:00:47. > :00:50.Welcome to The Daily Politics. Horsemeat infected with the anti-
:00:50. > :00:54.inflammatory butte has entered the food chain. The food standards
:00:54. > :00:59.agency has revealed that in the last few hours. We will bring you
:00:59. > :01:03.the latest. Labour make their pitch for the squeezed middle, saying
:01:03. > :01:06.they would hit the rich with a mansion tax and reintroduce the 10p
:01:06. > :01:11.starting rate of tax. Will be speaking live to the Shadow
:01:11. > :01:14.Chancellor. How many Bulgarians and Romanians will come to Britain when
:01:14. > :01:20.employment restrictions are lifted later this year? The government now
:01:20. > :01:24.admits they do have some figures, they just won't tell us. And it is
:01:24. > :01:29.50 years since Harold Wilson became Labour leader, but it seems some
:01:29. > :01:39.things don't change. They want to see this country standing. They are
:01:39. > :01:46.getting a little tired of seeing Britain pushed around. Harold
:01:46. > :01:49.Wilson's very romantic view. Jo and I will spend Valentine's Night
:01:49. > :01:56.tonight watching five hours on the Parliament channel, that's how
:01:56. > :02:02.romantic we are! All of that coming up in the next hour. With us for
:02:02. > :02:11.the duration, the golden oldie of the year. Only one of the many
:02:11. > :02:17.accolades that has gone to Michael Heseltine. The horsemeat scandal
:02:17. > :02:19.canters on, so do all the bad jokes. This morning, the chair of the
:02:19. > :02:22.Commons environment select committee has accused the FSA have
:02:22. > :02:30.been caught on the back foot. Ministers were in the chamber this
:02:30. > :02:34.morning to tell MPs of the results of the latest test. We can talk now
:02:34. > :02:42.to our health correspondent, Fergus Walsh. What people will want to
:02:42. > :02:47.know, is it safe to eat processed meat? The issue this morning is
:02:47. > :02:55.about beauty in a horsemeat. I've come from a briefing at DEFRA,
:02:55. > :03:01.where they have revealed that they've checked 206 horse carcasses
:03:01. > :03:06.and found that eight tested positive for the drug. Horsemeat,
:03:06. > :03:12.there are five abattoirs in the UK which are licensed to slaughter
:03:12. > :03:19.horses. About 9000 horses are exported every year. They found
:03:19. > :03:22.that eight were positive for phenylbutazone. Six were sent to
:03:22. > :03:26.France and may have entered the food chain. Whether or not any of
:03:26. > :03:31.those ended up in processed foods that ended up back on tables in the
:03:31. > :03:36.UK, well, we don't know. But the really interesting issue is some
:03:36. > :03:43.officials at the Chief Medical Officer's office have worked out
:03:43. > :03:47.how much you'd have to eat to get one dose of phenylbutazone. You'd
:03:47. > :03:54.have to eat between 500 to 600 horse burgers in a day to get a
:03:54. > :04:02.single human does of it. That would suggest a health safety risk is
:04:03. > :04:07.vanishingly small. That's an awful lot of burgers you'd have to eat.
:04:07. > :04:10.So are the government saying to the public, we are not taking processed
:04:10. > :04:14.meat off the shelves and are not going to ban imports from other
:04:14. > :04:19.countries? Absolutely. The government has been saying from the
:04:19. > :04:25.start that this is a food fraud, Amis labelling issue rather than a
:04:25. > :04:30.food safety issue. Obviously consumers are understandably
:04:30. > :04:35.suspicious if they can't trust what is on the labels. Is that stuff in
:04:35. > :04:39.their safe? So far, the evidence would seem to suggest that in terms
:04:39. > :04:44.of food safety there is not an issue here, not a serious issue.
:04:44. > :04:48.Although it's worth pointing out that processed food, eating lots of
:04:48. > :04:52.processed, cheap lasagne and Polonaise is not particularly good
:04:52. > :04:56.for your health and the long term. It does have a known increased risk
:04:57. > :05:04.of cancers. You really should be trying to steer clear of processed
:05:04. > :05:07.meat in the first place. The issue is trust. And whether or not the
:05:07. > :05:12.public is suspicious while tests are still ongoing. These are just
:05:12. > :05:17.the results from the first sets of tests on these carcasses. Should
:05:17. > :05:22.the government at an earlier stage have said, we are going to take
:05:22. > :05:28.more dramatic action, perhaps taken processed food off the shelves?
:05:28. > :05:31.don't think they should. The last point your commentator made, that
:05:32. > :05:38.burgers on not that good for your health and the longer term. Excuse
:05:38. > :05:42.me, are all these high salt, high- fat foods good for one's health?
:05:42. > :05:48.His smoking good for one's health? There are a whole range of issues
:05:48. > :05:51.that come in this category, in an advanced society balances have to
:05:51. > :05:57.be struck. I don't have any personal knowledge of this
:05:57. > :06:04.particular situation, although I do know that phenylbutazone is used to
:06:04. > :06:09.Amelia make pain in horses and sentenced -- certain circumstances.
:06:09. > :06:13.I listened to the food standards agency spokesman talking about a
:06:13. > :06:18.comprehensive range of cheques they have introduced. There's always a
:06:18. > :06:25.weak link in any change. Again, talking to a major retailer about
:06:25. > :06:30.the problem, he explained there are so many people in the chain of all
:06:30. > :06:35.these supply processors that trying to get 100 % certainty is extremely
:06:35. > :06:39.difficult. But isn't that the problem, people will feel they
:06:39. > :06:44.don't know what is in the food that they are buying because of the weak
:06:44. > :06:47.link you have just outlined? I'm in favour, as the government is in
:06:47. > :06:51.favour and the European authorities are in favour and the FSA are in
:06:51. > :06:57.favour, of trying to get that sorted out. But what I don't think,
:06:57. > :07:00.on any evidence I've seen, is that we have a panic, national scare on
:07:00. > :07:04.our hands. D you think the government has handled it well up
:07:04. > :07:11.until now? I think they'd been perfectly sensible, calm and
:07:11. > :07:14.balanced. We've been through these scares before. Take them seriously
:07:14. > :07:21.but, in my experience, none of them have proved to be anything like the
:07:21. > :07:26.scale of the headline which first attended their announcement. If you
:07:26. > :07:32.ate 600 hamburgers, you have a lot more to worry about than
:07:32. > :07:36.phenylbutazone. Something would get too long before that! A few weeks
:07:36. > :07:39.ago on the Sunday politics, I interviewed Eric Pickles, the
:07:39. > :07:43.Community's Secretary. I asked him how Britain's communities might be
:07:43. > :07:47.affected by an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians when restrictions on
:07:47. > :07:54.their ability to move across the EU, including into the UK, are lifted
:07:54. > :07:57.at the end of this year. Have you done any preliminary work on the
:07:57. > :08:03.implications for our housing demand as a result of this extra
:08:03. > :08:06.immigration? I know what number of borrowers are doing it. Have you?
:08:06. > :08:11.We have been looking into it. is the consequence, how many are
:08:11. > :08:16.you planning for? That's not something that I think would be
:08:16. > :08:20.helpful in terms of going through the numbers just yet. Why? Because
:08:20. > :08:29.I think you'd have to have a degree of confidence in terms of the
:08:29. > :08:36.numbers before I publicly state it. Inevitably what he said led to a
:08:36. > :08:40.Freedom of Information request. His department had told me that the
:08:40. > :08:49.figures Mr Pickles refers to do exist. Some reports had said they
:08:49. > :08:52.haven't been any at all. Let's get the latest from our correspondent.
:08:52. > :08:57.The request was from the New Statesman. Some ministers telling
:08:57. > :09:02.us these figures don't exist. Mr Pickles telling me that they do.
:09:02. > :09:06.He's just not going to tell us. What's the truth? It's all a bit
:09:06. > :09:10.confusing. Home Office ministers have been telling the House of
:09:10. > :09:13.Commons. The Home Office is clear, they say the figures on to there.
:09:13. > :09:17.The New Statesman and Labour both submitted Freedom of Information
:09:17. > :09:21.requests. Labour was pretty clear in a text of theirs, asking for an
:09:21. > :09:24.assessment of potential immigration from Romania and Bulgaria. As you
:09:24. > :09:29.mentioned, the communities department came back and said they
:09:29. > :09:33.did have that information but that they might not release it under
:09:33. > :09:36.freedom of information rules that allow them not to do so. I'm told
:09:36. > :09:41.by one source that figures, although it's not quite clear which
:09:41. > :09:44.figures, were discussed at a cabinet, a home affairs cabinet
:09:44. > :09:47.committee meeting. I can tell you for a fact that there is an
:09:47. > :09:51.independent assessment of the impact of this immigration. That
:09:51. > :09:55.has been produced independently for the Foreign Office. I'm told it has
:09:55. > :10:00.been knocking around white hope for some time. A draft was being read
:10:00. > :10:05.in the Foreign Office as long as a month or so ago. But that does not
:10:05. > :10:08.contain figures. It will not say a certain number of Romanians and
:10:08. > :10:12.Bulgarians expected, so it is still something of a mystery. The Home
:10:13. > :10:17.Office says there are no such figures. The Department of
:10:17. > :10:20.communities says it does have that information. All of this against
:10:20. > :10:27.the backdrop that when Labour tried to forecast how many new people
:10:27. > :10:31.would come over when the rules were changed, they got it disastrously,
:10:31. > :10:34.hugely and massively Bron. It is on that long list of things that Ed
:10:34. > :10:38.Miliband thinks that the former Labour government got one.
:10:38. > :10:42.According to the communities department, they verified what Mr
:10:42. > :10:47.Pickles told me, that there are some estimates of how many may come
:10:47. > :10:51.here but they are just not going to tell us. Is that the simple reply?
:10:51. > :10:56.They have been formally asked for the assessment of potential
:10:56. > :11:03.immigration from Romania and Bulgaria in a Freedom of
:11:03. > :11:07.Information letter. And in a response... Do they have it and are
:11:07. > :11:12.not going to tell us? They say, we hold it but we might not tell you
:11:12. > :11:15.under an exemption. On the face of it, it doesn't sit easily with what
:11:15. > :11:18.the Home Office says. None of this is going to make the questions go
:11:18. > :11:25.away about what Mr Pickles was thinking of when he had a chat with
:11:25. > :11:31.you. If these figures do exist, I'll come to whether they are any
:11:31. > :11:34.use in a minute, but if they do exist, should they be made public?
:11:34. > :11:37.The two issues are linked. Supposing they are rubbish. Should
:11:37. > :11:45.you produce a lot of figures which you don't think have any validity,
:11:45. > :11:50.get some headlines would create scares, or should you simply say,
:11:51. > :11:55.nobody knows. Nobody knew last time... They got it hopelessly
:11:55. > :11:58.wrong. But they know that now, Whitehall knows that, the
:11:59. > :12:02.government machine knows that. Their forward and they make more of
:12:02. > :12:06.an effort to get them rather more accurate this time? What I think
:12:06. > :12:10.they would do is to try and put in place machinery in order to make
:12:10. > :12:14.sure they anticipate the flows and tried to make sure they come within
:12:14. > :12:21.the targets that they've set. They've got time to do that. These
:12:21. > :12:26.targets, however you work it, they are but 2014. As a minister, and
:12:26. > :12:29.this is why I have great sympathy for Eric's point, because he knows
:12:29. > :12:33.that some London boroughs have been working on these figures, so he's
:12:33. > :12:39.got some figures from perhaps a few London boroughs. But as a minister,
:12:39. > :12:44.you can say to officials, look, what do you think? They will do
:12:44. > :12:48.their best. It is their best good enough, can it be good enough? And
:12:48. > :12:52.should you be forced, if you get presented with figures which are
:12:52. > :12:55.somebody's opinion, someone with a slide rule making calculations are,
:12:55. > :12:59.they may be right there may be wrong, should you be forced to put
:12:59. > :13:05.that information in the public domain when you yourself as a
:13:05. > :13:08.Minister regard it as highly doubtful, whether it's based on
:13:08. > :13:13.Loch? I think it's perfectly legitimate for a minister to save
:13:13. > :13:18.you don't know the answers to these questions. So why not going to put
:13:18. > :13:22.out scare stories which will be grossly exaggerated by the media
:13:22. > :13:25.and the parliamentary opposition. I'm shocked that you have revealed
:13:25. > :13:31.to the British people today that they still use slide rules in
:13:31. > :13:36.Whitehall. Look, this is the interesting thing. I don't they use
:13:36. > :13:41.in Whitehall because ministers get bits of paper with conclusions.
:13:41. > :13:45.do the assessments then? If ministers are so cynical about it...
:13:45. > :13:48.It would be perfectly fair to do an assessment which says, look, there
:13:48. > :13:52.could be this number, they could be that number. No one knows where it
:13:52. > :13:55.is. But it gives you, as a minister, an indication that you should be
:13:55. > :13:59.thinking about this problem, because they could be one, not
:13:59. > :14:02.there will be. The Prime Minister clearly thinks it's going to be a
:14:02. > :14:06.problem because he's asked his ministers to look at ways of
:14:06. > :14:11.restricting welfare benefits to the people who come in, housing, health
:14:11. > :14:16.services. The Prime Minister is dealing with the situation in the
:14:16. > :14:21.round. But he called a meeting, we know this because Downing Street
:14:21. > :14:25.briefed us, sparked by the prospect of Romanians and Bulgarians coming
:14:25. > :14:27.here at the end of the year. you have to see that in the context
:14:27. > :14:31.of the Government's immigration programmes, which are already
:14:31. > :14:34.getting down the number of immigrants. They are targeting to
:14:34. > :14:39.come down significantly further, including the Bulgarians and
:14:39. > :14:44.Romanians. But surely it would go up against the whole spirit of the
:14:44. > :14:50.European Union to have any restrictions on those coming in,
:14:50. > :14:53.who are full European Union members. Real politics. You can't have
:14:53. > :14:56.unbridled immigration without ministers being involved in the
:14:56. > :15:03.contrast than conflict. But Green movement of labour is a fundamental
:15:03. > :15:08.tenet, so how could you stop it? You can try to make sure I good
:15:08. > :15:12.information, if there are no jobs, their housing, no social... You can
:15:12. > :15:17.let people know that. The second thing about the whole Bulgarian and
:15:17. > :15:20.Romanian thing, there may be some people coming, and in some cases we
:15:20. > :15:23.might need them, if they got engineers then send them fast would
:15:23. > :15:27.be my advice, but there's the whole of Europe they may go to. There's
:15:27. > :15:30.probably more jobs in Germany than here. If you start looking at the
:15:31. > :15:35.number of these people who are going to leave their country, why
:15:35. > :15:38.assume they're coming here? I'm not, I'm saying if they want to come
:15:38. > :15:44.here, as part of our membership of the EU, we have no way of stopping
:15:44. > :15:48.them. As an obligation we let them in. Yes, I understand the policies.
:15:48. > :15:53.Equally, there are ways in which government, by education,
:15:54. > :15:59.advertisement, knowledge, local information... Don't come to
:15:59. > :16:03.Britain, we are rubbish! No, just we don't have a job for you.
:16:03. > :16:07.having a job in Britain may be better than not having a job in
:16:07. > :16:11.Bulgaria. But you've got to make sure they don't come for social
:16:11. > :16:15.security reasons. Under European rules they are entitled to. They
:16:15. > :16:19.are almost certainly more generous than their own. We can be sure of
:16:19. > :16:29.that. This is politics, you've got to deal with it, you've got to deal
:16:29. > :16:31.
:16:31. > :16:35.with the public opinion David Cameron's speech last month
:16:35. > :16:39.on Britain's relationship with the EU was seen as one of the defining
:16:40. > :16:43.moments of his premiership. Its commitment to a referendum on a new
:16:43. > :16:47.deal with Europe delighted the Euro-sceptic wing of his party. But
:16:47. > :16:51.a new group of Conservative MPs launches today and are using the
:16:52. > :16:54.other part of the speech, the prime minister's commitment to the EU, as
:16:54. > :17:02.a rallying cry for the pro-European wing of the party to finally find
:17:02. > :17:10.its voice. All Conservatives agree on far more
:17:10. > :17:14.things in the European Union than we ever debate. Kenneth Clarke
:17:14. > :17:17.believes in fighting for Britain in Europe. Two men who could have led
:17:17. > :17:22.the Tory party, passionately arguing the case for Britain in
:17:22. > :17:26.Europe. A generation later, the present incumbent, trying to lead a
:17:26. > :17:30.party which increasingly looks like it could be heading in the opposite
:17:30. > :17:35.direction. There was a time when the Tory party was full of big
:17:35. > :17:41.beasts roaring the case for Europe. These days, it is the Euro-sceptics
:17:41. > :17:45.making all the noise and they may cause the withdrawal from the EU.
:17:45. > :17:48.But there are still Conservative MPs who think Europe is a good
:17:49. > :17:53.thing. They have been keeping their heads down, but now they are ready
:17:53. > :17:57.to rumble. We feel strongly that our voice has not been heard for
:17:57. > :18:02.many years. There are new people who have come into Parliament who
:18:02. > :18:10.want to ensure that we have a stronger focus. So we are setting
:18:10. > :18:13.up a group called the European Mainstream. It will be looking at
:18:13. > :18:19.ensuring that the Prime Minister's speech, the Bloomberg speech, is
:18:19. > :18:25.taking forward, and that the tone he struck will be sustained within
:18:25. > :18:29.the parliamentary party. The at Bloomberg speech was cheered to the
:18:29. > :18:33.rafters by Euro-sceptics, but the pro-Europeans were also inspired by
:18:33. > :18:37.David Cameron's commitment to the EU? How many of them are there?
:18:37. > :18:41.the past, only 20% of the party would be prepared to stick their
:18:41. > :18:45.head over the parapet. But after the Bloomberg speech, you will see
:18:45. > :18:50.more people coming out. I suspect there is actually a majority in
:18:50. > :18:55.favour of continuing membership of the EU. Here is one of them, Ben
:18:55. > :19:00.Wallace, Ken Clarke's parliamentary aide. He is ready to take on the
:19:00. > :19:03.party Euro-sceptics. They are good at getting their message across. I
:19:03. > :19:07.do not think it is accurate. They are clever at making the case that
:19:07. > :19:12.it is always somebody over the horizon's fault. We need to
:19:12. > :19:15.challenge that and say, you are wrong. We need to let the public
:19:16. > :19:20.make a clear decision based on the facts we put before them. The last
:19:20. > :19:25.Tory prime minister had a word for the other lot, one we can't use on
:19:25. > :19:28.a family show. But why have the pro-European wing of the
:19:28. > :19:32.Conservative Party let the Euro- sceptics drive the debate so far?
:19:32. > :19:35.With you have an emphatic Euro- sceptic calling for us to leave the
:19:35. > :19:40.European Union, it is wearing to get involved in an argument with
:19:40. > :19:43.him. But it has now got serious. This is a group of people who have
:19:43. > :19:46.arrived on the battlefield to are going to argue the case for
:19:46. > :19:51.continuing membership of the European Union. I believe
:19:51. > :19:54.progressively, we will be heard more and will win. Just as the
:19:54. > :19:58.Euro-sceptics welcome David Cameron's commitment to a
:19:58. > :20:02.referendum, European Mainstream will hold on to his promise to
:20:02. > :20:04.attempt to reform the EU from within. The wood we walk away from
:20:04. > :20:08.any other international organisation because the
:20:08. > :20:13.relationship was not absolutely as we would like? Relationships are
:20:13. > :20:17.difficult internationally. It needs courage, a brave vision and
:20:18. > :20:21.determination to get what we need for this country within Europe.
:20:21. > :20:25.Europe has done for even the most iconic of Tory leaders. To avoid
:20:25. > :20:29.the same fate, David Cameron must appease both sides in a fight which
:20:29. > :20:33.may be about to get more finely balanced.
:20:33. > :20:37.Joining me are two backbench Conservative MPs, Laura Sandys, we
:20:38. > :20:43.saw in the film, and Conor Burns, and Lord Heseltine is still with us.
:20:43. > :20:48.Laura Sandys, what exactly will the group do? Well, as the Prime
:20:48. > :20:52.Minister outlined, we need a clear vision for Europe. And that is with
:20:52. > :20:55.Britain at the heart of Europe. In the last six months, we have
:20:55. > :21:01.already achieved, whether it be the Chancellor making a case when it
:21:01. > :21:06.comes to banking decoration or last week, with the Prime Minister
:21:06. > :21:09.reducing the budget, we underestimate our voice in Europe.
:21:10. > :21:14.We as Conservatives, who have a clear view about Britain in Europe,
:21:14. > :21:18.want to make that case. You say your view is European Mainstream.
:21:18. > :21:26.But arguably, you could say that the dominant voice in the
:21:26. > :21:32.Conservative Party is Euro-sceptic. Would you agree? There are many
:21:32. > :21:36.views, but what we have had in the past is a passive pro-European
:21:36. > :21:41.voice. I would accuse myself of being complacent in many ways in
:21:41. > :21:46.making the case for Britain within Europe. That is now starting to
:21:46. > :21:50.emerge. We have a clear objective of a referendum, and I think you
:21:50. > :21:54.will see more Conservatives making the case for our role and
:21:55. > :21:59.leadership within Europe. But 30 MPs out of 304 Conservative MPs is
:22:00. > :22:04.about 10%. There are about 100 supporters of the fresh Start group,
:22:04. > :22:10.with that list of demands to be repatriated. So yours is still not
:22:10. > :22:13.be popular position within the party. I think it is growing, and
:22:13. > :22:16.it is 30 backbench Members of Parliament. If you look at
:22:16. > :22:21.ministers, you will see people who have been exposed to Europe who
:22:21. > :22:25.have achieved two things in Europe and would be of our view. Do you
:22:25. > :22:28.feel threatened by this new group emerging? Not in the slightest. I
:22:28. > :22:33.feel excited that we are having a debate about the future direction
:22:33. > :22:39.of Europe and Britain's place in it. The Prime Minister showed that far
:22:39. > :22:43.from being the heir to Blair, he was the heir to Bruges, the speech
:22:43. > :22:46.that Mrs Thatcher made. Europe is changing because of the failure of
:22:46. > :22:49.the single currency and France and Germany getting closer together.
:22:50. > :22:53.That will change Britain's relationship with the other
:22:53. > :22:57.countries. If David Cameron fails to negotiate a new deal that is
:22:57. > :23:01.good for Britain, you would advocate pulling out of the EU?
:23:01. > :23:09.do not think the Prime Minister will fail. The budget negotiations
:23:09. > :23:12.show that the dynamic is changing. The House of Commons sent a clear
:23:12. > :23:17.message. The Prime Minister achieved the cut in the Budget that
:23:17. > :23:21.people said he could not blow. there is a risk. If he can't
:23:21. > :23:25.renegotiate the deal, will you advocate that Britain pulls out of
:23:25. > :23:31.the EU? There is a risk to any negotiation. Michael Heseltine
:23:31. > :23:36.warned us that it would be calamitous not are going the single
:23:36. > :23:39.currency. Thank goodness we didn't. What would you say to those Euro-
:23:39. > :23:43.sceptics who say Britain should look for the exit if a deal cannot
:23:43. > :23:47.be renegotiated? There is nothing new in this European debate, and
:23:47. > :23:50.there are no new arguments. All the arguments I have listened to are
:23:50. > :23:59.the same ones I have listened to since the '50s. Except that there
:24:00. > :24:05.is an offer now that you can vote to come out. But the Prime Minister
:24:05. > :24:09.will argue to stay in, as will the other parties. And that will be the
:24:09. > :24:18.outcome. John Major has made a brilliant speech today in which he
:24:18. > :24:23.outlines the detail of the argument. It is good news about the battle
:24:23. > :24:28.being joined. And the official Conservative position, I think,
:24:28. > :24:33.will be one of support for broad European membership. If there was a
:24:33. > :24:40.symbolic event of the last few weeks, it was the fact that the
:24:41. > :24:44.prime minister, rightly, said, we will not increase the budget. That
:24:44. > :24:49.meant that the national leaders, not the commission, made a decision
:24:49. > :24:54.as to what should happen. That is the reality of Europe, and that is
:24:54. > :24:59.the point I have always believed. Britain is in Europe for Britain's
:24:59. > :25:04.self-interest. Howard you rage David Cameron's chances in terms of
:25:04. > :25:08.repatriating the long list -- how would you rate David Cameron's
:25:08. > :25:14.chances in terms of repatriating the list of demands? I have not
:25:14. > :25:24.seen the list of demands. But any demands? Many have said we cannot
:25:24. > :25:26.
:25:26. > :25:33.have a pick and mix membership. it is Alan Carr. It always has been.
:25:33. > :25:41.-- it is and a carte menu. I can remember when the French were not
:25:41. > :25:45.members of NATO. Europe has always taken a pick-and-mix position. My
:25:45. > :25:49.view has always been that it is in Britain's self-interest to
:25:49. > :25:53.influence what happens on the Continent, so we have to be part of
:25:53. > :25:59.its institutions. And threatening an exit is a good part of that
:25:59. > :26:03.strategy? That is not the Prime Minister's strategy. John Major
:26:03. > :26:08.dealt with is clearly in his speech. The Prime Minister said, we want to
:26:08. > :26:11.stay in, but we need to change things. He has done one with the
:26:11. > :26:17.Budget. I could name other things he could put on the agenda. A Laura
:26:17. > :26:21.Sandys, when it comes to the call for repatriating powers, do you
:26:21. > :26:26.think, that if Britain fails to get those, we should still stay in the
:26:26. > :26:31.EU? The point is that Europe is not static, it is moving all the time.
:26:31. > :26:35.These deals are done on a daily basis. When re-engage with other
:26:35. > :26:42.countries and build alliances, we can make it happen for our national
:26:42. > :26:47.interest. I think actually, Michael, things have changed. The rest of
:26:47. > :26:51.the world is organising in regional bodies, whether that be south-east
:26:51. > :26:58.Asia, East Africa, West Africa. If we are not part of Europe, we are
:26:58. > :27:03.at the bottom of the list when it comes to trade negotiations and
:27:04. > :27:08.international engagement. I agree with that, but what you saw with
:27:08. > :27:12.Mrs Merkel on the budget, is that we have a new form of realpolitik
:27:12. > :27:17.in Europe. They want us to stay, but they understand that the
:27:17. > :27:20.relationship must change. That is why I am confident that the Prime
:27:20. > :27:24.Minister will get what he asks for and will be able to put the case
:27:24. > :27:27.for changing on the basis of a changed relationship with Europe
:27:27. > :27:30.and be successful. What about the group within the Conservative Party
:27:30. > :27:35.who will not be satisfied with that? They feel that the
:27:35. > :27:39.Conservative Party should need some sort of exit from the EU, that we
:27:39. > :27:44.would be better outside. How does David Cameron deal with such a loud
:27:44. > :27:47.voice in the Conservative Party? They are a loud voice, but a small
:27:47. > :27:50.number. The Prime Minister has to negotiate a better arrangement for
:27:50. > :27:54.Britain within Europe. He will bring the majority of the
:27:54. > :27:57.Conservative Party with him if he does that. The dynamic has now
:27:57. > :28:02.changed. We should not underestimate the significance of
:28:02. > :28:07.the Prime Minister going in and achieving that budget cut. It will
:28:07. > :28:13.change the nature of the relationship.
:28:13. > :28:16.Bismarck * realpolitik. You would not get that on Question Time.
:28:16. > :28:19.Among the powers the Government would like to wrest back from the
:28:19. > :28:24.EU are some of the 130 European crime and policing measures we are
:28:24. > :28:26.currently subject to. Yesterday, the Lords EU committee questioned
:28:26. > :28:34.the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary about their plans for
:28:34. > :28:40.those opt-outs and what support they had for them.
:28:40. > :28:45.The Government put in their evidence. Dominic RADA was in
:28:45. > :28:49.support of the government. And there was the United Kingdom
:28:49. > :28:54.Independence Party. That is the total of those who support the
:28:54. > :29:00.government. All the others are against your proposal. Are you
:29:00. > :29:05.troubled by this? It is not the case, in the discussions we have
:29:05. > :29:10.had, that those parties are saying that every measure with in this
:29:10. > :29:14.list are ones that we have to opt back into and therefore should not
:29:14. > :29:19.go down the route of opting out. The of course we were having
:29:19. > :29:22.discussions about how useful certain measures are and what
:29:22. > :29:27.alternatives would exist if we did opt out of certain measures. Could
:29:27. > :29:33.we achieve the same names in other ways? By bilateral discussions?
:29:33. > :29:38.Potentially. There are areas where practical co-operation takes place
:29:39. > :29:44.today, not on the basis of a piece of EU legislation. Which measures
:29:44. > :29:54.do you say are directly detrimental to the interests of the UK?
:29:54. > :30:03.
:30:03. > :30:07.All of these are still subject to negotiation. The discussions that
:30:07. > :30:10.are taking place with other member states and the commission are not
:30:10. > :30:15.at the level of us got into a list of items and saying, this one and
:30:15. > :30:19.that one. We are developing the process we have to go through. We
:30:19. > :30:23.are having those conversations. But we have to produce ourselves,
:30:23. > :30:27.before we get involved in a serious set of the decisions about the list,
:30:27. > :30:31.we will have to complete our own decision-making process. I'm afraid
:30:31. > :30:38.I can't give you a firm indication as to when we can basenji with such
:30:38. > :30:41.a list. Are you telling me you don't know what kind of lists?
:30:41. > :30:49.government has yet to take a final decision about what is on its
:30:49. > :30:54.initial list. The Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary before a
:30:54. > :30:58.Lords committee. We've got Michael Heseltine with us. 130 of these
:30:58. > :31:01.measures, and as I understand it become as a package, you have to
:31:01. > :31:07.get out of all of them, you can't just cherry-pick. Would this, in
:31:07. > :31:13.your view, ha Mark Bower ability to deal with crime across European
:31:13. > :31:17.laws? No, this is a technical issue. You have to opt out of the whole
:31:17. > :31:23.lot in order to start looking at what you want back-in. If you
:31:23. > :31:29.wanted to opt back into 139 of them, you still have to opt out of the
:31:29. > :31:33.140. It's a really technical thing. The issue, you then ask the
:31:33. > :31:39.substantive question - what our self-interest? Detecting crime,
:31:39. > :31:42.catching criminals. I'm not party to any of these dialogues but my
:31:42. > :31:48.certain knowledge is that the government will be sitting there
:31:48. > :31:53.and saying, how do each of these 140 help us in co-operation with
:31:53. > :31:58.our European colleagues to make the place say four or more lawful? My
:31:58. > :32:02.guess is they will come up with a conclusion that crime today is
:32:02. > :32:07.International, that criminals are overseas and that you've got to be
:32:07. > :32:11.able to get at them. Are we able to say, all right, we are coming out
:32:11. > :32:18.of the lot and then we will choose... Yes, we'll come back into
:32:18. > :32:24.that one and that one and that one. You can negotiate that. So the
:32:24. > :32:29.Commission could say, actually, you can't. My guess is it won't be the
:32:29. > :32:34.commission. This is not the Commission. This is ministers,
:32:34. > :32:37.sovereign, elected ministers making these decisions. They think it is
:32:37. > :32:41.churlish a bus to cherry-pick and therefore not be very helpful.
:32:41. > :32:47.might. But they've made themselves have a system where things could be
:32:47. > :32:55.improved. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, has just finished making
:32:55. > :32:58.a speech in Bedford. With the 0NS, the Office for National Statistics,
:32:58. > :33:03.figures released this week showing that British workers are now
:33:03. > :33:06.earning no more in real terms than they did 10 years ago, and Labour
:33:06. > :33:10.are 12 points ahead in the latest opinion polls over the
:33:10. > :33:13.Conservatives, the Labour lead firming up in recent weeks. Have
:33:13. > :33:18.they therefore now got a winning message on living standards?
:33:18. > :33:21.Ed Miliband is promising to make the 2015 general election in living
:33:21. > :33:24.standards election. Asking people whether they feel better off than
:33:24. > :33:28.they did when the coalition government came to power. And
:33:28. > :33:32.trying to appeal to the squeezed metal. Yesterday, the Governor of
:33:32. > :33:36.the Bank of England said there was cause for optimism and that a
:33:36. > :33:40.recovery is in sight. But he warned that inflation was likely to remain
:33:40. > :33:44.stubbornly above its 2% target rate, putting further pressure on
:33:44. > :33:47.household budgets. The Governor pointed the finger at the
:33:47. > :33:50.government policies, saying that increases in university tuition
:33:50. > :33:55.fees and domestic energy bills are going to make it harder to bring
:33:55. > :33:59.inflation down. So Ed Miliband has chosen this moment to go to Bedford,
:33:59. > :34:03.the sight of Harold Macmillan's famous "we've never had it so good"
:34:03. > :34:09.speech, to argue that now voters are worrying they will never have
:34:09. > :34:13.it so good again. A one-nation Labour government led by me well
:34:13. > :34:18.put a fairer tax system at the heart of its new priorities. It is
:34:18. > :34:24.a crucial part of how we build an economy where everyone can play
:34:24. > :34:28.their part. A One Nation Labour Budget next month would lay the
:34:28. > :34:34.foundations for a recovery made by the many Qabun not just a few at
:34:34. > :34:38.the top of society. And let me tell you about one crucial choice we
:34:38. > :34:43.would make, it's different from this government and different from
:34:43. > :34:49.the last government. We will tax houses worth over �2 million. And
:34:49. > :34:53.we will use the money to cut taxes for working people. We will put
:34:53. > :35:00.right a mistake made by Gordon Brown in the last Labour government.
:35:00. > :35:04.We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower
:35:04. > :35:11.10p starting rate of tax. With the size of the band depending on the
:35:12. > :35:16.amount raised. This would benefit 25 million basic rate tax payers.
:35:16. > :35:23.And it would move Labour on from the past and put Labour way it
:35:23. > :35:31.should always have been. On the side of working people. The shadow
:35:31. > :35:36.chancellor, Ed Balls, joins us now from Bedford. Tell me, is the
:35:36. > :35:39.mansion tax a manifesto commitment? I think it is a very clear signal
:35:39. > :35:43.from us today that this is what we intend to do in government. You
:35:44. > :35:48.know that we've had a very clear rule, that we are not going to make
:35:48. > :35:54.our manifesto decisions until our manifesto. You only have to see
:35:54. > :35:58.George Osborne this week finally dropping a commitment he made in
:35:58. > :36:01.2007 on inheritance tax to know the dangers on hard manifesto
:36:01. > :36:06.commitments made two years before. We will not make commitments until
:36:06. > :36:10.the manifesto. The question you are asking is, does Labour want in
:36:10. > :36:13.government to reintroduce the 10p tax rate paid for by the Match
:36:13. > :36:17.Attax? Yes, they should do it now. In government we would do it now
:36:17. > :36:21.when it's what we want to do after the next election. At the risk of
:36:21. > :36:26.spelling out the obvious, you are not in Parliament at the moment.
:36:26. > :36:33.Are you pledging... Are you pledging to introduce a mansion tax
:36:33. > :36:38.if Labour is elected in 2015? answered the question very clearly.
:36:38. > :36:43.Pledges and manifestos wait until closer to the election. We are not
:36:43. > :36:47.going to make the mistake of past oppositions and make cast-iron
:36:47. > :36:52.pledges on tax spending until the manifesto. But we want to do this,
:36:52. > :36:56.we intend to do it, it's our plan to do it. In government we would do
:36:56. > :37:01.it now. If we had a manifesto it would be there. We intend to have
:37:01. > :37:05.this in our programme for the next government. Is the new starting
:37:06. > :37:11.rate of tax the manifesto commitment? Is the new 10p rate a
:37:11. > :37:17.manifesto commitment? As I said, we are saying today we want to put
:37:17. > :37:21.right the mistake of 20 -- 2007. We want to reinstate the 10p tax rate.
:37:21. > :37:26.We think that is fair and would help the economy and working people.
:37:26. > :37:30.We think it contrasts with David Cameron's top rate tax cut. We want
:37:30. > :37:35.to do this in government. We want to do this in government. We are
:37:35. > :37:39.going to wait until our manifesto until the manifesto. But we want in
:37:39. > :37:43.government in 2015 or sooner, to have a man to tax on properties
:37:43. > :37:49.above �2 million, to pay for a new starting rate of tax at 10p. When
:37:49. > :37:55.you were at the Treasury, you looked at the mansion tax and
:37:55. > :38:01.rejected it several times. Why, what's changed your mind? I'm not
:38:01. > :38:06.sure whether we ever looked in detail at the mansion tax. I'm not
:38:06. > :38:10.sure if that is right. I'm trying to think back to those days. We
:38:10. > :38:15.rate stamp duty on high-value properties. But the idea of a
:38:15. > :38:18.mansion tax on the value was first proposed by the Liberal Democrats
:38:18. > :38:22.in the 2010 manifesto. We said last year a number of times that we'd
:38:23. > :38:26.like to do that. I've got some shadow Treasury work going on
:38:26. > :38:30.looking at that. I've said that Vince Cable and George Osborne,
:38:30. > :38:33.we'd like to work with you to do it. George Osborne has ruled it out at
:38:33. > :38:37.the Liberal Democrats still have it in play, but it's what we are
:38:37. > :38:44.working on. We think if you went for properties above �2 million,
:38:44. > :38:48.which is sensible and, by the way, half of them, about 70,000, they
:38:48. > :38:53.are second homes, not main residences, we think you could
:38:53. > :38:57.raise, the look or Democrats said 1.7 billion, which the IFS said was
:38:57. > :39:04.reasonable, I think it would be closer to 2 billion now. If we were
:39:04. > :39:08.to use 2 billion now for a mansion tax, that would allow us to do
:39:08. > :39:12.close to �1,000.10 pence tax band for basic rate taxpayers, that
:39:12. > :39:19.wouldn't apply to higher rate taxpayers. 25 million taxpayers
:39:19. > :39:24.would get the benefit of the 10p tax cut from Labour. And that would
:39:24. > :39:30.amount to an extra �2 a week. Is that what Labour means, being on
:39:30. > :39:37.the side of the working poor? said, don't do the top rate of tax,
:39:37. > :39:42.don't hit working families with a tax credits cap. It's �2 a week.
:39:42. > :39:46.Andrew, �2 a week may for you not be a huge amount. For struggling
:39:46. > :39:53.families at the moment, seeing their Petroc, their bills up, with
:39:53. > :40:02.all people in work going to food banks, are really struggling, any
:40:02. > :40:12.help is worth having. But that's it, �2 a week. To be honest, I think
:40:12. > :40:12.
:40:12. > :40:16.you'd be unwise to skier. -- smear. You can either answer yes or no.
:40:16. > :40:26.gave you a very clear answer. �2 billion from the mansion tax would
:40:26. > :40:31.allow you to do �1,000... Up to almost �1,000, 10p band, 10 % on
:40:31. > :40:35.�1,000 would give you about �100 a year, �2 a week. It is a clear
:40:35. > :40:39.signal from Labour that our tax- cutting priorities, and of course
:40:39. > :40:42.we'd like to do more if we could, would be focused on middle and
:40:42. > :40:47.lower income families. We would not be cutting the top rate of income
:40:47. > :40:52.tax, that is David Cameron's idea. We want to start from hard-working
:40:52. > :40:58.families. When you were a Treasury minister, Labour abolished the 10p
:40:58. > :41:03.rate. Why have you changed your mind? We were all part of a
:41:03. > :41:07.government which did this, and therefore we all defended it... I
:41:07. > :41:11.was in the Treasury and I have defended it. As I've said to you
:41:11. > :41:15.during this programme since, both Ed Miliband and I said to Gordon
:41:15. > :41:19.Brown at the time it was the wrong thing to do, a mistake. But he was
:41:19. > :41:22.the Chancellor and he made that decision. He thought by cutting 10p,
:41:22. > :41:27.he would be able to cut the basic rate and people would understand
:41:27. > :41:31.that. As he discovered and, to be honest, George Osborne has
:41:31. > :41:35.discovered in the last year, trying to play off one group of working
:41:35. > :41:39.families against another, the strivers and the shirkers, that
:41:39. > :41:43.backfires. It backfired badly for Labour because people didn't see
:41:43. > :41:51.the basic rate cut... You'd told Gordon Brown, don't do it -
:41:51. > :41:59.correct? Yes. His closest adviser in these matters and he ignored you.
:41:59. > :42:05.Yes. Why didn't you resign in protest at this attack on the
:42:05. > :42:10.working poor? At that time there was a debate about the 10p tax cut,
:42:10. > :42:13.the basic rate tax cut, tax credits went up to compensate. There was an
:42:14. > :42:19.attempt to put together a package to prevent the losers. It didn't
:42:19. > :42:23.work. We said to Gordon Brown that it wasn't going to work. Not only
:42:23. > :42:27.did we get that wrong, but we're going to reinstate it. The thing in
:42:27. > :42:35.politics is, can you admit when you make big mistakes? We are saying
:42:35. > :42:40.let's change it now. Labour are saying change it for the future.
:42:40. > :42:46.Another question, it's also not to spend the same money twice. In
:42:46. > :42:49.March of last year you told Nick Robinson that the proceeds of any
:42:49. > :42:54.mention tax would be used to reverse the cuts to tax credits.
:42:54. > :43:00.Now you are saying it will be used to introduce a 10p rate. What's it
:43:00. > :43:03.to be and are you spending the money twice? No. I have to say,
:43:03. > :43:07.today the Conservative Party are obviously pretty desperate with
:43:07. > :43:11.their attempt to come up with these flaws. I did an interview with Nick
:43:11. > :43:15.Robinson. I said, we would like to have a mountain tracks. We would
:43:15. > :43:19.work with the Liberal Democrats or the Tories on it. If they wanted to
:43:19. > :43:23.use that for cutting the top rate of tax, no way. But we said if they
:43:23. > :43:27.were to make a proposal, for example to help working families by
:43:27. > :43:32.cutting taxes, like tax credits or any others, we would support them.
:43:32. > :43:39.We made no proposal at that time for any tax cuts, including tax
:43:39. > :43:44.credits. And today we are saying use it for the 10p rate. They are
:43:44. > :43:49.not tax credits. Let me ask you this, will you need to do, will the
:43:49. > :43:56.Manton tax be part of a general council tax re-evaluation? --
:43:56. > :44:01.mansion tax. It depends how you do it. There's a range of options. We
:44:01. > :44:04.are working on the different options. We would need to find a
:44:04. > :44:09.way to get that valuation and applied the tax in a way which is
:44:09. > :44:12.sensible and fair and cost- effective. It's something we are
:44:12. > :44:16.working on. I've offered to go and have cross-party talks with the
:44:16. > :44:21.Liberal Democrats and the Tories, to try and find a way in which we
:44:21. > :44:25.can do this. It can definitely be done. George Osborne set his face
:44:25. > :44:29.against that. The Liberal Democrats are more open. If they want to join
:44:29. > :44:32.our discussions, that would be great. In politics, you should that
:44:32. > :44:36.make your big mistakes. George Osborne is making big mistakes on
:44:36. > :44:42.the economy at the moment, flatlined ing at the top rate of
:44:42. > :44:49.tax. If I was interviewing Mr Osborne I would ask him about his
:44:49. > :44:52.mistakes, but I've Got You and then running out of time. It seems to me
:44:52. > :44:56.you'd decided how to spend the proceeds of the mansion tax but you
:44:56. > :45:01.haven't got any idea get how you are going to raise it. Do you
:45:01. > :45:06.accept that if there is a council tax re-evaluation, everybody's
:45:06. > :45:08.council tax could go up? There's a range of different ways in which
:45:09. > :45:13.you could do this. We've been working and looking at the
:45:13. > :45:19.different options. It can definitely be done. There is work-
:45:19. > :45:26.in-progress, but we could raise 1.7 to �2 billion on the Manton tax to
:45:26. > :45:29.cut the 10p. -- mansion tax. We are still working on that. We'd like to
:45:29. > :45:38.work with the government if they wanted to. If George Osborne would
:45:38. > :45:48.finally, the programme... It's your idea, you tell us. Why would to
:45:48. > :45:57.
:45:57. > :46:02.come on your programme? -- why Joining us is the Liberal Democrat
:46:02. > :46:07.peer Susan Kramer. The next government will be decided by the
:46:07. > :46:13.voters. On mansion tax, we are always pleased when somebody
:46:13. > :46:16.finally comes on side. As you know, it was in Power 2010 manifesto. We
:46:16. > :46:22.would like the current government to take this on board and implement
:46:22. > :46:27.it. One of my arguments with Ed Balls is, he will apparently used
:46:27. > :46:35.this to cut at the lowest rate of income tax. But what we have been
:46:35. > :46:42.doing in government is raise the starting point of tax. So people
:46:42. > :46:45.who are on standard rates are now some �600-�700 better off. As
:46:45. > :46:52.Liberal Democrats, we would want to keep raising VAT threshold until
:46:52. > :46:56.you get to the minimum-wage. That is much more significant than the
:46:56. > :46:58.programme Ed Balls discussed. we know there are talks going on
:46:58. > :47:04.between senior Liberal Democrats and Labour about the future. There
:47:04. > :47:08.would have to be, as we don't know what will happen post 2015. Would
:47:08. > :47:13.you like to go into coalition with a party now that is stating clearly,
:47:13. > :47:18.we will introduce a mansion tax, the exact policy the Liberal
:47:18. > :47:23.Democrats have been talking about? We will fight for our policies. We
:47:24. > :47:27.have a lot of areas where we agreed a coalition agreement. There are
:47:27. > :47:31.crucial things like raising the starting point of tax, something
:47:31. > :47:36.Labour never looked at. It has been a revolutionary approach with a
:47:36. > :47:43.real impact not just on the people taken out of tax, 3 million, but
:47:43. > :47:49.everybody else on the standard rate. What the Government looks like is a
:47:49. > :47:54.decision for voters. Help us where Ed Balls could not help us - how
:47:54. > :47:57.would it work? Would you have to do a full evaluation? We looked at
:47:57. > :48:01.doing it as a separate tax, precisely because of the issues you
:48:01. > :48:07.raced. It is complex to try and approach it through the council tax
:48:07. > :48:12.mechanism. But we are willing to look at workable solutions. So you
:48:12. > :48:18.still can't tell us how you would do it? Andrew, you know perfectly
:48:18. > :48:26.well that there is a viable way to do this. That is to do it as a
:48:26. > :48:30.separate tax. How would that work? To be honest with you, it is a long
:48:30. > :48:36.time since I have read the detail. But I can refer you to all our
:48:36. > :48:41.website. But this is central to party policy, and you come on this
:48:41. > :48:45.programme and can't explain it? That is an insult to the viewers.
:48:45. > :48:49.At least Ed Balls has the excuse that he has only just thought of
:48:49. > :48:55.the idea. You thought of it years ago and you still can't tell us?
:48:55. > :49:00.call me guilty for not knowing the granular detail. But I will tell
:49:00. > :49:04.you the fundamental principles. We had a mansion tax in 2010. We have
:49:04. > :49:08.stood by that and are pressing for it and the current government.
:49:08. > :49:12.people will be worried about a full re-evaluation. Which is why we have
:49:12. > :49:17.chosen not to go in that direction. My God Heseltine, the Conservatives
:49:17. > :49:23.have a problem now -- Michael Heseltine, the Conservatives have a
:49:23. > :49:28.problem in terms of standards of living. In 2015, people will be
:49:28. > :49:32.asked whether they feel better off than in 2010, and even the Governor
:49:32. > :49:38.of the Bank of England said we will not. How do the Tories combat that?
:49:38. > :49:41.I can't remember an election going back to the '50s in which living
:49:41. > :49:45.standards were not the determining factor. So are trying to say we
:49:45. > :49:51.will fight an election on living standards is simply to say they are
:49:51. > :49:56.going to fight an election. being able to say, backed up by the
:49:56. > :50:00.fact that wages have not come up with inflation, it will be
:50:00. > :50:04.difficult. I have also read the Governor's speech, and we all know
:50:04. > :50:14.there is a great deal of uncertainty. We have an economic
:50:14. > :50:15.
:50:15. > :50:18.crisis. But this programme is interesting. As a pre- one to the
:50:18. > :50:23.full 2015 election, you have an architect of the crisis, the guy
:50:23. > :50:27.who sat with Gordon Brown, creating the mess. Under croppers -- under
:50:27. > :50:32.cross-examination from Andrew, simple questions, there were no
:50:32. > :50:36.answers, except one. We will have a mansion tax. That is easy, because
:50:36. > :50:40.it is rich people and no one cares. They mention a mansion tax because
:50:40. > :50:44.they are fighting a by-election when they want to roads from the
:50:44. > :50:47.Lib Dems. Overnight, they have picked one of the Lib Dem policies.
:50:47. > :50:55.But you have still not answered this question about what the Tory
:50:55. > :50:59.line will be. I will tell you. We have saved the national economy.
:50:59. > :51:03.Even if people are worse off? you really want to put the
:51:03. > :51:07.architects of the disaster are back in the driving seat? Do you really
:51:07. > :51:11.think that Ed Balls, who could not answer the questions, he would not
:51:11. > :51:15.even tell you whether it was a certain policy, do you really think
:51:15. > :51:22.that that guy has got a grip on how we deal with the worst modern
:51:22. > :51:28.economic crisis we have ever been through? This programme was a real
:51:28. > :51:34.one, or a pre- rom-com of 2015. That is why David Cameron will win.
:51:34. > :51:38.What would the Liberal Democrat answer be to that? Ed Miliband
:51:38. > :51:43.would say living standards it still feel lower to voters than they were
:51:43. > :51:48.in 2010, and it is a result of the coalition government. Voters are
:51:48. > :51:52.not so easily fooled. They have had five years of austerity, with the
:51:52. > :51:56.promise of more austerity. And the Lib Dems themselves have said we
:51:56. > :51:59.will have a few more years of austerity. The because it is
:51:59. > :52:03.important to not create false rainbows. He the Labour Party say
:52:03. > :52:08.there will be austerity as well. But they will argue that under
:52:08. > :52:14.their policies, are rightly or wrongly, they would not be in this
:52:14. > :52:20.position. By have they got us into this position. You have to accept
:52:20. > :52:23.that the crisis we have was not just some meteor from the collapse
:52:23. > :52:27.of the financial system, it was an underlying crash of our entire
:52:27. > :52:31.economy, very much fuelled by the spend and borrow a pattern to which
:52:31. > :52:36.Ed Balls is still addicted. interestingly, the Poles are now,
:52:36. > :52:40.for the first time, beginning to show that Ed Balls and Ed Miliband,
:52:40. > :52:47.are beginning to level with George Osborne and David Cameron in terms
:52:47. > :52:51.of trust over the economy. It this was normal politics, the coalition
:52:51. > :52:57.government would be 20 to 25 points behind in the mid-term blues of any
:52:57. > :53:03.government. Actually, they are 10 or 11 points behind. Unemployment
:53:03. > :53:09.is falling. The economy is probably on the turn, and there are another
:53:10. > :53:14.two years before the election. All right, before I have a turn!
:53:14. > :53:18.You have had a few. Now, what day is today? No, not
:53:18. > :53:23.that one. We don't go in for that mushy love stuff at the Daily
:53:23. > :53:26.Politics. Today is actually the 50th anniversary of two-time Prime
:53:26. > :53:32.Minister Harold Wilson becoming leader of the Labour Party. The
:53:32. > :53:36.following year, in 1964, he won, by a small majority, the first of four
:53:36. > :53:40.elections. He was arguably the first prime minister of the
:53:40. > :53:44.television era, so much so that the Tories panicked in 1964 and said,
:53:44. > :53:47.we need a leader who knows how to do TV as well. Tonight, BBC
:53:47. > :53:53.Parliament are dedicating an evening of programmes to the man
:53:53. > :54:03.who once described himself as an optimist, but an optimist who
:54:03. > :54:16.
:54:16. > :54:20.carries a raincoat. Here is a REPORTER: Mr Wilson, many wonder
:54:20. > :54:25.whether you would make a good Prime Minister. What issues do you think
:54:25. > :54:29.are uppermost in their minds? think the first thing is that they
:54:29. > :54:35.want to see this country standing in the world restored. They are
:54:35. > :54:38.getting tired of seeing Britain pushed around. The Liverpool crowd
:54:38. > :54:47.has a sharp eye and a distinctive voice for victory. But early on
:54:47. > :54:53.Friday morning, they were convinced their man had won. What kind of
:54:53. > :54:57.Prime Minister do you most admire? A number of those I admire were
:54:57. > :55:03.wartime prime ministers, such as Churchill. And in certain aspects,
:55:03. > :55:13.Lloyd George. Among the peacetime ones, I was always impressed by
:55:13. > :55:19.
:55:19. > :55:22.Robert Peel, especially his great Those were the days when first-
:55:22. > :55:27.class seats on British Rail were very comfortable. Joining me,
:55:27. > :55:32.Bernard Donoughue, who was head of Wilson's Downing Street policy unit
:55:32. > :55:39.during the 1970s. In 1963, when Labour chose Harold Wilson as their
:55:39. > :55:43.leader, it was a watershed. The previous Labour leaders like Hugh
:55:43. > :55:46.Gaitskell had been public-school Oxbridge types. They were not that
:55:46. > :55:51.different from the Macmillans of the Tory side. But here was this
:55:52. > :55:58.chap with a pipe and a Yorkshire accent, grammar-school boy. It was
:55:58. > :56:05.a new era. Absolut Klee. Harold was classless. Well, he was really
:56:05. > :56:10.middle-class, but he was not clearly of the ruling class. He was
:56:10. > :56:16.provincial, from the north. Completely meritocratic. This was
:56:16. > :56:24.one of his strengths. To the public, they felt they could identify with
:56:24. > :56:32.him. He was not from the old ruling regime. And of course, after him,
:56:32. > :56:38.the Conservatives followed this and did the same. Very much the same
:56:38. > :56:44.point could be made about Ted Heath. And John Major. And Margaret,
:56:44. > :56:48.actually. And he was prime minister during the most significant part of
:56:48. > :56:56.the '60s, if you accept that the '60s did not really start until
:56:56. > :57:02.1963. Then he came back in the early '70s with the Ted Heath
:57:02. > :57:07.interregnum. But looking back, is he regarded as a great prime
:57:07. > :57:12.minister or a disappointment? regarded as a great political
:57:12. > :57:17.leader and party manager. And he is regarded much more highly in the
:57:17. > :57:22.Labour Party than in the country at large. I think he raised
:57:22. > :57:26.expectations too high before he came into power of being able to
:57:26. > :57:30.modernise Britain in his own image. Of course, he was not able to do
:57:30. > :57:35.that. It was an impossible task, and he suffered from raising
:57:35. > :57:39.expectations too high, to the point where many people came to say after
:57:39. > :57:44.he went that he achieved nothing has Prime Minister. That is totally
:57:44. > :57:52.untrue. In terms of transforming the social values of the country
:57:52. > :57:57.and changing the laws, legalising homosexuality, abolishing theatre
:57:57. > :58:02.censorship, abolishing hanging, dealing with gender inequality and
:58:02. > :58:08.racial inequality, he achieved a lot. But not as much as he led
:58:08. > :58:14.people to believe he would. Do you miss him? I miss his style and the
:58:14. > :58:18.fun of being with him. There are other negative sides to him. Is it
:58:18. > :58:23.true that he had brandy and cigars in public and the pipe and the beer
:58:23. > :58:29.were for public? Not always. But he certainly smoked his pipe a lot in
:58:29. > :58:32.public. I never saw him smoke it in private. It was very useful,
:58:32. > :58:36.because if you asked him a difficult question, he would light
:58:36. > :58:39.his pipe and blow a lot of smoke. You can enjoy a whole evening of
:58:39. > :58:42.programmes looking back at your life and times of Harold Wilson
:58:42. > :58:46.tonight on BBC Parliament from 6 o'clock. That is it for today.
:58:46. > :58:51.Thanks to all our guests, especially Lord Heseltine. The One