09/09/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Labour and the unions trade blows. Is the report on an alleged union

stitch-up in the selection of an MP another union stitch-up?

Hague couldn't persuade his MPs, but can the US Secretary of State

visiting London today persuade congressmen to back military action

against Syria? MPs prepare to grill BBC bosses. Who

was it who authorised hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee

payers' money to be paid to departing colleagues?

And the queen of the party conference comedy circuit hangs up

her boots. It is a well-known truth that every

Lib Dem activist fancies himself in sequins!

Yes, the mind boggles! All that in the next hour.

With us for the first half of the programme today is Shadow Health

Minister and Labour MP Diane Abbott. Let's start with Chris Huhne. The

disgraced former Cabinet Minister has today claimed that the media

coverage which led to his downfall was what he described as "payback"

for his support for investigations into hacking by Rupert Murdoch's

News International. Mr Huhne lost his political career and his liberty

over his speeding conviction, a story that was uncovered by the

Sunday Times, a paper owned by News International. Mr Huhne told the

Today programme this morning that, at one time, he was being was tailed

by a full-time investigator. All I am pointing out is that the

way in which this was specifically done, was a very clear payback for

the fact that I had been a former journalist. I wasn't able to resist

going public on how the police should reopen the investigation into

voice Male hacking and the Murdoch press.

Your thoughts? My thought is politicians complaining about the

media is like ducks complaining about the weather. I feel very sorry

for his family particularly the children who got caught up in it.

What I would recommend to Chris Huhne is a John Profumo system,

quiet, good works, in long period of reflection.

He is not taking your advice. Is that because he is, somehow, trying

to brazen it out, if you like? He is certainly not taking good advice.

It worked for John Profumo, it will work for him. Years of silence.

It worked for John Profumo, it will Did News International have an

agenda? You know, is the Pope a Catholic? Of course they have an

agenda. Complaining about that as a politician... You get on with it.

He says rather than cheap skating on the proposed investigation on

hacking my phone, the News of the world put me under extensive

surveillance by a retired policeman. Is this someone tried to

fight his way back into politics? The truth is he did break the law,

that's why he went to prison. Rupert Murdoch is a separate issue.

Now it's time for our daily quiz. A report from Yale University today

suggests that politics can impair performance, but what does it make

you bad at? Is it: a) Relationships. B) Maths.

C) Grammar. Or d) Sports? At the end of the show we will give

you the correct answer. Now, a war of words has broken out

between union bosses currently gathered in Bournemouth for the TUC

conference, and the Labour leadership over Mr Miliband's

proposed changes to Labour Party funding. The Labour leader wants to

end the automatic affiliation of union members to the party. Members

would, instead, have to opt in to Labour, a policy change that could

cost the party millions. The changes were announced in the wake of the

controversy over the selection of Labour's candidate in Falkirk. The

Unite trade union was alleged to have packed local membership lists

with Unite members who were unaware they were joining Labour, in a bid

to get their candidate Karie Murphy selected. Ed Miliband suspended two

party members, including Karie Murphy, and put the Falkirk party in

special measures. And, in a speech, he castigated Unite and the Falkirk

saga, calling it: "Politics of the machine. A politics that is rightly

hated. What we saw in Falkirk is part of the death-throes of the old

politics." But then, on Friday evening, Labour

announced the two suspended Falkirk members would be reinstated, as they

were "not guilty of any wrongdoing". And Karie Murphy announced she was

withdrawing her nomination for the Falkirk seat.

Labour also said, "Key evidence has been withdrawn". The current Labour

MP for Falkirk, Eric Joyce, has said the key witnesses were "prevailed

upon" to withdraw their statements. They may be keen to move on, and

they were criticised by Ed Miliband, he said there were serious

issues, labour besmirched by the behaviour of if you individuals. It

is wrong, the practices would not have Len McCluskey defending this

kind of machine politics. He made a big deal about this. Now we find

that evidence has been withdrawn and the report will not be published.

Should it be? Len McCluskey has said he is happy

he wants to move on and work with the Labour Party. This is a

Westminster story, ordinary people in Hackney are not talking about

this. Ed Miliband make a begin of it. He

launched his reform of the relationship between Labour and the

unions on this. The people around Ed Miliband feel

under pressure. They are determined to prove he is not a puppet. He is

not, that is a fact. That was then, this is now.

So was it a mistake by Ed Miliband to go in as hard as he did, over

what he alleges what happened in Falkirk?

We are all going to move on. You Falkirk?

keep saying that but can you move on when there has been an

investigation, a report that has now not been published, when that

investigation has found the two suspended individuals have now been

proven innocent? We can move on. George Osborne is

boasting how well the economy is doing, but my stitch whence are

under the cosh in terms of living standards. This was a Westminster

bubble story. It was not, this was Ed Miliband,

his platform from which he launched his big reform of the relationship

with the unions. If Len McCluskey is ready to move

on, surely the media should be. Is Ed Miliband happy with the

conclusions, does he not need to demand that report is published?

Otherwise we can't make a judgement. He must want to address the big

issues, living standards, zero hours contracts.

Tom Watson has said those comments about unite should be retracted from

Jim Murphy. But no one will move on until this

squabbling in Labour, until some things are sorted out.

Should Jim Murphy beat apologising? There are far bigger issues, Syria,

living standards, what's really happening to ordinary people. We

have to move on. What do you say to the two people

who were suspended? Karie Murphy has agreed to stand down for the best

interests of the party. If someone apologised, that would

draw a line underneath it? I am not supporting those calls.

When asked about what was in the original report, he said this

enquiry says people were being signed up to the party without their

knowledge. He says people were being asked to sign up to the Labour Party

on condition they supported certain candidates, that is why we have

suspended to individuals. On Friday, it was announced no rules

were broken. He was from. You need to ask Ed Miliband about

that. Somebody was wrong here. Either the witnesses and their

account wasn't correct and there was a problem with evidence, which would

be very serious. Or they were telling the truth but have been

persuaded to withdraw evidence. What other explanation could there be?

There is no conspiracy here. You would have been persuaded to

withdraw evidence. What other explanation could there be? There is

withdraw evidence. What other no conspiracy here. You how to ask

Ed Miliband. As I understand, Unite did nothing in Falkirk that other

organisations weren't doing. So Ed Miliband was wrong to pursue it? Ed

Miliband is never wrong. It can't be that the unions weren't doing

anything wrong, and that Ed Miliband... You must ask him, maybe

there was a misunderstanding. Are you embarrassed? Nope.Why don't you

want to talk about it? People have other things they want to talk

about. There is an element of truth and element of trust. There is and

Ed Miliband and the trade unions are committed to modernising the way the

unions relate to Labour. Going well so far? You will see by the end of

the week. So, tomorrow, Ed Miliband addresses

the TUC conference in Bournemouth, So, tomorrow, Ed Miliband addresses

determined, apparently, to reform the link with the unions. But just

how money does Labour risk losing in these changes? Here's David.

I do not promise easy time. That was before he decided to reform their

links with the unions. They may be comrades but they are not always

friends. Ed Miliband may have won the leadership on the back of union

votes but it is clear he wants to reform the relationship between the

party and its biggest paymasters. What is not clear is the

consequences of that decision. A new beginning or the beginning of the

end? The consequences could be drastic. I am on record saying this

could be the gamble of the century, a political gamble. It could force

the financial meltdown of the Labour Party as it stands.

Here is why he is talking in such apocalyptic terms. Union members

have to watch out if they want to avoid paying an affiliation fee to

Labour. Last year, those fees raised £8 million, a quarter of its total

income. Under the reforms, members would have to opt in which could

cost dear. Last week, the GMB said its affiliation fees would drop by

£1 million to reflect the move. Unite reckons the party would lose

£3 million from its members. Big numbers but not enough to deter

those who crave reform. If you worry about something that needs to be

tackled as a matter of principle because you might lose some money,

you are looking at this from the wrong end. This is about a new type

of politics, after the expenses scandal, this is about a new

settlement. Ed Miliband's strength is he understands a need for a new

settlement. But that is the kind of armaments which antagonises people

within the union movement. The money the party is means -- receiving from

the union movement is the most transparent money in politics.

People have a right to be insulted by that. While the proposals might

hit affiliation fees, the unions could still donate. So things as

drastic as they seem? I would find it amazing, and many

unions are not affiliated, but they know their ambitions, their view of

life, it is very similar to the Labour Party. So I would be very

surprised if they did not contribute to those objectives.

TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady joins us now live from

Bournemouth. Welcome.

You said earlier today, union money is the cleanest cash in politics.

Would it be more less keen if individual had two. -- had to opt

in? That is a matter for the Labour

Party. What do you think? The real dirt in politics hasn't been

tackled. People are far more worried about the grip that people in the

City have over politics, half of donations to the Conservative party

come from the City, than freely given from nurses, train drivers.

Ed Miliband has already made it clear the direction he wants to

take... What do you think?The TUC is not affiliated to the Labour

Party and most of our unions are not affiliated to the Labour Party but

we do share concern that we want an agenda for decent jobs, fair pay and

a fair share of the rewards as and when economic recovery comes. What

do you say when Ed Miliband will say, we need to build a party truly

rooted in the lives of all the working people in Britain once

more. What does that say about the efforts of the trade unions to do

the same? We represent 6 million people. I think we do a good job of

it. I don't think we would be talking about zero hours contracts,

the need for living wage and unfair pay if it wasn't for the trade union

movement and I am proud for that. Voters want a real agenda for a

fairer Britain and some answers about how we are going to get there.

There is also an opinion poll that shows the majority of unions are

backing Ed Miliband's plans to reform the relationship with the

unions and how they are funding Labour. A lot of union leaders have

already been clear about that. Len McCluskey has welcomed the

initiative to modernise and reform the link for the 21st-century. This

has happened over the Labour Party's entire history. There is

nothing new about that. Its rules are not written in stone, it is a

broad church and they will change with the time. Do you support... 100

relieved hands of Labour Party funding? That is a matter for the

GMB but the real issue that ordinary working people are talking about is

how to get that 1 working people are talking about is

people back to work, not any job but a decent job, how do we get fair

pay, and that when we do get a recovery it doesn't all go into

bumper bonuses in the city of but into people 's pay packets. -- in

the City but into people's pay packets. 86% of members of Unite

believe it is right to introduce a packets. 86% of members of Unite

cap on benefits but that is not the position of the unions. Our concern

about the benefit cap is that the majority of the benefits go to low

paid workers in work, who are dependent on tax credits to get by

when instead, and this is a key point, we should tackle the root

cause of low pay. I want those employers in those industries that

can afford to pay a fair wage and offer fair working conditions should

do so. We need employers and unions to get around the table, supported

by government, to get that right. Ordinary families have lost £30 a

week on average out of their pay back its troop cuts in real pace

since the financial crash that they did nothing to cause -- out of their

pay packets through cuts. Meanwhile top pay has gone through the roof.

People have a real appetite for fairness and politicians of all

political parties need to start listening. Except one could argue

you are not representing working listening. Except one could argue

people on the issue of welfare and the benefit cap because the majority

of Unite members support the benefit cap and you don't. I think if you

ask trade union members, do they want to see fair pay and employers

stopping offering zero hours contracts, you will get a very clear

answer. That workers should not have to rely on state hand-outs when

employers can afford to pay more. That is the way to get the deficit

down. The same goes for the housing benefit bill. Frances O'Grady in

Bournemouth, thank you very much. Last time you were on the programme

we asked you about angry comments from trade union general secretaries

and you laugh them off and said they did not mean what they said. Now

they have taken action. The GMB has withdrawn £1 million of funding to

the Labour Party. They are withdrawn £1 million of funding to

their money where their mouth is. The leadership of the major trade

unions, Len McCluskey, Paul Kenny, very strongly support the Labour

Party. Their problem is that on this issue they are a little to the right

than their activists but in all the unions there are a very large amount

of members who do not support the party. Dave Prentice did not sound

supportive to Labour. He has been a solid supporter to successive Labour

leaders. Trade union money is a matter for them but I do not believe

Ed Miliband... You think they will reverse the decision to cut the

money to the Labour Party? I am not saying that, no. It is like a family

quarrel but at the end of the day the unions will not see the Labour

Party destitute. That, I believe. But it is a natural conclusion to

what the Labour Party is proposing, so how will the party afford to run

the next election? No doubt the people around Ed Miliband have

factored that in. Do you talk to Ed Miliband much about these issues,

like Falkirk? You are a frontbencher, it sounds like you do

not have any discussions with him? I am very humble on the front bench.

So are you not in his inner circle? I am a very humble frontbencher.

Will I am seeing is the trade unions will not see the Labour Party

destitute. -- all that I am saying. You said Ed Miliband had a mission

to detoxify the label Red Ed. I did not say that. The talk in the

newspapers is nonsense, that he is Red Ed. But not that the union

supported him and that is how he won. The unions voted for

supported him and that is how he because they wanted to block David

at all costs, that is what that was about. Thank you. Don't go away.

It is set to be a tough week for Barack Obama who is trying to

convince the US Congress and Senate to support military strikes in

Syria. On this side of the Atlantic, this morning the American Secretary

of State John Kerry and William Hague have discussed Syria, with

William Hague insisting Britain and America are closely aligned. A

little earlier John Kerry explained why there should be support for

action against the Assad government. I think it would be good to hear

people saying to a dictator, keep your hands off chemical weapons that

kill your own people. Protect your own people. I think it's important

for us to stand up as nations for civility and against actions that

challenge notions of humanity and decency and appropriate

international behaviour for almost 100 years. The world has stood

together against the use of chemical weapons and we need to hear an

appropriate outcry as we think back on those moments of history when

large numbers of people have been killed because the world was silent.

We have our special correspondent in New York. Andrew. Welcome!

Good afternoon on a beautiful New York morning.

One does wonder why, when Great Britain is going to be joining

forces with America, John Kerry was standing shoulder to shoulder with

William Hague. This will make no influence, it is

not even being watched over here. If This will make no influence, it is

the vote was held in Congress today, the president would lose. He

might squeak through in the Senate, although I am not sure of that. He

would certainly lose in the House. 227 members of them have already

said they would be against a strike and you only need 217 for a

majority, so if it was today, it would go the way of David Cameron in

the House of Commons. How much has he got to do to

persuade enough people to make the certain of success?

He is not certain of success and he has a mountain to climb. He is

giving interviews to six networks today, which will all appear on

prime time tonight. He is addressing the nation from the Oval Office

tomorrow life and there is a massive lobbying campaign going on in

Congress. That is a powerful business. The president is up

against a more powerful machine, public opinion. Senators and

congressmen are coming back from their constituencies over the

weekend reporting huge public opposition to any kind of strike

against Syria. One Congressman's said to me, to say 99% of my people

are against it is to overestimate the support for it. Those that have

electoral ambitions are against it, like the senior senator, Democrat,

for Arkansas. It will be very hard indeed. At the moment the president

is staring defeat in the face. What will that mean for his

presidency? For him, politically? The stakes are high.

It will be devastating for the president if he loses because it

will show that he has not got the power to get his way in Congress

when it comes to major issues power to get his way in Congress

foreign policy and indeed, the elephant in the room is not Syria.

The strongest briefing we are getting from the administration is

that if the Americans do not agree to a strike against the 9/11

regime, by the way Assad has appeared on American network

television this morning reminding Americans of the difficulty of their

past experiences in the Middle East, but the line is that if the White

House does not respond to the chemical attacks in Syria, the

Iranians will not believe any threats they make against them. If

he loses this, my feeling is we will have a lame duck president for the

rest of his tenure. Second terms are always very difficult for American

presidents, they do not have pulling power to bring people along. If he

loses this vote in Congress, he will be even more of a lame duck

president. What about the timetable of these

events? What about the timetable of these

We are beginning to get procedural motions this week and there could be

a substantial vote on Friday but I do not think the House, and he needs

to win in both the House and the Senate, I do not think they will

come until sometime next week and these long delays, he let Congress

comeback after those summer holiday in the natural way, delaying any

possible attack, it is like he has done a save the date card to Assad

saying, I will get to you in September. The fact there is this

delay also means that many in Congress to not think the president

is really serious about this and they are not going to go along with

it. Presumably if Congress does not

support this, even though he could go ahead with military action as

commander in chief, he wouldn't. It is inconceivable if he loses the

vote in Congress that he would proceed with military action. He

will not say so in public but White House aides are sailing Congress

will have to vote and if it doesn't, there will not be a strike -- are

saying. I will bring you back a present if

you get Diane Abbott to answer a question.

It is a deal! Answer the questions or I do not get the present! It

looks now as if any military response is hanging in the balance.

You must be pleased but listening to John Kerry, it will leave the Assad

regime unpunished. I will not comment on American policy but I

will say this. Bombing Syria would almost certainly make things worse

and it would suck us into a Syrian Civil War and that is why the

majority of the British public and the American public are against it

and that is why it would be very unwise to bring the issue back to

the House of Commons for a second vote. You think it would be a

mistake. Cameron must think so as vote. You think it would be a

well otherwise he would not have been so emphatic. Even more of his

own MPs will vote against the first time and that would be a

humiliation. Let me try again, is Ed Miliband minded, if circumstances

change dramatically, William Hague there said there was a possibility,

that a second vote could be had in the Commons? Would let Ed Miliband

support it? Really, there has to be a United Nations resolution. If

Congress... Would that not be enough?

If there is a UN resolution, of course we would support it. But

failing that, and a great many of us believe that to get involved in

bombing Syria and getting sucked into a civil war would be a big

mistake. If David Cameron manages to get Ed

Miliband on board, would you be on board?

Not unless there is a UN resolution. The BBC Director-General Tony Hall

sent an email to all staff this morning saying today's going to be a

"tough one" for the corporation. Yes, another one.

This afternoon, no fewer than seven former and current BBC bigwigs will

appear before the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons. And all

eyes will be on former Director General Mark Thompson and BBC Trust

Chairman Chris Patten, who have been trading public blows over who knew

what about controversial severance packages for departing executives.

Mark Thompson says the trust knew about the hundreds of thousands

being paid out. But here's what Chris Patten told the committee back

in July. For us, we asked for this report

because we were concerned about the overall size of severance payments,

and wanted to see if we could reduce them, albeit the fact that they were

contractual, it was a question of shock and dismay for us to discover

how many had been beyond contractual, and even higher than

they needed to be. Where they can seek -- exceeded

contractual obligations, should the trust have known?

Yes. And if you recall, The Conservative MP Chris

Heaton-Harris is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and will

be questioning BBC bosses this afternoon. He joins us now.

It is unusual to speak to all of the witnesses simultaneously, if you

like, why? Because they are contradicting each

other, so it is easier to whittle out a tiny bit of the truth by

having them all answer each other's questions. It will be an interesting

dynamic, there is no love lost between certain members of the

panel. Chris Patten has said he hopes it

will be reasonably dignified, what are the chances of that? It should

be. Everything we do is reasonably

dignified. What the panel does to each other, who knows?

Did you have problems persuading them to appear alongside each other?

It was relatively smooth in sorting out the logistics.

What do you want to hear from Mark Thompson today?

We want to hear from the trust and Mark Thompson what actually happened

with these very big payoffs. We have conflicting versions.

We want to find out the truth, the committee has not had access to BBC

accounts before 2010. Every time we have scratched the surface,

especially at the top, this is about the top echelons of the BBC and

nothing to do with the general rank and file of staff. At the top, there

are definite issues about how public money has been spent.

Rob Wilson said if it turns out the trust approved excessive payments it

is not tenable for Chris Patten to continue. Do you agree? It depends

if he knew about them. There is a scenario that Mark

Thompson and Chris Patten are telling the truth.

Mark Thompson has evidence he claims that the trust, including Chris

Patten, did know about the payments being made. He might have sent an

e-mail to Chris Patten or the trust office which could have been generic

and not specifying detail. That is something we are going to

ask this afternoon. You're not expecting a definitive

answer if you are conceding actually both could be right.

I have just given you a scenario where this could possibly be that

both of them are telling pretty much where this could possibly be that

the truth. Are you hoping to get to the bottom of it?

I am expecting so. The chairman Margaret Hodge is very good at that

sort of thing. There are MPs on the committee who are very good in

visitors. Lucy Adams has already admitted

misleading the committee over an e-mail that she didn't seem to

remember at the time, but then admitted she took part in drafting

it. Is there a punishment for that? She has said she will leave the BBC,

it might speed that up. It depends on what Tony Hall thinks about this.

A man who has come in to do a job, not expecting it to be such a choppy

ride as he has had since coming into post. I think he was quite reliant

on Lucy Adams doing this. Losing that key member of staff in that H R

position and then finding the evidence she gave to the committee

was whether a deliberate untruth or a mistake, incorrect, must be very

disappointing. Is there a punishment for misleading

disappointing. the committee? There is but I don't

think we will be giving her a public dressing down.

Should she go early though? Do you as a committee member think she

should? Personally, I think she should, yes.

What do you think? I think it is an internal BBC

matter. We know that 99% of you are not getting millions of pounds. She

matter. We know that 99% of you are says, bitterly!

What has this done to public trust in the corporation? I don't think it

helps. It gives the impression that everyone in the corporation is

overpaid. The issue is important, the infighting is not edifying.

But the issue itself is important, if there were over payments that

were not contractually necessary. If this was a private sector company

it would clearly be what they wanted to do. But the BBC, it gets

attention from scrutineers, like Chris. As I say, it is sad, it

reflects poorly on what is actually a great institution.

There are suggestions the trust could be abolished. It will set up

under Labour. Should the regulator be Ofcom?

I think we are moving towards that. You do. I think so.

They keep the organising and changing but it doesn't seem to

work. What about you?

I am not sure. The National audit report stresses there are government

issues at trust level. And, unfortunately, for the BBC as a

whole, the BBC Trust has maybe done some inaccurate and bad things, and

now the BBC gets a public bashing for it. That is slightly unfair.

But, this is the way we work in media, you get plenty of attention

when something bad happens and not media, you get plenty of attention

so much attention otherwise. Whoever it is, Ofcom, there will be

politicians who find something to criticise.

So, time now to look at what's on the political agenda this week, and

it's shaping up to be a busy one. Tomorrow, Labour leader Ed Miliband

faces a key test of his leadership, addressing union leaders at the TUC

conference in Bournemouth. On Wednesday, Parliament's Public

Accounts Committee holds a hearing on the Iain Duncan Smith's troubled

Universal Credit plans for benefits. This follows last week's criticism

of the system by the National Audit Office.

On Thursday, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, gives

evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on the August quarterly

inflation report. And party conference season begins this week.

The Greens are in Brighton on Friday. And this weekend, the Lib

Dems gather in Glasgow. We're joined from College Green by

Pippa Crerar of the London Evening Standard, and the Daily Mail's

Andrew Pierce. No doubt really looking forward to

the conference season. Pepper, is Ed Miliband doing the right thing in

terms of reforming the relationship with the unions?

He may well be but there's not much he can do about it because there is

no going back. Having made such a big deal about reforming the link

with the unions, he has two see it through. Can you imagine if he said

he made a mistake? It would send a message of weakness within the party

and to the unions. The bottom line is the majority want to see the link

performed. Ed Miliband, having had the union support, has always been

seen as being in thrall to them. So it is important to show that he is

able to create some degree of separation, and modernise the

relationship. That is not to say not to have a strong link but to make

sure it is not seem as if they have an overbearing influence on policy.

This row was a gift for the Conservatives.

The majority of trade union members are backing Ed Miliband. Could he

come out of this stronger? Only if he wins. If he doesn't, he

will look like a lame duck Labour leader. This is a futile scrap with

the unions. A knee jerk response to Falkirk. He overreacted, telling us

there was evidence of wrongdoing. Then on Friday night, there is

nothing wrong in Falkirk at all, suggestions there may have been

union manipulation. It has wrong-footed him and made him look

weak. He has already lost money from one of the unions. He needs a

coherent alternative economic strategy which they are miserably

failing to do. He is petrified he may not win. The British public

don't give a hoot about this. On the economy, how difficult is

this for Labour? George Osborne arguing Labour has been proved

wrong. Growth is back. It is a tricky strategic decision

George Osborne made in his speech. He has decided that he wants to

hammer home the message the economy is moving thanks to the column --

the Conservatives. But there is a danger of things not progressing as

fast as he would like. Recovery has been slow so far. And there is a

danger of him appearing complacent. We remember George Bush after the

invasion of Iraq saying, mission accomplished. There is a long way to

go and Ed Miliband would be do well to do this, to hammer home the

message that, for working people, things are not better yet, even if

the economy is heading in the right direction. Living standards,

household budgets are high, there is the spectre of another house prices

bubble. People are feeling the pinch. Wages are lower than when

David Cameron took power. Labour will be hammering home that. The

economy will have centre ground closer to the general election.

How careful does he have to be or is he sounding more confident about the

economy and himself? He is, a poll yesterday suggested

if... There is this just G of talking up the economy. I can see

the point of that. The Daily Telegraph says, I have saved the

economy, which is over the top. Gordon Brown said he saved the world

or the banking system, I can't remember which. It is putting

pressure on Labour. They said all along austerity doesn't work, you

have to spend your way out of recession. Statistics are still

fragile but looking more positive. And beginning to show the austerity

programme is working. Some Tories today have said if only he had been

more vigorous on austerity and cut public spending more, the economy

would be looking even better. Enjoyed the converse is, thank you

very much. I'm sure we will try hard.

With me now for the rest of the programme, the cream of 2010 intake:

Labour's Anas Sarwar. The Liberal Democrat MP Tessa Munt.

And the Conservative MP Chris Skidmore.

Welcome to the programme. Let us talk first about the

economy. The Chancellor George Osborne has been making a speech

today in which he said the UK economy is turning a corner.

If economic collapse was even worse than we thought, preparing it will

take even longer than we hoped. But we held our nerve, when many told us

to abandon our plan. And, as a result, thanks to the efforts and

sacrifices of the British people, Britain is turning a corner. Many

risks remain. These are still the early stages of recovery. But we

must not go back to square one. We must not lose what the British

people have achieved. At PMQ 's Ed Balls used to do the

famous flat-lining gesture to show the economy was not moving. Last

week they had their own gesture to show we are returning to growth. Ed

Balls's economic strategy has been undermined. The Chancellor has been

doing this for three years and now he is trying to make it positive.

Let's take the experiences of our he is trying to make it positive.

friends and families. They will see every day we do not have the right

types of jobs, we have youth unemployment at record levels, too

many women are out of work, the quality of jobs and the rise in zero

hours contracts, low wages, too many people below the living wage and...

That is Labour's new economic case, fine. But we have sat here for the

past three years listening to Labour politicians saying austerity would

choke growth. It has been proved wrong. Labour has to admit that

before moving on. We had growth wrong. Labour has to admit that

the economy when the Tories came into government and unemployment was

falling, and then unemployment started to rise when they came in

and we had a double dip recession. George is right to say this recovery

is built on the back of the British people. 29.7 million people

employed, more than in any other age. But is it as a result of his

policies that recovery has come? I think so. The deficit has gone from

11% to 7%. And is now flat-lining. Mortgage rates have remained stable

so working families campaign the bills. Why did Labour opposed the

coalition policy of ensuring that the £10,000 remains tax-free so that

we took 1.2 million people out of income tax altogether. Why did you

oppose also... Reports clearly show that people are earning less by the

end of this government and they were earning at the beginning of this

government. Petrol is 10p cheaper. Your constituents not feeling the

pain because mine are? Living costs would be worse if Labour are in

power -- were in power. But you admit, prices are rising, wages are

not rising, people do not feel better off. Do you accept your

constituents do not feel better off? As George said, it is a slow

recovery. We need to ensure that the only way to get wages rising in the

longer term is to increase the economy overall. You are accepting

it has got worse under this government? It would be even worse

under Labour. Don't talk over each other because it is difficult for

viewers. Chris Skidmore, it saying it would have been worse under

Labour. IU supporting the plan to spend £12 billion to boost recovery

-- are you supporting? That was a major part of the plan. Absolutely.

You have to get the right type of borrowing. There is no point... You

should increase borrowing to increase capital investment,

increase quality jobs right across the country. That is what will get

the economy moving and living standards up. Not the current

scheme. Do people feel better off in your constituency? A number of

people feel better off because of the things the Lib Dems have

brought, we have made sure that £700 people have more in their pay

packets... Even though their wages are falling and their fuel bills are

packets... Even though their wages going up. We are making sure there

is a tax cash back for people, £2000, various things in motion to

make sure we ensure that job stay in the economy. There is a million more

private-sector jobs. We want to create another million. Governments

do not create those jobs. We have got the regional growth fund to

do not create those jobs. We have structure more money into the

regions for businesses, the business bank, the green investment bank, we

regions for businesses, the business have invested in wind power we have

made sure the structure is there to support various different

industries. Company still complain that banks are not lending. Of

course. Our bank has committed to 700 million. The point you have

made, you have caught the Labour Party out. They spent three years

saying we should go down a different plan but the reality is they dropped

that message at the beginning of the summer and slowly, things look as

though they are going in the right direction. We need to be cautious,

because it is only two quarters that things have been going better, we

because it is only two quarters that have to go carefully, but things

because it is only two quarters that will get better. We need long-term,

well-paid, full-time jobs and we are seeing zero hour contracts,

part-time jobs on the rise, and speak to any business in any

constituency, they still feel the squeeze. There is a commitment to

spend 700 million. We don't need a commitment, we need people spending

that money to create wealth and jobs. Not continued pledges from the

Chancellor. Tests, it is interesting said things will get it. Things get

better, nothing to do with government policies. And it is

fragile, you said yourself. Yes, and it would be mad to say it is all

sorted because I am not sure that is sensible. We have to make sure we

keep helping businesses to create jobs. Is it risky for George Osborne

to save the economy has turned a corner? I would not say that but I

am not the Chancellor! I would not say that. There are a number of

other fact is that could change. So this is a high risk strategy. Your

coalition partner is saying growth is very fragile. All the signs you

have seen show this is a balanced recovery. Manufacturing is at its

highest level for 19 years. You cannot deny that there are positive

signs but that does not stop us from being complacent. We must fight

harder to get more people into work. We want to make sure hard-working

people are rewarded. Now, the Liberal Democrat conference starts

next week, but with Sarah Teather announcing that she's going to stand

down at the next election, who's going to do the stand-up? I thought

I wouldn't keep you for too long tonight because I want to get back

to my hotel room to watch Strictly Come Dancing but coming back to

George Osborne, I heard he wants to Come Dancing but coming back to

do a line dance on the show. Brave of Sarah Teather. I take it you will

not replace her in that? I do not do comedy! You are set to lose a woman

MP. Add news for a party -- bad news for a party that has more men than

women in Toluca Micro. Yes. Sarah has been a fantastic member of

Parliament. She should be very proud of the work she has done. She fought

for special needs young people and their parents and did a fantastic

job as Minister for education. But she said she left feeling desolate

and catastrophically depressed by some of the lip Dem policies. I did

hear that quote. I would take a different view. My job is when

something is wrong, to make people know about it. Is she alone in

feeling like this in the party? I think it would be an unusual

response. If I feel something is wrong, I knocked on doors of the

ministers. They put their nameplate on. That is the point of being in

coalition. The power that we have a disproportionate, as I am sure many

of Chris's colleagues would say, but we can influence. She felt she

of Chris's colleagues would say, but couldn't influence even as a

minister, on things like immigration. She felt depressed

minister, on things like about the benefits cap. Is that

because she has been more principled on Liberal Democrat policies than

others? Absolutely not. I am as good as the briefing I get from my

constituents. I have my own opinions but I very often depend on my

constituents to tell me what they feel strongly about. We need to get

our voice heard in government. Nick Clegg, in his defence, he cannot

mind read what 57 of us are thinking. She made her views pretty

clear. But do you think that as Ming Campbell said, she could not take

the heat? He said that coalition was not for the faint-hearted and that

is right. She has a different way of dealing with things. We went into

coalition to sort the country out and that is what she is trying to

do. Is she going to defect? I feel sorry for her. The bigger point is

this is a politician choosing to jump before the politicians per

share. This is a seat that Labour needs to win. I think she has

probably seen that. This is the time when everybody makes their

decisions... I will have to leave it there.

We were told HS2 had the potential to transform the economic shape of

the UK, but this morning the Commons Public Accounts Committee has said

estimated benefits of the planned high-speed rail link are dwindling

as costs rise. Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Committee, has

explained why she has changed her position. I have looked at the

detail of the project. I have moved from being a supporter to thinking

this is not the right place to put £50 billion of money. I am not

alone. There are a growing number of voices who are sceptical about this

project. I think the government needs to listen seriously, not leave

this as a vanity project. We must increase rail capacity to ensure

overcrowding does not take place. We had these debates probably when

Isambard Kingdom Brunel was building! I welcome the fact the

Labour Party are still having a cross-party position to support

this. Alistair Darling is withdrawing his support. I still

support High Speed Two. The West Coast Main line in Scotland will

reach capacity in ten years. We need millions off the road, to free up

space. That is a plus. Connectivity is a big thing. The further north

the line goes, the more value it is is a big thing. The further north

for us. I have always been a massive supporter for investment in rail and

public transport but I do not think it will do much for the West

Country. It is not just HS2, we are investing elsewhere.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was this: According to Yale University research, what does

politics make you bad at? Relationships, maths, grandma or

sports? I will say sport.It is maths. Thank you both very much! All

three of you! That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The one

o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now. I will be here at midday

tomorrow. Goodbye.