:00:44. > :00:47.Welcome to the Daily Politics. George Osborne was probably a bit
:00:47. > :00:49.chirpier over the breakfast table this morning. Latest figures show
:00:49. > :00:52.the UK has avoided a triple dip recession, something which might
:00:52. > :00:55.have given the Chancellor a rather large headache. Preliminary
:00:55. > :00:58.estimates for economic output, known as GDP, show the economy grew
:00:59. > :01:05.by 0.3% in the first three months of the year, a little more than
:01:05. > :01:11.analysts had predicted. Mr Osborne says the economy is on the up.
:01:11. > :01:14.Labour say it is flat-lining. Danny Alexander and Ed Balls will be here.
:01:14. > :01:19.So too will Olympic hero Chris Boardman, demanding safer streets
:01:19. > :01:24.for the our growing number of cyclists. Nice hats. Parliament
:01:24. > :01:34.porogues this afternoon. And if you don't know what that means, don't
:01:34. > :01:35.
:01:35. > :01:45.And should we be tuning into something like this? One Tory MP
:01:45. > :01:45.
:01:45. > :01:48.will be advertising the art of All that and more coming up in the
:01:48. > :01:56.next hour and with us for the duration is the economist and
:01:56. > :01:59.author Will Hutton. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Now first this
:01:59. > :02:02.morning let's talk about the economy, because you will all be
:02:02. > :02:05.relieved to hear that we are not in a triple dip recession. Figures
:02:05. > :02:09.released this morning show the economy grew by 0.3% in the first
:02:09. > :02:16.three months of this year. Since they came to power in May 2010, the
:02:16. > :02:19.economy has put David Cameron and George Osborne in a bit of a spin.
:02:19. > :02:25.After an upward tick in the first three months after they were
:02:26. > :02:28.elected, the economy shrank by 0.4% in the final few months of 2010.
:02:29. > :02:31.Then, in 2011, the economy bumped along, growing by 0.5%, then 0.1%,
:02:32. > :02:35.then 0.6% but then, in the last quarter, the economy shrank and
:02:35. > :02:40.then it shrank in the next quarter as well. It fell into recession at
:02:40. > :02:45.the start of 2012. This was the famous double dip as it was the
:02:45. > :02:48.second recession since the crash of 2008. After shrinking for nine
:02:48. > :02:52.months, herald the Olympic boost, which helped the economy return to
:02:52. > :02:58.growth. But then, in the last quarter of 2012, the economy once
:02:58. > :03:03.again shrank by 0.3%. So, if today's figure had been negative,
:03:03. > :03:08.it would have meant another recession and triple dip. But
:03:08. > :03:11.instead, much to the Chancellor's relief it grew - by 0.3%! Well, who
:03:12. > :03:20.better than our guest of the day, Will Hutton to discuss this and
:03:20. > :03:25.Roger Bootle from Capital Economics. I put it to you that, politically
:03:26. > :03:32.and psychologically, this has been a boost for George Osborne.
:03:32. > :03:39.Economically, it is meaningless. agree with you. 0.3%, better than a
:03:39. > :03:46.fall, but it is reputedly week. It has been up and down all over the
:03:46. > :03:53.place but going nowhere. It could be the beginning of a Pickup but it
:03:53. > :04:00.is far too early. The you would not want to talk about green shoots? We
:04:00. > :04:09.to blame the policies of the Chancellor? Partly, yes. -- would
:04:09. > :04:13.you blame? Fiscal policy has been tighter than I would have liked. It
:04:13. > :04:18.is not only the Government. We have extreme weakness in the eurozone.
:04:18. > :04:22.The banks are very weak and real incomes are being squeezed.
:04:22. > :04:26.Inflation is much higher than average wage rises and that is
:04:26. > :04:32.hitting people in the pocket. It is not all the fault of the Government.
:04:32. > :04:37.Would you like there to be a change of direction? We would like to see
:04:37. > :04:41.a boost to public investment. it have been any different had
:04:41. > :04:49.Labour won the election in 2010? Would growth levels look any
:04:49. > :04:55.different? I think they would be a bit higher. Alistair Darling, the
:04:55. > :05:00.then Chancellor, his approach on investment was slightly more
:05:00. > :05:05.accommodating than that of George Osborne. He was going to cut
:05:05. > :05:10.capital spending as well. He was. Things like Regional Development
:05:10. > :05:13.Agency did not have been scrapped. There is geography about this.
:05:13. > :05:18.Production industries and manufacturing within the overall
:05:18. > :05:24.total are well down compared with five years ago. We need to get
:05:24. > :05:30.serious for a second. Here we are, in 2013, five years into the
:05:30. > :05:37.slowest recovery we have seen for more than 100 years. It is really
:05:37. > :05:41.squeezed. Manufacturing is 10% lower than it was five years ago.
:05:41. > :05:47.Production is 13% lower than five years give. We have seen nothing
:05:47. > :05:52.like this in modern times. -- five years ago. If you are watching this
:05:52. > :05:57.programme outside London, in the manufacturing centre in the north-
:05:57. > :06:01.west or Midlands, these parts of the country are in real trouble.
:06:02. > :06:08.Incomes are squeezed. It is desperate conditions for our fellow
:06:08. > :06:11.citizens. I do not think there is any sense of urgency or
:06:11. > :06:20.mobilisation. We have a series of palliatives and tweaks by the
:06:20. > :06:23.Government tried to move towards an industrial policy in banking reform
:06:23. > :06:28.but not determined enough. George Osborne lawyers said that spending
:06:28. > :06:34.more and borrowing more would actually have a more detrimental
:06:34. > :06:38.effect on the economy. Was he wrong? It is all a matter of degree.
:06:38. > :06:44.If the governor where to go on a great spending splurge, that would
:06:44. > :06:48.be self-defeating and extremely dangerous. -- the Government. It
:06:48. > :06:51.would be quite possible to imagine a moderate increase to public
:06:51. > :06:57.investment, funded by more borrowing. The idea the markets are
:06:57. > :07:05.going to take fright is ludicrous. The IMF has said that fiscal policy
:07:05. > :07:10.in Britain is too tight. Two credit agencies have both downgraded
:07:10. > :07:14.British debt, not because of the overwhelming size, but because
:07:14. > :07:21.growth prospects are so weak. That is the heart of it. When you can
:07:21. > :07:26.borrow money for the lowest levels -- at the lowest levels for three
:07:26. > :07:32.years, to not do that and say there is a debt crisis, debt has been
:07:32. > :07:37.much higher during other periods of history. It is not a crisis of
:07:37. > :07:42.public debt. Credibility is very important. To agree it would have
:07:42. > :07:46.been impossible for George Osborne to signal a change because he
:07:46. > :07:53.staked his political career on austerity that he started out on in
:07:53. > :07:56.2010? It would not be easy. That is what politicians were good at. You
:07:57. > :08:00.make a big distinction between public investment and public
:08:00. > :08:09.spending. You call it something different. Gordon Brown was to ring
:08:09. > :08:16.us all the time and there must be a way forward. Let's gauge what
:08:16. > :08:24.people think outside in the real world. It is hard to imagine but
:08:24. > :08:28.there are some people who are not that bothered about economic
:08:28. > :08:33.statistics. They just want to choose a patio. A lot of Cotswold
:08:33. > :08:37.stone in this part of the world. This man has been laying them for
:08:37. > :08:43.40 years. You have been in this game as a builder for about 30
:08:43. > :08:50.years. How are things? In the 80s, fantastic times. Now we have come
:08:50. > :08:57.upon a time where it is basically a struggle. Once upon a time, we
:08:57. > :09:01.would get four, five out of 10 jobs, now we're down to one or two. That
:09:01. > :09:07.is down to a really tight margin everywhere. A lot of guys are going
:09:07. > :09:12.past? Loads in my district. They are hanging on. They are fighting
:09:12. > :09:17.to run the business and supply money to run the workforce. Good
:09:17. > :09:21.luck with your business. Will Hutton mention that construction
:09:21. > :09:27.has been down consistently. No worries about a triple dip in
:09:27. > :09:33.construction - not even a double- dip. The building trade has been in
:09:33. > :09:38.recession - one big long dip since 2008. A lot of guys looking for
:09:38. > :09:44.work will come to Stella's recruitment agency. How is it at
:09:44. > :09:48.the moment? The lot of people from the building and construction trade
:09:48. > :09:52.- the jobs are not there. They are having to take other work in an
:09:53. > :09:58.environment they are not used to. Builders like to work outside. They
:09:58. > :10:03.like to use their skills and maybe not do manual work - do something
:10:03. > :10:07.completely different. The rest of the economy is doing a bit better.
:10:07. > :10:11.There are senior politicians listening to you right now. A
:10:11. > :10:15.message from Westminster? Absolutely. I would like to see
:10:15. > :10:19.more support for people on minimum wage. Help for people to take the
:10:19. > :10:24.low-paid jobs and top them up so they are out working and not at
:10:24. > :10:30.home on benefits. Less regulations or businesses. It is a struggle.
:10:30. > :10:35.You have done my job, giving balance. A minimum wage and
:10:35. > :10:38.deregulation. You will be busy next week. The big Honda factory in
:10:38. > :10:43.Swindon next week begins the process of laying off nearly a
:10:43. > :10:48.third of its workforce - 1000 guys leaving. Simply put, they cannot
:10:48. > :10:55.sell cars in the eurozone like they used to. The man who has been
:10:55. > :11:02.leading negotiations is Jim. Are the 1000 jobs were these guys in
:11:02. > :11:05.Swindon? No. They maybe a few hundred but they will be low-paid,
:11:05. > :11:11.part-time, contracts. Contracts that really ought truly are vacant
:11:11. > :11:16.because nobody wants to do them. always talk about the unemployment
:11:16. > :11:22.number - in work and out of work. You are saying the quality of work
:11:22. > :11:27.has changed. Absolutely. 800 people are living Honda in the next few
:11:27. > :11:33.weeks. They would have been on �30,000 the year on average. They
:11:33. > :11:39.are looking for jobs that replicate that. They do not exist. Things are
:11:39. > :11:49.going to be dire. They are indeed. Is this the world you live in? The
:11:49. > :11:50.
:11:50. > :11:55.world of endless fancy coffees and playing on computers. I have a car
:11:55. > :12:03.crashing game where you have to destroy Big Ben and the London aye.
:12:03. > :12:07.You love it because you made it. I do. These are doing really well.
:12:07. > :12:11.Your whole industry only appeared after the recession started. People
:12:11. > :12:16.seem to have money for all this stuff with tablets and the fancy
:12:16. > :12:26.phones. We started the company in the recession. The Mobot app and
:12:26. > :12:29.
:12:29. > :12:33.gaming industry is booming. We 100 and export to 150 countries. Do you
:12:33. > :12:39.not recognise this? We do but we need to encourage other companies
:12:39. > :12:46.to start and grow. Significant that these gains are free. That has
:12:46. > :12:51.changed the Mobot economy. Interesting. -- the mobile economy.
:12:52. > :12:58.The real guys making real cars up the road are struggling. This man
:12:59. > :13:04.makes virtual cars and he cannot get enough of them. With us is Ed
:13:04. > :13:07.Balls. Let's keep away for virtual and go for reality. We do not have
:13:08. > :13:12.a triple dip recession. That may have been something privately that
:13:12. > :13:17.you would have liked to have seen better has not happened. Totally
:13:17. > :13:23.opposite. It would have been terrible - unprecedented. To be
:13:23. > :13:26.honest, three years of a flatlining economy, more lacklustre fears and
:13:26. > :13:32.family seen living standards fall, construction workers out of work
:13:32. > :13:37.with unemployment higher than 2010. The deficit not coming down. It is
:13:37. > :13:42.a bad situation. I worry that we will see complacency today. They
:13:42. > :13:47.should be realising this is not working. You have heard why in that
:13:47. > :13:53.report. You have to realise that they must change course. White is
:13:53. > :13:57.the public not back your line in terms of a mass majority? -- why
:13:57. > :14:01.does the public? We should have had a big economic stimulus and should
:14:01. > :14:08.be trying to boost the economy by beaming more. It has not happened
:14:08. > :14:12.and still is not happening. -- booming more. If they listen to
:14:12. > :14:17.your question and think, Labour, borrow more, I do not want that.
:14:17. > :14:22.That reinforces a problem. I do not want to borrow more, I want to
:14:22. > :14:26.borrow less. The Chancellor is borrowing 245 billion. Let me
:14:26. > :14:31.explain. He is borrowing will be is his plan has failed and he has not
:14:31. > :14:37.got people back to work and has not got the deficit down. Three years
:14:37. > :14:41.ago - and not many of us were saying this... It is done by a
:14:41. > :14:45.third because in the first year of this government, they inherited
:14:45. > :14:49.from Labour the economy was growing, and implement was coming down.
:14:49. > :14:54.Unemployment is now going up and the deficit is the same this year,
:14:54. > :14:59.at last year and next year. It is not working. The deficit has come
:14:59. > :15:04.down by a third. As you say, it will probably remain unchanged but
:15:04. > :15:07.it has come down by a third. came down in the first year of the
:15:07. > :15:13.Government because of the inheritance from the last Labour
:15:13. > :15:19.government. They flat lined the economy. The OBR forecast has said
:15:19. > :15:29.the deficit reduction plan has stalled - it has stopped. Where
:15:29. > :15:37.
:15:37. > :15:42.would gross be had you been How big was the American stimulus?
:15:42. > :15:46.It was significant. It was huge. Is that what you would have liked to
:15:46. > :15:50.have seen here? They should have been a deficit reduction plan that
:15:50. > :15:54.was slow and steadier. Build houses, guaranteed jobs for young people
:15:54. > :15:58.and got people back to work. News America as the comparison. It
:15:58. > :16:04.was a massive stimulus, probably in the region of 50 billion. What
:16:05. > :16:10.would you have done here? Here, in order to get 4% growth, is that
:16:10. > :16:14.what would have been needed? irony is the stimulus... That's not
:16:14. > :16:20.a stimulus getting people back to work, that's lost tax revenue and
:16:20. > :16:23.more unemployment costs. To be brutally honest, this plan isn't
:16:23. > :16:28.working. A steady approach would have got people back to work, got
:16:28. > :16:31.the economy moving. You need that and long-term reform. Even the IMF
:16:31. > :16:35.are now saying this plan is not working. They've got to slow the
:16:35. > :16:40.pace of deficit reduction, get the economy moving to get the deficit
:16:40. > :16:49.down. How blue -- how big with the stimulus have had to be to get 4%
:16:49. > :16:53.growth? Well, you would have had to do that... You would have had to
:16:53. > :17:02.spend probably two packages in two successive years of around 30
:17:02. > :17:06.billion. Would you have been prepared to do that? 1.5 to 2% GDP.
:17:06. > :17:10.That would have given you a good multiplier of about three or four.
:17:10. > :17:14.You would have probably have to follow through with a second or
:17:14. > :17:21.third year package of a similar magnitude. Without it, with 10 or
:17:21. > :17:26.�12 billion, that wouldn't have got... It's the opposite. He put up
:17:26. > :17:32.VAT. The VAT rise was a disaster has hit a confidence. He said, I'm
:17:32. > :17:39.going to have massive spending cuts and cut capital investment and
:17:39. > :17:43.really clampdown. It was a disaster. Alastair Darling said he would
:17:43. > :17:49.halve the deficit over four years. It is standing at a third. In order
:17:49. > :17:53.to get the growth that has been so elusive, to be realistic about it,
:17:54. > :18:00.the country would have had to have borrowed in the region of 20 to �30
:18:00. > :18:03.billion. Is that right? George Osborne has borrowed 245. I would
:18:03. > :18:05.have said is lower deficit reduction plan, which would have
:18:05. > :18:10.meant the deficit would have come down less fast in the early period
:18:10. > :18:14.but by the end of this Parliament, in my view we would have had longer
:18:14. > :18:20.-- stronger growth and less of a deficit. It is very constraining,
:18:20. > :18:27.there you are, shadow chancellor, and you have to steer this path,
:18:27. > :18:32.but they needed to be a stimulus package of around 30 billion in
:18:32. > :18:35.2010 to 2011. I called for AV a teacup which would have been told.
:18:35. > :18:39.The that would have delivered a higher growth trajectory. You might
:18:39. > :18:43.have followed through with a second one, had things been faltering.
:18:43. > :18:47.This would have been financed at these 300 year low interest rates.
:18:47. > :18:50.But they may not have been that low. That's always been the point from
:18:50. > :18:54.the government. Us interest rates may not have stayed as low as they
:18:54. > :18:59.have done on our debt if there had been a plan to borrow some been in
:18:59. > :19:05.the region of 30 million -- billion. The markets would have freaked.
:19:05. > :19:09.That's nonsense. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I said it at the
:19:09. > :19:13.time. Spending plans. You would have spent a bit more, or you
:19:13. > :19:17.wanted to spend a bit more. We know what the overall spending envelope
:19:17. > :19:21.is going to be in 2015 to 2016, are you going to stick to the
:19:21. > :19:25.Government's spending plans? not going to make any commitment
:19:25. > :19:28.now. It would be irresponsible. I will not make promises until I know
:19:29. > :19:33.how much of the catastrophe George Osborne is going to leave us to
:19:33. > :19:40.inherit. 2 billion more in tax rises, 25 billion more in cuts. We
:19:40. > :19:46.used the -- Will you stick to those broadly? I'm not going to make a
:19:46. > :19:49.budget or Spending Review. Two years ahead, George Osborne, rather
:19:49. > :19:53.than playing political games three years ahead, he should be having a
:19:53. > :19:57.discussion about what he's going to do in the next couple of months.
:19:58. > :20:02.Let's get people back to work, a compulsory jobs guarantee, a house
:20:02. > :20:06.building programme and reform the banks. I do think you should be
:20:06. > :20:10.talking about reform of the banks more. And also innovation and
:20:10. > :20:18.investment. There's a lot of stuff to do. We are going to hear from
:20:18. > :20:21.George Osborne in a moment. Is he here? No, he's just here on film.
:20:21. > :20:26.think these numbers are an encouraging sign that the economy
:20:26. > :20:29.is healing, despite a tough economic situation. We are making
:20:29. > :20:33.progress. The people know there are still difficult decisions to be
:20:33. > :20:37.taken. There's not an easy road ahead. We've got to go on
:20:37. > :20:41.confronting our problems in order to be fit for the future. We have
:20:41. > :20:44.encouraging signs, the deficit is down by a third, over 1 million new
:20:44. > :20:49.jobs have been created in the private sector. But I have never
:20:49. > :20:53.pretended that this is going to be a quick process. That was the
:20:53. > :20:59.Chancellor, George Osborne. We are joined by his number two, the Chief
:20:59. > :21:03.Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander. The Office of National
:21:03. > :21:07.Statistics say GDP is broadly flat for 18 months. George Osborne says
:21:07. > :21:13.that progress. Where's the progress? We've seen figures today
:21:13. > :21:19.that show that in the first quarter of this year, GDP grew by 0.3 %.
:21:19. > :21:23.That is obviously welcome news. pretty flat. Especially given the
:21:23. > :21:26.very tough economic environment in which this country is operating.
:21:26. > :21:29.What we've seen is particularly as a result of a number of factors the
:21:29. > :21:33.OBR have identified, the weight of the financial crisis and the
:21:33. > :21:37.problems in our banking system. The impact of the eurozone crisis on
:21:37. > :21:40.our economy. All of those things have held our economy back Bargh
:21:40. > :21:43.walk. Not just the British economy. Looking at France and Germany in
:21:43. > :21:48.the final quarter of last year and look at what has predicted this
:21:48. > :21:52.year, it is to have an even tougher set of circumstances than the UK.
:21:52. > :21:56.In those circumstances... You think you've done well. The mix of
:21:56. > :22:02.policies we been pursuing is the right one for this country. But it
:22:02. > :22:06.had no effect. It had no effect. If you look at growth, that ONS figure
:22:06. > :22:09.is its broadly flat for 18 months, we are in the same position we were
:22:09. > :22:14.six months ago. If we have a look at rebalancing the economy, would
:22:14. > :22:19.you and your colleague, Vince Cable, had spoken so much about... Where
:22:19. > :22:23.is it? The service sector is now above pre-recession peak.
:22:23. > :22:28.Production, manufacturing and construction are well below.
:22:28. > :22:31.Where's the rebalancing? example, we've seen 1.3 million
:22:31. > :22:36.jobs in the private sector created in this country over the last three
:22:36. > :22:40.years. But answer that question. are seeing Britain exporting cars
:22:41. > :22:46.to the rest of the world, a net exporter of cars, for the first
:22:46. > :22:51.time for 30 years. Through the industrial strategy of Vince Cable
:22:51. > :22:54.four sectors like automotive, aerospace, Hagrid technology and
:22:54. > :22:57.Health Sciences, sectors that are important in many parts of the
:22:58. > :23:01.countries. We are moving away from the obsession with financial
:23:01. > :23:03.services and the City of London, which is what dominated the 13
:23:03. > :23:08.years of Labour government, to a country that is much more focused
:23:08. > :23:12.on building up industries in a wide range of sectors. Coming back to
:23:12. > :23:17.those figures, while production, manufacturing and construction
:23:17. > :23:22.down? For precisely the reasons they give you a moment ago. We are
:23:22. > :23:25.operating in a very tough environment, where the impact of
:23:25. > :23:30.the eurozone crisis, particularly on our exports, it's much more
:23:30. > :23:34.severe than anybody forecast back in 2010. Our policies can't make
:23:34. > :23:43.any difference to that? They can make significant differences to
:23:44. > :23:48.that. So where is it? We also need to grow our exports to the emerging
:23:48. > :23:50.markets of the world, where our performance was lamentable and
:23:50. > :23:54.where we have seen dramatic increases in our exports to those
:23:54. > :23:57.markets over the last three years. What is behind a question is the
:23:57. > :24:01.suggestion that somehow governments can wave a magic wand and deal with
:24:01. > :24:06.what is the most severe financial and economic crisis this country
:24:06. > :24:09.has experienced in modern times. And you can't. What we can do is
:24:09. > :24:13.take the right decisions and tough decisions to rebalance our economy,
:24:13. > :24:21.deal with the big problems and our public finances, key interest rates
:24:21. > :24:24.low and a way that supports businesses to invest. Two points. I
:24:24. > :24:29.think you are laying the foundations of an industrial policy,
:24:29. > :24:35.but its tremulous and timid. The technology strategy board has only
:24:35. > :24:41.got 300 million. It's a budget of a billion a year. You've got these
:24:41. > :24:45.little catapults which are very good ideas, but a fifth of the size
:24:45. > :24:51.of their counterparts in Germany. You are doing things that actually
:24:51. > :24:54.it is done very constrained. Secondly, you need to do it more
:24:54. > :24:59.determinedly. The mantle of austerity constraints, you should
:25:00. > :25:04.be doing more. I don't think you are serious enough about the
:25:04. > :25:07.banking crisis. I actually think we need a bad bank and to put the bad
:25:07. > :25:11.debts of our banks, I think we should be talking about breaking up
:25:11. > :25:16.some of our big banks, thinking seriously about putting the public
:25:16. > :25:18.balance sheet behind new lending. There's a big agenda about putting
:25:19. > :25:23.the banking system back on its feet. I don't think the coalition has
:25:23. > :25:26.been sufficiently serious about these two things, although moving
:25:26. > :25:29.in the right direction over the last few years, but these are very
:25:29. > :25:33.serious times. They are very serious times. I'm grateful for
:25:33. > :25:36.what you said about the industrial strategy. I would add to the things
:25:36. > :25:39.that you have listed, the first time ever the UK government is
:25:39. > :25:43.offering guarantees to major infrastructure projects. We just
:25:43. > :25:46.saw another one announced yesterday. A massive investment in
:25:46. > :25:49.apprenticeships, doubling the number of apprentices in our
:25:49. > :25:53.economy, which has a great way to ensure our population get the
:25:53. > :25:58.skills needed for the sorts of industries you have described.
:25:58. > :26:06.Protecting the science budget, a crucial part... It's not really
:26:06. > :26:09.fair... How do you go about rebalancing the economy? We agree
:26:09. > :26:12.about the direction there. There's an argument about how far we can go
:26:12. > :26:18.and what we can afford to do and the priorities we have all stopped
:26:18. > :26:23.you froze council tax at a tax expenditure of 600 million.
:26:23. > :26:28.could have let council tax to go up and that would have given you 600
:26:28. > :26:32.million to allocate to the science budget and that technology board.
:26:32. > :26:36.These are big calls to make and they are not made, in my view,
:26:36. > :26:39.serious enough in rejuvenating our industrial base. The pressures on
:26:39. > :26:43.household budgets are also a very important part of what we have to
:26:43. > :26:47.try and deal with. And those pressures are getting worse.
:26:47. > :26:54.example, the council tax breeze helps with that. The massive
:26:54. > :27:04.reductions in income tax through the income tax personal... We have
:27:04. > :27:07.
:27:07. > :27:11.championed it, as Liberal Democrats in government. There could steps.
:27:11. > :27:15.No real pay increases for the last few years and, in fact, any real
:27:15. > :27:19.pay increase was the road from February last year to February this
:27:19. > :27:23.year. With inflation running at over 3%, you are not going to have
:27:23. > :27:29.a consumer boom any time soon, are you? Of course you are right that
:27:29. > :27:33.real wages are constrained. So you were worse off. That is a
:27:33. > :27:38.consequence of the very severe economic challenges we face as a
:27:38. > :27:42.country. The actions that we are taking, cutting income tax, Action
:27:42. > :27:46.on Council Tax, reversing the massive increases in fuel duty that
:27:46. > :27:50.Ed Balls had planned for every word in this country. But they are not
:27:50. > :27:53.working against the crisis. This is really important. You should not
:27:53. > :27:58.dismiss them. These are helping people with real pressures that
:27:58. > :28:02.face everybody in this country. We can't just pretend that the
:28:02. > :28:05.financial crisis doesn't exist. Not take the tough decisions necessary
:28:05. > :28:10.to get the public finances back inaudible start but we can help
:28:10. > :28:16.people. In 2010, the economy was predicted to grow by 6.5 %. It's
:28:16. > :28:20.grown by 1.2 %. Ubar admitted we'll pay has not risen. People feel
:28:20. > :28:25.worse off than they did a few years ago. So the policies that you've
:28:25. > :28:29.taken on not working in order to mitigate what may be coming from
:28:30. > :28:34.the eurozone, and that is going to continue. What is going to change?
:28:34. > :28:39.When his growth going to come back in any real sense? I don't agree
:28:39. > :28:44.with your analysis. The Office for Budget Responsibility has analysed
:28:44. > :28:48.what are the reasons why they are forecasting 2010 did not turn out?
:28:48. > :28:52.They have identified three things. When will we see anything like 2%
:28:52. > :28:58.growth? The OBR, who are independent and who we've given the
:28:58. > :29:04.job... Whose forecasts have been wrong almost nine times talk of 10.
:29:04. > :29:09.But they are independent. Their forecasts for growth this year of
:29:09. > :29:13.0.6 %. We've seen 0.3 in the first quarter. They forecast from the
:29:13. > :29:16.growth next year and the year after. We're doing everything we can to
:29:16. > :29:20.reform, strengthen and rebalance our economy in very difficult
:29:20. > :29:23.circumstances. What we will not do his step away from the plan for
:29:23. > :29:30.dealing with the problems of our public finances. It we were to
:29:30. > :29:33.follow Ed Balls' advice, if Labour were in charge, borrowing an extra
:29:33. > :29:41.�200 billion. I think that would jeopardise the confidence and
:29:42. > :29:45.credibility that... Why has the IMF lost faith in your strategy?
:29:45. > :29:50.IMF are coming to this country to do their assessment next month.
:29:50. > :29:54.Let's see what they say. They've told the Chancellor it's worried.
:29:54. > :29:58.They are asking for alternatives are on the budgetary stance. What
:29:58. > :30:02.we've been doing is in line with what the IMF has been recommending.
:30:02. > :30:09.But they are worried about the strategy. We would all like to see
:30:09. > :30:15.more growth in this country. have the scope to do it, Danny.
:30:15. > :30:19.would disagree with the IMF. Your characterisation of the IMF, rather.
:30:19. > :30:25.We will see what they say. If the idea that we should just borrow
:30:25. > :30:28.much more money... Which you are borrowing any weight. And have a
:30:28. > :30:30.consequence of our economy and a weakening of the political
:30:30. > :30:35.commitment to deal with our financial problems, I think that
:30:35. > :30:45.would be catastrophic. The question about being in a state to borrow
:30:45. > :30:50.
:30:50. > :30:56.because interest rate payments are The Government will borrow by the
:30:56. > :31:02.end of this Parliament Bar more than it planned in 2010. It is how
:31:02. > :31:08.you sequence this. Had there been a stimulus package in 2011, you would
:31:08. > :31:12.have had a better chance to have an economy which is improving and
:31:12. > :31:18.rising tax revenues and less public borrowing. It is that kind of thing
:31:18. > :31:25.I have argued for since 2010. The IMF are coming around to it.
:31:25. > :31:32.Interest rates are at a 300 kilos. The stock of public debt is not
:31:32. > :31:40.high. -- a 300 year low. When you go into coalition with Labour after
:31:40. > :31:49.the next election, I'm sure you will be doing it. I disagree with
:31:49. > :31:53.what he just said! I think you know that anyway. Now should we all be
:31:53. > :32:03.on our bike? Well, one man who thinks so is the Olympic cycling
:32:03. > :32:11.
:32:11. > :32:17.gold medalist, Chris Boardman. When I was a cyclist back in the
:32:17. > :32:22.90s, they were seen as oddballs in tights. We had not won a medal
:32:22. > :32:26.since the 1920s. Last year, Bradley Wiggins won the Tour de France and
:32:26. > :32:33.Britain topped the medal table at the Olympic Games. More importantly,
:32:33. > :32:40.all around the country, in cities, towns and villages, as a nation
:32:40. > :32:45.where starting to get on our bikes. -- we are starting. Let's be frank.
:32:45. > :32:51.The way we are travelling is killing us. According to in recent
:32:51. > :32:55.study, there are 5.3 million deaths a year down to inactivity. We need
:32:55. > :33:05.to capitalise on the bicycle as a way to improve the health and
:33:05. > :33:14.wealth of our nation and improve our standard of life. We need to
:33:14. > :33:19.change the culture and we -- about how use our roads. Right now, the
:33:19. > :33:26.philosophy behind all of this is to keep cyclists saved by getting them
:33:26. > :33:30.out of the weight of the cough. -- safe. We need to fundamentally
:33:30. > :33:40.change roads, its streets and communities, making them places for
:33:40. > :33:48.
:33:48. > :33:52.people wear cycling is and feels a British cycling has made a great
:33:52. > :34:02.journey. Now we need a bold vision from government that puts people
:34:02. > :34:02.
:34:02. > :34:08.You are watching the Daily Politics. Irish like to welcome our Scottish
:34:08. > :34:12.viewers who have been watching First Minister's Questions. -- I
:34:12. > :34:16.would like. And Chris Boardman is here and he's been joined by the
:34:16. > :34:20.Transport Minister, Norman Baker. You have your opportunity to put
:34:20. > :34:25.everything you ever asked about why the Government is not doing enough
:34:25. > :34:29.to promote cycling. This is an unusual situation. I know the
:34:29. > :34:33.minister is very supportive of things we want to do. It is not
:34:33. > :34:39.just about cycling, it is a bad transport and Harry do things in
:34:39. > :34:44.this country. -- it is about transport and how we do things. It
:34:44. > :34:51.is not a question of, should we do this? More a question of, if we do
:34:51. > :34:56.not, what will it look like? people feel safe on the roads?
:34:56. > :35:00.is an obstacle in the way. We make decisions emotionally. We do not do
:35:00. > :35:10.it logically. We will do the easiest thing for us right now. If
:35:10. > :35:15.you genuinely want people to shift, you have to make this the easiest
:35:15. > :35:21.thing. How do you do that? start with a philosophy. Keep
:35:21. > :35:27.cyclists saved by ridding them out of the wake of the car. That is not
:35:27. > :35:33.working. -- cyclists safe by moving them out of the way. The philosophy
:35:33. > :35:38.needs to be, how do we make this something that people want to do?
:35:39. > :35:43.From a government point of view, that is quite difficult. Cycling is
:35:43. > :35:49.good for the Environment, good for health and good for the economy, so
:35:49. > :35:54.everyone is signed up to this. People are not cycling any more.
:35:54. > :36:00.They are beginning to. In London, attention has been given to the
:36:00. > :36:04.issue and levels are going up. There is a perception of safety. At
:36:04. > :36:10.least saved thing you can do is to sit around, watching television all
:36:10. > :36:14.day rather than go on your bike. is quite intimidating if you are
:36:14. > :36:19.riding around the centre of London, particularly if you are not a
:36:19. > :36:24.brilliant cyclist and you are not very confident. People do want
:36:25. > :36:29.separation from cars. In some places, it is appropriate. In other
:36:29. > :36:36.places, it is possible to arrange the vote in a way that cyclists can
:36:36. > :36:46.feel safe. In London may feel safer because there are more of them.
:36:46. > :36:50.Where it is unsafe if you only have a few of a day. I lived in
:36:50. > :36:58.Switzerland where there were cycle parks especially built. The same
:36:58. > :37:04.story in Austria. Even in parts of New England. It seems to me a
:37:04. > :37:10.friend of mine, whose son is a keen cyclist, a few of his friends have
:37:10. > :37:19.died in cycling instance. It is not very safe - cycling. I want to
:37:19. > :37:24.cycle. I came here on Boris bike. It is perilous. Getting more of a
:37:24. > :37:29.sense of drivers being more careful about cyclists but also being well
:37:29. > :37:35.protected places for cyclists to cycle. I do not agree it is
:37:35. > :37:45.perilous. You do not think so. How many near-misses have you had?
:37:45. > :37:45.
:37:45. > :37:52.cannot remember. I'm not saying there have are not been accidents,
:37:52. > :37:56.there have. I want speed limits to be reduced to 20 miles an hour.
:37:56. > :38:03.They are putting up mirrors at junctions. Where it is unsafe is
:38:03. > :38:10.where lorries and buses turn left and catch cyclists on the inside.
:38:10. > :38:17.Those things will happen, or will they? What about local councils? Do
:38:17. > :38:22.they not make decisions which would help locally? They do. There is a
:38:22. > :38:28.brand new sum of money into Jews by the Government. 96 different
:38:28. > :38:32.cycling schemes which deal with safety issues and off-road issues.
:38:32. > :38:36.Wouldn't we like to have cities more like Amsterdam and cities in
:38:37. > :38:42.Switzerland and Germany? We all would. What is the level of
:38:42. > :38:46.commitment to make that happen? Funding has been announced and that
:38:46. > :38:51.is all positive. If you put that into perspective, that is what
:38:51. > :38:56.needs to be looked at. We need to incorporate this into how we get
:38:56. > :39:02.around. This document that came out yesterday - There is one sentence
:39:02. > :39:05.in it which is more important than anything else. The recommendation
:39:05. > :39:15.is a statue to require that cyclists and pedestrians need to
:39:15. > :39:15.
:39:15. > :39:20.continue at an early stage of any to that meant. -- a statutory
:39:21. > :39:26.requirement. Is there going to be a statutory commitment? We will look
:39:26. > :39:34.at all the recommendations. That sounds like a gnome. It is not. The
:39:34. > :39:37.document came out yesterday. -- 8 no. He said it was about changing a
:39:37. > :39:45.philosophy could changing a mine said the DUP that needs to happen
:39:45. > :39:48.if you're going to change the whole culture. -- changing a mindset.
:39:48. > :39:56.will look at that seriously. Another suggestion we will also
:39:56. > :40:03.look at. No suggestion. We want more people cycling and more safely.
:40:03. > :40:10.What about helmets? Do you wear a helmet when cycling? I do not tend
:40:10. > :40:19.to wear a helmet on Boris bike. Otherwise I do. He did not wear a
:40:19. > :40:24.helmet in that film. You would have to wear a helmet walking. It is a
:40:24. > :40:33.safe thing to do, as Norman said. 800 times around the world per Si
:40:33. > :40:40.King death. It is perceived safety that is important. -- per cycling
:40:40. > :40:44.death. It would be better to wear a helmet. I do not wear one either. I
:40:44. > :40:54.think it is a safe activity. A lot of people would not cyclic they had
:40:54. > :41:01.to wear a helmet. If you cut people out of it, be is not a benefit.
:41:01. > :41:04.get where you are going. -- it is not a benefit. Last night, peers
:41:04. > :41:07.were asked to vote on the Government's plans for the NHS.
:41:07. > :41:11.Depending on who you believe, the changes will lead to privatisation
:41:11. > :41:13.and the end of the NHS as we know it. Or they will build on New
:41:13. > :41:21.Labour's reforms, improving efficiency and quality by boosting
:41:21. > :41:25.competition. It was a lively debate. You cannot always said that about
:41:25. > :41:30.the House of Lords. A former Health Minister in the new Labour
:41:30. > :41:35.government was taking part. Dr Lucy Reynolds is an adviser to the
:41:35. > :41:41.National Health Action Party. You voted against your party, with the
:41:41. > :41:44.Government, saying that opening up to more commercial er organisations
:41:44. > :41:49.and delivering health services is a big thing. People love it but they
:41:49. > :41:53.get worried that you are privatising by the back door.
:41:53. > :41:57.is no back door. I was voting for the policy under Labour before the
:41:57. > :42:01.last election. I was implementing that when I was Health Minister in
:42:01. > :42:06.a Labour government. The people who have shifted their position up
:42:06. > :42:10.parts of the Labour Party. We have always had to operate within the
:42:10. > :42:14.framework of EU competition law. These EU regulations last I put
:42:14. > :42:18.into statutory form the procurement guidance which was issued by the
:42:18. > :42:22.Labour government. Why not make the NHS better at delivering services
:42:22. > :42:27.that people want rather than selling them out to other people?
:42:27. > :42:30.We're giving clinical commissioning groups, run by GPs, who are
:42:30. > :42:34.themselves small businessmen, to actually make decisions on behalf
:42:34. > :42:40.of patients as to what the best service provider is for people in
:42:40. > :42:50.their area. People buy it and I large are not that upset who
:42:50. > :42:52.
:42:52. > :42:57.provides the service as long as it Is actually said the public cares
:42:57. > :43:01.about whether the service is public or private. That is the rub. When
:43:01. > :43:07.you operate services, in order to generate as much money as possible
:43:07. > :43:15.rather than optimising patient care, what you get a his services which
:43:15. > :43:20.are not terribly good for patients. -- what you get his services. In
:43:20. > :43:28.Cornwall, Serco took on an out-of- hours service and they had one GP
:43:28. > :43:34.on for the entire county. Now there has been a speech saying they were
:43:34. > :43:40.not out-of-hours services at will. Isn't one thing a principal problem
:43:40. > :43:46.or is it fundamentally wrong in your opinion? It is not wrong for
:43:46. > :43:51.me as a concept battle. It is wrong because it is more expensive. -- a
:43:51. > :43:57.concept at all. It diverts resources away from delivering
:43:57. > :44:01.decent care towards generating as much money as possible. An example
:44:01. > :44:07.is the general health care group. Lord Warner is an adviser to that
:44:07. > :44:14.group. It has been reported that has been the case. Is it true?
:44:14. > :44:18.is not true. I was an adviser five years ago. That it is owned by a
:44:18. > :44:23.consortium headed by a South African country, whose senior staff
:44:23. > :44:28.have been found guilty of selling trafficked kidneys from miners.
:44:28. > :44:34.This is not somebody we want involved in a health service care
:44:34. > :44:40.delivery. They have been pressing the Government harder. If the sort
:44:40. > :44:42.of people we are talking about are in there just to make money, should
:44:42. > :44:46.the public are worried about that? I do not think that is what they
:44:46. > :44:51.are doing. If you are going to shut at independent sector providers,
:44:51. > :44:56.you're shutting out voluntary organisations, shutting out a load
:44:56. > :44:59.of people who are currently working in partnership with the NHS from
:44:59. > :45:08.the voluntary, private and social enterprise sectors, working with
:45:08. > :45:18.the NHS. It is equally regulated in the private sector as the NHS.
:45:18. > :45:19.
:45:19. > :45:29.Thank you. Hotly-contested debate. Would you like to see something
:45:29. > :45:29.
:45:29. > :45:39.more like this during the Ike for President, Ike for
:45:39. > :45:40.
:45:40. > :45:50.President. We don't want Jon Lord Dean or Harry. Let's get in step
:45:50. > :45:52.
:45:52. > :46:02.with Ike. You like Ike, I like Ike. Everybody likes Ike. Travel day and
:46:02. > :46:07.
:46:07. > :46:12.night. We'll all go with Ike. Ike for President. We'll take Ike to
:46:12. > :46:21.Washington! Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the aid
:46:21. > :46:23.of their country. That was a television advert from 1956. For
:46:23. > :46:27.Eisenhower's presidential campaign. One man who thinks the rules on
:46:27. > :46:31.political advertising in this country should be relaxed is the
:46:31. > :46:38.Conservative MP George Eustace, who's got a shiny new job in the
:46:38. > :46:43.Number 10 policy unit. Is this what we can look forward to if you get
:46:43. > :46:47.your way on political advertising? Dave, for Prime Minister? We ought
:46:47. > :46:52.to review the way we approach this as a country. We are too easily
:46:52. > :46:55.dismissive of the way most other democratic Stewart. People say they
:46:55. > :46:59.don't want Cross, negative advertising like they have in the
:46:59. > :47:02.US, but most other European countries allow some form of
:47:02. > :47:06.political advertising, as do countries like Australia, who have
:47:07. > :47:10.the same political culture as ours. You need a mixed diet for democracy
:47:10. > :47:14.to work. You need the rough-and- tumble of the newspapers, the
:47:14. > :47:18.attempt at impartiality from the broadcasters. It's a genuine
:47:18. > :47:21.attempt, but it's always from a particular perspective. People like
:47:22. > :47:25.Nick Robinson are almost the arbiters of truth in a given story.
:47:25. > :47:29.But we also need more direct communication between political
:47:29. > :47:33.parties and the electorate. will it improve our democratic
:47:33. > :47:38.state? It will enable political parties to set out clearly what
:47:38. > :47:41.they want to achieve. I think that is important in a democracy.
:47:41. > :47:46.Otherwise too often with the media coverage we have it is who's up,
:47:46. > :47:49.whose dam, who's fallen out with food. Or the public say they don't
:47:49. > :47:53.understand is what political parties are standing for at the end
:47:53. > :47:58.of that political process. Ward direct communication is a good
:47:58. > :48:05.thing. What do you think of that? understand where you're coming from.
:48:05. > :48:08.I think democracy is about arguments. One of the strengths of
:48:08. > :48:15.the democratic system is that politicians have to get into the
:48:15. > :48:20.broadcasting studios, and they do get taken on rather effectively by
:48:20. > :48:24.most of our cross-examining presenters. I'm uneasy about moving
:48:24. > :48:33.to an Americanisation of British politics, where you can set out
:48:33. > :48:37.your stall in an unblemished weight, no criticism. I don't think it will
:48:37. > :48:42.enhance trust in politics. I do think there's a problem with our
:48:42. > :48:45.media more widely, and they do think there's a problem about the
:48:45. > :48:50.way that politicians are held by the public. I don't think you are a
:48:50. > :48:52.bunch of untrustworthy Roques, all out to further your nest - which is
:48:52. > :48:58.the widely held perception or so most people I come across genuinely
:48:58. > :49:02.want to make the world better. But I'm not certain, and beyond not
:49:02. > :49:06.certain, I'm absolutely certain that slicker political
:49:06. > :49:11.advertisement is not the solution. We've already recognise the
:49:11. > :49:14.importance of parties communicating directly, that's why we have party
:49:14. > :49:19.political broadcasts. We could modernise that, so rather than
:49:19. > :49:24.having four minutes and 40 seconds long broadcasts, maybe give 15th
:49:24. > :49:27.lots of one minute. People will see those party broadcasts and there's
:49:27. > :49:30.a better chance that people will go to the ballot box informed of what
:49:30. > :49:36.the parties actually stand for. Let's have another look at an
:49:36. > :49:40.example of what we could have. Celebrity endorsements have been
:49:40. > :49:50.around for quite a while. Let's have a look from J F K's 1960
:49:50. > :49:56.
:49:56. > :50:01.presidential campaign, and see if # Everyone is calling for Jack.
:50:01. > :50:11.# Because he's got what all the rest lack.
:50:11. > :50:12.
:50:12. > :50:15.If you had political advertising in Britain, it wouldn't have an
:50:15. > :50:20.American accent. America has a slightly different political
:50:20. > :50:23.culture to us. In Britain, it would be with a British accent and it
:50:23. > :50:28.would be much more subtle. It wouldn't be brash and have people
:50:28. > :50:35.singing and dancing. How do you know? It might be exactly like that.
:50:36. > :50:39.That sort of thing would not work with the British public. So we
:50:39. > :50:43.wouldn't have adverts in Britain that didn't work with the British
:50:43. > :50:46.public, we'd have adverts that people would find persuasive and be
:50:46. > :50:52.willing to listen to. Having political adverts doesn't mean
:50:52. > :50:57.American accents. What's the problem that this initiative is
:50:57. > :51:02.trying to solve? It is basically to make sure that the electorate have
:51:02. > :51:06.a mixed diet. I'm not saying let's replace broadcast news bulletins,
:51:06. > :51:11.they are the single most important source of information... Is it
:51:11. > :51:17.because you've got money to burn? If there isn't a potent enough
:51:17. > :51:21.reason to do it except to increase, in the voters' minds, the presence
:51:21. > :51:25.of a particular party? All the parties now have quite hard
:51:25. > :51:29.restrictions on what they can spend. They are all limited. So this idea
:51:29. > :51:34.that it means people with deep pockets will have we more to spend
:51:34. > :51:39.is not true. You want to flex up the system so there'll one-minute
:51:39. > :51:45.bulletins and not four minute bulletins, many more of them.
:51:45. > :51:48.you look at Australia, people who work in politics there say if they
:51:49. > :51:52.get incredibly unfair coverage in the news and the story goes against
:51:52. > :51:55.them, and this can happen to political parties for reasons that
:51:55. > :51:59.are beyond their control, and if they believe they are not being
:51:59. > :52:03.heard properly and their policies misunderstood, they can put down
:52:03. > :52:07.some broadcasting and adverts and explain to people what they really
:52:07. > :52:10.bad - that really stand for. That can't be a bad thing. Negative
:52:10. > :52:15.adverts is one of the biggest complaints about American political
:52:15. > :52:19.advertising, and that would happen here. We already have some negative
:52:19. > :52:24.political advertising. I don't want to see more of it. I don't think
:52:24. > :52:28.that is what would happen. We have restrictions already on party
:52:28. > :52:32.political broadcasts. You can't, for instance, used footage of your
:52:32. > :52:36.opponents without their permission. The Read my lips attack on George
:52:36. > :52:46.Bush would have been banned in Britain, even under our existing
:52:46. > :52:47.
:52:47. > :52:51.broadcast rules. What are you doing in your new job? It's very much
:52:51. > :52:54.about giving us a more political engagement on the policy... Be cos
:52:54. > :52:59.there's been a lack of it and there needs to be more input from the
:52:59. > :53:03.backbenches? We are going into a phase now, it's absolutely natural
:53:03. > :53:08.that you would want to have a stronger political leader and
:53:08. > :53:12.stronger political involvement. What does that mean, what political
:53:12. > :53:16.lead would you like to see? What policy would you like to see go out
:53:16. > :53:21.there now? For having just accepted this role this morning, I'm not
:53:21. > :53:25.going to go out and say what it might be. But this is a process
:53:25. > :53:29.that starts do to do thinking, both for the end of this Parliament and
:53:29. > :53:32.for the next Parliament as well. It is really to make sure that we get
:53:32. > :53:36.engagement from all the talents in the party. We have some very
:53:36. > :53:40.talented people, some of them have served on committees and have a lot
:53:40. > :53:45.of expertise in lots of different areas. We want to make sure we get
:53:45. > :53:50.that involved in the policy process. How his morale? It's very good.
:53:50. > :53:52.We've undoubtedly had a difficult year. But what is true is over the
:53:52. > :53:58.last few weeks, there's a feeling we have turned that corner and
:53:58. > :54:01.people are getting back in the saddle. This afternoon, MPs and
:54:01. > :54:05.peers will be taking part in an ancient ritual. It's not the summer
:54:05. > :54:10.solstice and, no, no one, not even David Cameron will be donning a
:54:10. > :54:13.white dress and dishing out flowers. It is the prorogation of Parliament.
:54:13. > :54:19.If you don't know what it is, don't panic, because we have the world
:54:19. > :54:22.expert on hand to explain it all. Prorogation, it's a word that just
:54:23. > :54:27.doesn't seem to come up in everyday language, but round here they've
:54:27. > :54:30.talked of little else for the last few days. They are all asking -
:54:30. > :54:36.when his prorogation? But more importantly, how do you spell at
:54:36. > :54:38.and what exactly is it? Well, it's a message from the Queen, red in
:54:39. > :54:41.the Chamber of the House of Lords, essentially bringing down the
:54:42. > :54:46.curtain on this session of Parliament. In other words, the
:54:46. > :54:49.extreme opposite to the State Opening of Parliament. The
:54:49. > :54:53.government have finally persuaded both Houses to accept its
:54:53. > :54:57.legislation. Amendments have been batting to-and-fro all week between
:54:57. > :55:03.the Lords and Commons. It is a process known as parliamentary
:55:03. > :55:08.ping-pong, or with Waqar, as Boris would no doubt call it. So what
:55:08. > :55:11.happens? When the legislation is all done and dusted and sent for
:55:11. > :55:15.Royal Assent, the leader in the House of Lords reads the message on
:55:15. > :55:20.behalf of the Queen. It not being personally convenient for Her
:55:20. > :55:24.Majesty to attend, in fact, no monarch has bothered to turn a Sin
:55:24. > :55:28.City 54. You will have noticed they're wearing some extremely
:55:28. > :55:33.fetching ropes and hats. Perhaps perform an age-old constitutional
:55:33. > :55:37.function. Well, they don't actually, but they do look good. If you are a
:55:37. > :55:41.lord, you have to doff them in unison to greet MPs who walked down
:55:41. > :55:45.the corridor from the Commons. If you are a baroness, you don't have
:55:45. > :55:50.to bother. You may notice some lords are rather better at it than
:55:50. > :55:53.others. The MPs listen to royal assent being formally announced. It
:55:53. > :55:59.is one of the oldest ceremonies in Parliament. And then the Clarke
:55:59. > :56:04.says... If you're Norman French isn't up to it, you may not have
:56:04. > :56:09.understood a word, but that's what I'm paid for. It means the Queen
:56:09. > :56:15.wishes it. The monarch can refuse a bill, but they haven't done so for
:56:15. > :56:18.over 300 years, 1707, I checked! It's all over and the MPs troop
:56:18. > :56:22.back to the Commons, where the speaker makes another statement
:56:22. > :56:25.before shaking every one of them by the hand. It's the last time they
:56:25. > :56:32.will be in the chamber until that much grander occasion, the State
:56:32. > :56:42.Opening of Parliament, usually just will be on the three-line whip to
:56:42. > :56:46.attend. And Daniel is with us now. Is this really all still necessary?
:56:46. > :56:52.Absolutely, otherwise the session couldn't end. You might ask, is it
:56:52. > :56:58.a little involved? You might say prorogation makes the State Opening
:56:58. > :57:02.look quite a logical ceremony. It is complicated, there's a lot of
:57:02. > :57:06.bowing. But essentially, it's doing what it has always done through the
:57:06. > :57:10.entire history of Parliament, which is bringing down the session. The
:57:10. > :57:14.leader of the Lords will begin by saying, it's not being personally
:57:14. > :57:19.convenient for Her Majesty to attend. It hasn't been personally
:57:19. > :57:24.convenient for about 150 years. It hasn't been personally convenient
:57:24. > :57:34.to give Royal Assent in person either. Do you like the sort of
:57:34. > :57:35.
:57:35. > :57:39.thing? My own view is that we hear this Norman the French being spoken.
:57:39. > :57:44.You are aware how deep-rooted the constitution is. And it is now
:57:44. > :57:54.written constitution. All this procedure and protocol masks still
:57:54. > :57:57.
:57:57. > :58:03.a very regal way that our ministers have power. Ministers rule with a
:58:03. > :58:07.great deal of executive discretion, which has its roots in one of your
:58:07. > :58:13.government, which shows itself up in wearing the roads and doffing
:58:13. > :58:18.caps. My own view is it would be fantastic if we could start again.
:58:18. > :58:22.But we are never going to, so here we are. It's interesting, because
:58:22. > :58:26.the Queen has her own office in the House of Lords. Being head of state
:58:26. > :58:29.has taken quite seriously. The Crown has an office in the House of
:58:29. > :58:39.Lords, dealing with all the matters that endlessly, about the Queen as
:58:39. > :58:40.
:58:40. > :58:44.being head of state. Happy prorogation is all I'm saying!
:58:44. > :58:49.Thanks to all our guests. The news is starting on BBC One now. Andrew