:37. > :57:41.Why not for the Christmas lights? What about your new year's
:57:41. > :57:45.political resolution? I know it is a bit early, but I bet you have
:57:45. > :57:47.thought about it. I have indeed, and for me it will be about
:57:47. > :57:50.standing up for the most of vulnerable people in my
:57:50. > :57:56.constituency who will be affected by welfare reform, starting with
:57:56. > :58:01.East Lothian. Sticking to the line very firmly! To do the job for my
:58:01. > :58:05.boss at the moment, to make sure I get as much of that right as I can!
:58:05. > :58:10.Who is your boss? In this case and talking about the Home Secretary.
:58:10. > :58:16.The best thing we can deliver is a thriving economy. And finally, last
:58:16. > :58:21.but not least... Well, to try to get fitter than I have been! If I
:58:21. > :58:24.can, to hold my head up high and feel proud of what the Liberal
:58:24. > :58:26.Democrats are doing in difficult circumstances, which I think we can
:58:26. > :58:30.show positive achievements as well as the negative things we have
:58:30. > :58:36.prevented. It sounds like you have all practised this, I thought it
:58:36. > :58:39.was going to be a surprise question! I have not going to -- I
:58:39. > :58:44.have not got a new year's resolution yet, but I have got time
:58:44. > :58:47.to think about it. The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One