22/01/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. They have lasted for centuries but Nick Clegg says

that they are it -- they are arcane and in need of modernisation. MPs

will be discussing just what should be done with the laws on succession.

David Cameron says the war against terror in Africa may last a

generation. That does not stop the government releasing details of the

latest army cuts. Three cheers for France and Germany,

celebrating 50 years since friendship. Do and is David Cameron

really a man of the people? In fact, he makes sandwiches. Not the Prime

Minister, a man from Subway. All that in the next hour. With us

is the Lib Dem president, Tim Farron. Let us talk about the

economy. Figures show that there has been a rise in public sector

borrowing. The figure for December, excluding financial interventions,

was �15.4 billion compared to �14.8 billion in the same month the

previous year. It is the six months in a role that the Government has

had to borrow more than it did the year before. When you think about

how much the Government has made about bringing down the deficit,

borrowing higher in December than last year, and the six-month

running that it has been higher, the board one target is under

threat. What is going wrong? It is not great news for all the weight

statistic only matters in as much as it affects ordinary voters. --

although any statistic only matters. You see the actual reduction in the

deficit, 25%, that is progress. Unemployment is still coming down

and nobody is mentioning, because the Government has plotted a middle

way, a sensible course, our interest rates are still rock

bottom. As a con -- as a consequence, people can afford to

pay their mortgages and businesses pay their loans. But living

standards are continuing to be squeezed. Wages are frozen are

falling and although one upon it is coming down, there are many people

without jobs -- although unemployment is coming down, there

are many people without jobs. You're missing your own targets and

your own projections. Personally, and I have said that before, I do

not take the view that achieving neatness on statistics is the major

objective of government. So why make such a big deal about deficit-

reduction? It helps us to ensure that we have the confidence from

outside which keeps interest rates low and keeps people in jobs.

that confidence is diminishing outside Britain. The economic

rating is out of -- the trouble a rating is in threat. I expect we

will be fine. We are at the strongest and healthiest economy.

You need to look at the situation nationally, or internationally.

Whether you blame the bankers or Labour, the Government inherited a

basket case. Anybody from any party who says there is a sunshine or

option is living in cloud cuckoo land. The Triple A rating is based,

in part, on you being able to fulfil what you promised, to bring

the deficit down. Did you think Britain will be able to hold on to

that credit rating? I think so. But the pressure comes from both sides

and there will be those who say that, yes, the debt is higher than

we would like but we must cut more. Do you agree? Not in the slightest.

We would end up in recession. It would be a stupid thing to do.

would like to spend more? alternative is to pour your way out

of debt. But borrowing figures shows that is what you're doing.

That is below -- that is where the growth you have got has come from.

Tax receipts is going up which shows there is strength in the

economy. If but I am pragmatic. You should not be dogmatic with

people's lives. We have to do what works. We have kept things on an

even keel and have kept the economy strong. The emphasis is on a

sensible strategy. Some of those on the right are saying, cut, cut, cut.

Judge George Koren? He wants to continue -- George Osborne. He

wants to continue austerity. It is not doing what it said on the 10th.

There is a nonsense that there is a government plan to have austerity.

We have austerity. It is not our plan, it is not Labour's plan. It

is something that we have entered into because of mistakes in our

economy. Austerity is what we have got, not what we want. Borrowing is

up slightly, and you are confident of keeping the Triple A rating. GDP

figures out on Friday. Will the economy contract? It is entirely

possible that it will. We might be bumping along the bottom for some

months or years to come. There are alternatives. We could spend more

money, which is tempting. The danger is you end up losing not

just the rating, but all international credibility and

interest rates go up. To go back on the interest rates, and how

important that is, a 1% rise in interest rates would mean �100 a

month extra been spent from the average mortgage holder. If we did

what Ed Balls is calling for, it would be a 5% rise, leading to

massive numbers losing their homes. It is it difficult middle course.

What is something different, our daily quiz. The questionnaires, who

recently bolstered the new David Lloyd George? Was a bridge Forsyth,

Baroness Trumpington or Andrew Neil or Dennis Skinner? At the end of

the show, Tim Farron has the honour of giving us the correct answer. It

is an important day in Parliament. MPs will debate a Bill designed to

give a nip and tuck to the constitution, specifically our

royal succession laws. But is it long-overdue or being hastily

rushed through? Let us look at the detail. Nick Clegg wants to modify

what he calls arcane laws that date as far back as the Treason Act,

pass under Edward the third in 1351. It refers to the elder son and heir.

It refers to the elder son and heir. Also in line for a tidy up his the

Act of Settlement, past Wembley in the third was king in 70 No 1. --

when it won him the third was king. That tidying up exercise,

criticised for being rushed, will end discrimination against female

royals so that men will no longer take precedent over women in the

order of succession meaning that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's

first child can become monarch even if it is Aperol. It will remove the

bar on royal heirs marrying bar on royal heirs marrying

Catholics. -- even it is a girl. We are joined by the Conservative MP,

Mary MacLeod, who used to advise the Queen on policy matters, and by

Paul Flynn, the Labour MP and Republican. Do you support the

reforms? I do. As we only have these bills once every 300 years,

there is a chance to make a decent job of it. I think the main change

that most people would like to see is that we skip a generation,

because the time that -- because by the time that Charles and carrots

in 30 years' time, if the Queen lives as long as her mother did,

Charles will be in his eighties. There are doubts about whether he

is a suitable person to be a monarch. I think we should vote on

the subject. We should be able to choose between Charles, William or

another citizen. What do you think of that? Score in a generation is

ridiculous and it will never happen. -- skipping a generation.

Fundamental to the Royal Family is this sense of service and duty.

Therefore, it will pass from one generation to the next. That will

absolutely happen. But I am excited about today because I think we are

creating history and in an -- in a society we want to get more women

setting up businesses and on to boards, we have had a great female

Prime Minister and a great Queen, let us build on the Jubilee and

make this change. You think it is never going to happen. What

evidence do you have the people would like to see it skip a

generation? If we had a referendum, we would see it. By the time in 20

years' time, it will be much stronger. We have broken the taboo.

People would say that you could not change anything, that these rules

of succession work after a Tim Stone many years ago. Today, we're

going to change that and we can change it in other ways. Is this

not an opportunity to do what he is suggesting? It is an opportunity to

suggest it. So it might be an amendment that is debated? Be it

might be. Do you agree? Not really. I think we should move it forward

in a progressive way with what is on the paper already. My fears are

that what is good about the monarchy is that it is above

politics. And the difficulty is that if we are allowed to elect

somebody through a referendum, that person is going to have the stigma

of being not chosen... situation is that the Queen has

been an exceptional monarch and has behaved faultlessly for all these

years, but the others have not. We have had some that have been mad,

bad and sad and some of them have been all three. The likelihood is

that Charles, who has been meddling in politics for a long time, will

find it irresistible to stay above things. He said he would leave the

country if the hunting Act was passed. It was that he did not. But

he is likely to be meddling in other policies and if that happens,

it will be a constitutional crisis. But you still like the idea of a

monarchy? At would prefer a better system but now is the chance to

institute reform. -- I would prefer. I think it is important for this

bill to keep succinct and focused and let us get something through

Parliament. Let us look at the focus. There are reports that the

Queen was not consulted and that Prince Charles had concerns. What

do you think they are making of the tall? This was put to the

Commonwealth in 20th October 11. -- making of it all. -- October, 2011.

I have not discussed it with Prince Charles, so I'm not sure if he has

concerns. I feel that he will feel, and looking at the work he has done

with the Prince's Trust, promoting female entrepreneurs, and the work

he has done, I do not think he will be against this in principle.

a problem is that it does not get rid of the religious discrimination.

It would still be impossible to get a Catholic as monarch. I think that

is an outrage. That would be a problem, if the child marries a

Catholic. What would happen then? As the rules stand, but would not

be acceptable. And rules should be changed. -- that would not be

acceptable. The difficulty is that the monarch is the head of the

Church of England which is why that is maintained. The answer is to

disestablish the Church of England. It is something that I believe we

should do. I feel passionately that the Queen feels that her role as

head of the Church of England is incredibly important to her. I

think the thing for us to do, going forward, is to keep focused on this

specific part of the Bill which is saying that we should change the

male progenitor issue, let us of that. Across the country, I think

most people think that is a fair way to go. -- let us solve that.

But the religious thing is being changed too. The problem is that

you are not barred from marrying a Catholic but if the child is raised

Catholic, it will not be allowed to take the throne. Are you happy with

that? I think the bill is focusing on changing one thing. There are

three things, but that would take more discussion and decision making.

Is this being rushed through then? In is not to reform. It is

reinforcing prejudice against religion. Most people in this

country are nominally Church of England but the influence is going

down. Muslims, Catholics, evangelicals, they can say, why

should one of us not be head of state? The head of state is a

crucial part of the role. It has not been thought through properly

by Nick Clegg. One thing at a time. It is appropriate we are looking at

the issue of succession. The issue to do with the faith of the mark is

significant only in so far as we have a state church. As it happens,

the Queen is a Christian. Great, but she could be succeeded by

people who were not. It is peculiar that the Church would have someone

at their head who did not share their faith. It is bad for the

Church. They continue to be a prisoner of the Establishment. The

Church would be more effective and a say that as a committed Christian,

if they were let free. That we the government tried to get this

through, without touching the sides, it was an odd coalition. -- the way

the Government tried. But there is not to rush. Why is it being pushed

through? As a new parliamentarian, I am quite relieved that we can

show that we can get things through Parliament in a reasonable time

frame. Most people think that Parliament takes months and years

for anything to happen. But we have started this discussion. I wrote an

article about this in 2002 and people have written before and

afterwards saying that it should happen. I think it is long overdue.

But this change could last for 300 years and it is doing it in two

days. There are all kinds of problems. That is why I think we

should be the focus. It might work out that the future monarch will

have the job and her younger brother would have all the money.

The Duchy of Cornwall. That is what the questions that was asked. The

rights of -- the rights and privileges go to the male heir. How

is this affected by the new rules? This is an example of the rush to

build. There are so many unintended consequences of the bill but the

Government has not considered. on succession, we can agree and I

think that is why we should do that. But what about the unintended

consequences because constitutionally, they are

important. I think we are dealing with succession right now and these

other issues could come back at a later stage. The this is going to

be incomplete. But if so, we will be left with important questions.

They will be dealt within due course? They need to be. There is a

good issue about the inheritance of property. There is implications on

the hereditary principle. If you look at the House of Lords, I think

it opens an interesting debate about the future of Britain.

sure the House of Lords will listen to these huge implications, for

those who inherit large estates. I am sure they will have a go at that

because they will see the same principle of wine, many of them

will be against it. I think one appeared this weekend, eight

daughters that cannot inherit, but yet they are working the estate. I

What about the issue of the royal veto when it comes to certain laws?

It is monstrous, this is done quietly, in secret. Tam Dalyell...

The Queen still has the right, in theory, to be does some laws.

does. I doubt whether Prince Charles would have signed the

hunting Bill, he was passionately against it, as he said, and if they

do not sign it, there is a constitutional crisis. Tam Dalyell

had a bill, a very sensible built to take the power of declaring war

from the monarch into Parliament, and it was sabotaged, we are told,

by the Queen at the advice of Tony Blair. In 2003, we had a vote

before we went to war in Iraq. Finally, the Lib Dem conference

used to vote on whether to keep the monarchy. What has changed? I think

most of us think in an ideal democratic state, you would not

start with a monarchy, but that is not where we are, but it has

evolved and serves us well. Many people in the UK, they are jealous

of us because we have a head of state who is above politics.

need to look at this year with the Jubilee, how much unity and

excitement and inspiration it created. The royal spin machine has

been going at top speed, and if we had had this discussion at the time

when Diana died... It might have been very different. Nowadays they

are untouchable, the Queen has done a marvellous job, but beware the

future. And let's bring in change for women! Thank you both very much.

A list is published today of the 100 most prominent Bangladeshis in

public life, including a number of prominent figures from culture,

media, sport, business and the professions, but very few senior

politicians. There is only one Bangladeshi MP, but if the number

of MPs work in proportion to the number of British Bangladeshis,

they should be around five. It is a situation reflected across other

communities, too. There are 28 black and minority ethnic members

of parliament, but if that was to match the make-up of the country,

I believe there is enough interest and optimism in the Bangladeshi

community in local government. What I would like to see is a

development, taking that further international politics, so the

talented people that we have on our list, that the mainstream parties

pick them up and encourage them to stand in winnable seats to play a

fully-fledged light in British mainstream politics representing

the wider community. Roshanara Ali, the one Bangladeshi MP in

parliament, and Alok Sharma at, Conservative MP for Reading West,

with responsibility for engagement for engaging ethnic-minority

communities. How do you encourage more people from your background to

stand for Parliament? I set up a charity called Uprising, backed by

the three party leaders, to prepare and support the next generation of

young leaders to get them into politics, into leadership across

the sector, the media and other sectors as well. How? You make sure

they are properly mentored, given training and support, and it is a

10 or 15 year project. You start when they are young, you make sure

they are known in political circles, so that when opportunities come,

politicians can encourage those people within the parties to get

into power. But there is a responsibility among the political

parties as well, which is that they need to take a leadership role to

make sure that happens. Without being too personal, what are you

doing? Are you encouraging people from ethnic-minority backgrounds to

get involved in politics, even if it is employing someone in your

office or whatever it is? We went up in terms of numbers of MPs from

two up to 11 at the last election. There is a long way to go, and

mentoring is one of the ways of doing it. But when you talk to

people from British Britons from ethnic minority backgrounds, second

or third generation, they are looking to succeed on merit. The

way to do that is exactly through mentoring, getting people involved

at grassroots levels. I think it works. Does it work, though? We

always talk about the number of women who came into Parliament

during Tony Blair's time because of the all-women shortlists. His there

still a case to be made for ethnic minority candidates to be put

forward in the same way? Not in the same way, because you have to be

proportionate. Women make up 50% of the population, ethnic minorities

closer to 10%. But there are more things parties can do, for instance

doing more around positive action, setting clear regional targets, for

instance, to say, when you are selecting 30 MPs, make sure a

proportion of those of from minority backgrounds, make sure a

significant proportion are women. Even the parties do not use all-

women shortlists, it is important they set the tone and the leaders

of the parties set the tone. In my case, the all-women shortlist

process was very successful for getting women in, but actually

getting ethnic-minority Owen was a challenge. I won through an open

shortlist, so we need to make sure that ethnic minority groups who

want to go into politics, it is recognised that there are other

barriers, including discrimination. What about targets? Would you

introduce them? I think it is about people succeeding on merit. You do

not want targets at all? Third- generation people want to succeed

on merit, but that is through mentoring, getting people involved

in the political process. That is the way forward, rather than saying,

you know, there ought to be positive discrimination for them or

any other group. I am not talking about positive discrimination. But

there is a responsibility of political parties to take the

leadership role that is required, because otherwise you have a lot of

very impressive, talented people in the communities, and they cannot

get into the system because the system is too close. That has to be

opened up, and there is a real problem. How many MPs from ethnic

minorities from the Liberal Democrats? 0. That is pretty

dreadful. Absolutely, we have fought long as for Racial Equality,

and we have no... Why not? It is a really good question. First of all,

it is an indictment against the party, and we have to be a lot

about it. You are the President. have a leadership programme about

under-represented groups being given training and support. One

thing we have not got, I mean, we do not have any safe seats. The

Labour Party and the Tories have lists, and they have both done a

job. Some seats are safer than others, even in the Liberal

Democrat ranks. If you were really committed... My personal view is

that we should do it. As I say, you have flattered me to say that we

have saved seeds, that is not my view, and I do not want to drop the

ball into seats that look good on paper. -- safe seeds. Far better to

buck the trend by giving support to people on the ground. What I was

going to say, the danger in any high position, even positive

discrimination does not work. I did some shortlisting and found that

the four people are shortlisted work public school boys, white

public-school boys. If you look at the numbers, the Liberal Democrats

time and again put candidates in seats they could not win, ethnic

minority and women candidates. You have got to look at the indirect

practices. We tend to lose nearly 600 of the seats that we stand in!

There is indirect discrimination which needs to be addressed. People

feel... Basically, when they put themselves, talented people put

themselves forward and do not get a fair chance, because they are being

used as fodder. That is not acceptable either. What to think in

terms of numbers for the 2015 election? It is not a question of

people being used as fodder. Historically, it has been.

Conservative associations select people they believe best represent

them. I was a local candidate in Reading, not part of any

affirmative action. A-list. Absolutely, and I was selected for

the first see that I applied for, because my local party picked the

candidate they thought perform the best. What about having ethnic

minority candidates on and a list? I have never called for a third of

action, privately or publicly, and I think it is about succeeding on

merit. Lots of people are coming through the system they will be

coming forward and becoming candidates, I am quite sure,

because they are talented and do it on their own merits. Do you have a

ballpark figure of ethnic minority candidates standing in 2015? We are

in the process of selecting candidates, but let's see where we

end up. The key thing is that people want to succeed on merit,

and that absolutely applies his second and third generation.

Whether the Liberal Democrats? It appears their electoral hopes are

withering on the vine, and recent by-election results suggest that

many voters polled them in withering contempt. Giles has more.

Two and a half years ago, there was a joke that he could not buy a Lib

Dem manifesto because the party had sold out. Now, although the shine

has rolled and Bath -- the shine has rubbed off, they are guaranteed

weather proof until 2015. 1,500 local council has gone, new polling

lows, three by-elections in which three times they lost their deposit,

were behind UKIP and got less than 5% of the vote. The party is

completely asleep. It is in a state of shock, really a trauma as a

result of the coalition. coalition compromise led one Lib

Dem of 10 years to be in his party for Labour, and a long-standing

voters should be door in his face. You are there to fight for society,

a vision of a society, the values of a society which you are

committed to. There's no point and finally getting your grubby hands

on power and the first thing you do is abandon those policies and

values you believe in. But more Lib Dems have stayed. Policy has been

agreed and enacted, the coalition has not fallen apart, and the Lib

Dems trumpets key achievements, the pupil premium, taking people out of

income tax. Will that be enough in 2015? It is important the party

does not fight the election by saying, this is what has happened

in the last five years. That can be part of it, that is inevitable. But

the next election has got to be bought on the future. Principally

the economy, we need to be showing a Liberal Democrat vision for the

economy of the UK, because that is very different from what George

Osborne will be saying, for example. The carrots narrative is that at

the next general election Liberal Democrats will be punished for

their part in the coalition. -- the current narrative. They will be

particularly worried about an area like this, Bren Central, where the

sitting MP as a majority of just over 1,000. But they do benefit

from incumbency, and some in the party think there's something they

can do about it. Working to buck the first past the post system is

something that Liberal Democrats are used to, and people should not

underestimate that resilience within the party. But what many of

those Lib Dems who go out campaigning ones do here is what

Lib Dem policies and manifesto commitments outside the coalition

are going to be, and timing is everything. As a party, we have got

to have at least six or eight months to campaign independently on

our own vision for the future. You cannot do it in three or four weeks.

If it is left to the last three or four weeks, we will be dead.

Jamming! You'll be dead and as you start campaigning independently. --

charming. He is right that if we do not campaign as an independent

force, we will go down with the Tories, that is the correct, but we

have been campaigning since day one, it is a new world for us, being in

coalition government, being in power at all is something that is

only in the lifetime memory of people who did know Lloyd George.

And only as a result of going into government with the Tories. You say

the Tories are going down. If we are attached to the coalition and

presenting ourselves as just a part of that and we do not distinguish

ourselves, we will get punished, just like the Conservatives will.

But we must remember that coalitions are a different type of

government, two political parties that things are different things,

and we will be fighting each other perfectly correctly and

appropriately in local elections, seeing very big differences, three

times more Liberal Democrat gains from Conservatives... Right, but it

has been dismal in terms of by- election performances, the worst

ever by-election results, 2% in Rotherham. I mean, you have lost

deposits, come below all the other parties. Let's get back to this

idea that he will go down with the Tories, they are actually narrowing

the polling lead of labour. Perhaps Only if you believe the last poll.

Answer the question about the Tories. If you are so convinced

they're going down, why not split with them now? The point I'm making

is that people will not be voting for the coalition at the next

election. They will be voting for the parties that formed the

coalition. What Britain has got his stable government and something

which many people pretend it would not happen if we had a balanced

parliament, a secure government. It would be foolish for any part of

the coalition to dismantle that before polling day. The coalition

should last five years. That does not mean that Lib Dems should not

be campaigning vociferously for a stronger economy and a fairer

society. So to make this clear, you're not advocating a split, but

you are advocating a separate campaign next year. We should

campaign separately now. You would like a divorce now. There is a

difference between campaigning separately. Lib Dems and Tories

will be fighting each other in the local elections this year and yet

nationally, we will govern together. We have a Labour conservative

coalition in Cumbria, for example, and they will be fighting each

other at the county elections. It is a normal thing in most of Europe

to have two or more parties in coalition that govern together and

fight each other on the doorstep. That is clear, but what about

presentation? Nick Clegg gave a separate report after the Leveson

Inquiry. Do you want to see that happening on everything? I thought

it was a great step and it was something we should have done

earlier. It is important at a time of coalition, something that

England have not seen before, but we demonstrate that a coalition is

not two political parties that agree with each other assimilating.

The arithmetic dictated that we had one choice, to go into coalition

with the Tories. We accept the coalition, but we do not become

less liberal. But the polls suggest that you support has withered away.

Distinguishing yourself has not worked. You have not persuaded

people that the Lib Dem policies that they voted for are still there.

It is hard to be sure what the cause is. It could be that the Lib

Dems went into power for the first time in 70 years and that has

shocked everybody. And you could not keep to you're principles about

conservation -- tuition fees and reform. To be clear, we have only

managed to get 65% of our principles into policies. That is a

pretty good deal. He said you liked Nick Clegg giving a separate review

after the Leveson Inquiry. Would you like him to do a different

speech to David Cameron on Europe? I think it is clear that we have

different views on Europe. Nick Clegg gives different speeches on

Europe. Should he do his own version of this speech on Europe?

He kind of already has done. I'm sure he will again. Yes, it is

important that we clarify that we are in coalition and we believe in

a collegiate approach, rather than just throwing crockery. Nick Clegg

said we have legislation guaranteeing sharing of power in

Brussels. He said it was inadvisable to go further than this.

I agree, but I think there should be an in out referendum. At the

point that there is a substantial treaty change put to us, which is

what he is saying. That is government policy now. But it is

not. A referendum on a treaty change and referendum -- is not the

same as having an in out referendum. What we have all was said and what

Lib Dem policy has always been is that next time we have something

like the Lisbon Treaty, we should not just a referendum on a treaty,

it should be an in out random. It would be a proxy for an in out

referendum anyway. We have always said that it would be mad to have a

referendum now, in the middle of getting out of the worst financial

crisis in living memory. It would be navel contemplation of an

unforgivable level. What would the wording be going into the next

election? And in out referendum? the point that there is a major

change. I think David Cameron's speech is going to be interesting.

It will be the moment when we find out whether he is a leader or a

four. Up until 20 years ago, the Tory party was pro European.

Margaret Thatcher said that the Labour Party the unease would pull

us out. -- Louise. It is clearly a massive net benefit. We will end up

leaving the European Union unless we get leadership from the top that

explains to the public why it is in our interest to remain in it.

Looking up the numbers, you won 57 seats at the last election with a

24% of the vote. The pollsters say that if you remain at 10%, or even

15%, you will be reduced to just 10 MPs. Peter knows better than that.

On my uniform swing... I would never hold my seat in the first

place. The reality is that Lib Dems exist... How many seats were you

keep Q Matt we were aiming to make games and we hope to hang on to

what we have got now. -- how many will you keep? We hope to hang on

to what we have got now. Any losses are unacceptable. We are digging in

to make sure that does not happen. If you look at by-elections on the

ground over the last few months, Lib Dems are gaining seats, even

some from Labour. I'm not deluding myself. It is a tough time to be a

let-down. But it has been a lot worse within my lifetime. It is

almost enough to make David Cameron feel nostalgic about the EU wrote

debacle. Almost. Only a week ago, Europe was David Cameron's main

preoccupation. But now he is tackling the fall-out from a

hostage drama and the rising threat of terrorism in North Africa. In

the debate in the House last night, he said that Britain would provide

intelligence and counter- intelligence -- counter --

intelligence in counter-terrorism to help the network. First, here

are some highlights from last night. Together with our partners in the

region, we are in the midst of a generational struggle against an

ideology which is in -- which is an extreme distortion of the Islamic

faith and which holds that mass murder and terror are not only

acceptable but necessary. We must tackle this poisonous thinking at

home and abroad and resist the ideologue's attempt to divide the

world into a clash of civilisations. The task is to understand the

nature of the threat, more decentralised, more fragmented,

taking advantage of the uncovered spaces and security vacuums in

parts of North Africa. Does the Prime Minister agree that

eliminating a religious and political ideology is not an easy

thing to do, as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan? Can he give a

guarantee that his crusading zeal, in the event of not being able to

get many West African troops, will not lead him to the use of British

troops in the future? I do not believe that the only answer, or

the right answer is security and military action. As I said, and the

Leader of the Opposition said, what we need to do is use all the

elements at our disposal, development response, political

response, working with partners. That does not mean that a tough

security response is not part of what is required. The concept of

containment, when considering these long-term problems, it has served

us well, for 70 years in the cold war and for 38 years in relation to

Northern Ireland. It would help avoid an oscillation of policy from

over involvement on the ground of one extreme, to too little

involvement and over-emphasis on withdrawal at the other. And we are

joined by a Labour defence spokesman, Kevin Jones and Patrick

Mercer, the Conservative MP and former shadow minister for home and

security. Welcome. Do you agree with David Cameron that there has

to be an international response to this terrorist threat? Absolutely.

In exactly the same way that there was an international response to

the threat on the Afghanistan Pakistan border and also inside

Iraq. This is the same problem with a slightly different part of the

world. And they have ruled out boots on the ground. At the moment,

certainly. Do you think we will have to have troops? I do not know.

I have not seen, nor will I see, the latest intelligence. I think

that we have got to be prepared for whatever is required. The people

are quite right that the over use phrase, the Al-Qaeda franchise is

spreading and moving. So we must be prepared to spread that move with

it. Do you agree? We have got to prepare for all eventualities. That

is why the SDSR that took place when the Government came in was

already outdated. It was not even mentioned. We are facing

redundancies today and the Prime Minister as potentially asking the

Armed Forces to do more. There are serious questions about the SDSR

and whether it is now a document that should be shelved.

Strategic Defence Review, let us give it the full names since not

everybody knows what it is. It is bad timing, at best, to be

announcing these cuts to the Armed Forces when, on the other hand,

David Cameron is talking about our response to the threat in Mali and

across North Africa. There is a great irony to it. I'm sure the

Government is embarrassed about it. Is it wrong? I don't think so.

There needs to be savings made in military expenditure. If you look

at what could have happened otherwise, the other two parties

would have spent �100 billion on Trident and there would be more

cuts in army personnel of that had happened. What about the cuts?

Could we actually send troops? Do we have the manpower? Very good

question. Of course, this are predicated on the fact that

Afghanistan is going to nicely end neatly at 2014, with hardly a Tommy

Atkins to be seen in the country. Wrong answer. Secondly, we have to

re- intervene? Who knows? The point is there will not be a bubble of

troops left over, some of whom can be disbanded and some of whom can

be sent to North Africa. It does not work like that. I had been

saying this sense 2010. And on that basis, Labour supporting the

Government in terms of sending intelligence and logistical support

to back up the French. What else can we offer them? If we have the

capability. One of the capabilities is the centre Na Li aircraft, which

is coming out of service and two years. The his capabilities that

have been taken out of the SDSR, now being relied upon. In terms of

redundancies, we have people being made redundant who are surfing in

Afghanistan alongside Prince Harry. They will be getting their P45s

when they come back. That sends the wrong message. What you say to

that? A one to make a point about the intervention -- what do you

want to say about that? I want to make a point about the intervention

anywhere in the world. We should offer support, absolutely, but the

lesson we have to learn from Iraq is that even if you retract --

accept the premise of the Iraq war, two Western nations going in as

liberators, but seen as occupiers, that is going to be a counter

productive mood. -- counter- productive move. And is that

incredible., but you could escalate it if we go in marching like we did

in Afghanistan, but it could be dealt with locally. I am not sure

that it could be dealt with locally but we should put the accent on the

local forces. There has a great phrase, getting your hands stuck in

the mangle. The fact remains, we were attacked lethally, although

not as lethally as we might have been, in 2005, by an African gang

of Islamists. Old people meant our people no good whatsoever. They

intended to kill hundreds on the tube. Anybody that analyses these

things or pays attention to these things must understand that the

threat has been there for a very long time and will take a long time

to be brought to a proper level. the renewed terrorist haven in this

region? It has been there for a while. There is a big question

being asked that the senior military level, are we able to put

troops on the ground anywhere, because of the gamble the

Government has taken to reduce the size of the army? We are going to

take a look at Prince Harry and the interview he made at the end of his

current tour with the army in That is what we revolve around, I

suppose. If there's people trying to do bad stuff to our eyes, then

we'll take them out of the game, I suppose. Should he have been asked

that question in the first place? think the question is in pretty

poor taste. It is one of those unwritten rules that journalists do

not ask that question. It is uncomfortable and difficult, but

I'd do have a sneaking admiration for the Prince, and serene in the

forthright way in which he has. Let's be clear about it, that is

what soldiers are for. Take a life to save a life, should be up and

said in that way or just deflected it? He has been an Apache

helicopter pilot, he will have been engaged in action, so in terms of

the honest way he answered it, yes. He is coming back to this country,

but many of the people he served alongside will be made redundant,

and that is something the government have got to explain.

They cannot even get their message is right today, two different press

releases from the MoD this morning. What was your response when you

heard Prince Harry admitting that he had killed? People presume that

is what happens, but what was your response? If you look at his answer,

it is a third person answer, there was no admission or celebration, so

why would he? Why are we using this language of admitting and

confessing? He is a professional soldier, is a combat officer, it is

what he does. It may not be tasteful, we may not like to dwell

upon it. You are right, it is part of the job. He was thrown a

question, he may not have seen it coming, I thought his answer was

honest without saying his personal involvement necessarily lead to

what we are assuming it did. would be remarkable if it didn't!

It was a dignified response, what to expect from people serving in

the military? What about the security threat? We mentioned in

last dreadful incident here, what about the current or future

security threat? Well, we must be an absolutely no doubt that there

is just as strong a threat of Islamist terror and horror in this

country from those with an African origin, both north, east and west,

as there is with those living on the Pakistan-Afghan border. That

threat has not gone away, this will no doubt intensify, it is bound to,

and I'm very interested to see that the French have taken domestic

measures to secure themselves at home, which as far as I can see, we

are not doing at the moment. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Mention the word Europe around Westminster these days, and all

anybody talks about his David Cameron's speech, including us, of

course! Not so in the rest of Europe. All eyes this week are on

France and Germany who today are celebrating 50 years of friendship.

On 22nd January 1963, General de Galle and Konrad Adenauer signed

the Elysee Treaty in Paris. Both countries are issuing stamps, coins

and literary awards to commemorate the historic accord that cemented

peaceful co-operation between the former enemies after World War II.

This morning the French President, Francois Hollande, met Angela

Merkel at the French embassy in Berlin, presumably a neutral

location! Later a joint session of the Cabinets both countries is due

to take place. 400 French lawmakers will travel to Berlin to join their

counterparts for a debate in the Reich stag. The day will wrap up

with a concert at the Berlin Philharmonic Hall. Well, we are

joined now from Paris by the French political commentator Agnes Poirier,

and in the studio we have a comedian with German roots who

performs regularly in German, funnily enough! Welcome to both of

you. Tell me, why is it in Berlin, the celebrations today? Is that

because Angela Merkel is in charge? Probably, I don't know. Why is it

in Berlin and not in Paris? I do know, because the 40th anniversary

took place in Versailles of all places, and it went so well that

they want to do some magnificent things in Berlin! I see, I thought

there would be an explanation. When they all meet in the Reichstag, are

they all going to be talking German, Agnes Poirier? I think they will be

speaking in different languages, and I assume a bit of English, too.

Thank goodness for that! Do you love each other, the French and

Germans? I have got the complete set of names. I think the Germans

love the French much more than the Brits feel is right all decent. I

mean, we are stuck in a groove that was established in 1945, and the

French and Germans have long since moved on from that. I think a

recent survey from the German- French television channel showed

that 50% of each nation has lived in the other country, which says a

lot. It does, one might say we are really quite different, if you are

looking at all the stereotypes from language, food, fashion. What do

the French think of the Germans? Well, I mean, it is interesting,

because we went from being hereditary enemies to hereditary

friends, because in a way we do not have any choice. We have to be

friends. I think the fate of Europe is dependent on it. So it is a

false relationship, then. No, it is not, but it can be a difficult

relationship, we all know this, because it is very much dependent

on the personal chemistry between the two heads of state, and usually

it takes a few years for them to get along well, especially if they

do not belong to the same political family. But in the end, remember

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, after a few difficult years, they

saw each other all the time, and we called it Merkozy. Now Hollande and

Michael did not quite liked each other yet, so we will say after the

September elections, and presumably they were like each other very

soon! I am glad to hear it. Do you agree that Angela Merkel does not

have much time for Francois Hollande? It is hard for me to

comment about that. As with anybody, a new arrival in an established of

this, it is difficult to get your feet under the table. All I know is

that in time these relationships to develop, think of me drop and

Helmut Kohl holding hands in 1984 in front of the modern it. Two

British people, they look like the odd couple, what the hell are you

doing there? The comic in me wants to say, it was the first example of

openly gay presidential relationship, holding hands, it

looks so incongruous. Two people, physically, in terms of their

politics, and their outlook, very different, but they came together

and made a very strong image. They say, we do not care what others may

say, the British may scoff, but this is our statement. I think

Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel look quite good together, something

to do with being the same height, the same sort of age. They do not

look too bad. No, they don't. Perhaps the problem is that

Hollande and Angela Merkel bowled starkly opposite positions on how

to solve the euro crisis and on economic policies. I think it is

going to be quite difficult for them, but in the end, again, France

and Germany have no choice but to be friends, so they will get along.

Right, you heard it from Agnes Poirier, very firm about that.

Where are you going to be for that long awaited speech by David

Cameron? Where will you be watching? Probably in front of my

computer, working on jokes about it, whatever comes up, and should they

be appropriate. We look at this thing with the comedy potential,

and the relationship between France and Germany, what strikes me is the

funny things that come out of it. For example, in Germany children

are encouraged to take French pen pals, but you can imagine how many

conversations there have been over the years about how many brothers

and sisters you have got. The type of dog and that kind of stuff, that

is what we look for. Agnes Poirier, is the whole of France sitting on

the edge of its seat waiting with bated breath for that speech

tomorrow? No, they don't even know Cameron is making a speech. I mean,

I do, and I will be back in London, but a lot of people in France hope,

the ones who know, there is going to be a speech, they wish that the

British pantomime about Europe stops soon, because it is really

getting on their nerves. We do not want to get on your nerves! Agnes

Poirier, thank you very much. But why pronounce your name? I speak

German as well! When your name is David Cameron,

life is rarely easy. First to have got lines of people turning up at

your door and you have got to keep everybody happy, whatever their

tastes. There are the arguments about in or out, with gherkins,

that is, and you have to cater for all appetites, even if they are

talking meatballs. Ladled on top of that, you have to make an

appearance at Number Ten. We are joined now by David Cameron, who is

just on his way back from Downing Street, where he has been handing

in a petition to his namesake. Clearly, you're not the David

Cameron, Prime Minister, we have noticed that. What are you doing

today? Well, today, a group of franchisees, including myself, we

have visited Number Ten, and we have dropped off a petition to

really try and get a word over to the government that we want to see

some vendors on the way that VAT is applied to hot takeaway food. --

Venice. Is this your attempt to regurgitate the pasty tax row?

follows on from that. When the government first introduced the new

VAT laws in October last year, from the 2012 budget, we actually

welcomed that, and it brought some transparency to VAT, and ourselves

and our competitors were all going to be treated the same. But when

the government made a U-turn and introduced this clause whereby hot

savoury Products, pasties and sausage rolls, suddenly would be

zero-rated for VAT purposes, it is down to the fact that they are

deemed to be cooling down when they are sold, but our toasted

sandwiches, which we believe fulfil the same purpose for people buying

them, a subject to the standard rate of VAT at 20%. I am sure this

bring back happy memories for you, Tim Farron. You're doing is purely

for commercial reasons, why should you be exempt from tax when your

customers have to pay? Well, we are just after fairness. The fact is

that our competitors are able to sell a product that fulfils the

same purpose. If you go into one of these big high street bakeries, you

can buy a hot product that is exempt from VAT. But if you buy one

of our toasted sandwiches, and we are toasting them to provide the

customer with a product that has a certain texture, not just hot, but

both products are great value, tasty, fulfilling the same purpose.

We believe that we should be treated equally. I am sure your

name has helped in the campaign! Let's see how much you and David

Cameron have in common. David Cameron Prime Minister is going to

Davos, what have you got planned? For the rest of this week, I

actually work in Dewsbury on a daily basis, so from tomorrow

morning I will be back there and I will be making sandwiches on the

counter for part of the week. I have got some recruiting to do,

working at the Jobcentre. Later in a week, I have got to organise some

of our lighting to be converted to an ad to reduce carbon emissions.

David Cameron's first job after leaving university was working for

the Conservative Research Department. For myself, it was

working for Subway, I took a job out of university, I worked as a

sandwich artist, I was there for two ears, and eventually I decided

to take the plunge and go for my own franchise. Good for you!

Quickly, which David Cameron do you prefer? This guy seems very nice!

Just time to find out the answer to our quiz, the question was, who

recently boasted they used to know David Lloyd George? What is the

answer? I would have guessed Baroness Trumpington. Well, here

she is in action, you're right. this historic day, we celebrate the

150th anniversary of the birth of David Lloyd George. I beg leave to

ask the question, in my name of the Order Paper. My Lords, I have to

add that my father met Lloyd We have somewhere a photograph of

my father was Lloyd George and about 3,000 other people in the

picture, but never mind, it is still historic. Is the Minister

aware that I not only knew Lloyd Shut up, everybody! That told them,

that is what I'm gonna do to my guests! Thank you to all of our