:00:39. > :00:42.Daily Politics. David Cameron and leaders from the G8 group of
:00:42. > :00:47.countries continue their summit in Northern Ireland, with Syria top of
:00:47. > :00:52.the agenda. But can the Prime Minister persuade Vladimir Putin to
:00:52. > :00:54.back his plan for peace? The Business Secretary hails the
:00:54. > :00:57.Government's record on apprenticeships and forecasts that
:00:57. > :01:04.they'll contribute over �3 billion a year to the economy within ten
:01:04. > :01:08.years. Vince Cable joins us live. As the coalition's changes to the
:01:08. > :01:13.NHS bed down, is now really a good time for more radical thinking on
:01:13. > :01:18.the health service and social care? The think tank the Kings Fund think
:01:18. > :01:20.so. They'll be here to explain why. And we'll hear from one academic who
:01:20. > :01:30.says some high-achieving politicians share character traits with
:01:30. > :01:32.
:01:32. > :01:35.psychopaths. And that's a good thing All that in the next hour. And with
:01:35. > :01:38.us for the whole programme today is the Labour peer John Reid, who in
:01:38. > :01:45.the last Labour government held a grand total of eight cabinet posts,
:01:45. > :01:48.ending up as Home Secretary until 2007. He's now chair of the
:01:48. > :01:54.Institute for Security and Resilience Studies. Welcome to the
:01:54. > :01:59.Daily Politics. Let's start with the G8 summit in Northern Ireland which
:01:59. > :02:04.continues today. Earlier this morning David Cameron and the other
:02:05. > :02:07.G8 leaders gathered together for what's known as a family photo. But
:02:07. > :02:10.it hasn't been all smiles, with Russian President Vladimir Putin
:02:10. > :02:20.making it clear he doesn't agree with the British PM on the issue of
:02:20. > :02:30.
:02:30. > :02:34.intervention in Syria. Downing Street wish to have a peace
:02:34. > :02:38.conference today, but the big question is whether President Assad
:02:38. > :02:46.will agree to step down. Is there a scenario where Russia can be cut out
:02:46. > :02:50.of the G8 over Syria? I don't think so. And it is not just Russia, other
:02:50. > :02:55.people at the G8 hold similar views. I think it is important to
:02:55. > :03:01.realise that the Russian position is not just self-interest as regards
:03:01. > :03:04.the long-standing relationship with Syria which, of course, is true, and
:03:05. > :03:10.the Mediterranean. I would also guess that Putin would reckon that
:03:10. > :03:16.one of the greatest threat to Russia is Islamist terrorism, and
:03:16. > :03:20.particularly the likes of Chechnya and the southern flank of Russia.
:03:20. > :03:25.His view, basically, it's better the devil we know than the devil we
:03:25. > :03:30.don't. We don't know what will happen after President Assad goes,
:03:30. > :03:36.if he does. Except, at the moment, people are saying he is butchering
:03:36. > :03:41.his own people, killing them intends, that can't continue. It is
:03:41. > :03:48.not better the devil you know. not justifying it, I am explaining
:03:48. > :03:54.the Russian position. If you explain that inflamed the situation further
:03:54. > :03:59.by bringing more arms, it might inflame a significant jihadist
:03:59. > :04:05.presence in Syria. Syria is not just self-contained, it is a battlefield
:04:05. > :04:12.in what is becoming a great sunny-macro/sheer-macro conflict.
:04:13. > :04:17.The Alawite 's are a minority further within that minority. But
:04:17. > :04:27.they are in the majority in Iraq, and in the non-Arab nation of Iran
:04:27. > :04:30.
:04:30. > :04:37.next door. Hezbollah are sheer based. The majority in Syria, they
:04:37. > :04:41.are Sunni and backed by Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia. But do
:04:41. > :04:46.you agree that we can't allow a situation where the opposition is
:04:46. > :04:54.exterminated before they even have a chance by the arms flowing into
:04:54. > :05:00.support Assad noes regime. Asad is behaving monstrously. Their element
:05:00. > :05:03.within the opposition to Asad who will operate in just such a
:05:03. > :05:10.monstrous fashion if they ever take control. They are blowing up
:05:10. > :05:15.innocent civilians through the world. The key question is not by
:05:15. > :05:18.doing nothing to you avoid responsibility, you don't, right?
:05:18. > :05:25.There are consequences, moral and otherwise, of doing mopping. But the
:05:25. > :05:31.key question is by pumping in more arms, do you actually have an
:05:31. > :05:36.outcome which is better. I suspect we will get an agreement from the GH
:05:37. > :05:40.which says humanitarian, diplomatic and political moves, there may be
:05:40. > :05:45.difficulty over the wording about whether the regime and Assad must
:05:45. > :05:50.stay, but I think it will stop short of any agreement, certainly with
:05:50. > :05:53.Russia, to put in extra weaponry. Let's turn to another major
:05:53. > :05:56.international story - the news that NATO has handed over security for
:05:56. > :05:59.the whole of Afghanistan for the first time since the Taliban were
:05:59. > :06:02.ousted in 2001. At a ceremony in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai said
:06:02. > :06:04.that, from Wednesday, our own security and military forces will
:06:04. > :06:07.lead all the security activities. International troops will remain in
:06:07. > :06:17.Afghanistan until the end of 2014, providing military back-up when
:06:17. > :06:18.
:06:18. > :06:23.needed. Are they going to cope, the Afghan security services? I think
:06:23. > :06:29.they will cope. They won't guarantee that there will not be continual
:06:29. > :06:32.acts of terrorism. This is another battlefield in this great front. Six
:06:32. > :06:38.years ago they had some 40,000 in terms of numbers, they've now got
:06:38. > :06:43.350,000. They are a significant size. In terms of quality, my
:06:43. > :06:48.understanding is that they have now become roughly equivalent to the
:06:48. > :06:50.Army of a developing nation, so they are not as good as the advanced,
:06:50. > :06:56.well-trained and well-equipped armies of the West that have been a
:06:56. > :07:02.nice so far. But at some stage the handover has two take place, because
:07:02. > :07:05.they need autonomy over their military, as well as politically.
:07:05. > :07:09.don't have exact numbers, but there are Afghans already leaving the
:07:09. > :07:12.army, and the worry is that the Taliban will just step in. How
:07:12. > :07:21.important are the talks that have been mentioned with the Taliban in
:07:21. > :07:24.Qatar? If I had a criticism over the government over the last few years,
:07:24. > :07:28.I don't think it did enough on the political front. I don't think it
:07:28. > :07:35.made sense to announce publicly that we are leaving militarily, then we
:07:35. > :07:40.will start talking. We should have been talking to those allied to the
:07:40. > :07:45.Taliban with whom it was possible, and then announce a leaving date as
:07:45. > :07:49.a result of the politics. Not saying, we are off, will you now sit
:07:49. > :07:55.down and talk? The Taliban have an old saying, you might have the
:07:55. > :08:02.watches but we have the time. If you announce we are going at a certain
:08:02. > :08:08.date, it's... Weakens the hand?It is not to say that a political
:08:08. > :08:14.solution is not the ideal, it is. The Taliban are not a homogenous
:08:14. > :08:17.group. Now time for Now it's time for our daily quiz.
:08:17. > :08:20.Something a little different. The question for today is: According to
:08:20. > :08:28.our guest John Reid, which of the following is the most likely result
:08:28. > :08:30.of the 2015 general election? I hope you have your crystal ball! Is it a
:08:30. > :08:33.Labour majority, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, a Conservative/Lib Dem
:08:33. > :08:35.coalition or a Conservative majority? At the end of the show,
:08:35. > :08:38.John will give us the correct answer.
:08:38. > :08:41.There's just a week to go before the Chancellor outlines the Government's
:08:41. > :08:44.spending plans for the year after the next election. George Osborne is
:08:44. > :08:47.looking to cut around �11.5 billion from public spending, and one area
:08:47. > :08:50.which is likely to face another round of belt-tightening is local
:08:50. > :08:59.government. Central government funding makes up around 40% of local
:08:59. > :09:02.government budgets in England. Over the three years from 2011/12 to
:09:02. > :09:09.2014/15 this part of their budget has been squeezed by 33% in real
:09:09. > :09:14.terms. That's led to protests from local government chiefs, who warn of
:09:14. > :09:17.dire consequences if budgets are reduced further. The Local
:09:17. > :09:22.Government Association has warned, some councils will not be able to
:09:22. > :09:27.deliver the existing range of services. The LGA has called on the
:09:27. > :09:30.Treasury to lift all restrictions on council tax in the spending review.
:09:30. > :09:35.At the moment, councils are encouraged to keep council tax rises
:09:35. > :09:42.to less than 2%. But could local government make more savings without
:09:42. > :09:46.affecting services? Last night, Channel 4's Dispatches programme
:09:46. > :09:47.investigated waste in local authorities. It found that over �30
:09:47. > :09:54.million has been spent by 374 councils on chauffeur-driven cars
:09:54. > :09:57.for council officials over the last five years. The programme also
:09:57. > :10:04.discovered that councils spent �3.7m on foreign trips to places like
:10:04. > :10:12.Jamaica and South Africa over the last five years. With us now is the
:10:12. > :10:18.Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis.
:10:18. > :10:22.Is all spending on cars and foreign trips just frivolous, in your mind?
:10:22. > :10:26.I am sure some spending will be done appropriately, to go to places and
:10:26. > :10:30.see people, but we have to look at what is spent and is it
:10:30. > :10:35.appropriate. �6,000 to see the World Cup, I don't think many taxpayers
:10:35. > :10:40.would see that as reasonable. might be the exception. If you take
:10:40. > :10:48.the figures, �30 million spent by 374 councils on chauffeur driven
:10:48. > :10:52.cars, that is �16,000 per cancel per year -- per council per year, so
:10:52. > :10:56.than the figures don't look so bad. That is why it is important to look
:10:56. > :11:01.at details and why local transparency is so important, so
:11:01. > :11:07.that local taxpayers can see what is being spent, what on and whether it
:11:07. > :11:13.is appropriate. Transparency exist. It is probably one of the clearest
:11:13. > :11:15.areas where you can get figures. It looks as if you are using all
:11:15. > :11:22.referring to blanket figures that councils are being irresponsible.
:11:22. > :11:26.Let's look at foreign trips, can they ever be justified? This is a
:11:26. > :11:32.call not from government, from Dispatchers. We are saying that the
:11:32. > :11:37.Local Government Minister look very carefully, there is over �2 billion
:11:37. > :11:42.of uncollected council tax, �2 billion in fraud, �60 billion in
:11:42. > :11:45.reserves, over �220 billion in assets, of which �2 billion is
:11:46. > :11:50.listed as surplus and another �1 billion is up for sale. There is a
:11:50. > :11:56.huge amount in the system that we would like to see better used.
:11:56. > :12:00.look at the foreign trips. One spokesperson said, this is trimming
:12:00. > :12:03.up business. Rather than being a waste, people are coming back with
:12:03. > :12:08.cash for investment. Another example, social workers going to
:12:08. > :12:12.countries to visit relatives in the care of the borough to see whether
:12:12. > :12:18.children can be returned to relatives in Jamaica. It is more
:12:18. > :12:21.subtle and nuanced than just saying, is this waste? That is why
:12:21. > :12:24.transparency is important. Councils and quite rightly make the case
:12:24. > :12:28.about what they think is appropriate, and the beauty of
:12:28. > :12:33.democracy is that everyone gets a chance to have their view. But you
:12:33. > :12:38.feel that local government is still wasting money? Two there are some
:12:38. > :12:42.councils doing great, innovative work, sharing management and
:12:42. > :12:47.outsourcing. �61 billion a year for local government, we can still go
:12:47. > :12:51.further. We asked somebody from a council to come on, but they
:12:51. > :12:54.couldn't, but local government Association spokesman said that
:12:54. > :12:59.everybody working in the public sector is required to spend
:12:59. > :13:06.taxpayers money at Canterbury. The details of expenses and allowances
:13:06. > :13:11.claimed by councillors are published online, as well as all spending over
:13:11. > :13:14.�500. What are you hoping to reveal? We brought in the transparency
:13:14. > :13:22.rules, we are very proud of that. Local people can see what is being
:13:22. > :13:26.spent. We need to make sure that money spent appropriately. We have
:13:26. > :13:31.councils who have put up council tax and allowances. We don't think that
:13:31. > :13:34.is what taxpayers want to see locally. What do you say about the
:13:35. > :13:41.claim that Labour councils in particular are putting up council
:13:41. > :13:46.tax, and they don't think it is justified? I was an MP for 25 years,
:13:46. > :13:52.and the vast majority of councils of all parties to a thankless task,
:13:52. > :13:56.very often, in the frontline of politics. They can't come off to
:13:56. > :14:01.Westminster for four days a week, they are steeped in locality and
:14:01. > :14:04.they are now more transparent than anyone else. Of course there will be
:14:04. > :14:10.misusers in any organisation. We have seen it with MPs, the
:14:10. > :14:15.government and so on. Given the degree of transparency, I think that
:14:15. > :14:21.some of the examples here of the types of cars hired and so on, it
:14:21. > :14:25.would be sensible to recognise that in a time of financial austerity you
:14:25. > :14:30.leave yourself open, and the first thing to ask is how will this play
:14:30. > :14:36.in the front page of the Sunday Post? Some of them are Jaguars and
:14:36. > :14:40.Bentleys as opposed to other, cheaper makes of car. Let's look at
:14:40. > :14:44.spending cuts. The LGA and individual councils are saying they
:14:44. > :14:50.just can't take any more cuts to expenditure, it will affect
:14:50. > :14:53.frontline services. Are you prepared to take that risk? Last year, local
:14:53. > :14:58.authorities had a reduction in spending power of 1.3%. Most people
:14:58. > :15:02.out in the world would say that saving 1.3% is quite achievable and
:15:02. > :15:08.we should try to do it. Councils have to make sure that cracking down
:15:08. > :15:10.on fraud and error, collecting council tax and using the reserves
:15:10. > :15:14.they have built up in the best possible way to develop for the
:15:14. > :15:18.future and to deliver good local services. So you think 's can be
:15:18. > :15:25.made without risk to frontline services? -- you think at can be
:15:25. > :15:32.made? �61 billion a year of procurement, saving a few % makes a
:15:32. > :15:39.big difference to local taxpayers. It is about making sure that the tax
:15:39. > :15:42.payers' money is well spent. John Reid, councils that we have had on
:15:42. > :15:46.the programme before cover different areas with different problems.
:15:46. > :15:49.Bradley Lewis always talks about councils in the round in England,
:15:49. > :15:57.but there are inner-city areas that will have bigger problems with,
:15:57. > :16:01.perhaps, social care than a rule area. I think people recognise that
:16:01. > :16:06.there has to be some greater efficiency continually, in all
:16:06. > :16:09.services. You think they can't take more cuts? No, what I'm saying is
:16:09. > :16:13.that while I agree there's always room for efficiency and looking at
:16:13. > :16:17.that, I think the Government would be better to be up front and just to
:16:17. > :16:22.say, yes, we understand that even with that, there might be a
:16:22. > :16:26.deterioration in services. I think it's a bit hypocritical to say, yes,
:16:26. > :16:29.we are reducing services in given areas because of the austerity in
:16:29. > :16:33.which we're in. People recognise that, but when it comes to local
:16:33. > :16:37.Government, we'll not only cut, not only ask them to be efficient, but
:16:37. > :16:40.we'll pass responsibilities to them that they didn't previously have and
:16:40. > :16:44.then we'll pretend that this is going to happen in a way that there
:16:44. > :16:49.won't be a deterioration. There will be a deterioration in services here.
:16:49. > :16:54.And the responsibility for that is shared and particularly if there is
:16:54. > :17:01.less money coming from central Government. I don't think that needs
:17:01. > :17:05.a great cull pability, a great admission of doing things wrong. Cut
:17:05. > :17:12.backs are taking place in every department of Government. You be
:17:12. > :17:16.more honest? We are being very clear and honest. What about a
:17:16. > :17:20.deterioration in services? We have seen public satisfaction with
:17:20. > :17:23.council services going up. That's because councils are being
:17:23. > :17:27.innovative and doing more for less. That's a good thing. There are
:17:27. > :17:31.councils out there doing great work in that regard. It's important to
:17:31. > :17:36.note that it's not fair to say urban areas will need to spend more than
:17:36. > :17:39.rural areas. Some rural areas will argue because of sparsity there are
:17:39. > :17:42.other pressures. There is a different type of pressure and
:17:42. > :17:45.response they have to give. That's why it's important that these
:17:45. > :17:49.decisions are made locally by local authorities that understand and care
:17:49. > :17:53.about their local area. Thank you very much.
:17:53. > :17:58.Now this morning, the chief executive and chairman of Lloyds
:17:58. > :18:03.banking group have been questioned by the Treasury Select Committee
:18:03. > :18:07.about the failed sale of 632 bank branches to the Co-op. A deal was
:18:07. > :18:11.instruct with the Co-operative Group last summer but has unravelled after
:18:11. > :18:16.it emerged the group is facing a capital black hole of up to �1
:18:16. > :18:21.billion. The Co-op pulled out of the deal in April and announced a rescue
:18:21. > :18:25.plan yesterday morning. The Lloyds chairman was asked whether
:18:25. > :18:32.politicians pressured them into accepting the bid? Is it true, as
:18:32. > :18:36.has been alleged, that the decision to a award Verde to the Co-op was
:18:36. > :18:42.made on political rather than commercial grounds? No. It is not.
:18:42. > :18:49.What the board looked at was financial and execution, the ability
:18:49. > :18:59.to execute. Those were the only two things that we looked at. There was
:18:59. > :19:01.
:19:01. > :19:08.no political pressure? Yoo no. And no indirect contact via others?
:19:08. > :19:14.No direct contact either to me or, I think, to Antonio, no the other way
:19:14. > :19:18.around. Well, we've been joined by the Conservative MP David Davis who
:19:18. > :19:24.chaired the future banking commission in 2010. What went wrong?
:19:24. > :19:30.Oh, so many things went wrong. I mean, today's evidence is incredible
:19:30. > :19:34.really. They're supposed to have done due diligence. That's so you
:19:34. > :19:40.see the facts. When they were doing that, the Co-op was losing 50
:19:40. > :19:43.million a month. Writing off 300 million of debts. They clearly
:19:43. > :19:50.didn't do the work. When you do this sort of business, you look for red
:19:50. > :19:54.flags. This had more red flags than a minefield. You say there wasn't
:19:54. > :20:00.dew -- due diligence. So not enough work was done rather than they did
:20:00. > :20:04.the work but still wept ahead with what looked like a rotten deal?
:20:04. > :20:07.committee was quite gentle with them today. The Co-op had trouble taken
:20:07. > :20:12.over the Britannia Building Society, that was failing. It was having
:20:12. > :20:18.trouble with its profit making. It was losing money. Now, we know, it's
:20:18. > :20:22.1. 5 billion in the hole. This is only six months after the deal was
:20:22. > :20:26.struck. What's changed in the last six months? Next to nothing. Either
:20:26. > :20:30.they did a terrible job of due diligence or they did a loose one
:20:30. > :20:33.because they were encouraged to dot deal. You don't believe them when
:20:33. > :20:38.they say there was no political pressure? I think there's something
:20:38. > :20:41.wrong with this deal. That's what I know. I can't tell you, because I
:20:41. > :20:44.wasn't in the room. But there's something wrong with the deal.
:20:45. > :20:52.due know there was something wrong with the deal once it became clear
:20:52. > :20:54.there was a 1. . 5 billion black hole in the Co-op's finances, which
:20:54. > :20:59.does beggar belief that no-one spotted that. They're inside, we're
:20:59. > :21:02.not. When it finished, the other bidder wrote to me. When I got the
:21:02. > :21:08.letter I thought well, this might just be a sore loser. I handed it
:21:08. > :21:15.over to the PAC just in case. What's happened is everything he predicted
:21:15. > :21:21.then, the failure of every part of the system has come true. That
:21:21. > :21:27.letter that he sent to me and others was given to chairman Bischoff in
:21:27. > :21:32.January of last year. What do you think? Well, let me just say at the
:21:32. > :21:39.beginning, I'm disappointed that the mutual status of the Co-op is now
:21:39. > :21:48.under threat. Because I really believe in muchuals. The Government
:21:48. > :21:50.-- mutuals. The Government has expressed this as well. This looks
:21:50. > :21:52.complete completely botched. At worst, there's a whiff in the air.
:21:52. > :21:57.There are two questions, the first is - does the question have a
:21:57. > :22:02.strategic interest in the banks that it's nationalised and the stability
:22:02. > :22:06.of the economy in. A general sense, yes. We might disagree in that
:22:06. > :22:11.because David is more of a Libertarian on these issues. The
:22:11. > :22:20.real question is in this instance, was there a nod and a wink, was
:22:20. > :22:26.there a political decision taken to en encourage these events to happen
:22:26. > :22:32.which in retrospect seem very, very popped, at the least, and possibly
:22:32. > :22:38.catastrophic. Who would benefit? don't disgree over the importance of
:22:38. > :22:43.the Government having a strategic view. But that should have been up
:22:43. > :22:47.front. There's a rule of law problem when you let two people bid if
:22:47. > :22:51.you're only going to allow one to win. There are issues with that.
:22:51. > :22:56.It's right we have an interest. Otherwise the economy won't recover.
:22:56. > :22:59.Why not the alternative bid? The evidence this morning, as the chief
:22:59. > :23:05.executive and chair of Lloyds said the money wasn't there in NBNK's
:23:05. > :23:10.bid. True. That is simply not true. It was going to be there in escrow
:23:10. > :23:14.up to �730 million. I know he said that. It's not the case. Similarly,
:23:14. > :23:19.it said the bid wasn't underwritten. Who provided the underwriting for
:23:19. > :23:26.the Co-op? Lloyds did. This bid was put in by the biggest players in the
:23:26. > :23:29.City, Aviva, foreign and colonial investment. All sorts of big
:23:29. > :23:38.players, who wouldn't have set it up unless they intended to fund it.
:23:38. > :23:42.What now for Lloyds? They have got to do this branch sell off. They
:23:42. > :23:46.will do an IPO. Nobody involved in this decision should have any share
:23:46. > :23:49.options in that float, nobody. Because I don't want anybody who has
:23:49. > :23:52.made this much of a botch of it to profit from it. Though that's
:23:52. > :23:55.probably not what the Treasury is thinking. Well, I think the Treasury
:23:55. > :23:59.may have trouble with the House of Commons when we come to that
:23:59. > :24:03.position. ?Oh, yeah. These people have clearly maed a mess of. This
:24:03. > :24:08.they've damaged one of the great institutions of our country, the
:24:08. > :24:13.Co-op in doing so... Well is the Co-op damaged? Somebody might think
:24:13. > :24:17.it's a great deal that it's going to save the bank, including the chief,
:24:17. > :24:21.which is unsurprising. Joot Co-op has been a very successful
:24:21. > :24:26.organisation. Yes it needed to modernise and so on. It did it on
:24:26. > :24:30.mutual basis. It was probably the preeminent mutual society. It wasn't
:24:30. > :24:34.on the Stock Exchange. It wasn't just controlled by a group of small
:24:34. > :24:37.shareholders and so on. In that sense, yes, this has damaged it.
:24:38. > :24:42.Reputationally it will damage it as well. Especially since they're
:24:42. > :24:48.talking about the bond holders and that, many of whom may well be
:24:48. > :24:51.pensioners having to take a cut on their investment and get cut back.
:24:51. > :24:56.There will be short-term loss for long-term gain in that sense? Do you
:24:56. > :25:01.think the culture of bank will change? Of the Co-op?Yes. Because
:25:01. > :25:06.shares will be owned by commercial investors? John's right. You need
:25:06. > :25:09.all sorts, you need an ecosystem. You need limited liability companies
:25:09. > :25:13.and mutual companies in a stable system. We have lost one of the part
:25:13. > :25:18.system. That's a bad thing. , thank you very much. We'll no doubt return
:25:18. > :25:23.to this in the future. You might be forgiven for thinking there is very
:25:23. > :25:27.little new left to say about the NHS in England, after recent reforms and
:25:27. > :25:34.endless debate. But the leading health think-tank the King's Fund
:25:34. > :25:36.has found another issue to discuss. Today, they're launching a
:25:36. > :25:40.commission into health and social care questioning whether the
:25:40. > :25:44.boundary between the two needs to be redrawn. The King's Fund says the
:25:45. > :25:50.health system faces a series of challenges this century, including
:25:50. > :25:54.increasing costs of care, a growing and ageing population. The current
:25:54. > :25:59.system, established after World War II, has remained unchanged with the
:25:59. > :26:03.NHS free at the point of use, while social care is means tested. At the
:26:03. > :26:08.moment, some aspects of social care are paid for by local authorities,
:26:08. > :26:11.not from the NHS budget. As we've also discussed, local councils are
:26:11. > :26:15.warning further cuts to their budgets will increase pressure on
:26:15. > :26:18.the services they provide. Elderly people are also expected to
:26:18. > :26:27.contribute to the costs of their own social care. Although the Government
:26:27. > :26:30.plans to cap this at �72,000 from 2016. The King's Fund also questions
:26:30. > :26:35.whether the relationship between health and social care staff is good
:26:35. > :26:39.enough. The Government has made a commitment to have a fully joined up
:26:39. > :26:42.health and social care service by 2018. Well, we've been joined by
:26:42. > :26:48.Chris Ham from the King's Fund and by the minister for social care,
:26:48. > :26:53.Norman Lamb. Welcome to both of you. Why is this review needed? We seem
:26:53. > :26:55.to know most of what I've said. What are we going to learn? We believe
:26:55. > :26:59.now is the time to do a fundamental review, not just of how the currents
:26:59. > :27:04.system works but whether it's the right system for the future. I would
:27:04. > :27:08.have an ageing population. We have people who don't just have one
:27:08. > :27:12.health care need but several. They span health and social care.
:27:12. > :27:16.Successive governments have tried to get local authorities and NHS
:27:16. > :27:20.organisations to work together with limited success. We believe it's
:27:20. > :27:24.long overdue to reexamine what happened in 1948 when the NHS was
:27:24. > :27:27.set up and local authorities were given responsibility for social care
:27:27. > :27:31.and ask how to bring them closer together and bring about
:27:32. > :27:35.improvements in care for older people who most need that care.
:27:35. > :27:39.agree that health and social care funding should be brought together?
:27:39. > :27:43.We argue that now is the time to address that question seriously. We
:27:43. > :27:48.think there are ways of doing it within the existing system that may
:27:48. > :27:55.not go far enough. Within the existing system, in other words
:27:55. > :28:00.still allowing councils to be the ash tors and -- arbitors and
:28:00. > :28:04.distributors of social care? limited option would be to pool
:28:04. > :28:08.councils to get organisations to agree to share resources. The
:28:08. > :28:12.radical option would be to say let's break down that barrier entirely,
:28:12. > :28:17.have a single pool of money paying for both health and social care.
:28:17. > :28:21.What you would like to see? Well, I think Chris and I are complete lay
:28:21. > :28:26.greed that the model of care has to change completely. So we have to be
:28:27. > :28:30.open minded about all the different options. The idea of just being able
:28:30. > :28:33.to work from one budget for the needs of people, individual patients
:28:33. > :28:37.don't understand the difference between health care and social care.
:28:37. > :28:42.They just want to receive care. The idea of breaking down this barrier I
:28:42. > :28:47.think is immensely attractive. are in favour of having one fund,
:28:47. > :28:51.really, from which all care would come, including social care?
:28:51. > :28:54.question is whether you do that as a national settlement, where you just
:28:54. > :28:59.change this arrangement, whereby you have the NHS and local authorities
:28:59. > :29:03.or whether you get it to happen the -- at the local level. What we're
:29:03. > :29:08.doing in Government is making it happen locally. We have set a tough
:29:08. > :29:11.ambition to get to a fully integrated system by 2018. We have
:29:12. > :29:17.pioneers that we're going to announce in septs that will really
:29:17. > :29:20.push the boundaries -- September. All the best countries in health
:29:20. > :29:23.terms are doing this. They recognise that the big challenge is people
:29:23. > :29:26.living for many years with chronic conditions and we're not caring for
:29:26. > :29:32.them very well. That's the challenge. We're not delivering good
:29:32. > :29:36.care and it's not a sustainable system. Is this new? When you were
:29:36. > :29:41.Health Secretary, people were talking about closer integration
:29:41. > :29:46.between community care and hospital care, for example. Do you agree with
:29:46. > :29:51.what Norman Lamb is saying? As it happens, I think both are spot on.
:29:51. > :29:56.Let's leave aside our differences and address the key question: There
:29:56. > :30:00.are two mammoth organisations. When I was Health Secretary there was
:30:00. > :30:06.about 1. 25 million people in the NHS and the same again and more in
:30:06. > :30:10.social care. Just behind the red army. Yeah they used to say apart
:30:10. > :30:14.from the Indian railways and Chinese Red Army, it was the largest
:30:14. > :30:18.organisation in the world. However, what has changed over the past 25
:30:18. > :30:24.years? It is the demographic changes. We're growing older, much
:30:24. > :30:28.older than we were. We're being sustained in life by new
:30:28. > :30:33.pharmaceuticals, new technology and so on. That means in the future,
:30:33. > :30:37.actually, most of the illnesses, the problem addressing them won't ab
:30:37. > :30:42.cute operations in hospitals, it will be chronic illnesses which
:30:42. > :30:48.requires care in the community. The big gap that used to be seen between
:30:48. > :30:52.care and hospital operations and medical side is disappearing because
:30:52. > :30:55.of social change. Why hasn't that happened? I've had endless
:30:56. > :30:57.discussions about this. Everybody recognises the problem and actually
:30:57. > :31:05.recognises the problem and actually recognises the problem and actually
:31:05. > :31:11.put forward solutions. It has happened incrementally, we
:31:11. > :31:16.introduced the number -- increased the number of community nurses and
:31:16. > :31:20.local health centres in the community, we expanded GP practices.
:31:20. > :31:26.That was incremental movement towards it. What our guests today
:31:26. > :31:31.are saying is that we really need to look at a big, strategic radical
:31:31. > :31:36.change, perhaps years out. We have already had a big, strategic radical
:31:36. > :31:41.change. Can the health service cope with a different one? With respect,
:31:41. > :31:46.it was the wrong one. What Norman and the government have said is that
:31:46. > :31:50.we will move some of the NHS budget to social care to help hard-pressed
:31:50. > :31:55.council is not to have to rush and social care to needy older people,
:31:55. > :32:01.because the two systems need to work together, that is where we need to
:32:01. > :32:07.focus. You made the wrong change? This is the model of care, not
:32:07. > :32:11.structural change. I would say we are in agreement... Except he says
:32:11. > :32:15.the reorganisation was not the right thing to do. Two you ask why it has
:32:15. > :32:21.not happened so far. The stars are lying snow and, critically, every
:32:21. > :32:31.part of the system recognises that unless change happens it will
:32:31. > :32:31.
:32:31. > :32:39.collapse. Reign and across parties. Then the more we can take the public
:32:39. > :32:46.with us. I am not a conservative, I am a Liberal Democrat. You are in
:32:46. > :32:51.coalition. And I have argued from the moment I got into the Department
:32:51. > :32:56.for health, I think it is really happening. Your commission wants to
:32:56. > :33:02.ask if the entitlements and criteria used to access who can access health
:33:02. > :33:08.and care be aligned. Social care is means tested. Do you want to apply
:33:08. > :33:15.means testing to parts of the NHS? We have set up a commission to look
:33:15. > :33:18.into that. But the logic of that question is we should look at means
:33:18. > :33:23.testing. We have not spoken about affordability and the difference in
:33:24. > :33:28.the budgets for the NHS and what councils receive for social care.
:33:28. > :33:32.But if you put them together, would you have to consider means testing
:33:32. > :33:37.part of the NHS? If we are revisiting the post-war settlement,
:33:37. > :33:43.you should not leave anything off the table. But we believe there is a
:33:43. > :33:48.lot of scope for using existing spending more efficiently. We spent
:33:48. > :33:52.105 �15 billion on the NHS, �15 billion on social care. Nobody says
:33:52. > :33:57.every pound is spent wisely and efficiently. If we did not have
:33:57. > :34:06.people in hospitals who could be cared for at home if the money was
:34:06. > :34:07.used flexibly, we would save on the wastage expenditure on expensive
:34:07. > :34:14.hospital treatment and help people to be supported where they want to
:34:14. > :34:18.be. So you will reduce the NHS budget and shift it to social care?
:34:18. > :34:21.We need to shift from repair to prevention. That is where we have
:34:22. > :34:29.made too much investment over the years, we have to stop people
:34:29. > :34:33.getting ill in the first place. it wrong to ring fence NHS spending?
:34:33. > :34:39.I think it was right, it has given us the capacity now to do quite
:34:39. > :34:44.exciting things with Health and Social Care Bill. The other big
:34:44. > :34:47.collaboration is between the statutory services in the
:34:47. > :34:51.community, people and neighbourhoods. Lots of people in
:34:51. > :34:56.retirement have time on their hands and want to give something back to
:34:56. > :35:02.their community, to neighbours. If we can unleash that power, together
:35:02. > :35:06.with the statutory services, we have a potential solution. When will the
:35:06. > :35:11.report be finished? The interim report, early next year, the final
:35:11. > :35:14.report in September, to feed into the election debate. There are holes
:35:14. > :35:19.in the NHS ring fence. The money that has been earmarked and
:35:20. > :35:24.protected, some of that is being transferred to local authorities to
:35:24. > :35:29.deal with their funding pressures. That is only a short-term sticking
:35:29. > :35:36.plaster solution. There is so much political consensus that now is the
:35:36. > :35:44.time to do that. C if anything can be agreed and done. Reign it is
:35:44. > :35:47.great that you are doing it. Apprenticeships should be as valued
:35:47. > :35:50.as a university degree - that's the view of Business Secretary Vince
:35:51. > :35:53.Cable, who has pledged to boost the image of apprentices, as well as
:35:53. > :35:56.increasing their numbers. More than half a million people started an
:35:56. > :35:58.apprenticeship last year, and the government is aiming for almost four
:35:58. > :36:02.million to have completed an apprenticeship scheme by 2022. This
:36:02. > :36:08.is what David Cameron said to young workers at a car factory during
:36:08. > :36:11.National Apprenticeship Week. Apprenticeships, and investing in
:36:11. > :36:15.apprenticeships, is a win-win situation. It is good for you
:36:15. > :36:18.because you get the chance to acquire skills which mean you can
:36:18. > :36:22.have a worthwhile career. There is some research evidence out recently
:36:22. > :36:29.that shows that if you do a higher-level apprenticeship, it
:36:29. > :36:32.raises the earning potential in your life by �150,000. So it is a win for
:36:32. > :36:36.the people undertaking the apprenticeships. It is a win for the
:36:36. > :36:39.companies, because the government is putting money into apprenticeships,
:36:39. > :36:47.allowing companies to access great training and great skills which will
:36:47. > :36:49.be good for the companies. But it is a win for the country.
:36:49. > :36:52.This morning, Business Secretary Vince Cable was out spreading the
:36:52. > :36:56.word and giving awards to the Apprentice Team of the Year. Dr
:36:56. > :36:58.Cable is with us now, and we're also joined by Julie White, managing
:36:58. > :37:00.director of the Coventry-based concrete cutting firm D-Drill, where
:37:00. > :37:05.almost half the staff are apprentices or came through their
:37:05. > :37:09.apprentice scheme. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:37:09. > :37:14.Vince Cable, you want to increase the number of apprentices with a
:37:14. > :37:18.target of creating almost 4 million between now and 2022, how will you
:37:18. > :37:23.do that in the shadow of the Spending Review? There has been a
:37:23. > :37:27.massive expansion since we came in to government, and although my
:37:27. > :37:29.department has come under significant cuts, I decided we
:37:29. > :37:34.wanted to prioritise apprenticeships and we have virtually doubled the
:37:34. > :37:38.number. We got half a million kids going through the system, mostly
:37:38. > :37:43.young people that some adults, this year, and there 1 million
:37:43. > :37:48.altogether. But it is not just numbers, it is about quality. We
:37:48. > :37:52.have cut out some of the shorter courses and are concentrating on
:37:52. > :37:57.advanced apprenticeships. Two or three years? You have to be the
:37:57. > :38:02.minimum of a year, there were some short courses before which were not
:38:02. > :38:06.really apprenticeships. What about the age of apprentices? You say the
:38:06. > :38:14.figures have expanded while you were in government, but the figures show
:38:14. > :38:17.that the number of apprenticeships for under 19 dropped in 2011/12.
:38:17. > :38:24.other age groups have expanded massively. There is an issue with
:38:24. > :38:29.young people. Apprenticeships is treated as a serious training
:38:29. > :38:33.opportunity, not something you walk into. We envisage a preliminary
:38:33. > :38:39.stage called a traineeship, where you get work experience and basic
:38:39. > :38:43.English and maths. Then they become an apprentice. Julie White, because
:38:43. > :38:50.apprentices, as I understand, are paid less than the minimum wage when
:38:50. > :38:56.they start, is there a danger of them being used as cheap labour?
:38:56. > :39:03.think that might be right in some larger companies, but at D-Drill we
:39:03. > :39:07.pay our apprentices �1 under a qualified apprentice. Because they
:39:07. > :39:09.can't reduce very quickly and we make money from them. So they are
:39:09. > :39:14.the lifeblood of the company and have a great feeling for the
:39:14. > :39:23.company. We keep talking about too many of the bigger companies talking
:39:23. > :39:29.about apprentices, there are 5 million SMEs out there, you should
:39:29. > :39:39.be getting us to take apprentices. Why is it such a problem for SMEs to
:39:39. > :39:39.
:39:39. > :39:43.get apprentices set up? They are often very busy. With a lot of small
:39:43. > :39:47.compass -- companies, they train somebody at great expense and time
:39:48. > :39:52.and then they drift off, they can't retain them. But big companies find
:39:52. > :39:58.it easier to lock people in. We recognise the problem. We are trying
:39:58. > :40:03.to make the system work more smoothly and we are giving them
:40:03. > :40:12.financial incentives, �1500 if they take on an extra apprentice. There
:40:12. > :40:17.is a cash incentive. We need to work on this. How easy is it for a small
:40:17. > :40:21.company to get an apprentice? paperwork is astronomical, and
:40:21. > :40:24.although the National Apprenticeship Week 's help, it is still tough. We
:40:24. > :40:30.are in one of the biggest recessions, hopefully coming out,
:40:30. > :40:33.but we need more help. �1500 is nothing when you want to bring in an
:40:33. > :40:40.apprentice, because it is the livelihood of all those companies
:40:40. > :40:46.coming through. But it is a drop in the ocean. This is from somebody...
:40:46. > :40:53.We would like to do more. But you haven't got the money. Indeed, but
:40:53. > :40:56.we are giving it a priority. This is your priority? We are doing more
:40:56. > :41:01.apprenticeships than anything else, but it is alongside supporting
:41:01. > :41:06.technology and universities, too. Julie, you mentioned this database
:41:06. > :41:13.idea, explain a little bit. If it is difficult to access the apprentices
:41:13. > :41:16.you want, or too difficult, what would a database do? Concrete
:41:16. > :41:20.cutting is very specialist, you can't get our workers from
:41:21. > :41:23.university or college or anywhere, so we have to home grow them. So we
:41:23. > :41:28.thought that once an apprentice has been through a construction company
:41:28. > :41:36.and does not have a full-time job, because some of them don't, there is
:41:36. > :41:41.not enough work, why can't I access those people? One, they have decided
:41:41. > :41:46.to go into construction, two, they usually want to work, but I have
:41:46. > :41:52.been told I can't access them because of data protection. That is
:41:52. > :41:58.ridiculous. What do you say? I think it is a good idea, I don't
:41:58. > :42:00.understand the data protection problem, I would have to look at it.
:42:00. > :42:03.We already have a talent retention scheme for qualified people. If you
:42:04. > :42:10.get a redundant engineer from the aerospace industry, they are fed
:42:10. > :42:14.into the system. We need to know about this. I don't see why we can't
:42:14. > :42:18.extend this to apprenticeships. this the way the government should
:42:18. > :42:26.be going, focusing attention and what money there is on building up
:42:26. > :42:31.apprenticeships? I think that Vince's prioritisation of this is
:42:31. > :42:36.important, not just in terms of the economy but in fairness. This is the
:42:36. > :42:41.forgotten 50%. There is an obsessive discussion about universities, which
:42:41. > :42:45.I understand, but this is the lifeblood of the economy,
:42:45. > :42:52.engineering, scientific, manufacturing sectors. Vince, cut
:42:52. > :42:55.down the bureaucracy, make it easier and go online. Let's have an
:42:55. > :43:00.exchange of names and possible potential apprentices for small
:43:00. > :43:06.companies. My one worry would be the point that you made, that last year
:43:06. > :43:10.there was an increase in 16 to 18-year-olds -- there was not an
:43:10. > :43:14.increase in 16 to 18-year-old, there was a drop. David Cameron was
:43:14. > :43:21.speaking to people that age, so we have a lot more apprentices, but
:43:21. > :43:25.many are over 25. There is a 10,000 drop in the 16 to 18-year-olds.
:43:25. > :43:30.health and safety, we cannot get them onto a construction site if
:43:30. > :43:37.they are not 18 and above. We have got one thing going against us, then
:43:37. > :43:42.another. So how will you get young people into... ? But you can go into
:43:42. > :43:47.conflict in the Army at 17 but not construction.
:43:47. > :43:51.This is massively oversimplifying, we do not want people killing
:43:51. > :43:56.themselves. What about the value of an apprenticeship? You say you have
:43:56. > :44:00.dealt with quality, but what are you doing to equate it to a business
:44:00. > :44:04.degree, for example? And that I think there is still an awful lot of
:44:04. > :44:11.snobbery around the fact that, perhaps, they are not as good as
:44:11. > :44:20.university degrees. That deeply entrenched apartheid between the
:44:20. > :44:21.qualification... We have to... them all? If you get into an
:44:21. > :44:25.advanced engineering apprenticeship, you are actually
:44:25. > :44:31.already doing a degree. The group of apprentices I met this morning, the
:44:31. > :44:35.team leader is doing a degree. He started on the shopfloor, became an
:44:35. > :44:41.apprentice and is doing a degree equivalent. That route is available
:44:41. > :44:45.for those who work hard and have the academic and vocational skills.
:44:45. > :44:49.you think apprentices are undervalued by the public bastion
:44:49. > :44:54.mark yes, the word apprentice has been so downtrodden for so long.
:44:54. > :44:58.have we made it about a degree is everything in life? The Swiss, the
:44:58. > :45:01.Austrians, the Germans, apprenticeship is everything. My
:45:01. > :45:08.whole management team have come through an apprenticeship course.
:45:08. > :45:16.Why have we devalued it so much? Vince Cable, you are quoted today as
:45:16. > :45:26.the grumpy old man. I am often cheerful and I don't regard myself
:45:26. > :45:33.
:45:33. > :45:37.as old! I take that back!But I have strong views about the needs to
:45:37. > :45:39.invest in skills and technology and backing up the brilliant work that
:45:39. > :45:41.people like Julie are doing. Will you settle with George Osborne
:45:41. > :45:43.before next week? We have not yet, that we have amicable, businesslike
:45:43. > :45:48.discussions. It is not winning or losing, hopefully we will all win.
:45:48. > :45:53.There is a compromise to be done, but you are worried about a false
:45:53. > :45:56.economy? I don't think we should even think about false economies,
:45:56. > :46:00.cutting back on badly needed investment in areas like skills. I
:46:00. > :46:05.think there is a way through and I will happily negotiate. I wouldn't
:46:06. > :46:10.say happily. But we are having good, even tempered, businesslike
:46:10. > :46:16.discussions. That is what you say in public, are you worried about going
:46:16. > :46:21.to the Star chamber? I describe that as amateur theatricals. We will
:46:21. > :46:26.continue to talk to the Treasury. They are the key in this. It is mean
:46:26. > :46:30.to ask you to do this, briefly, but what do you think is the best way to
:46:30. > :46:35.return Lloyds to private ownership? I don't want to anticipate what the
:46:35. > :46:39.Chancellor will say. And we have only got the Parliamentary
:46:39. > :46:43.commission report just coming out today. We have to try to die just
:46:43. > :46:47.that. I think most of us, looking at it, recognise that Lloyds is in a
:46:47. > :46:54.somewhat different position from RBS. But what that means in terms of
:46:54. > :47:04.timing and the detail, I think you have to wait. A quick sell-off?I
:47:04. > :47:05.
:47:05. > :47:11.think not, let's let the Chancellor say. I will not anticipate. When we
:47:11. > :47:15.hear the word psychopath we tend to think of Hannibal Lecter. But not
:47:16. > :47:21.only do our politicians share some personality trats but it's a good
:47:21. > :47:24.thing. It's a theory put forward by Dr Kevin Dutton. He argues in order
:47:24. > :47:34.to be effective our leaders have to have something of the night about
:47:34. > :47:36.
:47:36. > :47:40.them. Here's a slightly scary We're going to do something a little
:47:41. > :47:47.unusual on the Dalily politics today. We're going to take you
:47:47. > :47:55.inside the mind of one of Britain's greatest political leaders. One who
:47:55. > :48:00.allegedly shared some of the personality trats of the psychopath.
:48:00. > :48:10.Robert Hardy has played Churchill to critical acclaim. He's also got into
:48:10. > :48:12.
:48:13. > :48:18.character to take part in a study of psychology. Do I understand why in
:48:18. > :48:23.spite of his emotional nature and his good nature and his generosity
:48:24. > :48:30.of spirit, why he was able to take these killing decisions, the answer
:48:30. > :48:39.is sheer courage. Clear vision has to be done, can't bear the thought
:48:39. > :48:42.of doing it, have to do it. Call on courage. It's not just Winston. Dr
:48:42. > :48:45.Kevin Dutton and some of his colleagues asked buy yog fares of
:48:45. > :48:52.some of the world's leading political figures to take the same
:48:52. > :48:57.test on behalf of their subjects. He found that many share personality
:48:57. > :49:00.traits with criminal psychopaths. They're charming, charismatic, cool
:49:00. > :49:03.under pressure, self-confident. If you think of the jobs that
:49:03. > :49:10.politicians would have to do, some of the decision that's they make,
:49:10. > :49:14.those traits can come in handy in that line of work. Before you jam
:49:14. > :49:18.the switchboards, bear with us. Dr Kevin Dutton's point is that
:49:18. > :49:23.actually a little bit of psychopath in our politicians isn't just good
:49:23. > :49:27.for society, it's vital. In any kind of job where you've got to make
:49:27. > :49:31.tough decisions, or you've got to be cool under pressure, where you have
:49:31. > :49:38.to be charming and charismatic and not necessarily always dot thing
:49:38. > :49:42.which you would like to be liked for, I think you need psychopathic
:49:42. > :49:47.qualities in order to discharge those duties. So I think in the
:49:47. > :49:51.right context and at the right level and I think broadly speaking,
:49:51. > :49:57.politicians stick to those parameters. We have need
:49:57. > :50:02.psychopathic traits. Theory. But to those who've been up close to
:50:02. > :50:04.political greatness buy it? I go back to the time where I was in
:50:04. > :50:12.Conservative central office, the years and thousands of pounds we
:50:12. > :50:16.wasted on trying, for instance, to make Margaret Thatcher appear kind
:50:16. > :50:23.and cuddly. Complete waste of time. She wasn't kind of cuddly. She was
:50:23. > :50:26.somebody would got things done. Fay told her that she was, she had
:50:26. > :50:32.psychopathic ten densies, I suspect herries would have glinted at me and
:50:32. > :50:37.then a nod, yes, she didn't want to be loved. She didn't want to be like
:50:37. > :50:41.everybody else. Lord Dobbs created arguably the greatest political
:50:41. > :50:46.psychopath of all time. No politician wants to be like him, do
:50:46. > :50:55.they? The only people that I'm aware of, the only politicians who I'm
:50:55. > :51:01.aware of who are upset by writing about Francis Erkhart. They ask if
:51:01. > :51:05.it was them. It wasn't. It was a xozity figure of many people that I
:51:05. > :51:10.met and studies. -- studied. Our politicians might not be add or
:51:10. > :51:18.dangerous to know, but could they be dangerous to know? You might think
:51:18. > :51:24.that. I couldn't possibly comment. How very chilling. David Thompson
:51:24. > :51:28.reporting. We're joined by the psych therapist, Lucy Beresford. Is it a
:51:28. > :51:35.bit of an exaggeration to say that great political leaders share some
:51:35. > :51:41.of the personality traits of a psychopath. It is. Personality
:51:41. > :51:45.traits aren't mutually exclusive. In lots of ind steroids you want --
:51:45. > :51:48.industries you want people to be Ruthless, making quick decisions,
:51:48. > :51:52.having emotional detachment. The surgeon who operated on my wrist
:51:53. > :51:56.last week, I needed him to be detached. You probably need to have
:51:56. > :52:02.those certain traits. It doesn't mean to say you're a psychopath.
:52:02. > :52:06.Helpful? They talked about Winston Churchill, one of the greatest, is
:52:06. > :52:10.it helpful to say that the personality traits of a psychopath
:52:10. > :52:14.are those that a successful politician needs to have, so whether
:52:15. > :52:20.it's charming, ruthless, cool under pressure, self-confident, who does
:52:20. > :52:23.that remind you of? I don't think it's particularly helpful. It makes
:52:24. > :52:31.a great headline on a noon chat show politically. It's a good job you're
:52:31. > :52:35.on one then. I'm in the a psychotherapist. A psychopath.Or
:52:35. > :52:38.that. I understand the central thing here, I understand from what the
:52:38. > :52:44.background I've been given to the programme is this question of
:52:44. > :52:49.empathy and empathy being, as I understand it, the ability to
:52:49. > :52:53.understand another person's emotions and feelings. It certainly is not a
:52:53. > :53:00.helpful thing to have a lack of empathy as a politician. Have you to
:53:00. > :53:03.be able to understand the emotional effect and the feelings of -- of the
:53:03. > :53:08.people that your decisions affect. Equally, have you to be able - this
:53:08. > :53:14.applies to all leaders in industry, military, politically, probably even
:53:14. > :53:18.parents - you have to understand that while you can empathise with
:53:18. > :53:20.somebody's emotions, that sometimes, for the longer term good, whatever
:53:20. > :53:25.position you're in, including parents, have you to take a
:53:25. > :53:29.particular decision. Now I don't regard that as psychopathy. That's a
:53:29. > :53:33.degree of resolution and decisiveness, which is required in a
:53:33. > :53:38.leading position. You have talked about empathy and everybody would
:53:38. > :53:43.say absolutely. But to be a really successful leader is ruthlessness
:53:43. > :53:49.not the critical factor? No, it isn't. Decisiveness is. Resolution
:53:49. > :53:53.is. But if by ruthlessness you mean the capacity to take decisions
:53:53. > :53:58.irrespective of people's feelings or because you are incapable of
:53:58. > :54:01.understanding their feelings, that's an entirely different thing. Supreme
:54:01. > :54:08.indifference towards other people is a trait of being a psychopath. There
:54:08. > :54:12.is this great danger and it was touched on in a fabulous book by
:54:12. > :54:17.Lord Owen in sickness and in power, which examined the mental health and
:54:17. > :54:23.the physical health of quite a lot of the world's leaders over the last
:54:23. > :54:29.100 years. It looked at things like megalomania and that ruthlessness
:54:29. > :54:32.which is tied to enormous self-belief and a certain
:54:32. > :54:36.restlessness of personality and perhaps an inattention to detail,
:54:36. > :54:40.shall we say, that for some people, it's all about the big picture.
:54:40. > :54:44.Looking at Tony Blair for example, what were the key personality trats
:54:44. > :54:49.that made him, in your mind, such a successful leader in terms of the
:54:49. > :54:57.number of terms he won? I think the intellectual capacity to understand
:54:57. > :55:02.the changes in the modern world. He had an analystical mind to focus on
:55:02. > :55:05.the strategic questions that had to be addressed. He was well aware that
:55:05. > :55:07.some of the decisions he took would not be agreed with, would be
:55:07. > :55:14.upsetting to people, but also he had an understanding, and this applies
:55:14. > :55:17.toe all leaders, to decide is to divide. That's why opposition is
:55:17. > :55:18.easy compared to Government in. Opposition you can give the
:55:18. > :55:22.impression you're against everything. When you're in
:55:22. > :55:26.Government you have to take a decision. When you do that, you have
:55:26. > :55:30.to accept that there will be people who will into the gree with you and
:55:30. > :55:33.many people who might be upset by it. But if you do not take that
:55:33. > :55:37.decision, there'll be no movement forward at all. That thought for the
:55:37. > :55:42.next bit of our programme. Lucy Beresford, thank you very much. Now
:55:42. > :55:47.back to our quiz. A slightly different one from our usual style.
:55:47. > :55:54.The question was: According to you, which of the following is the most
:55:54. > :56:00.likely result of the 2015 general election. A, a Labour majority, B, a
:56:00. > :56:05.Labour/Lib Dem coalition, C, a o Conservative/Lib Dem coalition or D,
:56:05. > :56:11.a Conservative majority. Am I supposed to have said at some time?
:56:11. > :56:15.No, your judgment. On the facts at the moment would suggest a small
:56:15. > :56:22.Labour victory probably the order of 40 in the latest opinion polls. It
:56:22. > :56:27.may well be that even a minority Labour Party could form a
:56:27. > :56:32.Government. I think the most disastrous thing would be for Labour
:56:32. > :56:35.to anticipate and work towards a coalition with the liberals.
:56:35. > :56:39.Strategically that would be a very bad mistakes. There are good
:56:39. > :56:44.individuals in the liberal party, you know Vince Cable and others who
:56:44. > :56:48.have been on your programme today. But I think that if you believe that
:56:48. > :56:53.you should work towards a coalition, and therefore you plan for defeat,
:56:53. > :56:59.you will bring about that defeat. Speaking to Andrew Neil in April,
:56:59. > :57:03.you said, " Now was the time for Ed Miliband to move the party from a
:57:03. > :57:08.voice of protest to position of party as a potential Government." Is
:57:08. > :57:12.he getting there? The present signs are yes. I said that I thought we
:57:12. > :57:16.had to stop saying, we're against this and start saying what we would
:57:16. > :57:21.do. That has happened now. Ed Miliband has done. It Ed Balls has
:57:21. > :57:25.done it. You agree with those policy announcements that have been made,
:57:26. > :57:29.the caps on welfare spending, universal benefits for rich pension
:57:29. > :57:34.snerz I do. And the health and social care coming toghts. Liam
:57:34. > :57:41.Byrne saying on welfare we have to reform and relate it more closely to
:57:41. > :57:43.the contribution that you've made over the years. Stephen Twigg twig
:57:43. > :57:47.yesterday on building... Did you understand what's the difference
:57:47. > :57:51.between a parent-led academy and a free school? A free school has to
:57:51. > :57:56.have a sponsor. It has to have a significant amount of money put in
:57:56. > :58:01.by an individual or individuals. It also is part of the local planning
:58:01. > :58:05.process, sorry an acad my meets those qualifications. A free school
:58:05. > :58:09.is any school that's established at the behest of a group of parents.
:58:09. > :58:13.They have similar attributes. The key thing is that he said that some
:58:13. > :58:18.of the freedoms that have been extended under the Labour Government
:58:18. > :58:24.to academies and... Will be taken on? No, should be extended to state
:58:24. > :58:29.schools. That is the length of the day, the flexibility of the
:58:29. > :58:33.curriculum and so on. I'm all for that. So, Stephen Twigg, Andy
:58:33. > :58:37.Burnham, Liam Byrne, Ed Miliband and Ed balds, since I recommended that
:58:37. > :58:41.we come out with policy direction, I'm glad to say... They've taken it
:58:41. > :58:44.on board. On that note, we'll end it. Thank you very much to our guest
:58:44. > :58:49.of the day John Reid and all our other guests. The one o'clock news