14/01/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/01/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. It's good news for


women, low-paid workers and the self employed, so says the


government, who will this afternoon introduced a new flat-rate state


pension. Critics say people will have to work longer and contribute


more to get the money. Steve Webb insists the new system will be


fairer. Will David Cameron give us a referendum on Europe or not? This


morning he seemed to indicate it could be on the cards, but only


once he had renegotiated our relationship.


The Falkland Islands will get a referendum. In March, they will get


to decide if they want to remain British or not.


And what is it a name? We will be asking if you can tell a


politician's personality from how All that in the next hour. With us


for the first half of the programme, we are joined by the former Labour


security minister, Admiral Lord West. The Daily Politics Laura very


own TV anchor, I cannot write those jokes! In Miley, French troops are


fighting extremists linked to Al- Qaeda. -- MI High. The Prime


Minister stressed that no British troops would be deployed on the


ground, but explained how Britain was supporting the French mission


in other ways. I offered the use of two transport planes because France


is a strong ally and friend of Britain, but what is being done


mayor is a very much in favour of Al-Qaeda there have been a thorn in


our flesh for some time. They have been involved in hostage-taking,


and they use that money to pay for comms equipment and other things.


They get drugs coming in from South America which go into Europe. It is


quite an governed, some of it. We knew they had naught Mali, but now


they are moving into South Mali, and it is a good thing that


something is happening. So you support the French, can they be as


confident as saying it is only a matter of weeks before we deal with


the threat in that part of Mali and then we are out? The French do have


bases across parts of Africa, unlike any other Western country.


The danger with these things, rather like in Afghanistan, when we


went in, it was right that we went in, we did take Al-Qaeda apart and


stop them using terrorist training camps. We then stay there, and that


is when you start getting problems. It is easy to miss the fact that


you should get out and leave them to it, and I think the French may


get their fingers caught if they are not careful. The Prime Minister


is right that we should not get our troops involved, but we should


support them with transport aircraft and things like that.


that should be the extent of it. Absolutely. We have already heard


that one of the planes has been delayed because of technical


problems. They are very good aircraft, I am sure it will be got


round very quickly. I was surprised the Prime Minister said we would


share intelligence with them, because we do share intelligence


with the French and a lot of people on anything to do with terrorism.


We have worked very closely with all of our allies on anti-terrorist


staff, I would hope that is happening all the time, and I'm


sure it is. A United Nations back international calls from other


parts of the region is expected, but not until the autumn. That


could be the difficulty, the French may have to fill that gap. That is


the problem, they could find themselves caught up there, and


that might be unpopular. I have seen various reports calling this


Hollande's war, whereas Lydia was Sarkozy's war. I think he needs to


be quite careful if they are getting their fingers in the


grinder. But I'm glad they have taken the action, this influences


on the whole of the Sahel, an area of worry and concern. I remember


talking about it when I was security minister, saying we had to


be very careful, and it has grown as a threat, I think. It is now


time for our daily quiz, and the question for today is, which of


these four are somewhat surreal images is the odd one out? At the


end of the show, will find out the correct answer. Do you know what


your state pension will be when you retire? If you do not, do not worry,


as the system is being replaced with a new system which is meant to


be simpler. Anyone who retires after 2017 can forget all the


complexities of basic state pension and second state pension. There


will be just one single payment for each state pension of. The current


basic state pension is �107.45 per week. But most people will receive


either a second state pension or a means-tested Pension Credit which


would bring their income to at least �142.70. But from 2017,


pensioners will receive a single state pension of �144 per week, as


long as they paid the full national insurance. The government says it


will cost the public purse the same amount, but it will be simpler to


administer and there are to those with small pensions. Earlier I


spoke to Pensions Minister Steve Webb and began by asking him why he


thought it would be simpler. At the moment, we probably have one of the


most complicated pensions systems in the world. We have a basic


pension that most people get, the state second pension that some get,


and then many people do not get enough from that, so they get


Pension Credit on top. It is baffling, and if you are at work


today, and you want to plan for retirement, you have not got a clue


what the government will pay for you. Now there is a basic minimum,


and then when you are deciding what you want to save for their age, you


know where you will stand. Who is going to benefit the most from


these changes? So we are spending the same overall. Some will get


more than they would have done, some will get less. Whom are they?


The beneficiaries are particularly mothers in their late 50s he spent


homer time with their children, which damaged their state pension.


-- who spent time at home. Millions of workers face paying more tax


through increased national insurance contributions if they are


part of occupational schemes. is true, and those are mainly


people who work in the public sector who pay less national


insurance than other workers now and get lay state pension. They


will pay the same national insurance in the future and get the


same state pension as everyone else. Although their national insurance


will go up a bit, their state pension will go quite substantially,


so it is a good deal for public sector workers like those. Guineas


current economic times, when unions are battling with the government


about pension schemes and contributions, you are asking


public sector workers to pay more out of their salary now, even


though they may benefit later. So they will have to spend more out of


their salary to pay for your changes. So we are talking about


2017 at the earliest, and what will happen to those people, nurses and


teachers, is then national insurance will rise by 1.4%, but


their pension potential, instead of building up the 107, they will have


a chance to build up to 144. If that was an investment, it would be


a fantastic investment. What about these public sector workers facing


higher taxes? Are the unions behind the scheme? I have already started


conversations with the unions, and we will go on having that dialogue.


None of this changes the pension they will get from their public


service team. If you are a teacher or nurse, nothing we are announcing


today changes the pension you get from that scheme. You'll pay more


national insurance for a bigger state pension. How much money does


the Treasury get from these changes? So what happens is reduced


national insurance for people who have opted out of the state scheme


been terms of rebates runs into many billions of pounds. That is


not money we are spending, so it is a windfall to the Treasury, who


will have to decide how to spend it, but we are not spending it on


bigger pensions. How would you like to see that money come back as


windfall being spent? If you're asking for teachers, for example,


to pay more in terms of contributions, why not suggest some


of that money goes back into education? Just to be clear, the


teachers to pay more national insurance will get a bigger pension


at the end, so they are in a good position. How would you like the


money spent customer kit will be 2017 at the Alise Post -- at the


earliest, and it is not my role to speculate on how that money will be


spent. It will be available to the Chancellor of the day. We have


heard from the IFS, they agree with you in the short term that there


will be benefits for many people, but in the long term, 30 or 40


years, people will be receiving a smaller pension relative to what


they might have got and that in the basic state pension and second


state pension, they will lose out. So the IFS are talking about the


middle of this century, that sort of timescale, and we will be


spending a much bigger share of national income on pensions after


these reforms, but the rate of growth will be slow. We have got an


ageing population, we will have to spend more on health, more on care,


more on pensions, and what this helps us to do is have a measure of


fiscal control decades down the line. For the first 20 years,


something like that, we are spending pretty much the same as we


are now. With us now is Ros Altmann, director-general of SAGA. Do you


welcome these proposals? I very much welcome these proposals. They


are not perfect, but they are a huge step forward and long overdue.


We have the most ridiculous pensions system that virtually


nobody understands, and even the DWP itself often says it is so


complicated they cannot work out what your entitlement is going to


be. You cannot carry on like that, and the current system penalises


any money whose saves and a private pension, potentially, because it


rely so heavily on means-testing. There is a fear that public sector


workers will have to contribute more, well, they will have to


contribute more, a bit more in terms of contributions. Isn't that


going to be quite difficult for those people in the current


climate? Well, first of all, at the moment, anyone in a final-salary


type pension scheme, including public sector workers, gets a


discount on their national insurance, because they are not


contributing for the full state pension. In future, the potential


is that they will no longer get the discount. How that will be handled,


we have to wait for the detail, but there is the possibility they might


have to pay up to another 1.4% national insurance, but that is in


exchange for a much higher state pension. For which she will have to


work longer. Well, the age when you get the state pension was already


rising. Whether we had this new system or not. They would end up


having to work longer. So the increase in the number of years for


which you work to state pension age was already set, that is not


changing directly as a result of these reforms, and most public


sector workers will already have 30-35 years anyway, otherwise they


wouldn't have a full working career. Now, we have already had some of


our viewers writing in, worried about contributions that they have


made into the second state pension. None of those contributions that


have been paid up until now will be lost, will they? For up until 2017.


No, what the government is saying is that it is not everyone who will


have 144 and some people will be brought down to it and some people


will be moved up to it. Anyone who was already entitled to more than


144 and has paid extra will have that protected. So there will be a


transitional period where, instead of getting one payment, people will


still get extra above the 144, but it will be the case to anyone who


has not got as much as that minimum level will be increased to that,


which is mostly women. You know, most men already have more than


�144 per week. Most women actually now have less. So it will bring


forward the time at which men and women state pension will be


equalised. Do you think This is a good idea? His is a practical


proposal and solution to what is a complicated system? Well, at the


devil is in the detail, and I have not been able to look at that, but


anything that simplifies things it is complicated, and sometimes there


is a bit of cant about talking about these things in government.


There is a real problem that we are all living longer. That is good


news! I am about to get to pension age. Far too young! It is very


immediate for me. Therefore, we are in a period of austerity, and they


are going to be able to get money for the Treasury now in the short


term and then look into the future, and one needs to look at the detail,


and I think it is important not to run a gonadal where people have


spent money and paid for something. That is something that is to move,


and occasionally we have seen things like that change, and that


must not happen. Pensions are very important to individuals, long-term


planning, and some people do not make any provision, and they are


going to be in a very difficult The government argues this will


give people some certainty. That is the point at the heart of this,


which is that ultimately everyone, especially younger generations, for


whom this will be more of a reality, everyone will know what the deal is.


When you reach state pension age, you will get �144 a week and that


is it. If you want to live on more than that, you have to do something


about it. Because of means testing at the moment, many moderate


earners end up finding they have wasted their money by saving


because they are replacing means- tested benefits that their


colleagues didn't bother saving. It is not fair and it puts people off


saving. I don't think it is fair. At the end of this year,


restrictions on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania will be lifted.


Yesterday, speaking to Andrew on the Sunday Politics Show,


Communities Secretary Eric Pickles admitted that the Government had no


idea how many immigrants may arrive from these countries and that any


influx could cause big problems. wasn't confident in figures. I have


asked for a further explanation, and when I have got that and I feel


confident about the figures, I will talk about the figures. Does the


figure you have been given worry you? When I am confident about the


figures, I will express my confidence or worries. But do you


accept that this could present another major increase in housing


demand in a country where there is already a major housing shortage?


Given that we have got a housing shortage, any influx from Romania


and Bulgaria is going to cause problems. It will cause problems


not just in terms of the housing market but also on social housing


market, but one of the reasons I am not prepared to start a scare story


going is that I think we need to be reasonably confident about the


figures. Well, our reporter David Thompson is on the green to discuss


the issue further with Conservative MP Stewart Jackson and Sunder


Katwala, Director of the think tank British Future. It seemed to be the


elephant in the room that nobody seems to know the numbers. Philip


collarbone as a Conservative MP, and he estimated there can be as


many as 300,000 people coming into the country after December. Eric


Pickles dismissed that figure, but as we heard he didn't seem able to


give his own numbers on what that might be. I am joined by Stewart


Jackson, the Conservative MP, who has a bill coming up on Wednesday


to try to limit the numbers on immigration, and Sunder Katwala,


Director of the think tank British Future. We don't want to make the


same mistakes as in 2004, importing low wages, low-skilled workers. We


have not done a proper analysis of the impact on the employment market,


the delivery of core public services and community cohesion and


to is incumbent on the Prime Minister and Eric Pickles to


reassure people that we will not have huge numbers, potentially 29


million people from Romania and Bulgaria having three access to


this country, and that they will not have a significant impact on


the market. How was it that Eric Pickles is unwilling or unable to


say how many people will come here? It is fine if they are not putting


the number out because they have not dumb are correct studies yet,


but it will happen so it is important to do the projections and


the work. Last time the government lost trust in 2004 because it was


not expecting the scale of what happened. Otherwise it might have


done the preparation better. This will be different because Polish


people could come to Britain but they could not work in Germany or


France. We have to work out - we have not got crystal ball - how


many people we think might come to Britain, to which areas, and if


there are aspects of the system that need to change. It is


difficult to change the rules of the EU without the bigger debate of


whether we want to be in it. can have your bill in parliament on


Wednesday, not only that, this is EU law and you can't do anything


about it. For the thing is that my view is it is not the same as 2004


because there was no political will by the Labour government then to


vary the free movement directives. We can review it on the impact on


the economy, on public good, public security, the impact on the health


service. It is not set in stone. It is a live piece of EU Law. My bill


was not a completely get rid of the free movement directives but to


look at it from a British perspective so there is plenty


ministers can do. Foreigners as they can bring in a scheme to make


sure we know who is in the country, look at criminal records, and look


at agricultural producers. What has to happen to make Romania and


Bulgarian immigration work for Britain? Having an independent


study of what you are expecting will happen, looking at the policy


areas that you know are open. Then we need to work out how we can


manage the pressures. The bigger debate of whether we want to be in


the European Union or not, this will happen in January and the


political parties need to have that debate so it is handled in the


interests of British society. We know that Polish people came here


and worked hard and did something for the economy but we were not


expecting that. Back to you in the studio. Before


you go, it is it's snowing? If just a little bit. This is not Duncroft.


Before we move on, the last government was criticised for not


preparing Great Britain well enough when people from Poland were coming


over from work. Do you think we need to look more closely at this


now? I think the scale was not anticipated and we need greater


clarity of what is involved. There is no doubt people in this country


are concerned and worried - are people really making claims when


they are working that they could not get in their own country? What


impact will that have on my children? These people are willing


to work for a lot less here because they are relatively poor. These


issues worry people and we need greater clarity of the truth so we


can then make decisions about what to do across-the-board to try and


resolve that. Do you agree with Stewart Jackson, who was saying


Britain should be looking to change the directives or restrict what


people can claim when they come here? I wouldn't go as far as


saying that blankly. We need to look at the totality and make


decisions about how to protect our own people and people in this


country, and what the best thing to do is. I'm also interested in what


other countries in Europe do. I don't think we want to be out of


step with that, because otherwise clearly they will come to us rather


than going to other countries to work. We need to be clear.


In two months' time the people of the Falkland islands will decide in


a referendum whether they want to remain British. The islands have


belonged to Britain since 1833. Recently Argentina has been upping


the pressure on Britain to give them up. But more than 30 years


since we fought to protect them from Argentine invasion, is there


really a case for us to keep hold of the Falklands? Susana Mendonsa


has been speaking to one man who We went to war over them and they


are still proving a source of tension between Britain and


Argentina, but as the people of the Falkland Islands prepare to vote on


whether they want to stay British, some people think it is time to


consider giving the islands up. the end, a deal will have to be


done, just as this whole thing began because the Conservative


government in the day was trying to do a deal with the Argentinians.


after war broke out in 1982 there was little prospect of a deal with


Argentina. Government papers from the time offer an insight into the


impact of the invasion. When you sift through these documents, you


get a real sense of how important the Falkland Islands were to


Margaret Thatcher. She talks about the moment when she found out the


islands had been invaded and describes it as the worst moment of


her life. He was some correspondence between herself and


Ronald Reagan, and she basically tells him that she would do the


same if Alaska had been threatened in the same way. While she enjoyed


American support back then, the UK's international interests could


now be damaged for its support for the British outpost. The cost of


Obama's attitude to the British Empire is not what Ronald Reagan


and Margaret Thatcher would have put together, and this is a long


running difficulty. Apart from that, colonialism at the UN has a rather


toxic word. It doesn't do the current British attitude any good


and it doesn't do our trade prospects for the future any good


in Latin America. Recent oil exploration in the Falklands has


led to increased tensions with Argentina. Last year this stand-off


was caught on camera between David Cameron and Argentina's President.


She accused Britain of 19th century colonialism, in an open letter that


received this response. It is 30 years ago, for heaven's sake the


Cold War ended 25 years ago - can we move on a bit? Then there is the


question of how much it costs to maintain a military presence in the


Falklands. The MoD put it at more Nobody is asking us whether we want


to continue paying the money to defend the Falklands, or to offer


this continuing lifestyles to them into perpetuity. For the Falklands


war ended in 72 days, but the war of words over its future continues.


Well our guest of the day, Admiral West, defended the Falkland islands.


In fact his ship, HMS Ardent, was sunk during the 1982 conflict.


We're also joined by the Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn. What is your case


for keeping the Falklands? I think the people who live there, and


indeed I have a friend over who runs a farm - one of the fifth


generation who live there - and the people who live there firmly wished


to remain in the circumstances they are at the moment with a


considerable amount of local government control but also under


the overarching control of the UK and the Queen. That is what they


want and I think they have a right to self determination. This talk of


colonialism, if you look historically the Spanish settlers


in South America who revolted from Spain in 1816, they embarked on a


major piece of colonisation, up into the northern part towards


Paraguay, almost fighting against Chile. They sent an armed party to


the Falkland Islands and they were the colonialists innocence.


shouldn't they have a right to self-determination? They can have a


vote, and I have no doubt they will vote to remain British. Some issues


need to be discussed. Britain is very keen on self-determination for


the islanders but has spent the last 40 years preventing the Jay


Goss islanders from returning to their own territories so there is


double standards there. Low as concentrate on the Falkland Islands


themselves. If they vote, isn't that the end of the story?


because relations with Argentina will be difficult, a possible


blockade, and that relations with the whole of Latin America. Other


situations like this, for example the dispute between Finland and


Sweden were sorted out by some degree of joint administration


while retaining the nationality. It has been done with hung Kong, to


some extent Gibraltar. There is another way forward other than


spending more money and a potential catastrophic conflict which will


damage our relations. Do you see a conflict being on the cards? I hope


not, but the more the rhetoric built up There is that danger.


you think there is a conflict on That did not think they are capable


or would intend to do military action. I believe the islands are


well enough defended. It the airfield was captured, we would be


incapable of taking it back, and that is a different issue, but I


think the danger with raising the rhetoric, and the reason that she


is doing this is because she is very unpopular with in Argentina.


She has got mid- term elections coming up, they have got huge


problems in their economy, their training ship was impounded. She


has had to hire a British plane to visit other countries because if


she flew in one of hers, it would be impounded, because she has


messed up the economy so much. It is a way of taking people's eyes


off that. And that may suitor in that case. If you use that rhetoric,


the problem is you might get a splinter group who would do


something stupid, and rather like back in 1982, when Galtieri used


this as a way of taking people's eyes of the dreadful things, then


you end up with 22 of your boys being killed, as I did. Not for the


first time as a leader tried to use diversionary tactics, so it is in


her interests to escalate this, and it makes it difficult for the


British government. In the same way that it was in the interest of


Margaret Thatcher to divert away from economic issues. There is a


letter being produced by five Nobel Peace Prize winners who suggest


that without changing the question of nationality, there is room for


discussion and debate as the UN have called for. Why can't we


respond to that at work on that basis, rather than upping the ante


and spending more money and arms? Couldn't you start negotiating?


do not think we are upping the ante, I think they are. But we are not


even discussing it. The police said we will not discuss the nationality


aspect, and there will be a referendum there. -- we said. When


the despotic regime collapsed and they became democratic, there was


an opportunity for them to extend a hand, build up close links, and


they did not do that, and that is so unfortunate, and instead they


are looking and thinking, gosh, they have got quite a lot of money


from the fishing revenue, there might be oil, we are broke, there


is going to be this referendum, and all of these things are raised the


issue. What about the issue of oil revenues? It has not been found, so


let's hold on that, but it would be a benefit to whichever companies


get hold of the concessions, and the tax income, and we get very


little at the moment from the Falklands. There's obviously a


possibility of some kind of arrangement where a number of


people could exploit the oil reserves. In 1989, some Falkland


Islands councillors started a dialogue with Argentina. Is it the


end of the world if we have a dialogue with a very large


neighbouring country? When did benefit the Falkland islanders to


have a bit more certainty that they are not going to have his perennial


threat because it suits the Argentinians domestically? -- when


did. She and David Cameron and the government holed out at hand? --


shouldn't. Not when they are doing what they are doing. Although this


sort of follow along, South America, a lot of them do not like the


Argentine. Chile and Brazil are not against the UK to the extent that


people might say they are. Pinochet supported Thatcher, the current


Chilean government would not. are much moe pro than people might


Reports in the papers, defence chiefs preparing contingency plans


to defend the Falklands, additional troops, another warship. Coming up


to the referendum, because of all the talk, the loose Talk From the


President of the Argentine, I think it makes sense to have


contingencies in place. The Falkland islanders pay big chunk of


their defence costs. If it did happened, if oil were found, they


would be able to pay all of it. It is right we should defend these


people, because we are able to do it. In the case of Hong Kong, we


could not have done it. We could do it, and I think it is right.


that note, I will say goodbye to Jeremy Corbyn and Lord West, thank


you. Over the weekend, there was more


discussion about Britain's place in Europe. Eric Pickles increase the


pressure on the Prime Minister, saying that the UK should remain a


member of the EU at any price and that he would vote against his


party on the issue if you felt it was in the national interest. David


Cameron was doing the rounds this morning and was asked about the


thorny issue of a referendum on membership. He told John Humphrys


he wanted to give the British people a referendum, but only in


the right circumstances. There are opportunities for us to make


changes, and when we make those changes, a new settlement, we


should make there is consent for that settlement. I will be setting


out exactly how in my speech, but I'm not against a referenda. Are


you in favour? In some cases, particularly in this case. The


principle should be this. If you are fundamentally changing the


relationship in Europe, then you should be having a referendum.


have just said the referendum is changing -- the relationship is


changing, so it follows that there will be a referendum, and the


question that follows that, whether it be and in Out referendum? You'll


have to wait for the speech for the full details. But you are not


ruling that out. I want to give people a proper choice. If we had


an in-out referendum tomorrow, or very shortly, I do not think that


would be the right answer, for the simple reason that we would be


giving people a false choice, because right now a lot of people


would say, well, I would like to be in Europe but I'm not happy with


every aspect of the relationship. That is my view, so I think an in-


out referendum today is a false choice. I have been joined by


Conservative MP Margot James, Labour MP Pat McFadden, and Greg


Mulholland of the Liberal Democrats. Would you like to see an in-out


referendum? Not at the moment, but I do think the ultimate referendum,


it looks likely that we will have one at some point, and it will have


to address the issue. When you think it should be? Well, it is


unlikely to be this side of the next general election, so we would


be looking at after 2015, and I am concerned that will create a huge


amount of uncertainty which might affect investment into this country


by global corporations. What do you think business at the moment is


thinking? We have spoken to global businessmen over the last few weeks


to say, without that certainty, they cannot plan, they do not know


whether to base their companies here, or parts of their companies


here. Is David Cameron making a huge mistake not giving that


certainty? Exactly, that is the point. Business do not want that


uncertainty, and I am very concerned about foreign investment


into this country. We are the number-one destination for foreign


investment in the whole of Europe, and we want to hang on to that, it


is very much in our interests to hang on to that position. What do


you want David Cameron to say? want the Prime Minister to confirm


that Britain's place should be at the heart of Europe and that we


should be using our position as a very important member of the EU to


influence, to get changed. I agree that change is needed, but also to


drive forward the market which is so in the interests of this country.


How confident are you that he can renegotiate Britain's relationship


with the EU? I think there are areas where there is a chance of


renegotiation. Which ones? Do you want to see, as some have said, an


effective veto a financial services regulation, and also of the Working


Time Directive? Financial services and the Working Time Directive are


areas I would like to see a loosening of EU power, yes. That is


possible, Pat McFadden, to renegotiate our relationship, to


repatriate powers in those areas? do not think the agenda set out by


that fresh Start group is going to be achieved. I think the


Conservatives are either being naive or perhaps even dishonest


about the amount of repatriation, renegotiation that we are likely to


see. Our objective should not be to go along with a menu which, if you


like, dissolves the common rules. Our objective should be different,


it should be to reinforce the single market, to press for a


growth agenda, around things like transport, communications. The


future for the UK and Europe has to be about how to get growth and jobs,


and my fear about the current discussion is that it is bringing


uncertainty, casting doubt over our relationship with the EU. It is


about inward investment, but it is also about businesses here. They


want to know the future, too. Should the Labour Party promised a


referendum before the next election? I am not keen on having


this referendum. Our tour. I think it will lead to uncertainty. I am


certainly not keen on announcing it when we do not know what the future


shape is, what the question is. Even David Cameron has not told us


whether he is proposing a referendum on a renegotiated


package... Well, that is what he has implied. Or whether it is a


simple in-out question, as many people want. I think there's a lot


of nostalgia about this discussion. They would like to see the UK as


some kind of island version of Switzerland or Norway. I do not


believe that is the right economic or political future for the UK.


Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 election promising and in that


referendum. Will Nick Clegg promise that now going into 2015? We will


have to see what commitments are made when the manifesto is written.


But if you promised it in 2010, why not in 2015? Can we be clear what


the coalition has achieved? It is the first time this has ever been


achieved, and if there are any transfers of powers to Brussels,


there will be a referendum. That has never happened before, and that


has been delivered through the coalition agreement. I think that


is very important, and I think it will be better to reiterate that


message to the British people and get on with dealing with the


economic crisis here and supporting the situation in Europe. So you do


not personally want a referendum. You think it would lead to


instability. If there was any suggestion of transfer of powers,


there would have to now be a referendum, and that is right, but


this is not the right time to be talking about an in-out referendum,


because we are in the middle of the most serious economic crisis since


the Second World War. The priority for the country, the government and


business is for us to deal with that. You say they are areas that


could be renegotiated, and if not, where would you stand then?


most fertile ground lies in the areas where it is not just Britain,


it is other member states, it would be in their interests to have a


reduction in some of the influence over the social chapter, over the


Working Time Directive and that sort of thing. There is no


indication from the leading lights in the commission and in the


Parliament to say that would be achievable. If you open Pandora's


box for one country, you would have to do it for all member states.


think it is a bit premature to write off the chances of getting


powers back from the EU. I do agree that it is going to be difficult,


and the Commission are not going to want to see a reduction of Central


Powers, but there are, as I say, some areas where other member


states in whose interests it would be to have less Brussels's


interference. But there is no guarantee. No. If the powers are


not repatriated, which are like to see Britain come out of the EU or


stay? No, I would not want to see Britain come out of the EU. So you


do not agree with Eric Pickles that we should stay at any price?


not exactly sure what he said, but you asked me a straightforward


question, what I want to leave the EU, and the answer is no. Eric


Pickles said that the UK should not stay in the EU at any price, sorry,


should not stay. Of course not at any price, but there are


negotiations going on all the time between member states and the UK


and Brussels, and I'm sure that the Prime Minister will achieve enough


in order for most people to be comfortable with the idea that the


benefits of EU membership outweigh the risks of withdrawal. Don't you


think it is right for the government to be pushing for a


better, better sort of relationship as far as Britain as concerned? If


it can repatriate powers, then it should. I think Margaret is right


to say that the way that the EU advances national interest is to


build alliances, to reach agreement with those who have not common


interests, but the government's stands in the last two years has


been moving away from that. We seem very semi-detached in European


discussions, we seem not to care about that, and the whole thing is


now being governed by internal political considerations, fear of


the rise of UKIP, and what we have got here now is a tension between


the domestic interests of the Conservative Party and the national


interests of the country, and it is in the national interest to stay at


the heart of these discussions. is Monday, so what has this week


got in store at Westminster? This afternoon the NHS chief executive


and medical director appear before the Public Accounts Committee to be


quizzed on efficiency savings in the health service in England.


Tomorrow sees the start of the trial of Chris Huhne and his ex-


wife on charges of perverting the course of justice. Wednesday sees


the launch of the Conservative bright blue group's new book, with


the title Tory Modernisation, expected to suggest relaxing


planning, and permitting profit- making companies to run schools. On


Thursday, William Hague will make a key speech during a visit to


Australia. On Friday, the Bishop of Liverpool will host a summit of


large cities to challenge what he says is the Government's unfair


distribution of local authority Joining us, all the right from the


Independent and James Forsyth from the Spectator. -- Oliver Wright.


There is mounting concern about what the Prime Minister is going to


say and how the party will react. We have known the date of this


speech for ages, but there are still hasn't been a meeting of the


Conservative political Cabinet about what David Cameron will say.


We know they are meeting on Wednesday, but we know the speech


is already written. Why has this been trailed for so long? Wouldn't


it have been better to have just given a speech without the debate


beforehand? I think that is right. David Cameron is a Conservative


Euro-sceptic in the old sense of the word, whereas much of his party


is far to the right of him, and frankly they would be perfectly


happy to see Britain out of Europe altogether unless he can negotiate


some radical changes, which I think it is quite some clear whether he


wants or he is prepared to do. There it is the key, if you like,


the pivotal moment in terms of whether Britain can actually


repatriate these powers, and basing the whole speech on a larger if


makes it difficult. The mainstream Tory opinion on Europe wants a


different relationship with the EU, and he needs to at least be


prepared to suggest that if the EU will not give you what you want you


have to be prepared to leave. That is a Rubicon David Cameron is not


prepared to cross because he is concerned about what the


international reaction would be, but it is hard to see how he will


get what he wants if his opening line of negotiation is we really


want to stay in the EU, but please can we have some powers back?


of this leads to talk of Europe, exactly what David Cameron wants to


avoid. Yes, but it has come back and you can't help but feel David


Cameron has put himself into a position where this is going to be


one of the most dominant arguments in the run-up to the next election,


and being in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who are much


more disposed to Europe than him, that spells all sorts of problems.


It is possible that David Cameron, as he said this morning in his


interview, is in tune with what the majority of the British public


thinks, but not in tune with what the rest of his party thinks.


about the television debate? Could it happen, but earlier - is that


right? Yes, I think we will see the Tories are pushing for a David


Cameron Ed Miliband head to head for the new broadcasting rules


chicken, so you would not have to include the Lib Dems or UKIP.


this is because David Cameron said it might take over the whole


campaign? It requires the Conservatives, and their strongest


card in the next election is who do you want to be Prime Minister -


David Cameron or Ed Miliband? They will try to write the Lib Dems out


of the script. The interesting thing which we may see is a change


in format of the debate. Last time there were a lot of rules, but this


time aids to both their leaders think their guy is good at town


hall debates with more interaction with the audience. David Cameron


has been going round the country doing his talks, and people close


to him say that when he does this directly he connects with the


audience and they are both pretty convinced they guide will trump the


other guy. We might see a more innovative way forward which will


be better than last time. So on thing to look forward to. I will


let you go. Thank you. Only last week Nick Clegg and David Cameron


were standing shoulder-to-shoulder reaffirming their commitment to the


Coalition. But today sees a test of that unity. A Labour amendment in


the House of Lords this afternoon will seek to delay plans to redraw


parliamentary constituencies until 2018. And Lib Dem peers are


expected to support it, scuppering Conservative hopes of obtaining a


20-seat advantage over the other parties at the next election. So,


are the boundary changes now a dead duck? Or can the PM persuade


Democratic Unionists and Scottish Nationalists to support it in the


Commons? I have my three MPs first ball. Margot James, if this goes


through the efforts to change the boundaries are over. And we are not


so optimistic as we were, and it is quite courageous. It still requires


many more votes to elect a Conservative government than a


Labour government. The system is wrong and we are trying to reduce


the number of MPs, which has a lot of public support, and it looks


like we will be defeated by draconian laws this afternoon.


you think you will be on the public's side when you vote to


reduce the number of MPs to 600? certainly did we are acting in the


interest of the country because the boundary changes were introduced at


the wrong time and they were the wrong set of proposals, which were


there to simply advantage the Conservative Party rather than to


deal with the genuine issue that Margot James has said there, the


number of votes. I said all way through, I tabled an amendment when


this was going through the House of Commons doing exactly what was done


today, and this is the right thing to do. It was an absurd time to


push it through, before the next general election. We need a


sensible, longer review with more sensible rules and I think we could


get more agreement. Gerrymandering going on? At some not. The boundary


commissioner has been sitting for two years. Surely within a


parliament there is time. At the moment it is not fair and we have


too many MPs, we are trying to reduce the constituencies and make


them more often equal size. What do you say to that? The rules are


simply not there to deal with, as I say, the problem is that the rules


were far too prescriptive and tied the hands of the Boundary


Commission and exempted some islands and not others. The have


been accused of opportunism because it has been a gift for you, keeping


the rules and the boundaries as they are because potentially the


Tories could have gained 20 seat at the next election. The important


thing about the amendment is that it is not just a Labour amendment,


it has support from at least some of the Liberal Democrats, some


Welsh nationalists, and some crossbenchers so there is a broader


view to do this before the next election. You admit there is


nothing wrong with unequal constituencies though? What


troubled me in the draft proposals was there was no account taken of


traditional community boundaries so you had seats crossing city


boundaries all over the place. We need to be wary of one point - the


Conservative Party are desperate to construct an alliance with


nationalists, unionists, any alliance they can to get this


through the House of Commons. We have got a referendum on Scottish


independence coming up and I do not want to see any kind of backstairs


deal between David Cameron and the SNP which is not in the interest of


the country to push through something which he believes is in


the interests of the Conservative Party. I can't conceive of any such


deal. The Conservative Party and the Prime Minister are dedicated to


maintaining the Union. Do you think there will be any offer? Yes, we


are very keen to get these boundary reviews through, for the reasons I


said. What's could be offered? implication was some deal over the


referendum and I can't believe that would come to pass. Let's go back


to the coalition agreement - the deal was that you would back this.


The deal was we would back a redrawing of the boundaries but we


did not specify the rules and if you look at the coalition agreement


it says there a lot of areas where we will do something but not how we


do it. I don't necessarily think backbenchers should. We should be


clear that reform of the House of Lords, which has one of the few on


elected chambers and the world, one of only a handful of countries, it


still has people in there simply because their parents and the


Conservatives wouldn't back that. I'm afraid it was quite right when


it likes of Wigan -- when the Nick Clegg said we would not back the


changes. We can go back - was everything in the coalition


agreement right? Was it specify sufficiently? I would say not


necessarily but they did a very good job in the limited time they


had. Is it right the boundary changes have been delayed? We are


dealing with the economic crisis, it is. Earlier in the programme, we


set the following quiz. The question was which of these four


images is the odd one out? So does anybody know the correct answer?


One hasn't got any drawing in but I suspect it is more complicated than


that. You are right, in that. Let's have a look at that so-called


signature in the corner. This is the signature of the new Treasury


Secretary in the United States. The others are our Rome doodles of his


signature. It does looks like the ridiculous. One person who might be


able to talk about this signature is the Chairman of the British


Institute of Graphologists, Adam Brand, who joins us now. What can


you say about this? And it has a lot of meaning. Signatures are the


public image, and when you are looking up personality through the


handwriting you do need to see the handwriting and not just the


signature. A man's signature has settled down by the time he is 18


or 19, but if you look at the way the loops have formed, they are


known as arcades, a bridge type structure. This is someone who


wants to hide his motive. It is quite a secretive type of writing.


The let's have a brief look at some of the other signatures. We can see


David Cameron, the Prime Minister. What does that say to you? If you


look at the first letter of each name, when you look at the capital


letters, look at the power of the D against the C. Small writing like


that in the middle zone is a sign of consideration. You can read so


much into somebody's signature? Let's look at Ed Miliband next, the


Labour leader. Short? That is a sort of "everybody knows who I am"


because it is illegible. Is that how you would describe him?!


angle at the top of the second stroke, in the upper zone, that


means somebody has quite strong ideas. The other thing is that he


has an element of self- confidence because of the area underneath the


signature. If very briefly, Nick Clegg. What is this screaming out


to you? You see how disconnected it is, so again he wants to make


public impact. Disconnected writing comes from people who are quite


intuitive. The problem is this is just a signature, but writing is


Download Subtitles