:00:42. > :00:49.Good afternoon. They have lasted for centuries but Nick Clegg says
:00:49. > :00:54.that they are it -- they are arcane and in need of modernisation. MPs
:00:54. > :00:58.will be discussing just what should be done with the laws on succession.
:00:58. > :01:01.David Cameron says the war against terror in Africa may last a
:01:02. > :01:05.generation. That does not stop the government releasing details of the
:01:05. > :01:13.latest army cuts. Three cheers for France and Germany,
:01:13. > :01:17.celebrating 50 years since friendship. Do and is David Cameron
:01:17. > :01:27.really a man of the people? In fact, he makes sandwiches. Not the Prime
:01:27. > :01:27.
:01:27. > :01:32.Minister, a man from Subway. All that in the next hour. With us
:01:32. > :01:36.is the Lib Dem president, Tim Farron. Let us talk about the
:01:36. > :01:43.economy. Figures show that there has been a rise in public sector
:01:43. > :01:47.borrowing. The figure for December, excluding financial interventions,
:01:47. > :01:51.was �15.4 billion compared to �14.8 billion in the same month the
:01:51. > :01:55.previous year. It is the six months in a role that the Government has
:01:55. > :01:58.had to borrow more than it did the year before. When you think about
:01:58. > :02:04.how much the Government has made about bringing down the deficit,
:02:04. > :02:07.borrowing higher in December than last year, and the six-month
:02:07. > :02:12.running that it has been higher, the board one target is under
:02:12. > :02:17.threat. What is going wrong? It is not great news for all the weight
:02:17. > :02:21.statistic only matters in as much as it affects ordinary voters. --
:02:21. > :02:25.although any statistic only matters. You see the actual reduction in the
:02:25. > :02:29.deficit, 25%, that is progress. Unemployment is still coming down
:02:29. > :02:33.and nobody is mentioning, because the Government has plotted a middle
:02:33. > :02:36.way, a sensible course, our interest rates are still rock
:02:36. > :02:41.bottom. As a con -- as a consequence, people can afford to
:02:41. > :02:45.pay their mortgages and businesses pay their loans. But living
:02:45. > :02:48.standards are continuing to be squeezed. Wages are frozen are
:02:48. > :02:53.falling and although one upon it is coming down, there are many people
:02:53. > :02:58.without jobs -- although unemployment is coming down, there
:02:58. > :03:03.are many people without jobs. You're missing your own targets and
:03:03. > :03:07.your own projections. Personally, and I have said that before, I do
:03:07. > :03:10.not take the view that achieving neatness on statistics is the major
:03:10. > :03:15.objective of government. So why make such a big deal about deficit-
:03:15. > :03:19.reduction? It helps us to ensure that we have the confidence from
:03:19. > :03:23.outside which keeps interest rates low and keeps people in jobs.
:03:23. > :03:29.that confidence is diminishing outside Britain. The economic
:03:29. > :03:33.rating is out of -- the trouble a rating is in threat. I expect we
:03:33. > :03:38.will be fine. We are at the strongest and healthiest economy.
:03:38. > :03:42.You need to look at the situation nationally, or internationally.
:03:42. > :03:47.Whether you blame the bankers or Labour, the Government inherited a
:03:47. > :03:55.basket case. Anybody from any party who says there is a sunshine or
:03:55. > :03:59.option is living in cloud cuckoo land. The Triple A rating is based,
:03:59. > :04:02.in part, on you being able to fulfil what you promised, to bring
:04:02. > :04:06.the deficit down. Did you think Britain will be able to hold on to
:04:07. > :04:10.that credit rating? I think so. But the pressure comes from both sides
:04:10. > :04:18.and there will be those who say that, yes, the debt is higher than
:04:18. > :04:22.we would like but we must cut more. Do you agree? Not in the slightest.
:04:22. > :04:26.We would end up in recession. It would be a stupid thing to do.
:04:26. > :04:31.would like to spend more? alternative is to pour your way out
:04:31. > :04:34.of debt. But borrowing figures shows that is what you're doing.
:04:34. > :04:38.That is below -- that is where the growth you have got has come from.
:04:38. > :04:42.Tax receipts is going up which shows there is strength in the
:04:42. > :04:47.economy. If but I am pragmatic. You should not be dogmatic with
:04:47. > :04:54.people's lives. We have to do what works. We have kept things on an
:04:54. > :04:59.even keel and have kept the economy strong. The emphasis is on a
:04:59. > :05:04.sensible strategy. Some of those on the right are saying, cut, cut, cut.
:05:04. > :05:09.Judge George Koren? He wants to continue -- George Osborne. He
:05:09. > :05:12.wants to continue austerity. It is not doing what it said on the 10th.
:05:12. > :05:17.There is a nonsense that there is a government plan to have austerity.
:05:17. > :05:21.We have austerity. It is not our plan, it is not Labour's plan. It
:05:21. > :05:27.is something that we have entered into because of mistakes in our
:05:27. > :05:34.economy. Austerity is what we have got, not what we want. Borrowing is
:05:34. > :05:39.up slightly, and you are confident of keeping the Triple A rating. GDP
:05:39. > :05:44.figures out on Friday. Will the economy contract? It is entirely
:05:44. > :05:48.possible that it will. We might be bumping along the bottom for some
:05:48. > :05:52.months or years to come. There are alternatives. We could spend more
:05:52. > :05:55.money, which is tempting. The danger is you end up losing not
:05:55. > :05:59.just the rating, but all international credibility and
:05:59. > :06:03.interest rates go up. To go back on the interest rates, and how
:06:03. > :06:09.important that is, a 1% rise in interest rates would mean �100 a
:06:09. > :06:14.month extra been spent from the average mortgage holder. If we did
:06:14. > :06:19.what Ed Balls is calling for, it would be a 5% rise, leading to
:06:19. > :06:24.massive numbers losing their homes. It is it difficult middle course.
:06:24. > :06:28.What is something different, our daily quiz. The questionnaires, who
:06:28. > :06:34.recently bolstered the new David Lloyd George? Was a bridge Forsyth,
:06:34. > :06:37.Baroness Trumpington or Andrew Neil or Dennis Skinner? At the end of
:06:38. > :06:41.the show, Tim Farron has the honour of giving us the correct answer. It
:06:41. > :06:45.is an important day in Parliament. MPs will debate a Bill designed to
:06:45. > :06:49.give a nip and tuck to the constitution, specifically our
:06:49. > :06:56.royal succession laws. But is it long-overdue or being hastily
:06:56. > :07:01.rushed through? Let us look at the detail. Nick Clegg wants to modify
:07:01. > :07:09.what he calls arcane laws that date as far back as the Treason Act,
:07:09. > :07:13.pass under Edward the third in 1351. It refers to the elder son and heir.
:07:13. > :07:19.It refers to the elder son and heir. Also in line for a tidy up his the
:07:19. > :07:26.Act of Settlement, past Wembley in the third was king in 70 No 1. --
:07:26. > :07:30.when it won him the third was king. That tidying up exercise,
:07:30. > :07:34.criticised for being rushed, will end discrimination against female
:07:34. > :07:37.royals so that men will no longer take precedent over women in the
:07:37. > :07:44.order of succession meaning that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's
:07:44. > :07:53.first child can become monarch even if it is Aperol. It will remove the
:07:53. > :07:56.bar on royal heirs marrying bar on royal heirs marrying
:07:56. > :08:01.Catholics. -- even it is a girl. We are joined by the Conservative MP,
:08:01. > :08:04.Mary MacLeod, who used to advise the Queen on policy matters, and by
:08:04. > :08:11.Paul Flynn, the Labour MP and Republican. Do you support the
:08:11. > :08:14.reforms? I do. As we only have these bills once every 300 years,
:08:14. > :08:20.there is a chance to make a decent job of it. I think the main change
:08:21. > :08:25.that most people would like to see is that we skip a generation,
:08:25. > :08:28.because the time that -- because by the time that Charles and carrots
:08:28. > :08:32.in 30 years' time, if the Queen lives as long as her mother did,
:08:32. > :08:36.Charles will be in his eighties. There are doubts about whether he
:08:36. > :08:41.is a suitable person to be a monarch. I think we should vote on
:08:41. > :08:47.the subject. We should be able to choose between Charles, William or
:08:47. > :08:50.another citizen. What do you think of that? Score in a generation is
:08:50. > :08:54.ridiculous and it will never happen. -- skipping a generation.
:08:54. > :08:59.Fundamental to the Royal Family is this sense of service and duty.
:08:59. > :09:04.Therefore, it will pass from one generation to the next. That will
:09:04. > :09:08.absolutely happen. But I am excited about today because I think we are
:09:08. > :09:12.creating history and in an -- in a society we want to get more women
:09:12. > :09:16.setting up businesses and on to boards, we have had a great female
:09:16. > :09:21.Prime Minister and a great Queen, let us build on the Jubilee and
:09:21. > :09:24.make this change. You think it is never going to happen. What
:09:24. > :09:29.evidence do you have the people would like to see it skip a
:09:29. > :09:34.generation? If we had a referendum, we would see it. By the time in 20
:09:34. > :09:37.years' time, it will be much stronger. We have broken the taboo.
:09:37. > :09:42.People would say that you could not change anything, that these rules
:09:42. > :09:45.of succession work after a Tim Stone many years ago. Today, we're
:09:45. > :09:50.going to change that and we can change it in other ways. Is this
:09:50. > :09:55.not an opportunity to do what he is suggesting? It is an opportunity to
:09:55. > :09:59.suggest it. So it might be an amendment that is debated? Be it
:09:59. > :10:03.might be. Do you agree? Not really. I think we should move it forward
:10:03. > :10:06.in a progressive way with what is on the paper already. My fears are
:10:06. > :10:13.that what is good about the monarchy is that it is above
:10:13. > :10:17.politics. And the difficulty is that if we are allowed to elect
:10:17. > :10:23.somebody through a referendum, that person is going to have the stigma
:10:23. > :10:27.of being not chosen... situation is that the Queen has
:10:27. > :10:33.been an exceptional monarch and has behaved faultlessly for all these
:10:33. > :10:38.years, but the others have not. We have had some that have been mad,
:10:38. > :10:41.bad and sad and some of them have been all three. The likelihood is
:10:41. > :10:46.that Charles, who has been meddling in politics for a long time, will
:10:46. > :10:50.find it irresistible to stay above things. He said he would leave the
:10:50. > :10:54.country if the hunting Act was passed. It was that he did not. But
:10:54. > :10:58.he is likely to be meddling in other policies and if that happens,
:10:58. > :11:03.it will be a constitutional crisis. But you still like the idea of a
:11:03. > :11:08.monarchy? At would prefer a better system but now is the chance to
:11:08. > :11:11.institute reform. -- I would prefer. I think it is important for this
:11:12. > :11:16.bill to keep succinct and focused and let us get something through
:11:16. > :11:20.Parliament. Let us look at the focus. There are reports that the
:11:20. > :11:28.Queen was not consulted and that Prince Charles had concerns. What
:11:28. > :11:33.do you think they are making of the tall? This was put to the
:11:34. > :11:38.Commonwealth in 20th October 11. -- making of it all. -- October, 2011.
:11:38. > :11:44.I have not discussed it with Prince Charles, so I'm not sure if he has
:11:44. > :11:47.concerns. I feel that he will feel, and looking at the work he has done
:11:47. > :11:52.with the Prince's Trust, promoting female entrepreneurs, and the work
:11:52. > :11:56.he has done, I do not think he will be against this in principle.
:11:56. > :12:02.a problem is that it does not get rid of the religious discrimination.
:12:02. > :12:09.It would still be impossible to get a Catholic as monarch. I think that
:12:10. > :12:13.is an outrage. That would be a problem, if the child marries a
:12:13. > :12:20.Catholic. What would happen then? As the rules stand, but would not
:12:20. > :12:23.be acceptable. And rules should be changed. -- that would not be
:12:23. > :12:28.acceptable. The difficulty is that the monarch is the head of the
:12:28. > :12:32.Church of England which is why that is maintained. The answer is to
:12:32. > :12:38.disestablish the Church of England. It is something that I believe we
:12:38. > :12:43.should do. I feel passionately that the Queen feels that her role as
:12:43. > :12:48.head of the Church of England is incredibly important to her. I
:12:49. > :12:53.think the thing for us to do, going forward, is to keep focused on this
:12:53. > :12:57.specific part of the Bill which is saying that we should change the
:12:57. > :13:02.male progenitor issue, let us of that. Across the country, I think
:13:02. > :13:06.most people think that is a fair way to go. -- let us solve that.
:13:06. > :13:10.But the religious thing is being changed too. The problem is that
:13:10. > :13:14.you are not barred from marrying a Catholic but if the child is raised
:13:14. > :13:22.Catholic, it will not be allowed to take the throne. Are you happy with
:13:22. > :13:27.that? I think the bill is focusing on changing one thing. There are
:13:27. > :13:33.three things, but that would take more discussion and decision making.
:13:33. > :13:38.Is this being rushed through then? In is not to reform. It is
:13:38. > :13:41.reinforcing prejudice against religion. Most people in this
:13:41. > :13:45.country are nominally Church of England but the influence is going
:13:45. > :13:49.down. Muslims, Catholics, evangelicals, they can say, why
:13:49. > :13:54.should one of us not be head of state? The head of state is a
:13:54. > :13:59.crucial part of the role. It has not been thought through properly
:13:59. > :14:04.by Nick Clegg. One thing at a time. It is appropriate we are looking at
:14:04. > :14:08.the issue of succession. The issue to do with the faith of the mark is
:14:08. > :14:12.significant only in so far as we have a state church. As it happens,
:14:12. > :14:16.the Queen is a Christian. Great, but she could be succeeded by
:14:16. > :14:20.people who were not. It is peculiar that the Church would have someone
:14:20. > :14:23.at their head who did not share their faith. It is bad for the
:14:23. > :14:27.Church. They continue to be a prisoner of the Establishment. The
:14:27. > :14:31.Church would be more effective and a say that as a committed Christian,
:14:31. > :14:39.if they were let free. That we the government tried to get this
:14:39. > :14:45.through, without touching the sides, it was an odd coalition. -- the way
:14:45. > :14:52.the Government tried. But there is not to rush. Why is it being pushed
:14:52. > :14:55.through? As a new parliamentarian, I am quite relieved that we can
:14:55. > :15:00.show that we can get things through Parliament in a reasonable time
:15:00. > :15:05.frame. Most people think that Parliament takes months and years
:15:05. > :15:08.for anything to happen. But we have started this discussion. I wrote an
:15:08. > :15:12.article about this in 2002 and people have written before and
:15:13. > :15:18.afterwards saying that it should happen. I think it is long overdue.
:15:18. > :15:21.But this change could last for 300 years and it is doing it in two
:15:21. > :15:25.days. There are all kinds of problems. That is why I think we
:15:25. > :15:28.should be the focus. It might work out that the future monarch will
:15:28. > :15:37.have the job and her younger brother would have all the money.
:15:37. > :15:41.The Duchy of Cornwall. That is what the questions that was asked. The
:15:41. > :15:45.rights of -- the rights and privileges go to the male heir. How
:15:45. > :15:49.is this affected by the new rules? This is an example of the rush to
:15:49. > :15:53.build. There are so many unintended consequences of the bill but the
:15:53. > :15:58.Government has not considered. on succession, we can agree and I
:15:58. > :16:00.think that is why we should do that. But what about the unintended
:16:00. > :16:05.consequences because constitutionally, they are
:16:05. > :16:10.important. I think we are dealing with succession right now and these
:16:10. > :16:14.other issues could come back at a later stage. The this is going to
:16:14. > :16:18.be incomplete. But if so, we will be left with important questions.
:16:18. > :16:23.They will be dealt within due course? They need to be. There is a
:16:23. > :16:26.good issue about the inheritance of property. There is implications on
:16:26. > :16:30.the hereditary principle. If you look at the House of Lords, I think
:16:30. > :16:36.it opens an interesting debate about the future of Britain.
:16:36. > :16:42.sure the House of Lords will listen to these huge implications, for
:16:42. > :16:44.those who inherit large estates. I am sure they will have a go at that
:16:44. > :16:48.because they will see the same principle of wine, many of them
:16:48. > :16:52.will be against it. I think one appeared this weekend, eight
:16:52. > :17:01.daughters that cannot inherit, but yet they are working the estate. I
:17:01. > :17:08.What about the issue of the royal veto when it comes to certain laws?
:17:08. > :17:12.It is monstrous, this is done quietly, in secret. Tam Dalyell...
:17:12. > :17:16.The Queen still has the right, in theory, to be does some laws.
:17:16. > :17:21.does. I doubt whether Prince Charles would have signed the
:17:21. > :17:25.hunting Bill, he was passionately against it, as he said, and if they
:17:25. > :17:30.do not sign it, there is a constitutional crisis. Tam Dalyell
:17:30. > :17:36.had a bill, a very sensible built to take the power of declaring war
:17:36. > :17:41.from the monarch into Parliament, and it was sabotaged, we are told,
:17:41. > :17:45.by the Queen at the advice of Tony Blair. In 2003, we had a vote
:17:45. > :17:50.before we went to war in Iraq. Finally, the Lib Dem conference
:17:50. > :17:53.used to vote on whether to keep the monarchy. What has changed? I think
:17:53. > :17:58.most of us think in an ideal democratic state, you would not
:17:58. > :18:02.start with a monarchy, but that is not where we are, but it has
:18:02. > :18:06.evolved and serves us well. Many people in the UK, they are jealous
:18:06. > :18:10.of us because we have a head of state who is above politics.
:18:11. > :18:17.need to look at this year with the Jubilee, how much unity and
:18:17. > :18:22.excitement and inspiration it created. The royal spin machine has
:18:22. > :18:27.been going at top speed, and if we had had this discussion at the time
:18:27. > :18:31.when Diana died... It might have been very different. Nowadays they
:18:31. > :18:36.are untouchable, the Queen has done a marvellous job, but beware the
:18:36. > :18:40.future. And let's bring in change for women! Thank you both very much.
:18:40. > :18:44.A list is published today of the 100 most prominent Bangladeshis in
:18:44. > :18:48.public life, including a number of prominent figures from culture,
:18:48. > :18:52.media, sport, business and the professions, but very few senior
:18:53. > :18:55.politicians. There is only one Bangladeshi MP, but if the number
:18:55. > :19:00.of MPs work in proportion to the number of British Bangladeshis,
:19:00. > :19:05.they should be around five. It is a situation reflected across other
:19:05. > :19:08.communities, too. There are 28 black and minority ethnic members
:19:08. > :19:18.of parliament, but if that was to match the make-up of the country,
:19:18. > :19:21.
:19:21. > :19:23.I believe there is enough interest and optimism in the Bangladeshi
:19:23. > :19:27.community in local government. What I would like to see is a
:19:27. > :19:31.development, taking that further international politics, so the
:19:31. > :19:36.talented people that we have on our list, that the mainstream parties
:19:36. > :19:38.pick them up and encourage them to stand in winnable seats to play a
:19:38. > :19:45.fully-fledged light in British mainstream politics representing
:19:45. > :19:49.the wider community. Roshanara Ali, the one Bangladeshi MP in
:19:50. > :19:54.parliament, and Alok Sharma at, Conservative MP for Reading West,
:19:54. > :19:57.with responsibility for engagement for engaging ethnic-minority
:19:57. > :20:03.communities. How do you encourage more people from your background to
:20:03. > :20:07.stand for Parliament? I set up a charity called Uprising, backed by
:20:07. > :20:10.the three party leaders, to prepare and support the next generation of
:20:11. > :20:15.young leaders to get them into politics, into leadership across
:20:16. > :20:20.the sector, the media and other sectors as well. How? You make sure
:20:20. > :20:23.they are properly mentored, given training and support, and it is a
:20:23. > :20:28.10 or 15 year project. You start when they are young, you make sure
:20:28. > :20:31.they are known in political circles, so that when opportunities come,
:20:31. > :20:35.politicians can encourage those people within the parties to get
:20:35. > :20:38.into power. But there is a responsibility among the political
:20:38. > :20:42.parties as well, which is that they need to take a leadership role to
:20:42. > :20:45.make sure that happens. Without being too personal, what are you
:20:45. > :20:50.doing? Are you encouraging people from ethnic-minority backgrounds to
:20:50. > :20:57.get involved in politics, even if it is employing someone in your
:20:57. > :21:01.office or whatever it is? We went up in terms of numbers of MPs from
:21:01. > :21:05.two up to 11 at the last election. There is a long way to go, and
:21:05. > :21:10.mentoring is one of the ways of doing it. But when you talk to
:21:10. > :21:14.people from British Britons from ethnic minority backgrounds, second
:21:14. > :21:18.or third generation, they are looking to succeed on merit. The
:21:18. > :21:23.way to do that is exactly through mentoring, getting people involved
:21:23. > :21:26.at grassroots levels. I think it works. Does it work, though? We
:21:26. > :21:31.always talk about the number of women who came into Parliament
:21:31. > :21:35.during Tony Blair's time because of the all-women shortlists. His there
:21:35. > :21:39.still a case to be made for ethnic minority candidates to be put
:21:39. > :21:44.forward in the same way? Not in the same way, because you have to be
:21:44. > :21:49.proportionate. Women make up 50% of the population, ethnic minorities
:21:49. > :21:53.closer to 10%. But there are more things parties can do, for instance
:21:53. > :21:58.doing more around positive action, setting clear regional targets, for
:21:58. > :22:02.instance, to say, when you are selecting 30 MPs, make sure a
:22:02. > :22:05.proportion of those of from minority backgrounds, make sure a
:22:05. > :22:08.significant proportion are women. Even the parties do not use all-
:22:08. > :22:12.women shortlists, it is important they set the tone and the leaders
:22:12. > :22:18.of the parties set the tone. In my case, the all-women shortlist
:22:18. > :22:21.process was very successful for getting women in, but actually
:22:21. > :22:25.getting ethnic-minority Owen was a challenge. I won through an open
:22:25. > :22:28.shortlist, so we need to make sure that ethnic minority groups who
:22:28. > :22:33.want to go into politics, it is recognised that there are other
:22:33. > :22:38.barriers, including discrimination. What about targets? Would you
:22:38. > :22:42.introduce them? I think it is about people succeeding on merit. You do
:22:42. > :22:46.not want targets at all? Third- generation people want to succeed
:22:46. > :22:50.on merit, but that is through mentoring, getting people involved
:22:50. > :22:54.in the political process. That is the way forward, rather than saying,
:22:54. > :22:59.you know, there ought to be positive discrimination for them or
:22:59. > :23:02.any other group. I am not talking about positive discrimination. But
:23:02. > :23:06.there is a responsibility of political parties to take the
:23:06. > :23:10.leadership role that is required, because otherwise you have a lot of
:23:10. > :23:14.very impressive, talented people in the communities, and they cannot
:23:14. > :23:19.get into the system because the system is too close. That has to be
:23:19. > :23:24.opened up, and there is a real problem. How many MPs from ethnic
:23:24. > :23:32.minorities from the Liberal Democrats? 0. That is pretty
:23:32. > :23:37.dreadful. Absolutely, we have fought long as for Racial Equality,
:23:37. > :23:40.and we have no... Why not? It is a really good question. First of all,
:23:40. > :23:45.it is an indictment against the party, and we have to be a lot
:23:45. > :23:49.about it. You are the President. have a leadership programme about
:23:49. > :23:55.under-represented groups being given training and support. One
:23:55. > :23:58.thing we have not got, I mean, we do not have any safe seats. The
:23:58. > :24:02.Labour Party and the Tories have lists, and they have both done a
:24:02. > :24:06.job. Some seats are safer than others, even in the Liberal
:24:06. > :24:12.Democrat ranks. If you were really committed... My personal view is
:24:13. > :24:17.that we should do it. As I say, you have flattered me to say that we
:24:17. > :24:24.have saved seeds, that is not my view, and I do not want to drop the
:24:24. > :24:27.ball into seats that look good on paper. -- safe seeds. Far better to
:24:27. > :24:31.buck the trend by giving support to people on the ground. What I was
:24:31. > :24:35.going to say, the danger in any high position, even positive
:24:35. > :24:40.discrimination does not work. I did some shortlisting and found that
:24:40. > :24:44.the four people are shortlisted work public school boys, white
:24:44. > :24:49.public-school boys. If you look at the numbers, the Liberal Democrats
:24:49. > :24:52.time and again put candidates in seats they could not win, ethnic
:24:52. > :24:59.minority and women candidates. You have got to look at the indirect
:24:59. > :25:04.practices. We tend to lose nearly 600 of the seats that we stand in!
:25:04. > :25:08.There is indirect discrimination which needs to be addressed. People
:25:08. > :25:12.feel... Basically, when they put themselves, talented people put
:25:12. > :25:16.themselves forward and do not get a fair chance, because they are being
:25:16. > :25:20.used as fodder. That is not acceptable either. What to think in
:25:20. > :25:25.terms of numbers for the 2015 election? It is not a question of
:25:25. > :25:28.people being used as fodder. Historically, it has been.
:25:28. > :25:32.Conservative associations select people they believe best represent
:25:32. > :25:37.them. I was a local candidate in Reading, not part of any
:25:37. > :25:42.affirmative action. A-list. Absolutely, and I was selected for
:25:42. > :25:45.the first see that I applied for, because my local party picked the
:25:45. > :25:50.candidate they thought perform the best. What about having ethnic
:25:50. > :25:53.minority candidates on and a list? I have never called for a third of
:25:53. > :25:56.action, privately or publicly, and I think it is about succeeding on
:25:56. > :26:00.merit. Lots of people are coming through the system they will be
:26:00. > :26:04.coming forward and becoming candidates, I am quite sure,
:26:04. > :26:08.because they are talented and do it on their own merits. Do you have a
:26:08. > :26:12.ballpark figure of ethnic minority candidates standing in 2015? We are
:26:12. > :26:16.in the process of selecting candidates, but let's see where we
:26:16. > :26:20.end up. The key thing is that people want to succeed on merit,
:26:20. > :26:24.and that absolutely applies his second and third generation.
:26:24. > :26:28.Whether the Liberal Democrats? It appears their electoral hopes are
:26:28. > :26:32.withering on the vine, and recent by-election results suggest that
:26:32. > :26:36.many voters polled them in withering contempt. Giles has more.
:26:36. > :26:40.Two and a half years ago, there was a joke that he could not buy a Lib
:26:40. > :26:48.Dem manifesto because the party had sold out. Now, although the shine
:26:48. > :26:52.has rolled and Bath -- the shine has rubbed off, they are guaranteed
:26:52. > :26:57.weather proof until 2015. 1,500 local council has gone, new polling
:26:57. > :27:01.lows, three by-elections in which three times they lost their deposit,
:27:01. > :27:06.were behind UKIP and got less than 5% of the vote. The party is
:27:06. > :27:11.completely asleep. It is in a state of shock, really a trauma as a
:27:11. > :27:15.result of the coalition. coalition compromise led one Lib
:27:15. > :27:22.Dem of 10 years to be in his party for Labour, and a long-standing
:27:22. > :27:26.voters should be door in his face. You are there to fight for society,
:27:26. > :27:30.a vision of a society, the values of a society which you are
:27:30. > :27:34.committed to. There's no point and finally getting your grubby hands
:27:34. > :27:41.on power and the first thing you do is abandon those policies and
:27:41. > :27:48.values you believe in. But more Lib Dems have stayed. Policy has been
:27:48. > :27:52.agreed and enacted, the coalition has not fallen apart, and the Lib
:27:52. > :27:57.Dems trumpets key achievements, the pupil premium, taking people out of
:27:57. > :28:00.income tax. Will that be enough in 2015? It is important the party
:28:00. > :28:05.does not fight the election by saying, this is what has happened
:28:05. > :28:08.in the last five years. That can be part of it, that is inevitable. But
:28:08. > :28:13.the next election has got to be bought on the future. Principally
:28:13. > :28:16.the economy, we need to be showing a Liberal Democrat vision for the
:28:16. > :28:21.economy of the UK, because that is very different from what George
:28:21. > :28:24.Osborne will be saying, for example. The carrots narrative is that at
:28:24. > :28:28.the next general election Liberal Democrats will be punished for
:28:28. > :28:32.their part in the coalition. -- the current narrative. They will be
:28:32. > :28:37.particularly worried about an area like this, Bren Central, where the
:28:37. > :28:40.sitting MP as a majority of just over 1,000. But they do benefit
:28:40. > :28:45.from incumbency, and some in the party think there's something they
:28:45. > :28:48.can do about it. Working to buck the first past the post system is
:28:48. > :28:53.something that Liberal Democrats are used to, and people should not
:28:53. > :28:56.underestimate that resilience within the party. But what many of
:28:56. > :29:00.those Lib Dems who go out campaigning ones do here is what
:29:01. > :29:06.Lib Dem policies and manifesto commitments outside the coalition
:29:06. > :29:09.are going to be, and timing is everything. As a party, we have got
:29:10. > :29:14.to have at least six or eight months to campaign independently on
:29:14. > :29:19.our own vision for the future. You cannot do it in three or four weeks.
:29:19. > :29:24.If it is left to the last three or four weeks, we will be dead.
:29:24. > :29:29.Jamming! You'll be dead and as you start campaigning independently. --
:29:29. > :29:34.charming. He is right that if we do not campaign as an independent
:29:34. > :29:38.force, we will go down with the Tories, that is the correct, but we
:29:38. > :29:42.have been campaigning since day one, it is a new world for us, being in
:29:42. > :29:45.coalition government, being in power at all is something that is
:29:45. > :29:49.only in the lifetime memory of people who did know Lloyd George.
:29:49. > :29:54.And only as a result of going into government with the Tories. You say
:29:54. > :29:58.the Tories are going down. If we are attached to the coalition and
:29:58. > :30:01.presenting ourselves as just a part of that and we do not distinguish
:30:01. > :30:05.ourselves, we will get punished, just like the Conservatives will.
:30:05. > :30:08.But we must remember that coalitions are a different type of
:30:08. > :30:12.government, two political parties that things are different things,
:30:12. > :30:16.and we will be fighting each other perfectly correctly and
:30:16. > :30:19.appropriately in local elections, seeing very big differences, three
:30:19. > :30:23.times more Liberal Democrat gains from Conservatives... Right, but it
:30:23. > :30:29.has been dismal in terms of by- election performances, the worst
:30:29. > :30:32.ever by-election results, 2% in Rotherham. I mean, you have lost
:30:32. > :30:36.deposits, come below all the other parties. Let's get back to this
:30:36. > :30:46.idea that he will go down with the Tories, they are actually narrowing
:30:46. > :30:48.
:30:48. > :30:51.the polling lead of labour. Perhaps Only if you believe the last poll.
:30:51. > :30:55.Answer the question about the Tories. If you are so convinced
:30:55. > :30:58.they're going down, why not split with them now? The point I'm making
:30:58. > :31:04.is that people will not be voting for the coalition at the next
:31:04. > :31:08.election. They will be voting for the parties that formed the
:31:08. > :31:11.coalition. What Britain has got his stable government and something
:31:11. > :31:16.which many people pretend it would not happen if we had a balanced
:31:16. > :31:19.parliament, a secure government. It would be foolish for any part of
:31:19. > :31:23.the coalition to dismantle that before polling day. The coalition
:31:23. > :31:27.should last five years. That does not mean that Lib Dems should not
:31:27. > :31:36.be campaigning vociferously for a stronger economy and a fairer
:31:36. > :31:41.society. So to make this clear, you're not advocating a split, but
:31:41. > :31:44.you are advocating a separate campaign next year. We should
:31:44. > :31:50.campaign separately now. You would like a divorce now. There is a
:31:50. > :31:54.difference between campaigning separately. Lib Dems and Tories
:31:54. > :31:58.will be fighting each other in the local elections this year and yet
:31:58. > :32:01.nationally, we will govern together. We have a Labour conservative
:32:01. > :32:05.coalition in Cumbria, for example, and they will be fighting each
:32:05. > :32:08.other at the county elections. It is a normal thing in most of Europe
:32:08. > :32:13.to have two or more parties in coalition that govern together and
:32:13. > :32:17.fight each other on the doorstep. That is clear, but what about
:32:17. > :32:20.presentation? Nick Clegg gave a separate report after the Leveson
:32:20. > :32:23.Inquiry. Do you want to see that happening on everything? I thought
:32:23. > :32:28.it was a great step and it was something we should have done
:32:28. > :32:32.earlier. It is important at a time of coalition, something that
:32:32. > :32:36.England have not seen before, but we demonstrate that a coalition is
:32:36. > :32:40.not two political parties that agree with each other assimilating.
:32:40. > :32:47.The arithmetic dictated that we had one choice, to go into coalition
:32:47. > :32:52.with the Tories. We accept the coalition, but we do not become
:32:52. > :32:55.less liberal. But the polls suggest that you support has withered away.
:32:55. > :33:01.Distinguishing yourself has not worked. You have not persuaded
:33:01. > :33:05.people that the Lib Dem policies that they voted for are still there.
:33:05. > :33:08.It is hard to be sure what the cause is. It could be that the Lib
:33:08. > :33:13.Dems went into power for the first time in 70 years and that has
:33:14. > :33:19.shocked everybody. And you could not keep to you're principles about
:33:19. > :33:23.conservation -- tuition fees and reform. To be clear, we have only
:33:23. > :33:29.managed to get 65% of our principles into policies. That is a
:33:29. > :33:33.pretty good deal. He said you liked Nick Clegg giving a separate review
:33:33. > :33:36.after the Leveson Inquiry. Would you like him to do a different
:33:36. > :33:40.speech to David Cameron on Europe? I think it is clear that we have
:33:40. > :33:44.different views on Europe. Nick Clegg gives different speeches on
:33:44. > :33:49.Europe. Should he do his own version of this speech on Europe?
:33:49. > :33:54.He kind of already has done. I'm sure he will again. Yes, it is
:33:54. > :33:59.important that we clarify that we are in coalition and we believe in
:33:59. > :34:07.a collegiate approach, rather than just throwing crockery. Nick Clegg
:34:07. > :34:10.said we have legislation guaranteeing sharing of power in
:34:10. > :34:15.Brussels. He said it was inadvisable to go further than this.
:34:15. > :34:18.I agree, but I think there should be an in out referendum. At the
:34:18. > :34:21.point that there is a substantial treaty change put to us, which is
:34:21. > :34:27.what he is saying. That is government policy now. But it is
:34:27. > :34:32.not. A referendum on a treaty change and referendum -- is not the
:34:32. > :34:37.same as having an in out referendum. What we have all was said and what
:34:37. > :34:40.Lib Dem policy has always been is that next time we have something
:34:40. > :34:46.like the Lisbon Treaty, we should not just a referendum on a treaty,
:34:46. > :34:51.it should be an in out random. It would be a proxy for an in out
:34:51. > :34:54.referendum anyway. We have always said that it would be mad to have a
:34:54. > :34:59.referendum now, in the middle of getting out of the worst financial
:34:59. > :35:02.crisis in living memory. It would be navel contemplation of an
:35:02. > :35:07.unforgivable level. What would the wording be going into the next
:35:07. > :35:13.election? And in out referendum? the point that there is a major
:35:13. > :35:17.change. I think David Cameron's speech is going to be interesting.
:35:17. > :35:21.It will be the moment when we find out whether he is a leader or a
:35:21. > :35:27.four. Up until 20 years ago, the Tory party was pro European.
:35:27. > :35:35.Margaret Thatcher said that the Labour Party the unease would pull
:35:35. > :35:38.us out. -- Louise. It is clearly a massive net benefit. We will end up
:35:38. > :35:42.leaving the European Union unless we get leadership from the top that
:35:42. > :35:48.explains to the public why it is in our interest to remain in it.
:35:48. > :35:54.Looking up the numbers, you won 57 seats at the last election with a
:35:54. > :36:00.24% of the vote. The pollsters say that if you remain at 10%, or even
:36:00. > :36:06.15%, you will be reduced to just 10 MPs. Peter knows better than that.
:36:06. > :36:12.On my uniform swing... I would never hold my seat in the first
:36:12. > :36:15.place. The reality is that Lib Dems exist... How many seats were you
:36:15. > :36:21.keep Q Matt we were aiming to make games and we hope to hang on to
:36:21. > :36:25.what we have got now. -- how many will you keep? We hope to hang on
:36:25. > :36:29.to what we have got now. Any losses are unacceptable. We are digging in
:36:29. > :36:33.to make sure that does not happen. If you look at by-elections on the
:36:33. > :36:38.ground over the last few months, Lib Dems are gaining seats, even
:36:38. > :36:42.some from Labour. I'm not deluding myself. It is a tough time to be a
:36:42. > :36:46.let-down. But it has been a lot worse within my lifetime. It is
:36:46. > :36:51.almost enough to make David Cameron feel nostalgic about the EU wrote
:36:51. > :36:55.debacle. Almost. Only a week ago, Europe was David Cameron's main
:36:55. > :36:58.preoccupation. But now he is tackling the fall-out from a
:36:58. > :37:02.hostage drama and the rising threat of terrorism in North Africa. In
:37:02. > :37:05.the debate in the House last night, he said that Britain would provide
:37:05. > :37:10.intelligence and counter- intelligence -- counter --
:37:10. > :37:18.intelligence in counter-terrorism to help the network. First, here
:37:18. > :37:22.are some highlights from last night. Together with our partners in the
:37:22. > :37:27.region, we are in the midst of a generational struggle against an
:37:27. > :37:30.ideology which is in -- which is an extreme distortion of the Islamic
:37:30. > :37:34.faith and which holds that mass murder and terror are not only
:37:34. > :37:39.acceptable but necessary. We must tackle this poisonous thinking at
:37:39. > :37:42.home and abroad and resist the ideologue's attempt to divide the
:37:42. > :37:46.world into a clash of civilisations. The task is to understand the
:37:46. > :37:50.nature of the threat, more decentralised, more fragmented,
:37:50. > :37:55.taking advantage of the uncovered spaces and security vacuums in
:37:55. > :37:58.parts of North Africa. Does the Prime Minister agree that
:37:58. > :38:05.eliminating a religious and political ideology is not an easy
:38:05. > :38:10.thing to do, as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan? Can he give a
:38:10. > :38:15.guarantee that his crusading zeal, in the event of not being able to
:38:15. > :38:20.get many West African troops, will not lead him to the use of British
:38:20. > :38:27.troops in the future? I do not believe that the only answer, or
:38:27. > :38:31.the right answer is security and military action. As I said, and the
:38:31. > :38:34.Leader of the Opposition said, what we need to do is use all the
:38:34. > :38:38.elements at our disposal, development response, political
:38:38. > :38:43.response, working with partners. That does not mean that a tough
:38:43. > :38:48.security response is not part of what is required. The concept of
:38:48. > :38:53.containment, when considering these long-term problems, it has served
:38:53. > :38:59.us well, for 70 years in the cold war and for 38 years in relation to
:38:59. > :39:07.Northern Ireland. It would help avoid an oscillation of policy from
:39:07. > :39:13.over involvement on the ground of one extreme, to too little
:39:13. > :39:16.involvement and over-emphasis on withdrawal at the other. And we are
:39:16. > :39:20.joined by a Labour defence spokesman, Kevin Jones and Patrick
:39:20. > :39:24.Mercer, the Conservative MP and former shadow minister for home and
:39:24. > :39:30.security. Welcome. Do you agree with David Cameron that there has
:39:30. > :39:33.to be an international response to this terrorist threat? Absolutely.
:39:33. > :39:37.In exactly the same way that there was an international response to
:39:37. > :39:41.the threat on the Afghanistan Pakistan border and also inside
:39:41. > :39:46.Iraq. This is the same problem with a slightly different part of the
:39:47. > :39:52.world. And they have ruled out boots on the ground. At the moment,
:39:52. > :39:57.certainly. Do you think we will have to have troops? I do not know.
:39:57. > :40:00.I have not seen, nor will I see, the latest intelligence. I think
:40:00. > :40:07.that we have got to be prepared for whatever is required. The people
:40:07. > :40:10.are quite right that the over use phrase, the Al-Qaeda franchise is
:40:10. > :40:16.spreading and moving. So we must be prepared to spread that move with
:40:16. > :40:23.it. Do you agree? We have got to prepare for all eventualities. That
:40:23. > :40:26.is why the SDSR that took place when the Government came in was
:40:26. > :40:31.already outdated. It was not even mentioned. We are facing
:40:31. > :40:35.redundancies today and the Prime Minister as potentially asking the
:40:35. > :40:41.Armed Forces to do more. There are serious questions about the SDSR
:40:41. > :40:44.and whether it is now a document that should be shelved.
:40:45. > :40:49.Strategic Defence Review, let us give it the full names since not
:40:49. > :40:53.everybody knows what it is. It is bad timing, at best, to be
:40:53. > :40:57.announcing these cuts to the Armed Forces when, on the other hand,
:40:57. > :41:03.David Cameron is talking about our response to the threat in Mali and
:41:03. > :41:06.across North Africa. There is a great irony to it. I'm sure the
:41:06. > :41:11.Government is embarrassed about it. Is it wrong? I don't think so.
:41:11. > :41:14.There needs to be savings made in military expenditure. If you look
:41:14. > :41:18.at what could have happened otherwise, the other two parties
:41:18. > :41:22.would have spent �100 billion on Trident and there would be more
:41:23. > :41:28.cuts in army personnel of that had happened. What about the cuts?
:41:28. > :41:32.Could we actually send troops? Do we have the manpower? Very good
:41:32. > :41:37.question. Of course, this are predicated on the fact that
:41:37. > :41:43.Afghanistan is going to nicely end neatly at 2014, with hardly a Tommy
:41:43. > :41:49.Atkins to be seen in the country. Wrong answer. Secondly, we have to
:41:49. > :41:52.re- intervene? Who knows? The point is there will not be a bubble of
:41:52. > :41:56.troops left over, some of whom can be disbanded and some of whom can
:41:56. > :42:01.be sent to North Africa. It does not work like that. I had been
:42:01. > :42:03.saying this sense 2010. And on that basis, Labour supporting the
:42:03. > :42:08.Government in terms of sending intelligence and logistical support
:42:08. > :42:12.to back up the French. What else can we offer them? If we have the
:42:12. > :42:16.capability. One of the capabilities is the centre Na Li aircraft, which
:42:16. > :42:22.is coming out of service and two years. The his capabilities that
:42:22. > :42:27.have been taken out of the SDSR, now being relied upon. In terms of
:42:27. > :42:31.redundancies, we have people being made redundant who are surfing in
:42:31. > :42:34.Afghanistan alongside Prince Harry. They will be getting their P45s
:42:34. > :42:40.when they come back. That sends the wrong message. What you say to
:42:40. > :42:44.that? A one to make a point about the intervention -- what do you
:42:44. > :42:48.want to say about that? I want to make a point about the intervention
:42:48. > :42:52.anywhere in the world. We should offer support, absolutely, but the
:42:52. > :42:57.lesson we have to learn from Iraq is that even if you retract --
:42:57. > :43:02.accept the premise of the Iraq war, two Western nations going in as
:43:02. > :43:06.liberators, but seen as occupiers, that is going to be a counter
:43:06. > :43:14.productive mood. -- counter- productive move. And is that
:43:14. > :43:18.incredible., but you could escalate it if we go in marching like we did
:43:19. > :43:23.in Afghanistan, but it could be dealt with locally. I am not sure
:43:23. > :43:28.that it could be dealt with locally but we should put the accent on the
:43:28. > :43:30.local forces. There has a great phrase, getting your hands stuck in
:43:30. > :43:35.the mangle. The fact remains, we were attacked lethally, although
:43:35. > :43:40.not as lethally as we might have been, in 2005, by an African gang
:43:40. > :43:44.of Islamists. Old people meant our people no good whatsoever. They
:43:44. > :43:47.intended to kill hundreds on the tube. Anybody that analyses these
:43:47. > :43:51.things or pays attention to these things must understand that the
:43:51. > :43:57.threat has been there for a very long time and will take a long time
:43:57. > :44:04.to be brought to a proper level. the renewed terrorist haven in this
:44:04. > :44:08.region? It has been there for a while. There is a big question
:44:08. > :44:10.being asked that the senior military level, are we able to put
:44:10. > :44:16.troops on the ground anywhere, because of the gamble the
:44:17. > :44:20.Government has taken to reduce the size of the army? We are going to
:44:20. > :44:27.take a look at Prince Harry and the interview he made at the end of his
:44:27. > :44:33.current tour with the army in That is what we revolve around, I
:44:33. > :44:37.suppose. If there's people trying to do bad stuff to our eyes, then
:44:37. > :44:42.we'll take them out of the game, I suppose. Should he have been asked
:44:42. > :44:46.that question in the first place? think the question is in pretty
:44:46. > :44:51.poor taste. It is one of those unwritten rules that journalists do
:44:52. > :44:55.not ask that question. It is uncomfortable and difficult, but
:44:55. > :44:59.I'd do have a sneaking admiration for the Prince, and serene in the
:44:59. > :45:04.forthright way in which he has. Let's be clear about it, that is
:45:04. > :45:08.what soldiers are for. Take a life to save a life, should be up and
:45:08. > :45:12.said in that way or just deflected it? He has been an Apache
:45:12. > :45:16.helicopter pilot, he will have been engaged in action, so in terms of
:45:16. > :45:20.the honest way he answered it, yes. He is coming back to this country,
:45:20. > :45:22.but many of the people he served alongside will be made redundant,
:45:22. > :45:26.and that is something the government have got to explain.
:45:26. > :45:31.They cannot even get their message is right today, two different press
:45:31. > :45:34.releases from the MoD this morning. What was your response when you
:45:34. > :45:39.heard Prince Harry admitting that he had killed? People presume that
:45:39. > :45:44.is what happens, but what was your response? If you look at his answer,
:45:44. > :45:48.it is a third person answer, there was no admission or celebration, so
:45:48. > :45:53.why would he? Why are we using this language of admitting and
:45:53. > :45:57.confessing? He is a professional soldier, is a combat officer, it is
:45:57. > :46:02.what he does. It may not be tasteful, we may not like to dwell
:46:02. > :46:06.upon it. You are right, it is part of the job. He was thrown a
:46:06. > :46:11.question, he may not have seen it coming, I thought his answer was
:46:11. > :46:17.honest without saying his personal involvement necessarily lead to
:46:17. > :46:21.what we are assuming it did. would be remarkable if it didn't!
:46:21. > :46:26.It was a dignified response, what to expect from people serving in
:46:26. > :46:28.the military? What about the security threat? We mentioned in
:46:28. > :46:34.last dreadful incident here, what about the current or future
:46:34. > :46:39.security threat? Well, we must be an absolutely no doubt that there
:46:39. > :46:44.is just as strong a threat of Islamist terror and horror in this
:46:44. > :46:48.country from those with an African origin, both north, east and west,
:46:48. > :46:53.as there is with those living on the Pakistan-Afghan border. That
:46:54. > :46:57.threat has not gone away, this will no doubt intensify, it is bound to,
:46:57. > :47:01.and I'm very interested to see that the French have taken domestic
:47:01. > :47:05.measures to secure themselves at home, which as far as I can see, we
:47:05. > :47:08.are not doing at the moment. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
:47:08. > :47:12.Mention the word Europe around Westminster these days, and all
:47:12. > :47:18.anybody talks about his David Cameron's speech, including us, of
:47:18. > :47:23.course! Not so in the rest of Europe. All eyes this week are on
:47:23. > :47:27.France and Germany who today are celebrating 50 years of friendship.
:47:27. > :47:31.On 22nd January 1963, General de Galle and Konrad Adenauer signed
:47:31. > :47:36.the Elysee Treaty in Paris. Both countries are issuing stamps, coins
:47:36. > :47:40.and literary awards to commemorate the historic accord that cemented
:47:40. > :47:45.peaceful co-operation between the former enemies after World War II.
:47:45. > :47:49.This morning the French President, Francois Hollande, met Angela
:47:49. > :47:54.Merkel at the French embassy in Berlin, presumably a neutral
:47:54. > :47:58.location! Later a joint session of the Cabinets both countries is due
:47:58. > :48:02.to take place. 400 French lawmakers will travel to Berlin to join their
:48:02. > :48:11.counterparts for a debate in the Reich stag. The day will wrap up
:48:11. > :48:16.with a concert at the Berlin Philharmonic Hall. Well, we are
:48:16. > :48:19.joined now from Paris by the French political commentator Agnes Poirier,
:48:19. > :48:23.and in the studio we have a comedian with German roots who
:48:23. > :48:28.performs regularly in German, funnily enough! Welcome to both of
:48:28. > :48:33.you. Tell me, why is it in Berlin, the celebrations today? Is that
:48:33. > :48:38.because Angela Merkel is in charge? Probably, I don't know. Why is it
:48:38. > :48:42.in Berlin and not in Paris? I do know, because the 40th anniversary
:48:42. > :48:46.took place in Versailles of all places, and it went so well that
:48:46. > :48:50.they want to do some magnificent things in Berlin! I see, I thought
:48:50. > :48:57.there would be an explanation. When they all meet in the Reichstag, are
:48:57. > :49:02.they all going to be talking German, Agnes Poirier? I think they will be
:49:02. > :49:07.speaking in different languages, and I assume a bit of English, too.
:49:07. > :49:16.Thank goodness for that! Do you love each other, the French and
:49:16. > :49:23.Germans? I have got the complete set of names. I think the Germans
:49:23. > :49:27.love the French much more than the Brits feel is right all decent. I
:49:27. > :49:32.mean, we are stuck in a groove that was established in 1945, and the
:49:32. > :49:38.French and Germans have long since moved on from that. I think a
:49:38. > :49:43.recent survey from the German- French television channel showed
:49:43. > :49:47.that 50% of each nation has lived in the other country, which says a
:49:47. > :49:51.lot. It does, one might say we are really quite different, if you are
:49:51. > :49:56.looking at all the stereotypes from language, food, fashion. What do
:49:56. > :50:03.the French think of the Germans? Well, I mean, it is interesting,
:50:03. > :50:08.because we went from being hereditary enemies to hereditary
:50:08. > :50:14.friends, because in a way we do not have any choice. We have to be
:50:14. > :50:20.friends. I think the fate of Europe is dependent on it. So it is a
:50:20. > :50:23.false relationship, then. No, it is not, but it can be a difficult
:50:23. > :50:28.relationship, we all know this, because it is very much dependent
:50:28. > :50:32.on the personal chemistry between the two heads of state, and usually
:50:32. > :50:37.it takes a few years for them to get along well, especially if they
:50:37. > :50:40.do not belong to the same political family. But in the end, remember
:50:40. > :50:48.Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, after a few difficult years, they
:50:48. > :50:52.saw each other all the time, and we called it Merkozy. Now Hollande and
:50:52. > :50:55.Michael did not quite liked each other yet, so we will say after the
:50:55. > :51:00.September elections, and presumably they were like each other very
:51:00. > :51:04.soon! I am glad to hear it. Do you agree that Angela Merkel does not
:51:04. > :51:09.have much time for Francois Hollande? It is hard for me to
:51:09. > :51:14.comment about that. As with anybody, a new arrival in an established of
:51:14. > :51:18.this, it is difficult to get your feet under the table. All I know is
:51:18. > :51:24.that in time these relationships to develop, think of me drop and
:51:24. > :51:28.Helmut Kohl holding hands in 1984 in front of the modern it. Two
:51:28. > :51:32.British people, they look like the odd couple, what the hell are you
:51:32. > :51:36.doing there? The comic in me wants to say, it was the first example of
:51:36. > :51:42.openly gay presidential relationship, holding hands, it
:51:42. > :51:45.looks so incongruous. Two people, physically, in terms of their
:51:45. > :51:51.politics, and their outlook, very different, but they came together
:51:51. > :51:56.and made a very strong image. They say, we do not care what others may
:51:56. > :51:59.say, the British may scoff, but this is our statement. I think
:51:59. > :52:03.Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel look quite good together, something
:52:03. > :52:10.to do with being the same height, the same sort of age. They do not
:52:10. > :52:17.look too bad. No, they don't. Perhaps the problem is that
:52:17. > :52:21.Hollande and Angela Merkel bowled starkly opposite positions on how
:52:21. > :52:26.to solve the euro crisis and on economic policies. I think it is
:52:26. > :52:30.going to be quite difficult for them, but in the end, again, France
:52:30. > :52:34.and Germany have no choice but to be friends, so they will get along.
:52:34. > :52:37.Right, you heard it from Agnes Poirier, very firm about that.
:52:37. > :52:42.Where are you going to be for that long awaited speech by David
:52:42. > :52:47.Cameron? Where will you be watching? Probably in front of my
:52:47. > :52:52.computer, working on jokes about it, whatever comes up, and should they
:52:52. > :52:56.be appropriate. We look at this thing with the comedy potential,
:52:56. > :53:00.and the relationship between France and Germany, what strikes me is the
:53:00. > :53:08.funny things that come out of it. For example, in Germany children
:53:08. > :53:11.are encouraged to take French pen pals, but you can imagine how many
:53:11. > :53:17.conversations there have been over the years about how many brothers
:53:17. > :53:22.and sisters you have got. The type of dog and that kind of stuff, that
:53:22. > :53:25.is what we look for. Agnes Poirier, is the whole of France sitting on
:53:25. > :53:31.the edge of its seat waiting with bated breath for that speech
:53:31. > :53:37.tomorrow? No, they don't even know Cameron is making a speech. I mean,
:53:37. > :53:41.I do, and I will be back in London, but a lot of people in France hope,
:53:41. > :53:44.the ones who know, there is going to be a speech, they wish that the
:53:44. > :53:49.British pantomime about Europe stops soon, because it is really
:53:50. > :53:54.getting on their nerves. We do not want to get on your nerves! Agnes
:53:54. > :53:59.Poirier, thank you very much. But why pronounce your name? I speak
:53:59. > :54:02.German as well! When your name is David Cameron,
:54:02. > :54:05.life is rarely easy. First to have got lines of people turning up at
:54:05. > :54:09.your door and you have got to keep everybody happy, whatever their
:54:09. > :54:13.tastes. There are the arguments about in or out, with gherkins,
:54:14. > :54:17.that is, and you have to cater for all appetites, even if they are
:54:17. > :54:20.talking meatballs. Ladled on top of that, you have to make an
:54:20. > :54:23.appearance at Number Ten. We are joined now by David Cameron, who is
:54:23. > :54:28.just on his way back from Downing Street, where he has been handing
:54:28. > :54:31.in a petition to his namesake. Clearly, you're not the David
:54:31. > :54:37.Cameron, Prime Minister, we have noticed that. What are you doing
:54:37. > :54:41.today? Well, today, a group of franchisees, including myself, we
:54:41. > :54:45.have visited Number Ten, and we have dropped off a petition to
:54:45. > :54:49.really try and get a word over to the government that we want to see
:54:49. > :54:55.some vendors on the way that VAT is applied to hot takeaway food. --
:54:55. > :54:59.Venice. Is this your attempt to regurgitate the pasty tax row?
:54:59. > :55:04.follows on from that. When the government first introduced the new
:55:04. > :55:09.VAT laws in October last year, from the 2012 budget, we actually
:55:09. > :55:13.welcomed that, and it brought some transparency to VAT, and ourselves
:55:13. > :55:17.and our competitors were all going to be treated the same. But when
:55:17. > :55:21.the government made a U-turn and introduced this clause whereby hot
:55:21. > :55:25.savoury Products, pasties and sausage rolls, suddenly would be
:55:25. > :55:28.zero-rated for VAT purposes, it is down to the fact that they are
:55:28. > :55:32.deemed to be cooling down when they are sold, but our toasted
:55:32. > :55:38.sandwiches, which we believe fulfil the same purpose for people buying
:55:38. > :55:41.them, a subject to the standard rate of VAT at 20%. I am sure this
:55:41. > :55:45.bring back happy memories for you, Tim Farron. You're doing is purely
:55:45. > :55:50.for commercial reasons, why should you be exempt from tax when your
:55:50. > :55:54.customers have to pay? Well, we are just after fairness. The fact is
:55:54. > :55:58.that our competitors are able to sell a product that fulfils the
:55:58. > :56:03.same purpose. If you go into one of these big high street bakeries, you
:56:03. > :56:10.can buy a hot product that is exempt from VAT. But if you buy one
:56:10. > :56:13.of our toasted sandwiches, and we are toasting them to provide the
:56:13. > :56:18.customer with a product that has a certain texture, not just hot, but
:56:18. > :56:21.both products are great value, tasty, fulfilling the same purpose.
:56:21. > :56:26.We believe that we should be treated equally. I am sure your
:56:27. > :56:30.name has helped in the campaign! Let's see how much you and David
:56:30. > :56:33.Cameron have in common. David Cameron Prime Minister is going to
:56:33. > :56:39.Davos, what have you got planned? For the rest of this week, I
:56:39. > :56:43.actually work in Dewsbury on a daily basis, so from tomorrow
:56:44. > :56:48.morning I will be back there and I will be making sandwiches on the
:56:48. > :56:52.counter for part of the week. I have got some recruiting to do,
:56:52. > :56:56.working at the Jobcentre. Later in a week, I have got to organise some
:56:56. > :57:01.of our lighting to be converted to an ad to reduce carbon emissions.
:57:01. > :57:05.David Cameron's first job after leaving university was working for
:57:05. > :57:09.the Conservative Research Department. For myself, it was
:57:09. > :57:14.working for Subway, I took a job out of university, I worked as a
:57:14. > :57:19.sandwich artist, I was there for two ears, and eventually I decided
:57:19. > :57:25.to take the plunge and go for my own franchise. Good for you!
:57:25. > :57:29.Quickly, which David Cameron do you prefer? This guy seems very nice!
:57:29. > :57:36.Just time to find out the answer to our quiz, the question was, who
:57:36. > :57:41.recently boasted they used to know David Lloyd George? What is the
:57:41. > :57:46.answer? I would have guessed Baroness Trumpington. Well, here
:57:46. > :57:52.she is in action, you're right. this historic day, we celebrate the
:57:52. > :57:59.150th anniversary of the birth of David Lloyd George. I beg leave to
:57:59. > :58:09.ask the question, in my name of the Order Paper. My Lords, I have to
:58:09. > :58:13.add that my father met Lloyd We have somewhere a photograph of
:58:14. > :58:18.my father was Lloyd George and about 3,000 other people in the
:58:18. > :58:28.picture, but never mind, it is still historic. Is the Minister
:58:28. > :58:36.
:58:36. > :58:41.aware that I not only knew Lloyd Shut up, everybody! That told them,
:58:41. > :58:46.that is what I'm gonna do to my guests! Thank you to all of our