:00:43. > :00:46.Daily Politics. As evidence grows that the Syrian regime is using
:00:46. > :00:52.chemical weapons against its own people, so does pressure on Britain
:00:52. > :00:57.and the West to help the rebels. We'll talk to one MP urging the
:00:57. > :01:04.Prime Minister to seek Parliamentary approval before we do. Who's right
:01:04. > :01:09.about A&E in England? Ed Miliband or David Cameron? After their spat at
:01:09. > :01:12.Prime Minister's Questions we'll try to establish the facts. After a big
:01:12. > :01:16.week for the two Eds, is Labour on the road to economic credibility or
:01:16. > :01:25.has it just stopped digging the hole it's in? We'll put that to rising
:01:25. > :01:29.Labour star Liz Kendall. Take a look at this little beauty. Top speed?
:01:29. > :01:39.49mph! Fast! But what's happened to Government plans to raise the limit
:01:39. > :01:43.
:01:43. > :01:48.Queen might have visited New Broadcasting House this morning but
:01:48. > :01:55.here in Millbank. We've got Fleet Street royalty. Polly Toynbee of The
:01:55. > :02:00.Guardian. And Anne McElvoy, of The Economist. Welcome to you both.
:02:00. > :02:02.Let's start with the lobbying scandal. The BBC Panorama
:02:02. > :02:06.investigation that started it all was finally broadcast last night.
:02:06. > :02:11.Controversy has raged all week with one MP and three peers alleged to be
:02:11. > :02:19.implicated in wrong-doing. And the announcement that the government
:02:19. > :02:21.would introduce a long-awaited lobbying register. Conservative MP
:02:21. > :02:25.Patrick Mercer resigned the Tory whip after claims that he broke
:02:25. > :02:34.Parliament's lobbying rules. Here's a clip of Mr Mercer, talking to a
:02:34. > :02:44.fake lobbyist, in the BBC sting. mention something about getting
:02:44. > :03:20.
:03:20. > :03:25.traction with the FCO? Well it all could do for what he thought was a
:03:25. > :03:29.lobbyist. I mean, what is guilty of, no doubt, will come out in time, but
:03:29. > :03:34.shouldn't he really be charged under that the trades description act for
:03:34. > :03:39.making out that all-party groups of MPs matter at all? That is possibly
:03:39. > :03:44.true, but it's still an unpleasant and greasy site to see that.
:03:44. > :03:49.Basically, hawking his wares. Whether or not they are as he
:03:49. > :03:55.describes, he put his hand up to his ear when the guy says it's not that
:03:55. > :03:58.easy when clearly he's not sure what is talking about but, nonetheless,
:03:58. > :04:03.the appearance you are trading favours is bad enough, and the
:04:03. > :04:06.preparedness to do so is certainly contravention of his duties as an
:04:06. > :04:11.MP. Whether he could bring home the bacon would've been a problem for
:04:11. > :04:15.him. He would have had the money in the bank by then. And that's the
:04:15. > :04:22.problem. I think he should be done for crass stupidity. Anybody that
:04:22. > :04:25.stupid should not be allowed to enter the Commons. That's a high bar
:04:25. > :04:32.there. For 20 years now, any lobbyist going into the Commons with
:04:32. > :04:35.loads of money is certainly from the Sunday Times. Certainly. A fake
:04:35. > :04:43.somebody from somewhere. Wouldn't you say that coming from 1 million
:04:43. > :04:46.miles away? He had not even bothered to look it up to see if it existed
:04:46. > :04:51.or not? That would be the real purpose of a register. If you had a
:04:51. > :04:57.register and somebody approached you, you could check it on the
:04:57. > :04:59.register. That's the reason why the register never get off the ground
:05:00. > :05:05.because it really helps people trying to do a deal. It doesn't help
:05:05. > :05:08.the rest of us very much. government, which is do nothing
:05:08. > :05:16.about the register for three years, now Russia is one outcome and then,
:05:16. > :05:18.from its own point of, quite cleverly links to bashing union
:05:18. > :05:26.financing of the Labour Party. Extraordinary because when Labour
:05:26. > :05:31.was in partly dashed party, Jack Straw and others were determined
:05:31. > :05:35.this would be done fairly in a cross-party agreement and it never
:05:35. > :05:39.happened because they could not get that and now suddenly, this
:05:39. > :05:44.government says, let's wallop labour and leave it at that. It is at the
:05:44. > :05:48.unfair. If we are going to have a fair and decent and clean system of
:05:48. > :05:55.party financing, it ought to be state funded. It is the lesser of
:05:55. > :05:59.many evils. I think we have to go for that and a great between the
:05:59. > :06:03.parties. I'm told Mr Clegg is happy to go along with this bit of union
:06:03. > :06:08.bashing because he's fed up when he goes back to Sheffield being
:06:08. > :06:13.constantly verbally beaten up by the local government public sector
:06:13. > :06:20.unions there. It's turned into a kind of anti-unionist. It's amazing
:06:20. > :06:23.what too much contact with the trade unions can do to the left. I'm not a
:06:23. > :06:27.fan of state funding and I think it has a lot of head and looks and
:06:27. > :06:36.crannies of its own which can become problematic, but I'm not sure the
:06:36. > :06:39.register as it is conceived will stop this thing happening again.
:06:39. > :06:42.Let's see what happens. I suspect people are disappointed Mr Mercer
:06:42. > :06:45.gets to stay in the House of Commons for another two years. And does not
:06:45. > :06:48.have to resign his seat straightaway and can carry on doing its own
:06:48. > :06:51.expenses. Last month the EU lifted its arms embargo on Syria with
:06:51. > :06:54.Britain and France making the case that they should open up the
:06:54. > :06:57.possibility of arming Syrian rebels. And the argument for that is growing
:06:57. > :07:03.stronger as more evidence emerges that the Assad regime has used
:07:03. > :07:06.chemical weapons against its own people. But MPs from all parties who
:07:06. > :07:09.fear the consequences of any such intervention are putting pressure on
:07:09. > :07:15.the Government to commit to a vote in the House of Commons before a
:07:15. > :07:18.decision is taken. Here's one of them, Conservative Julian Lewis,
:07:18. > :07:28.asking David Cameron about the issue at Prime Minister's Questions on
:07:28. > :07:34.
:07:34. > :07:39.Can the Prime Minister confirmed that he will recall Parliament
:07:39. > :07:45.before any action is taken to arm the Syrian opposition during the
:07:45. > :07:49.recess? I have never been someone who is wanted a stand against the
:07:49. > :07:53.house having to say on any of these issues, and I've always been someone
:07:53. > :07:57.early on to make sure that Parliament is recalled to discuss
:07:57. > :08:01.important issues, let me stress, as I did on Monday, no decision has
:08:01. > :08:06.been taken to arm the rebels, so I don't think this issue arises, but,
:08:06. > :08:09.as I say, I support holding that vote on Iraq. In my premiership,
:08:09. > :08:19.Wenger was the issue of Libya, I recall the issue of Libya, I
:08:19. > :08:21.recalled as soon as I possibly could and I know it has to have a vote,
:08:21. > :08:23.but this issue does not arise at present because we have made no
:08:23. > :08:27.decision to arm the rebels. Well, that the Minister yesterday
:08:27. > :08:33.answering Julian Lewis who joins us now. Andrew Lansley added a bit.
:08:33. > :08:39.Tell us, Julian, as we sit here this morning, on the issue of arming the
:08:39. > :08:42.rebels, what have you got? I am wholly opposed to arm in the rebels
:08:42. > :08:50.and that is for the same reason I was in favour of previous military
:08:50. > :08:52.intervention. I didn't mean on the subject but what have you got in
:08:52. > :08:57.Parliamentary terms? Do you believe the government cannot do it unless
:08:57. > :09:02.it puts it before the house and gets a vote? I believe the government
:09:03. > :09:07.could proceed without a vote but they would be unwise to do so and I
:09:07. > :09:11.also believe that if they put it to a vote, the portability if they
:09:11. > :09:16.would lose. What did you get from the leader of the house yesterday?
:09:16. > :09:21.The implication from David Cameron was I will recall the house if we
:09:21. > :09:25.are in the summer recess. Andrew Lansley, the leader of the house,
:09:25. > :09:30.suggesting there would be a vote. How bankable are these commitments?
:09:30. > :09:36.I don't know, I wasn't at that session yesterday. But my
:09:36. > :09:38.understanding is we are slowly decreasing the wriggle room of the
:09:38. > :09:40.government. If the government thought they were going to be able
:09:40. > :09:45.to get this through behind Parliament 's back, during the
:09:45. > :09:50.recess, they will have to think again. The implication is that the
:09:50. > :09:55.government could still have some wriggle room? I think they could
:09:55. > :10:04.proceed to give the arms to the rebels and then seek Parliamentary
:10:04. > :10:11.approval after it was a say to complete -- once it was done.
:10:11. > :10:17.this becomes a major issue in the summer recess, when Parliament is
:10:17. > :10:22.down, should Parliament be recalled before the government proceeds to
:10:22. > :10:25.arm the rebels? Yes, that was the point of my question to the Prime
:10:25. > :10:30.Minister on Wednesday. But you don't think you have a clear answer to
:10:30. > :10:36.that? He is moving closer to the position I want to take wishes to
:10:36. > :10:40.say the rebels will not be sent arms by the British unless and until
:10:40. > :10:45.Parliament has voted in favour of it. But he has not said it
:10:45. > :10:54.explicitly yet. Why should Parliament be called for arming the
:10:54. > :10:58.rebels? It's in a different category from Britain sending troops to Iraq
:10:58. > :11:03.or Afghanistan or even troops to Syria. I think on the president of
:11:03. > :11:10.what happened in Libya, you can see what was presented parliament them,
:11:10. > :11:13.as a no-fly zone, turned out in reality to be an active air to
:11:13. > :11:20.ground campaign on behalf of one side in a civil war and we had a
:11:20. > :11:26.vote on that. No one so far is suggesting that the British armed
:11:26. > :11:31.forces get involved in Syria either from the air or on the ground.
:11:31. > :11:36.that case, the government is dammed if it does or doesn't. If it
:11:36. > :11:40.proposes simply to hand over arms without having any sort of presence
:11:40. > :11:44.as to how the people will be instructed to use them, how they
:11:44. > :11:49.will be used in conflict, and who will get their hands on them, if
:11:50. > :11:53.they simply say, we are going to parachute a great supply of lethal
:11:53. > :11:58.military equipment and let them get on with it, I think you would
:11:58. > :12:01.typically find it didn't work out like that. This would be the foot in
:12:01. > :12:05.the door towards military intervention or otherwise it's even
:12:05. > :12:11.more stupid than I think the government's declared policy at the
:12:11. > :12:15.moment is. A lot of people wouldn't argument that a lot of people would
:12:15. > :12:21.not argue, if we went to war, they need arms, but I'm sure the Foreign
:12:21. > :12:26.Office sees it this way, that this is the commons trying to determine
:12:26. > :12:32.foreign policy. I think they need to express a view and have an
:12:32. > :12:36.opportunity to express it on a proposal to assist one side in a
:12:36. > :12:40.Civil War where our deadliest enemies, Al-Qaeda, are fighting on
:12:41. > :12:45.the side we are proposing to assist and the people who they are trying
:12:45. > :12:51.to overthrow, have got a stock of deadly nerve gases, which would more
:12:51. > :12:55.likely than not, fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda. A lot of Conservative
:12:55. > :13:00.backbenchers agree with you? Definitely. You could join the
:13:00. > :13:04.labour this came to a vote. If you join Labour and some Liberal
:13:04. > :13:10.Democrats, too, the government may not get this policy through
:13:10. > :13:15.Commons. That is exactly my view. I believe what is going to happen is
:13:15. > :13:21.that Labour, if the government is unwise enough to try and circumvent
:13:21. > :13:26.Parliament, Labour will probably make some of its opposition day time
:13:26. > :13:30.available and then we could have a debate on the basis that this should
:13:30. > :13:34.not proceed without Parliament being recalled first and what's more, I,
:13:34. > :13:38.and I know plenty of other people in the Conservative and Liberal
:13:38. > :13:44.Democrat parties, would be happy to co-sponsor a motion of that sort.
:13:44. > :13:48.Brought by the Labour Party and before the summer recess? On a
:13:48. > :13:52.cross-party basis, simply that the Labour Party would facilitate it as
:13:52. > :13:56.having the time to have the debate, which Parliament should certainly
:13:56. > :14:01.have anyway and which I'm sure the government would want to do if it
:14:01. > :14:07.thought Parliament was on its side. It seems to me that the Prime
:14:07. > :14:10.Minister is room for manoeuvre is getting more confined. Events have
:14:10. > :14:16.made it so it's hard to avoid bringing this before Parliament,
:14:16. > :14:20.even in a recess and it's by no means clear he could win a vote if
:14:20. > :14:24.it did go before the Commons. think you properly wouldn't and what
:14:25. > :14:27.he said in the Commons was merely a pledge. It's interesting because it
:14:27. > :14:33.opens up a whole lot of questions which you suggested. Should we have
:14:33. > :14:37.a vote in Parliament every time we sell weapons to anybody? We sell
:14:37. > :14:42.weapons to everybody, Saudi Arabia. If we had a proper open discussion
:14:42. > :14:45.about that, I think a lot of our arms sales would come a stop. What's
:14:45. > :14:52.being proposed now, I totally understand and I completely
:14:52. > :14:54.sympathise with Cameron's feelings. We must do something when we see
:14:54. > :15:01.appalling things happen and go in there and support the good guys but
:15:01. > :15:03.I agree with Julian, it's not practical. This is an interesting
:15:03. > :15:07.Parliamentary technicality. It's important but does not answer the
:15:07. > :15:12.question which is really the vital one, which is what to do about
:15:13. > :15:18.Syria, the situation with President Assad. Coming from the American
:15:18. > :15:22.perspective, the leaders in all this, Barack Obama is looking like
:15:22. > :15:27.Clinton in Bosnia, allowing a budget on a massive scale, and the rise of
:15:27. > :15:31.Al-Qaeda and this it seems to me, seems to be the more important
:15:31. > :15:36.point. I'm worried about binding the hands of the executive and
:15:36. > :15:43.Parliament is not staffed with experts on this and related issues.
:15:43. > :15:46.Like these Arabian experts who told us about the Arab Spring. And a
:15:46. > :15:53.great game in Afghanistan. OK, we have to leave it there. This issue
:15:53. > :15:58.will obviously be important. It remains unresolved, Syria, and I
:15:58. > :16:04.reserve the argument. Will you come back and tell us of development?
:16:04. > :16:09.Yes, of course I will. I'd be happy to do that but I want to make this
:16:09. > :16:14.one thing clear, in the case of a rock, the whole point was to keep
:16:14. > :16:17.chemical weapons away from Al-Qaeda. If we assist them to take over in
:16:17. > :16:27.Syria, we will be bringing them closer to having chemical weapons.
:16:27. > :16:30.
:16:30. > :16:35.That worked in a block because they did not have any. Thank you. Too
:16:35. > :16:42.many of us find ourselves cruising along the motorway over the speed
:16:42. > :16:47.limit. The government announced in 2011 it would consider setting a
:16:47. > :16:53.limit at 80. Since then, they have gone very quiet about it. We have
:16:53. > :16:58.been finding out if history can tell us why that might be.
:16:58. > :17:05.There was a time when going for a drive was an expensive luxury, done
:17:05. > :17:12.for the sheer hell and fun of it. An age when life wasn't about traffic
:17:12. > :17:18.wardens and congestion. What hasn't changed almost from the start of
:17:18. > :17:24.motoring is our habit of driving fast and the political rows about
:17:24. > :17:34.controlling our need for speed. This is a 114-year-old speeding ticket
:17:34. > :17:41.
:17:41. > :17:49.issued for the crime of clocking over four miles an hour. By 1903,
:17:49. > :17:53.cars were more powerful and 14 mile an hour limit was raised to 20.
:17:53. > :17:59.There was a terrific fight. The fight was an interesting one, a
:17:59. > :18:04.class fight. These rich aristocrats, for the first time, came into
:18:04. > :18:09.conflict with the police who were their natural allies. Suddenly they
:18:10. > :18:16.were breaking the law. The police were imposing speed traps.
:18:16. > :18:20.This conflict wasn't just between motorists and the law, but between
:18:20. > :18:27.motorists who have always been split over speed.
:18:27. > :18:33.I divide it into, on the one hand, the Jeromy Clarkson s of the world
:18:33. > :18:38.who want to go as fast as they can. And, those who believe that, yes,
:18:38. > :18:43.indeed, they are drivers and with light the road to suit them, but
:18:43. > :18:51.they also realise they are citizens and they do not want to mow down
:18:51. > :18:58.children. They feel responsible. This 1901 French car can go a
:18:58. > :19:03.surprising lack, 49 miles an hour. When it was in use, what kept the
:19:03. > :19:07.speed gun wasn't the law as the state of the road. Today, that is
:19:07. > :19:12.still true, despite ever more powerful cars, congestion on
:19:12. > :19:16.overloaded roads and motorways is a bigger deterrent to speeding down
:19:16. > :19:22.the law. Politicians today are no more inclined to enter the speeding
:19:22. > :19:28.debate than in 1903. Being the Minister of death is the
:19:28. > :19:33.last thing any politician wants to do. You have to be a bold or foolish
:19:33. > :19:38.position to advocate raising the speed limit on motorways -- foolish
:19:38. > :19:42.politician. There could be an appalling crash by large numbers of
:19:42. > :19:47.people will be killed and you will be in the firing line.
:19:47. > :19:57.Coming up hard against facts like that, you can see why ministers and
:19:57. > :20:00.the motorist might rather hanker for driving along at 20 in the sunshine.
:20:00. > :20:05.Joining us in the studio is former Top Gear presenter and motoring
:20:05. > :20:11.journalist Sue Baker. Welcome. Should the speed limit to be raised
:20:11. > :20:16.to 80? It is sensible it should be. Any law which is disregarded by 50%
:20:16. > :20:21.of the population is bad law. It would bring us into line with most
:20:21. > :20:27.of the rest of Europe where 81 mph is the permitted speed limit on
:20:27. > :20:32.motorways. But wouldn't more people die?
:20:32. > :20:38.There is the fear of that. The reason cars crash is because they
:20:38. > :20:45.are too close to one another, speed in itself is not dangerous. Cars in
:20:45. > :20:49.close books imitate, that is dangerous. We need to enforce the
:20:49. > :20:55.suggested new law. Correction-macro cars in close proximity, that is
:20:55. > :21:05.dangerous. We need to get more discipline in lanes.
:21:05. > :21:11.You say speed doesn't cause crashes. But 1.4% of all crashes in Britain
:21:11. > :21:18.result in a fatality, but 2% on the motorways. I would suggest that is
:21:18. > :21:23.because cars are going faster. Faster, but in close proximity.
:21:23. > :21:32.You don't want people tailgating, holding lanes, getting other drivers
:21:32. > :21:40.frustrated. I like the nanny state. When did
:21:40. > :21:45.that happen? The petrol heads are libertarians, seat belts and speed
:21:45. > :21:50.limits are dreadful. Very few politicians who have made an impact,
:21:51. > :21:55.they have brought in speed limits and seat belts which have saved
:21:55. > :22:00.lives and made a real difference to huge numbers of people. Anyone who
:22:00. > :22:07.wants to be the Minister of death, I don't recommend it.
:22:07. > :22:15.I am sceptical. People ignoring driving at 80 when there is a 70
:22:15. > :22:18.speed limit. Then if you raise the speed limit, people will chance it,
:22:19. > :22:28.that is what behavioural psychology tells us. In Germany where there is
:22:29. > :22:30.
:22:30. > :22:36.a higher speed limit, this is a regulated general society. The
:22:36. > :22:40.modern car can go very fast and people will do that. The idea you
:22:40. > :22:44.can enforce people not driving in the middle lane sufficient to offset
:22:44. > :22:50.this is a dream. We are better off where we are.
:22:50. > :22:54.The difference in Germany is many motorways have no top speed limit.
:22:54. > :23:02.The speed differential between people doing a comfortable speed of
:23:02. > :23:08.80 miles an hour, and 150 in supercars, that is the problem.
:23:08. > :23:13.Most of the crashes are around the 80 mph.
:23:13. > :23:17.A lot of people drive between 70 and 80 on the motorways because they
:23:17. > :23:22.have a feeling the police will let them do it. That you have to be
:23:22. > :23:29.above 80 before the police will call you over. What is to stop the idea,
:23:29. > :23:34.if AT is the official limit, then 80-90 is acceptable.
:23:34. > :23:42.Let us enforce a sensible law. We are cutting police numbers now.
:23:42. > :23:46.The report today is talking about speed cameras. The libertarian press
:23:46. > :23:53.were against speed cameras but they have done very well. The RAC says
:23:53. > :24:02.the king at data, crashes were cut by more than a quarter after cameras
:24:02. > :24:09.were put in place. Those 20 -- but those figures, in
:24:09. > :24:19.those counties, accident rates have gone up. You can draw what you like
:24:19. > :24:20.
:24:20. > :24:25.from those statistics. I am sure if it was 80... I would
:24:25. > :24:35.try not to exceed the limit. I don't use the car very much, I nearly
:24:35. > :24:37.
:24:37. > :24:44.always go by train. What about you? My worry is with a higher speed
:24:44. > :24:54.limit, I would want to go slower. I must confess I have gone over the 70
:24:54. > :25:00.
:25:00. > :25:05.speed limit. Why aren't you on Top Gear? Because I am not Jeromy
:25:05. > :25:07.Clarkson! We had better leave it there.
:25:07. > :25:13.Now, no question which party has dominated politics this week. For
:25:13. > :25:16.the last seven days, it's been all about Labour. This week was a double
:25:16. > :25:20."Edder" as we were treated to big speeches from Balls and Miliband,
:25:21. > :25:26.with the same broad underlying message: Labour won't be lax with
:25:26. > :25:29.your tax. On Monday, the Shadow Chancellor talked about the need for
:25:29. > :25:31."an iron discipline" on spending control and hinted that Labour's
:25:31. > :25:34.would not be radically alter George Osborne's "very tough spending plans
:25:34. > :25:44.from this year's Spending Review". Adding: "They will be our starting
:25:44. > :25:47.point." On welfare, Mr Balls stated that wealthy pensioners should no
:25:47. > :25:53.longer receive the winter fuel allowance, which critics saw as a
:25:53. > :25:55.move away from the principle of universal benefits.
:25:55. > :25:59.On Wednesday, it emerged that Labour would not reverse the Government's
:25:59. > :26:02.decision to means test child benefit.
:26:02. > :26:05.Yesterday, it was his leader's turn to sell the tough message announcing
:26:05. > :26:09.a three-year cap on structural welfare spending.
:26:09. > :26:19.Exactly how the cap will work in practice, its level, and who might
:26:19. > :26:22.
:26:22. > :26:31.be directly affected, remains to be seen.
:26:31. > :26:36.What do we make of this? Is this a significant week for Labour? Has it
:26:36. > :26:40.moved in a different direction or has it done some major U-turns? It
:26:40. > :26:50.is a pretty significant week for Labour.
:26:50. > :26:50.
:26:50. > :26:55.We can see from your headlines, cat welfare spending. Universal
:26:55. > :27:00.benefits, no longer in favour of those, after resistance to George
:27:00. > :27:07.Osborne and getting rid of child benefits for higher earners. We can
:27:07. > :27:13.see repositioning here. At launching his weakness particularly on
:27:13. > :27:17.benefits, the welfare system and spending. Whatever he said, he has
:27:17. > :27:24.not been able to address. He is moving in a different direction. How
:27:24. > :27:27.far can he take his own party? And make it coherent?
:27:27. > :27:37.How significant? Very significant they have accepted what was
:27:37. > :27:42.inevitable, on spending. Within that, they can move plenty of things
:27:42. > :27:49.around, they can put more into benefits, whatever they want within
:27:49. > :27:56.that year. Also, it is important to remember, it doesn't include
:27:56. > :28:00.investment. Gordon Brown is important role on that.
:28:00. > :28:05.Borrow for capital investment. I am sure they will come in with
:28:05. > :28:10.something like 1 million new homes over the period of the parliament,
:28:10. > :28:15.still less than Harold Macmillan built. Huge investment for growth,
:28:15. > :28:21.jobs, apprenticeships. You worry about the chipping away of
:28:21. > :28:30.the universal benefit principle. The winter fuel allowance was never
:28:30. > :28:35.universal. The idea of giving someone like me in winter fuel
:28:35. > :28:40.allowance is plainly daft. As for child benefit, for better off
:28:40. > :28:46.families. If you were coming in now, what government in its right mind
:28:46. > :28:50.would say, the first �2.3 billion I spent would be giving it to a
:28:50. > :28:53.handful of the richest families. It is straightforward.
:28:53. > :28:58.Not just the richest families but the middle.
:28:58. > :29:03.The top 10%. In London and the south-east, it
:29:03. > :29:09.affects a lot of people who are on �50,000 a year.
:29:09. > :29:18.They are still the top 10%. Because we live in the bubble we do, we
:29:18. > :29:28.forget the medium is now 21,000 -- the median.
:29:28. > :29:38.How much do you think this was focus group driven? The polls show Labour
:29:38. > :29:47.
:29:47. > :29:52.consistently ahead, but not kind to welfare, benefits, which tend to get
:29:52. > :29:58.people going in the run-up to elections, people were not sure
:29:58. > :30:02.about what Ed Miliband's position worth. It's interesting that Polly
:30:02. > :30:08.says he has room for manoeuvre on benefits. I think it leaders
:30:08. > :30:12.manoeuvre too much, he's back where he started. If he says, I'd take
:30:13. > :30:16.this on board and I will put a cap on things but I want to move things
:30:16. > :30:21.around and raise benefits, I think he loses the political edge of this
:30:21. > :30:28.message which is, I am realistic about public finances. Housing
:30:29. > :30:33.benefit is the one benefit... needs to build a lot more homes.
:30:33. > :30:40.He's not going to bring in rent control, is he? They probably will
:30:40. > :30:43.have to do. I think you could say, no rent can rise for a few years
:30:43. > :30:51.above inflation. And that, over time, would bring down housing
:30:51. > :30:54.benefit. And then you would stop building builder to let. No one has
:30:54. > :31:02.ever managed to get the money out of pension funds to do that. It never
:31:02. > :31:06.happens. But to building?The government. As shoot a social
:31:06. > :31:12.programme, not directly, directly, authorities, housing associations.
:31:12. > :31:16.They are the people... There will have to be a rise in the housing
:31:16. > :31:21.stock. Labour and the Tories can come up with different ways but that
:31:21. > :31:23.seems to be the only way to get out of the housing shortage. It's one of
:31:23. > :31:31.the things people will cast their vote. Probably not the last
:31:31. > :31:36.election. Even though Labour's record is poor. This government
:31:36. > :31:41.managed to build even fewer. That's extraordinary. Public opinion is in
:31:41. > :31:51.favour of borrowing for growth. They are in favour of borrowing for
:31:51. > :31:57.growth in housing. This week, a poll says Labour are only 4% behind on
:31:57. > :32:04.who is best to manage the economy. When Tony Blair went into the 1987
:32:04. > :32:12.election, he was 7% behind. Also 30 points ahead in the polls. Lots of
:32:12. > :32:19.other compensatory policies. Are you clear that, hasn't Labour actually
:32:19. > :32:23.said that they will accept the 2015 current spending tax? I'm pretty
:32:23. > :32:31.sure about it. I have not seen it in black-and-white. They don't know
:32:31. > :32:36.what they're going to get. We have got Ed Balls on the Sunday Politics.
:32:36. > :32:41.On your behalf, all will be crystal clear. No doubletalk of there.A
:32:41. > :32:45.sense of irony there, I don't know. I think he was clear this week on
:32:45. > :32:51.more than it has been in the past. was hoping to interview Liz Kendall
:32:51. > :32:58.today. The up-and-coming Labour star, but it doesn't look like we
:32:58. > :33:00.have her, but we will continue because economic policy was not Ed
:33:00. > :33:05.Miliband's argument of choice at Prime Minister's Questions this
:33:05. > :33:07.week. I wonder why? Instead, the Labour leader went on the attack
:33:07. > :33:11.over waiting times in Accident and Emergency departments in England
:33:11. > :33:16.which hit a nine-year high in the first quarter of this year. Here's a
:33:16. > :33:19.reminder of Wednesday's argument about the issue.
:33:19. > :33:23.Two years ago, during the Prime Minister's listening exercise on
:33:23. > :33:29.health service he said this, "I refuse to go back to the days when
:33:29. > :33:35.people had to wait for hours on end to be seen in A&E, so let me be
:33:35. > :33:39.absolutely clear, we won't. " what is gone wrong? We are now meeting
:33:39. > :33:45.targets for accident and emergency. There was a problem in the first
:33:45. > :33:48.quarter this year which is why the medical director of the NHS will be
:33:48. > :33:52.holding an investigation. The crucial factor is this. Over the
:33:52. > :33:58.last three years, there is 1 million more people walking into accident
:33:58. > :34:03.and emergency unit every year. independent King 's fund says the
:34:03. > :34:08.number of people waiting more than four ours is higher than at any time
:34:08. > :34:13.for nine years. Can he explain to the countrywide A&E waiting times
:34:14. > :34:20.fell under Labour and have gone up under his watch? The fact is, we are
:34:20. > :34:25.now meeting our targets. That's what happened in the House of Commons
:34:25. > :34:32.over A&E. We are joined now by someone who can shed a light on all
:34:32. > :34:36.of this. Ruth Dalby, a senior fellow at the Nuffield trust who knows a
:34:36. > :34:41.thing about this. Welcome to the programme. Ed Miliband has talked
:34:41. > :34:45.about a crisis in A&E. Is there one? I think the A&E department across
:34:45. > :34:50.the country are under severe pressure. We know that they have
:34:50. > :34:56.been struggling to meet their four-hour A&E waiting times since
:34:56. > :34:59.last summer, so it's to the same that this peaked between January and
:34:59. > :35:06.March this year and they failed to meet the target. They went from 5%
:35:06. > :35:10.of people waiting longer than five hours and went up to 6%. It's true
:35:10. > :35:16.to say that since the 12th of May, it has improved dramatically so the
:35:16. > :35:23.big question is, can this be sustained? Would it be fair to say
:35:23. > :35:28.it was a cold winter? Wintertime, more people use A&E. And as
:35:28. > :35:33.stretched into spring, winter, and there's been a seasonal problem but
:35:33. > :35:39.now the seasonal problem seems to be largely over? That is possibly true.
:35:39. > :35:44.I think the underlying factor is that, over time, more people have
:35:44. > :35:50.been gradually using A&E for a whole variety of reasons. It is not true
:35:50. > :35:54.to say that this is simply down to the GP contract which was
:35:54. > :35:59.renegotiated in 2004. Some have claimed this meant out-of-hours care
:35:59. > :36:03.suddenly collapsed and everybody poured into A&Es but it's not true.
:36:03. > :36:08.Out of hours in some areas have been a problem and people feel at easier
:36:08. > :36:12.to get A&E departments, but it's a whole complex set of reasons behind
:36:12. > :36:18.this. Including factors like older people who inevitably have more
:36:18. > :36:22.health problems who can't have it sold in primary care. A lot of young
:36:22. > :36:27.children come into A&E and that's because parents are worried and need
:36:27. > :36:30.reassurance and also 30-year-olds coming in for all sorts of reasons
:36:30. > :36:39.as well. The underlying trend is more people are coming in and the
:36:39. > :36:43.real challenge is they are having to be treated with flat budgets.
:36:43. > :36:45.Another explanation is immigration, a lot of immigrants to this country
:36:45. > :36:51.who come from countries where they don't have a doctor, and they
:36:51. > :36:56.haven't arranged their own GPs, so when something goes wrong with them
:36:56. > :37:00.and their families, the natural place for them to go is A&E. Is that
:37:00. > :37:04.a factor? There's no evidence to suggest not happening on a major
:37:04. > :37:08.scale in the NHS. Locally, in some areas, it could be a problem where
:37:08. > :37:14.people are not registered with GPs or may find it hard and, in some
:37:14. > :37:20.hospitals, in areas, they will put GP services inside A&E departments
:37:20. > :37:24.to improve it but on the whole, it's just not true. The Prime Minister
:37:24. > :37:30.has made a great deal of how bad things are in Wales on waiting times
:37:31. > :37:34.and so on. Wales is run by Labour, obviously, and hasn't done most of
:37:34. > :37:41.the reforms the English health services gone through. Are things
:37:41. > :37:45.bad in Wales? It's under pressure, it's also got financial problems,
:37:45. > :37:48.and problems in its A&E departments. It's difficult to make
:37:48. > :37:53.direct comparisons. They have an older population, more deprived
:37:53. > :37:57.population, and in many parts of Wales, it's quite rural, so they
:37:57. > :38:03.have different problems but whether you can pin it on a specific flavour
:38:03. > :38:10.of government, I'm not sure. Thank you very much for marking our card
:38:10. > :38:14.on that. We have sold the technical problem, partly and let's have a
:38:14. > :38:20.look at Liz Kendall in Leicester. There has been a sound problem.
:38:20. > :38:27.She's having to hold an earpiece to her ear. Can you hear me? I can, as
:38:27. > :38:32.long as I held it like this. Let me begin on the waiting times. It was a
:38:32. > :38:37.cold winter, more people went to the A&E departments, breaching of the
:38:38. > :38:43.targets, but it's back on track again for some it has come down
:38:44. > :38:49.again to the target, so it's not a crisis, is it? A&E is a barometer as
:38:49. > :38:54.to how the rest of the NHS is doing and if you listen to independent
:38:54. > :38:57.experts like the Nuffield trust and the NHS Confederation, they say
:38:57. > :39:02.there are real stresses and strains on the system which has been caused
:39:02. > :39:05.a lot by the pressures on social care, so elder people who could be
:39:05. > :39:12.capped at home healthy and independent, are ending up in
:39:12. > :39:16.hospital. Real problems with the new 111 number and issues around
:39:16. > :39:21.staffing cuts, specifically nurses. In Leicester we've had real problems
:39:21. > :39:25.in A&E. My local clinical commissioning groups say those are
:39:25. > :39:29.the reasons for those problems and my concern has been that we were
:39:29. > :39:33.warned the government back in January about the pressures on it
:39:33. > :39:39.and it was only on the 9th of May that the government wrote to people
:39:39. > :39:45.saying, where are your action plans? It's too little too late. But it's
:39:46. > :39:52.back on target now. Well, we will see. We have been speaking to people
:39:52. > :39:56.and we'll see. We will see whether those improvements are sustained and
:39:56. > :40:00.also when we come to the next winter, whether the real changes we
:40:00. > :40:09.need, to put much more support in the community under home, joining a
:40:09. > :40:12.social care, has been done. Do you have any evidence anybody died?
:40:12. > :40:18.have not talked about people who may have suffered from the A&E crisis,
:40:18. > :40:22.but what we do know is waiting in A&E are at their highest for nine
:40:22. > :40:29.years, cancelled operations and trolley waits are the highest for
:40:29. > :40:32.nine years. Given that the A&E target is only 5% of people should
:40:32. > :40:39.have to wait more than four hours, what happened at the worst period
:40:39. > :40:48.was 5.9%, it increased, you say no one died but as the party presided
:40:48. > :40:51.over the mid-Staffs tragedy, don't you do more humble on this matter?
:40:51. > :40:58.300,000 people are waiting more than four hours in A&E and that is not
:40:58. > :41:00.acceptable. How many died mid-Staffs? What happened in
:41:00. > :41:04.mid-Staffs was utterly appalling and unacceptable and we need to learn
:41:04. > :41:09.lessons from that. I think there were things from there which are
:41:09. > :41:14.also relevant to the A&E crisis. You need enough properly trained staff
:41:14. > :41:17.but ultimately, what you need is to transform the system so we have more
:41:17. > :41:21.support for elderly and vulnerable people at home and if the government
:41:21. > :41:26.has spent the last three years focused on proper forms instead of
:41:26. > :41:36.this wasteful talk down reorganisation, we would be in a
:41:36. > :41:41.
:41:41. > :41:47.better place now. What is different for Labour's policy position today
:41:47. > :41:51.than it was last weekend? I think we have set out some really fundamental
:41:51. > :41:55.reforms to the Social Security system. It will help people work, to
:41:55. > :41:58.reform housing benefit, to tackle issues in incapacity benefit, and
:41:58. > :42:02.encourage more parents of young children to get work ready before
:42:02. > :42:07.their children are aged five. We are really looking at the root causes of
:42:07. > :42:11.the increase in the welfare bill. And trying to set forward some
:42:11. > :42:14.proper reforms that will make it better for people to work and have
:42:14. > :42:21.the opportunities to have a good living standard for their families
:42:21. > :42:25.and to tackle low pay. I think Ed sent out some really... Give me an
:42:25. > :42:32.example of where you are different last weekend. Housing is a real
:42:32. > :42:36.issue. Ed said before we came too late to the housing issue in
:42:36. > :42:40.government and we have set forward some strong proposals about how we
:42:40. > :42:45.can start shifting spending money on housing benefit into house-building.
:42:45. > :42:51.Investing in the future rather than... I don't know what that means
:42:51. > :42:54.in terms of policy. What it means is, we want to get new powers to
:42:54. > :43:00.local councils to negotiate better deals of landlords, see proper
:43:00. > :43:04.affordable housing for people, I also think we have put forward some
:43:04. > :43:09.clear proposals on it. Something the government has failed to do. We also
:43:09. > :43:12.want to look at reforming incapacity benefit and the tests that there are
:43:12. > :43:18.for people with disabilities who can work and we have said we want to
:43:18. > :43:25.take action on low pay. That's what the government is doing.
:43:25. > :43:30.government is never done that. talking about incapacity benefit.
:43:30. > :43:32.Their tests are not working. When 40% of people who repeal those
:43:32. > :43:36.decisions are people with disabilities and they are being
:43:36. > :43:40.repealed and they are upheld, the system is not working. We want to
:43:40. > :43:44.work with disability groups to focus on the people who can work and what
:43:44. > :43:49.skills they can offer and having a proper work programme. Here in
:43:49. > :43:53.Leicester, we had a great work programme which was scrapped. The
:43:53. > :43:57.new work programme here is not working for people locally. It's a
:43:57. > :44:05.big change. Can you clarify something for me because it's not
:44:05. > :44:10.quite clear. Will Labour accept current spending plans for 2015-16?
:44:10. > :44:16.They have got to be our starting point. So you will accept them?They
:44:16. > :44:19.have got to be our starting point. Will you accept them? They're 30
:44:19. > :44:23.colonic policy means they are borrowing much more than they
:44:23. > :44:27.originally planned. We have got to take difficult decisions and they
:44:28. > :44:37.will be our starting point. interested in this phrase, "
:44:37. > :44:44.starting point". So will you accept the 2015-16 spending plans you will
:44:44. > :44:50.inherit? It's got to be our starting point. As the shadow... Can't you
:44:50. > :44:57.say the word accept? Why can't you say the word accept? Maybe you
:44:57. > :45:01.don't? You seem to have picked on a formulation of words to try and get
:45:01. > :45:05.you off the hook of saying you actually accept the spending plans.
:45:05. > :45:09.You will understand, Andrew, what the government predicted what would
:45:09. > :45:12.happen to the economy two years ago is fundamentally different to what
:45:12. > :45:17.we have now. What they predict in June could be the reality of the
:45:17. > :45:21.economy in two years time but as a shadow health minister for older
:45:21. > :45:24.people, we have to do take what the government said as a starting point
:45:24. > :45:27.and look at how we make different decisions about priorities and
:45:27. > :45:37.spending within those limits and that's what we have said and that's
:45:37. > :45:39.
:45:39. > :45:45.what we'll to do. You have now accepted the winter fuel payment
:45:45. > :45:50.should be means tested, and child benefit should be means tested.
:45:50. > :46:00.Anything else you have in mind which should be means tested?
:46:00. > :46:02.
:46:02. > :46:10.I really agree, further 5% of the that. We will come forward with more
:46:10. > :46:14.detailed Persaud 's goals -- proposals but this shows if you had
:46:14. > :46:19.to make a decision, in terms of the winter fuel payment, with all the
:46:19. > :46:26.other pressures in the system, payment to the richest 5%, is an
:46:26. > :46:33.indication of our approach. I don't think you are in a position
:46:33. > :46:40.to tell me. If you promise to come back to tell us first, we promise to
:46:40. > :46:43.get you a proper sound system! So, lots going on this week. In case
:46:43. > :46:53.you missed any of it, here's a reminder of the week in just 60
:46:53. > :46:53.
:46:53. > :46:59.seconds. The week began with allegations of
:47:00. > :47:04.three lords lobbying. Claims of wrongdoing were denied but to be on
:47:04. > :47:09.the safe side the government announced plans to introduce a new
:47:09. > :47:15.register. And they thought it was time to look at union membership and
:47:15. > :47:21.political donations. Again. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls sketched out
:47:21. > :47:26.some new ideas on the economy. The idea of axing winter fuel payments
:47:26. > :47:35.for pensioners. And ruling out bringing back child benefit for the
:47:35. > :47:39.better. The House of Lords that the government gave marriage plans.
:47:39. > :47:48.There will be increased pressures for polygamy.
:47:48. > :47:58.There were tantrums after Nick Clegg through his plans to relax rules on
:47:58. > :47:59.
:47:59. > :48:07.child out. Nick Clegg got his way on childcare,
:48:07. > :48:17.is that a surprise? That is a surprise in one. The
:48:17. > :48:17.
:48:17. > :48:25.deregulation of childcare did run a very long time. In the end, it has
:48:25. > :48:32.been batted out of court. What does it tell us about the state
:48:32. > :48:36.of the coalition? It shows you the Lib Dems are good at putting a brake
:48:36. > :48:42.on bonkers ideas. The idea one childminder could look
:48:42. > :48:51.after six under two-year-old children.
:48:51. > :49:01.There is a real problem. All he has done, there is not another solution
:49:01. > :49:03.
:49:03. > :49:10.for childcare. That wasn't a solution. The problem
:49:10. > :49:14.has not been sold but one thing has been stopped.
:49:14. > :49:21.It wasn't a solution. This will be a good battle ground at the next
:49:21. > :49:23.Now, you might have thought that was your lot for this week, but no,
:49:23. > :49:27.because there's more. You lucky people. This morning, the Prime
:49:27. > :49:30.Minister has been to sunny Stirling. Hardly Ibiza but, by the look of it,
:49:30. > :49:33.he'll still be topping up the tan. His companion this time, not Sam
:49:33. > :49:35.Cam, but Ruth Davidson, the embattled leader of the Tories in
:49:35. > :49:42.Scotland. Mr Cameron has been addressing the party this morning,
:49:42. > :49:46.and here's what he had to say. Our United Kingdom 's history has
:49:46. > :49:51.always been one of shared endeavour. Proud in our individual
:49:51. > :49:55.identities but working together for a common good. We saw it when our
:49:55. > :50:00.soldiers brought together under one flag on the beaches of Normandy.
:50:00. > :50:04.When our doctors came together to build our NHS. In the scientific
:50:04. > :50:07.breakthroughs we have made together, through television and
:50:07. > :50:12.penicillin. And last summer as athletes around Britain, no matter
:50:12. > :50:17.where they were from, draped themselves in one flag. There is so
:50:17. > :50:21.much more still to come. Why wouldn't we want to face the future
:50:21. > :50:29.together? There is no challenge we face together where breaking up
:50:29. > :50:32.Britain is the right answer. David Cameron. I'm delighted to say
:50:32. > :50:38.that Ruth Davidson, Tory leader in Scotland, joins us now from
:50:38. > :50:41.Stirling. Why won't you give the party
:50:41. > :50:46.faithful a debate on whether or not the Scottish Parliament should have
:50:46. > :50:54.more powers? We have asked Lord Strathclyde to
:50:54. > :51:00.bring forward proposals and asking the party to feed into. When those
:51:00. > :51:04.proposals are brought forward, they can be the focus for debate.
:51:04. > :51:10.Wouldn't he have liked to hear the party faithful with their views at
:51:11. > :51:14.conference, so he could sweep up the mood of your party?
:51:14. > :51:20.We have invited people within the party.
:51:20. > :51:24.Why no debate? There is an open question Time
:51:24. > :51:32.session so people can ask anything they like. Presumably the
:51:32. > :51:39.constitution will come in that. In terms of a debate, you need emotion,
:51:39. > :51:42.firm proposals. Tom Strathclyde has not completed his work. Those
:51:42. > :51:47.proposals will be taken to our members.
:51:47. > :51:51.Don't you owe it to the Scottish Conservative members? You won the
:51:51. > :51:54.leadership of your party campaigning against further powers for Scottish
:51:54. > :51:58.Parliament. You have now set up a commission to look at further
:51:58. > :52:04.powers. You have changed your mind, shouldn't your members have their
:52:04. > :52:14.say? They are having their say. Not a
:52:14. > :52:20.
:52:20. > :52:25.debate. Are you afraid? Not at all. What is important to remember is,
:52:25. > :52:31.between now and the referendum, we will have a report from Tom
:52:31. > :52:35.Strathclyde, serious proposals brought forward to debate. We have
:52:35. > :52:43.three conventions each year for our members to bring forward things.
:52:43. > :52:49.have you changed your mind? In terms of, the last few years, we have seen
:52:49. > :52:54.the constitutional debate live on. The stresses majority government has
:52:54. > :53:01.put on. And in terms of someone in the Scottish Parliament every day,
:53:01. > :53:10.we see where those stressors show the Parliamentary system are
:53:10. > :53:14.wanting. In terms of Post a referendum, if we win it, we need to
:53:14. > :53:20.have a constitutional settlement which people in Scotland are happy
:53:21. > :53:28.with. Stable, devolved government. Sir Alex Salmond does not come back
:53:28. > :53:31.in five years or ten years agitating for another referendum. We need to
:53:32. > :53:39.make sure it is a settlement which meet the aspirations of people in
:53:39. > :53:44.Scotland. A stable settlement. When your party voted your leader on the
:53:44. > :53:47.visible you wouldn't draw a line in the sand on any more powers being
:53:47. > :53:53.transferred to Scotland, it turned out that line was actually in the
:53:53. > :53:59.sand and easily washed away. When people were voting in the
:53:59. > :54:08.Parliamentary and leadership elections, it was a lot more on
:54:08. > :54:17.other issues as much as the situation at issue. Correction-macro
:54:17. > :54:23.constitutional issue. We saw the Prime Minister arguing for a United
:54:23. > :54:30.Kingdom but without a united party. A lot of things were discussed will
:54:30. > :54:32.stop a lively leadership campaign. What I am doing is bringing forward
:54:32. > :54:39.a mechanism for people from different parts of the spectrum in
:54:39. > :54:47.our party to feed into Tom Strathclyde. I look forward to the
:54:47. > :54:53.work his commission is doing. You say you have kept the Scottish
:54:53. > :54:56.Conservative party going. It has had some stability. The stability of the
:54:56. > :55:02.graveyard. You are dead in the water.
:55:02. > :55:11.When I took over, we had 19 years of decline, that is difficult to turn
:55:11. > :55:18.around overnight. The party is in better shape to fight elections. We
:55:18. > :55:27.are building a policy platform, with an energy review policy. Rural
:55:27. > :55:31.policy. Bringing in all of the talents we have in the party. And
:55:31. > :55:41.seeing improvements in terms of polling and research.
:55:41. > :55:42.
:55:42. > :55:52.Let me give you the figures. 1997, you had 18% of the vote, lost every
:55:52. > :55:53.
:55:53. > :55:58.seat in Scotland. 2005, 16%. 2010, 17%. The latest shows you around
:55:58. > :56:03.16%. I repeat, you are dead in the water, this is the end.
:56:03. > :56:12.I took over in November 2011. To build a strong policy platform to
:56:12. > :56:17.take our message to the people of Scotland. In 2011, we got 12.9% in
:56:17. > :56:24.the first, 13% in the second. worse than the 1997 general
:56:24. > :56:29.election. As I say, when I took over, we wanted to build for the
:56:29. > :56:33.future to change the face of the Scottish Conservatives. A third of
:56:33. > :56:43.our councillors elected had never been involved in councils before. We
:56:43. > :56:49.are bringing in new people, new candidates for future elections.
:56:49. > :56:55.There is a lot of structural reform. I don't see any difference on the
:56:55. > :57:04.ground. You have got no MPs in 1997. Since then, you have added one. In
:57:04. > :57:08.other words, in 15 years, you have added one MP. Leading Tory
:57:08. > :57:11.strategists here say you are only targeting three seats at the next
:57:11. > :57:20.election in Scotland for Westminster and you have hopes of winning only
:57:20. > :57:26.two. You have gone from zero, 21, Tattoo by 2015. At this rate you
:57:26. > :57:34.will end up with an overall majority in Scotland by 21-80.
:57:34. > :57:39.Correction-macro 2180. There hasn't been a UK general
:57:39. > :57:45.election since I took over. We are laying the groundwork. How many
:57:45. > :57:55.seats? I want to win as many as I possibly can. I have worked that one
:57:55. > :57:59.out. We need to see what happens in the referendum, in terms of bringing
:57:59. > :58:07.forward new faces in the party to fight the election for us, and to
:58:07. > :58:12.bring this blog -- policy platform. So we have a party which is fit to
:58:12. > :58:19.fight. Do you think you will face a
:58:19. > :58:24.leadership challenge? That is up for someone else. I am the first given a
:58:25. > :58:29.mandate by the members of our party, one member, one vote. A
:58:29. > :58:37.lively leadership election. The people of my party wanted me to be
:58:37. > :58:40.here. We are confident in the future.
:58:40. > :58:44.Thank you for joining us. That's all for today. Thanks to our