26/09/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/09/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


Iran wants to be the West's best buddies - well, sort of. The


country's new President, Hassan Rouhani, says he wants to reach a


deal with world powers on his country's nuclear programme within


as little as three months. In fact, the shorter the time frame the


better. We'll be asking, can we trust him?


In the middle of nowhere? Having trouble with your broadband? The


Public Accounts Committee hears your pain.


Just the ticket. Some local authorities are now raising more


money through fees and charges than through the council tacks.


And Adam goes all ideological with the mood box. Bar you are capitalist


or a socialist? Socialist! And a loud one!


All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today is


the former United Nations Deputy Secretary General - he was also a


former Labour minister - Lord Malloch Brown. Welcome to the Daily


Politics. First this morning, let's start with


Kenya where investigators are in the Westgate shopping complex following


the end of the siege in which 67 people are known to have died. We


can join our correspondent, Mike Wooldridge, live in Nairobi. First


of all, how much do we have to fear from Al-Shabab? They are actually on


the back foot in Somalia. This is a rear action to losing a lot of


ground in their main theatre of action, their home country of


Somalia. The problem is that it doesn't take that many terrorists to


hit a soft target like a shopping more. One of the glories of Africa


the new Africa of urban shopping and office blocks has not had the same


kind of security arrangements that we are used to in the UK or the US.


There are a lot more soft targets that they probably could hit if they


put their mind to it. Do you think it will change Kenya's strategy,


because Al-Shabab have said they want to target the countries who


have troops in Somalia, including Kenya and Uganda. To you think they


will think about pulling out or stopping any military involvement?


In the case of Uganda when there was something similar, the reaction of


the Ugandans was to redouble their efforts in Somalia and I suspect


that will be the same actions of the Kenyans. They have always worried


about their border. It is a porous border, it has been a source of


insecurity for decades, well before Al-Shabab. In that sense I think


they will double down and try to eliminate Al-Shabab in Somalia.


Initial term at least, I suspect it will intensify Kenyan efforts -- in


the short term at least. The president has said that Al-Shabab is


ashamed and humiliated or defeated, it sounds fairly gung ho, do you


think it is true? No, I think they have pulled off an extraordinary


stunt and pulled off a huge pall over Kenyan tourism, commerce and


retail. This country has had gung ho growth rates of four or 5% a year


but it depends very much on those sectors for it. I think this will


cost Kenya severely. What about Kenyans themselves quicker mark I


have heard a lot of interviews with Kenyans who are quite shocked, taken


aback. Was there a sense that although you say these are soft


targets, they really were not expecting this level of attack? That


is why they are soft targets, they were not expecting this level of


attack. There was a sense that Al-Shabab was defeated, a sense that


this byte Kenya's own internal conflicts, which have occasionally


flared up -- despite Kenya's own internal conflicts, this country was


putting its past behind it and had new middle-class prosperity ahead.


This is a real blow to Kenya's sense of where it was going. How much of a


threat is Al-Shabab in global terms or is this berry much and these


African problem? -- very much an East African problem? It is a


manifestation of a much broader jihadis which is a global problem.


We can turn to our correspondent in Nairobi. I am not sure he can hear


me. He cannot. What about recruits to


Al-Shabab? There was talk and there has been speculation about a Britain


and Americans being involved. Are they incorrect -- recruiting


actively? I think it is a kind of international dimensional of not


just Al-Shabab at Al-Qaeda rail rated groups. You have foreign --


but Al-Qaeda related groups. You have foreign forces. I think it is


that. The Somali community in the UK is a long established community that


would be the first to condemn Al-Shabab. What about the Somali


community in Kenya and Nairobi? There has been talk that they are


trying to appeal to a significant minority of Somalis in Nairobi. A


lot of people have been pushed out of Somalia into exile in Kenya, and


I doubt they represent quite a wide range of political viewpoints. I


think most Somalis would think that this kind of thing endangers them,


in that it risks raising community tensions. I would expect them to be


very opposed to what has happened, and as angry as Kenyans about it. In


terms of reaction from the rest of the welcome obviously it is


condemned, what will be message be to Kenya? I think it will be to


increase what the president is doing in Somalia in military terms. More


importantly for him, can he use it to unify the country. He came to


power through a divided election and he also faces from the previous


election, charges at the International criminal Court. I


think he will try to use this to put that behind him and relaunch himself


as the statesman president of a united country. Can he pull it off?


It remains to be seen. We have seen images of a lot of Kenyans giving


blood and trying to pull together in the way that you describe. Let's try


Michael Waldridge again, can you hear ask us to


You can see the shopping complexes on the left. Just confirming I can


hear you. The shopping complex is just down the road behind us there.


Can you tell us what is happening now as investigators tried to piece


together, now they are able to access the shopping contexts? They


are not yet able to access all of it, even the forensic audit is


are not yet able to access all of expected to take about a week. It is


very challenging in itself. As we understand it, roughly a third of


the complex of buildings was destroyed. In the course of the


siege and the battles between the militants and the security forces.


About a third of it has been checked and work can get underway. The


security forces are still checking the other third, checking for booby


traps and so on. The work that is getting underway involves sifting


through, trying to find out where there are bodies and to retrieve


them. Before they can do that, they also need to do DNA testing,


fingerprints, checking and so on. One of the very delicate things they


are trying to do is to distinguish between the bodies of any militants


that are in their... The president said there worth five, there could


be more. Distinguish between those said there worth five, there could


and the body of civilians. One of the things where they believe they


have a body of a militant and Interpol are doing that, is to take


the data from those bodies and compare it with those that are on


Interpol's Terror database, to see if they can find out more about who


carried out this attack and there nationality. Apologies for the long


delay. It is obviously very distressing as they try to find


other bodies in the wreckage. The Public Accounts Committee has


been busy again. Today it has issued a damning report on the way the


Government awarded contracts for extending high-speed broadband to


rural areas. The Committee accuses the Department of Culture of


"mismanaging" the £2.5 billion project and says BT has exploited


its near monopoly position as the main provider of the technology. The


report also warns that consumers are getting a "raw deal" because of a


two-year delay in completing the programme which won't now be


finished until 2017. So how important is rural broadband? I'm


joined now through the internet by Dave Reynoldswho's in Teignmouth in


Devon, who runs a film company. Welcome to the programme, how


important is raw broadband to your business? It is completely


fundamental. -- rural broadband. We deal with enormous file sizes every


time and with a slow internet, it pretty much comes to a standstill.


We have fibre-optic now which is amazing, we are getting downloads of


about 30 megabytes and it has completely changed the way we are


doing a thing. We are getting a much better link here than we just had


doing a thing. We are getting a much with Nairobi but maybe that is to be


expected. It has transformed your business, you would not be able to


function as a business without it? We have been functioning without it


function as a business without it? but it means posting DVDs and


frequently we will get DVD from clients, the footage is not there


and it slows everything down. It is a less pleasant experience for


everybody. We have a lot of horror stories of things we had to do in


the meantime until getting connected. Now it has opened the


floodgates and everything is much cleaner and more creative and


quicker. What do you say to the argument that local authorities


should not be subsidising broadband for oral areas? -- from rural areas.


I think it is madness. It depends on your definition of a raw area. In


the media industry there is argument to say we should be in London but


creatively it is important to be outside of the city, to be around


great locations where we can afford bigger spaces to do our thing. If we


don't have an internet connection, it cuts us off enormously. We are in


tamers, we are in a small seaside town, it


is not like we are surrounded by nothing but farmland. But in this


industry it can feel like we are cut off and if you are not in London or


perhaps Bristol, you don't exist. But with faster internet, video


conferencing is possible, we can transfer these files quickly, we can


upload high-quality video to places like YouTube and we have put a lot


of films on YouTube which would have been navigable previously. And you


have had your debut appearance on the Daily Politics, in great


quality. The magic of the internet. Enjoy the superfast broadband. And


we're joined now by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Maragaret


Hodge, by the Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey and from the taxpayers


alliance, Domonique Lazanski. Thank you. Margaret Hodge, how have they


mismanaged it? In several ways. They devised the contest in such a way


that BT inevitably one and therefore BT has become the in -- inevitably


won and BT has become the monopoly provider in rolling out superfast


for battles you look at the cost and the subsidy, the costs in England


have gone up over 300% to what BT spent in Northern Ireland. The third


thing is what the government says, Ed Vaizey quarrels with this... No!


His boss said when they started this programme it would go to virtually


all people in rural areas. That is 100%, as close as possible. The


reality is that BT are now saying they will only cover 90%, they are


refusing to give other providers the postcodes so they can do alternative


provision. Even in the 90%, if you are more than one kilometre from


where the boxes, you don't get access. If you are a farmer -- from


where the box is. If you are a farmer who needs access to superfast


Orban, to claim your European farming subsidies for example, you


can't get it -- access to superfast broadband. Margaret Hodge has


painted it as something of a disaster. You are not covering the


number of people you said you would and it is very important, and it has


cost the taxpayer a lot of money. Everything Margarets has said is


wrong and I will explain that. We made it absolutely clear that we


didn't just put the money out there and saying it is going to virtually


everyone, we said exactly where it was going, it was going to go to


superfast broadband for 90% of the UK, and 100% were going to get two


megabits. That has aways been our programme. That is a fact. We set up


a very competitive process, we have Fujitsu promising to invest £2.5


billion. It competed for many contracts, local authorities chose


BT because they were going to get a better deal. Why so much more


expensive than Northern Ireland? It is not more expensive. It is true. .


You can't both be right. 123450 it costs a different amount to put


broadband in different places. Some of the allegations the costs in


Northern Ireland are wildly different from England are not true.


But the important point to say, first the National Audit Office said


procedures are value for money, they were robust. BT only gets paid when


they do the work. We don't write a cheque and say tell us how you are


getting on. They take all the risk, You would expect them to? Yes, one


of the last deals that the last Labour Government did had no risk on


the provider and went wrong. How are you so far apart on this? You both


can't be so right or wrong? She was determined to show BT was the


villain and the Government wasn't. I have more Conservatives on the


committee pause we reflect Parliament than we have Labour


members and there was cross-party anonymity that the taxpayer, the


council taxpayer is getting fleece, what has been provided is too little


and it is coming too late. I don't know where to start on the tinges


that go wrong. Let me take one, let me take one fact. Ed talked about


500 million. It is 1.2 billion. That is going into the pockets of the


shareholders of BT. The actual subsidy for every pound spent on


rolling out soup fast prisoner of warred band, 75 pence comes from the


taxpayer. You look at Sweden, you look at Northern Ireland and the


percentage is very much less. They have got to that position because


they are a monopoly provision. Dominique Lazanski you are noting


your head. Is this not value for money? -- nodding. There are a lot


of issue, it was 't -- wasn't demand led. It wasn't mobile wireless so


there are a lot of constraints that caused the costs to go up. What do


you say to that? If we weren't doing this programme, we would be having a


discussion, saying why isn't the Government subsidising the roll out


to rural areas? We are all keen. Government subsidising the roll out


Demand is out there. It is, we have had numerous people on here. We have


brought out 4 G ahead of schedule so mobile broadband will cover


virtually all the country, by 98% of the country, by the end of 2015. If


I can point to the report, there is this allegation that BT is somehow


preventing councils from showing the broadband map. That is not true. All


councils can publish the maps of where BT is going if they want to.


Why are they saying otherwise? Chris Heaton Harris said Northamptonshire


Cowen sishls his council has done it. Are you comfortable, you may say


you have rolled out the programme, well you have, there is no doubt


about it, it has been rolled out. If it is not value for money and if you


are going to be criticised for not doing due diligence in terms of who


is in charge, if there are some people without broadband, it is not


going to be the successful programme you set out to be. You have put the


finger on it A the end of the day marring and I can have arguments but


the people watching this programme are saying where is my broadband?


Where is it? For those lucky enough to survive, in two years time we


will sit on the sofa and I hope to tell you millions have broadband and


I hope to show you we have been robust in holding BT to account.


Clearly Margaret says you haven't been. Ed, millions of people, let


me, millions of people will get broadband, we welcome that, there


me, millions of people will get will be many, many, probably


millions of people who won't get access to broadband. Let me say


don't quote the National Audit Office at us, because the National


Audit Office is in agreement with us, what you are doing is checking


invoice, and I just, I mean I do the analogy of a building contract. When


you get a contract if your home. You get an estimate. You check the


invoices the other side, but we want to know thes dos up front, you can't


tell us the money that has been spent on labour, on project


management, rather than capital investment, and if you go back to


the report, the NAO report says the checks are better, they are not good


enough. BT, I mean it doesn't operation as a monopoly, it is open


to other rivals this contract. BT is essential for delivering broadband


in this country, however, how BT wholesale provides access for other


companies like Virgin, people like that, it is constrained and that is


part of the problem with delivering broadband in the UK. If it is that


convained it is not open in the way you have described We have one of


the most competitive broadband markets in the world. You can't do


that without broadband, we have 60 or 707 retailers providing


broadband, on BT network, we have some of the lowest prices for


broadband anywhere in the ed who. Access to BT's infrastructure is


regulated by Ofcom. We saw a lot of the providers on the wholesale side


who said the way the contract had been devised by Ed's department kept


them out of the business ch the contracts were too small. They


depended on one technology, they had those sort of features and on the


retail side we had Talk Talk giving evidence, they said BT was knocking


up the wholesale price, making the mark up they couldn't compete in the


mark. Do you think it sound like a cosy deal? They are the utility we


love to hate and they are not a universal utility any more. They


have a quasi monopolistic position which they use to take advantage of


this, ball these infrastructure rows in the UK leave one the taxpayer


with the worrying thought by the time it is done, do we still need


it? I mean Zimbabwe has just rolled out 4G to rural users, so there is


this sense, you know, Governments and investments of this kind have


a-ha bit of being yesterday's technology and the day before that's


by the time they are completed. You simply can't win. Margaret was


saying BT is pleasing the taxpayer and will make a huge profit and Mark


is saying BT is going to be out-of-date in five years' time.


Think we are doing the right thing. We are delivering, we are about to


Think we are doing the right thing. deliver to 10,000 homes a week. You


can agree to disagree you two. We agree the technology is important.


Iran wants to reach a deal with the west on its nuclear programme within


the next six month, that was the fairly surprising declaration from


the country's new President Hassan Rouhani at the United Nations


the country's new President Hassan meeting in New York this week. It


comes after a seeming shift in position from the new leadership in


Iran, which has been under some form of sanctions for a number of years.


They have driven up the cost of living since 2007, and now, appears


Iran is ready to come back to the negotiating table.


Hassan Rouhani gave an interview in the States yesterday and he was


asked why, despite all the positive rhetoric a handshake where the US


President never materialised. You have made a speech, the President


has made a speech. There was no handshake. No meeting between you


and the President, you suggested you didn't have enough time to plan for


it. What is necessary for you to have a bilateral meeting with the


President? TRANSLATION: Well, after all, we are


speaking of two countries, who have had no relations for 35 years, so it


is clear that to begin talks, requires some preparation work. And


when tefr prep work is completed, believe it is possible to be have a


when tefr prep work is completed, meeting, perhaps if we had more time


here in New York we may have been able to co-ordinate what was


necessary for many meeting to take place.


With us now Villa the wonders of broadband which we have been talking


about is former ambassador to Iran Richard Dalton, welcome to the


programme. Here from the Henry Jackson Society is Douglas Murray.


Douglas Murray do you trust President Rouhani. No it is


important to leave any door very slightly open, in case this, against


all odds is a sincere approach. Do you not think they are making, in


their terms, quite a bit of the running and there has to be more,


there has to be more trust in what they have to offer. They want to do


something about sanctions The sanctions are biting in Iran. The


regime feels they are getting blamed for that by the people, quite


rightly. Think it's a great mistake to think that an alleged tweet here,


and the odd statement here constitutes a change in policy. This


is still a country run by addict forrial governance of Ayatollahs. Do


is still a country run by addict you agree with that Richard Dalton?


It is not a perfect democracy but President Rouhani was elected. The


reason he is there rather than one of the hard liners is because that


is what the people wanted, and the Supreme Leader of Iran did not seek


to influence that election at all. I think the important thing is that


this is a genuine new opening, and to suggest that you should merely


leave the door slightly open is just too grudging, the fact is that the


policies adopted by the US and its partners have failed to realise


their objective of providing cast partners have failed to realise


iron assurances that Iran will not ever build a nuclear weapon, and in


the case of Iran, their defiance and their, the difficulties face, have


not secured their objective of security, respect and prosperity, so


I believe there is a dawning awareness in Washington and Tehran


they need to try something new, that should be welcomed. What we have


heard from the Iranian, reenforce -- reinforces that sense of an opening,


they are talking in terms of a framework for managing their o


managing their difference with the US, they are talking about removing


concerns is about their nuclear programme on the basis of


transparency, and this is now right for exploitation with a more


flexible and creative diplomatic position, by the six countries that


Iran is negotiating with. OK. What do you think in terms of being


creative and imaginative from the Americans and the western response


in terms of getting what they want, in the way Richard Dalton says the


west hasn't been able to through sanctions. Disagree, sanctions have


worked to some extent. I would argue the fact sanctions have been going


on is why the Iranians are coming to the table like this. If sanctions


were to keep going on, the Iranian regime could well see itself under


the kind of pressure with the popular protests we saw in 2009


which were brutally crushed in 2009. Think it's a mistake to give, to


allow them this moment to escape from that moment, that said, of


course, if there is some, if there is some way of exploring a way round


this, then, of course it should, it should be looked for. How much do


you believe in this new opening, if you like, in dialogue? Well, it is a


new team and there is no doubt they got elected with a mandate to try


and get back into the community of nations. But, think it is the case


that said, the fundamentals remain the same, which is that the


Government will want to retain, the Iranian Government will want to


retain a Ana Ivanovic programme reportedly for peaceful purposes,


and -- uranium enrichment programme. That is a big ask. But, you know,


but the way to get there, as Richard said, is to put this in a broader


framework of normalising relation, because for Iran, it has always been


this vulnerabilitiable in the region itself, to Israel, a nuclear power


already, and to the US, which has motivated this behaviour. So if


there is some kind of security guarantee as part of a broad era


rapprochement this can move forward, for the US to the do a deal with the


devil it is going to need to be conadviced an Israel is I heard Mark


regular geld, he said don't be fooled by the smiling Rouhani in


that sense, he feels the policy hasn't changed at all. What do you


feel would have to be done by the Iranians to convince them more? By


rubbishing everything in advance and not staying in the General Assembly


to listen to President Rouhani, the Israelis are talking themselves out


of the game. The fact is they already have a firm ally in the US


and they should be discussing these matters with the US UK, and the US


is negotiating partner, and they should be preparing themselves to


face the fact that is their objective-hit erto of stopping all


enrich. In Iran is not negotiable and it is not the policy of the US


or of the European countries. But, the point about the next round of


negotiations is we don't know what is in the hand of either side. We


may know a bit more after today's New York meeting. It could on the


other hand be about agreeing processes is and about platitudes,


or it could be a substantive negotiating session. Iran has never


left the negotiating table, it has been there is a vicious


disagreement, because each side has made tiny offers. I am going to stop


you there. It is a jolly good thing that people are talking about doing


it quickly because after all, Iran has been blamed hitherto for


stringing things out. We shouldn't be looking big if tours in the mouth


when Iran says, let's try to get at least April and re-agreement,


something that defuses the tension -- preliminary agreement. I am going


something that defuses the tension to stop you. I don't you could hear


me. Respond to the Israelis, walking out, it is not going to produce


anything in terms of negotiation or conciliation in the way that Richard


Dalton has expressed? Come on, the idea that Israel walking out is some


kind of diplomatic snub... This is walking out of a speech of somebody


who is president of a country which continues to sponsor terrorist


groups, who have as their stated aim the annihilation of the state of


Israel. If the Iranian enrichment programme is part of the deal...


Iran is in contravention of six resolutions, five of them unanimous.


It is against the international community on this. Israel, it is not


too surprising that a country which community on this. Israel, it is not


is still suffering terrorism, sponsored by Iraq, in particular its


proxy group of Hezbollah, which has just seen in the last 24 hours the


international press and everyone else give a standing ovation to


Hassan Rouhani for saying it is possible the Holocaust existed... It


is a step. It is debatable if he acknowledge the Holocaust did occur.


The you can understand why the Israelis


would be suspicious, at least. People are always walking out of the


General Assembly so not to make a big deal about that, but the broader


point is that the US must make sure its policy is driven by broader


interests than just Israel. It has to remember that for Israel, a


stable region of peace with itself has got to be the ultimate goal. It


should welcome this modest steps forward and try to accelerate them.


We all agree that you want to keep the door open a little bit, I would


say a bit wider. But whichever way it happens we have got to seize this


opportunity. This crisis with Iran was one day always going to have a


diplomatic, not a security solution. It is not feasible to take


out this nuclear programme by strikes. Getting down to the table


and negotiating a solution was one they going to happen, it is as good


a moment as any. Thank you for joining us, Richard Dalton. You're


watching the Daily Politics - and we've been joined by viewers in


Scotland who have been watching First Minister's Questions from


Holyrood. The United Nations was meant to help


bring peace and harmony to the world; more often than not though,


it finds itself in the firing line, both literally and politically. But


is that an occupational hazard for a body which tries to mediate in


disputes, or is the UN in dire need of reform? Here's David.


Think United Nations, think New York. Actually, it first met much


closer to home. This is where it all began for the United Nations. Its


inaugural meeting was held in London's Methodist Central Hall in


1946. It has been going for 67 years, it has a members and has been


at the centre of world events for eight decades -- 193 members.


Critics say the UN has not covered itself in glory in recent years,


frequently ignored by the powerful, important to stop genocide in the


Balkans and hamstrung by a Security Council whose five permanent members


routinely fail to achieve a collective view. In short, not fit


for purpose. Any organisation that doesn't have critical scrutiny,


doesn't have an opposition, tends overtime to become flabby,


self-serving and corrupt. Even with the best will in the world, and


because people tend to treat the UN as being an embodiment of high


principle that we don't like to criticise it, we have had the


perverse effect of making it less good at what it is supposed to do.


But then, the United Nations can only ever be the sum of its parts.


It is easy to take potshots at the UN because its failures are there


for everyone to see. But we have to ask, is that really the fall of the


UN as a body or is it the fault of the governments that make it up, the


member states of the UN? Although the focus is on the rows and the


global power plays, there is more to the UN than vetoes. The UN has many


branches and a lot of them do valuable work around the world which


is less high profile than high politics stuff. In the areas of


refugees, the UN carries out a lot of voluble work looking after


refugees around the world. -- valuable work. The human rights


Council has sponsored important investigations into atrocities. As a


-- others think some of those many branches should be ruined. I would


like to see a number of its agencies wound up and its powers returned to


the member states. I would like to see the bureaucracy growing out of


sight reduced in scope and power. I would like to see the UN returned to


the basic role of being an international forum for the


arbitration of disputes. I am confident that the authority of the


United Nations will prevail. The night it nations was meant to stop


wars and promote dialogue between countries. Almost from its earliest


days, the battle ground has often been the organisation itself.


Do you think it has been a complete failure? I don't think it has been a


complete failure but to misapply the Churchill picked on, it is the worst


possible international forum apart from all of the others one might


think of. If one considers the problem the UN faces, you can see


what a difference a letter makes. The UNHCR, the high commission for


the refugees and the human rights Council. The high commission for


refugees does extraordinary work, it is hard to think of another body


that could do that much good. Then you take the human rights Council


and it is a farce of a body. Where North Korea and Sudan and human


rights abusers attacked Iran and the Western democracy. There you see the


problem. It could do with quite a lot of pruning. Do you agree it


should be pruned in a dramatic way? When I was the deputy secretary


general, we were hell bent on trying to reform everything from membership


of the Security Council to the performance of the agencies, change


the condition under which staff work. Under Kofi Anand we will


taking it all in. Our big resistors were member states. That is not a


surprise, turkeys are not going to vote for Christmas over this. That's


surprise, turkeys are not going to right, although a reinvigorated UN


would help most member states. Because it does have a lot of common


good. Frankly, for all its flaws, I love the reversal of the Churchill


dictum. If we didn't have it, we would probably have to invent it and


we would have a lot of difficulty in venting it even up to this standard


in today's world. 1945 was a rare moment of unanimity in world affairs


after a terrible walk it reflects that aspiration. It is some kind of


on which we can build. -- after a that aspiration. It is some kind of


terrible war. Is the problem that it doesn't work as a structure, that it


is wasteful and compass and needs pruning? Or is it that it -- and


cumbersome and needs pruning. Or is it that it doesn't work because you


have very divided camps which will never meet. The Security Council is


the obvious example, it is unworkable, it cannot agree on a


situation like Syria. It cannot agree for meaningful action. When


you look at the occasions the United Nations has managed to intervene


Button I think of the Korean War of which could only -- managed to


intervene... China and Russia were not engage with the Security


Council. There are 20 peacekeeping missions, all with Security Council


mandates. Hezbollah's clash with Israel in southern Lebanon,


mandates. Hezbollah's clash with something which was going to go very


nasty for Israel as well as Lebanon, the UN. Austrian troops recently


fled. There are all sorts of problems with countries that have no


vested interest, not wanting to put the lives of troops on the line. It


is legitimate, you might say, but no good for the peacekeeping role. I


think you are right that on the big ones, it tends to divide, like Syria


or the Palestinian issue. But, and it is a huge but, our unit camera


British political system couldn't agree what to do about Syria so no


surprise the world cannot either. There are occasions when peace does


not need to be kept, war needs to be waged against a country, against a


dictator. On that sort of question, the failings of the Security Council


are not just for the time being but will be perpetual. Thank you.


People have always suspected councils of getting that little bit


extra from service charges and there seems to be growing evidence.


Figures published today show one in three councils raises more money


from domestic charges than council tacks. According to Audit Commission


figures, councils raised a colossal £10.2 billion in 2011-12 by charging


for rubbish collection, funerals and parking. The money is supposed to be


ploughed back into the service it has been raised from, but further


analysis shows that councils have raised 150% more from parking than


they've spent on it. Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is said to be


on the war path over charges supplementing other services. But


with council tax freezes and budget cuts in local councils of up to 30%,


balancing the books is arguably much harder. Jeremy Newham, the Audit


Commission chairman, has said, "There is no one-size-fits-all


formula of how councils set their local charging policies.


Joining me to discuss this is the chair of the Local Government


Association, Sir Merrick Cockell. Our councils being greedy? No, there


is less of a story than you might think. The figure hasn't changed and


is about 2004. We are seeing slight changes in the sentences of councils


that you say are gaining -- percentages of councils that are


gaining more in fees than Council tax but it tells you that many of


those councils are the lowest charges of council tax. Parking is


the one that most people are upset about. How about adult social care,


school meals, burials and cremations. These are services that


we charge for and we have to pay, they do not come without a cost. It


is the whole range, about 10% of what we spend overall in local


government that comes from fees and charges. It is parking, residence


permits, fines, the things that get people by rate. If people think


councils are just making it more expensive, particularly in parts of


councils are just making it more London, what are they doing? There


are two parts to parking, one is charging you for a car park and the


other one is finds, you can't predict the level of fines. We get


about 60% more overall than we spend on parking controls. That 60%


doesn't just go into some imaginary bank account. That is good to know.


It has to go into other parking, other road things. Sorting out the


potholes... Does it go into those other things? Taxpayers don't


believe that is where it goes, they will say they don't see those


improvements. They make all this money, some people believe they


employ more people to put the tickets on your car, which is why


they get even more cash and they don't put it back into the service?


Those are the government rules so we have to spend it within


transportation. It could be subsidising the reduced, or free


passes for the elderly. It could be going directly into road


improvements and new schemes. Generally within the transportation


description, that is where it is being used. London... It is very few


councils. Most councils don't make a profit on their parking. I spent a


lot of time when I was leading my local council. The idea that you


just put up parking charges, the consumer does what it does in every


thing, it decides it is not going to spend that money. You think you are


putting up the charges but your income goes down. It is a carefully


calibrated as to what the market can afford.


. Areas, where there is a surplus thaw put it into things that are


needed. You might look... Why can't you transfer money across the


sectors? It frees up the pressure in other parts if you can use some of


that. If you make a parking surplus and you can use it on potholes you


don't have to use taxpayer money to do the pot hells -- potholes. The


vast majority of councils are not making a surplus and as we know the


overall position is we are losing about close to 40% now, and we kept


council tax down and kept fees down, they are the same as nine years ago.


Do you feel sympathy for councils? I do rather. I think Eric Pickles is


so anxious to preserve his status as the tribune of the people he


sometimes gets his facts wrong. I was hope he was watching, because


his whole complaint today goes against the grain of this. He


doesn't seem aware that money raised for parking has to be spent on


parking related service, and so in a sense, he is the opposition


politician still who seems to have forgotten he is Secretary of State


responsible for this. Do you agree with that, yes or no? Well, the


Secretary of State is intitled to give his view but he doesn't control


things at a local level. They are taken according to local services.


Our reporter has been out and about at conference with his mood box but


on the last day of the Labour Conference he decided to tackle the


big ideas. Believe it or not some people think


our mood box trivialises thing, today we are going to prove it can


handle some of the biggest political issue, we will ask Labour delegates


to choose between socialism and capitalism.


Are you a socialist or capitalist? That is a no brainer, isn't it, when


you come here. I don't expect that to fill up at all. You expect there


will be no balls in the capitalist box. I think I am going to put it


there. In the middle. You have gone for the third way, that is very


1988ish of you. I think you can learn a lot from Blair's legacy. Are


you a sober list or capitalist? I am not getting involved in your ball


games today. -- socialist. It should be obvious


to all sections of society. I don't think anybody benefit froms from


capitalist. The more we can move to our socialist roots, the better we


will be. Do you feel there is enough


socialism being displayed here? Definitely, in his speech yesterday


our leader brought socialism back and showed that Labour is going to


be left-wing and be progressive and we are doing what is best for the


people. What are you prepared to give up, so that the world becomes


more socialist? Give up? I guess I would give up my neckache trainers


6789 How can peep people say capitalism? Do you think they have


come to the wrong conference. The Americans are getting confused


between either Nazi socialism or Communist socialism. Are you are a


capitalist or socialist? What was that? Sober list And a very loud


one. Is the energy policy a socialist policy or capitalist


policy. Pro-competition policy, that what we need. We can't stick with


six companies running everything. That sounds sober list. It is about


making sure we have proper government regulation. Why


socialism, why will no-one say the word? We are being filmed by rivals.


So you have coined a new one? I am a responsible capitalist. We don't


have a box for that You should have replaced it. Is Labour a responsible


capitalist kind of party? I think it is. I think that was Ed was talking


capitalist kind of party? I think it about. That is what he talked about


last yore and the year before, it is where the public is. Because we are


not going to go back to the 0s. Can you explain what socialism is and


capitalism and I will put a ball in the box on where I think we should


be. You have hid the nail on the head, a postism world? You are


asking questions about socialism and capitalism and you say we are in a


postism word No I said are we? Your point is those labels are inadequate


You are asking questions and I would point is those labels are inadequate


like toe know what you mean by those phrases. We are doing a survey. I


know these surveys, You know what the question is, we have come es


pressed 200 years history into two minutes and we are asking people to


choose socialism or capitalism. Socialism. Don't tell people you are


voting for me because people might say the BBC is compromised!


What did you say about the people who put it in the capitalist box We


think they might be Blairites. There isn't many left. How does it feel


being one of six capitalist in the whole conference I am into


responsible capitalism, and if you want a dynamic market economy, I am


into that as well. Things can only get better as far as I'm concerned


is. Where have I heard that phrase before? The Shadow Chancellor is


tired because he has done a rowing challenge. And came top of the whole


conference. You look like you need to sit down.


Here it goes. A historic moment where a member of the current


cabinet says they are a socialist The NHS, Labour social values in


accuse, proud to say. What history could not settle in a hundred year,


we have settled in three minute, socialism has triumphed over


capitalism at the Labour Party Conference.ment surprise, surprise.


Joining us to discuss this, frankly shocking finding, and also, I


thought Ed Balls was having far too much fun with the mod box: Dan Jones


claims to have put all them in the capitalist box. I presume you would


have put it in the capitalism one? I think, you know, having a debate


about socialism or cappism in Britain is like having a debate


about whether you want to breathe air or water. Whoever wins the next


election this will be a capitalist economy, that is whether Ed Miliband


or David Cameron win, the debate is do they pursue a left-wing political


strategy or a centrist political strategy in the run-up to the


election, now if you think about it, New Labour introduced what most


people would be classical left-wing policy, the windfall tax, the


minimum wage, signing the Social Chapter but because of what Blair


was saying, the sort of conhave Assembly governments he was having


with the British people and where he was positioning himself on the


political spectrum, they weren't seen ass been left-wing, they were


seen as centrist. Socialism for you? Of course, I find it amusing the


reds under the beds rhetoric, along the lines of comparing Ed


Miliband... Most people out there, outside of politicos like us sitting


here, they don't think in terms of left and right, let alone capitalism


or socialism. They think in terms of issues that have to be addressed you


might find in amusing but the first time Labour called it a democratic


Socialist Party wasn't when it was founded, it was 1995, under Tony


Blair, it was a revision of clause four, now I think for Blair it meant


motherhood and apple pie and people being nice to each other, for me it


is shifting wealth and power favour of working people, that is those who


keep society ticking, the wealth creators of society, it is about


extending democracy to every sphere of life, but it is about challenging


the form of socialism we have which is socialism for the rich. Banks


bailed out by the taxpayer. Housing benefit, subsidising private


landlords in having democratic socialism. Whose side you on? You


will be on the side of the Conservatives and the wealth quay


fors. He is Cameron's favourite columnist. Our Prime Minister is


very acceptive! The whole point about centrist political agenda is


it does contain significant elements of left-wing thinking sh if you


remove the left-wing elements it is not a centrist political agenda.


Where would you put your... We are at the wrong end of the argument.


David Cameron tried to do it and at the wrong end of the argument.


flunked it, Miliband has put out a proposal will be much modified by


time it happen, one way or another politicians will be forced to


respond to the fact that household energy, in cold winter, for a lot of


Brit, is becoming unaffordable and I think that is really what this


conference was about. That is an important point. What is interesting


about this debate about energy companies if you like is for a lot


of British people, he won't be going forward. 69% of Britains want --


Britons want energy to be brought back in to public ownership. He is


going back to 70s. Whatever the headlines say, energy barons holding


the country to ransom, we have blackmail and bluster because there


is an attempt to control energy price, some people are choosing


between heating their homes and fooding their kids. And the


Twittersphere was stratospheric apparently. You are saying Ed


Miliband is terrifying, why? He is scaring... He scares you. He scares


the life out of me. Because it is the broader, the broader political


context. David Cameron could implement a raft of policies that


were add vated by the alternative manifesto I think it was called by


the hard right. A number of those would be popular, but in strategic


terms for David Cameron, they would be a disaster, because they would


communicate, although the individual policies were popular, they would


communicate that the Conservative Party was regressing to the sort of


politics it has rejected and that is the risk MSP is starting to take. It


maybe populist for now, no-one is going to disagree with having their


bills brought down. Nobody would say I want to keep my bills high and


no-one is going to be, you know, unsupportive of Ed Miliband bashing


the bank, and it is popular stuff but does it win elections? People


main frightened when it comes to election time. They want stadget


stability and security. They don't want a party that is against


business. This is the problem. It is stuck in the past, reality we have


at the moment, is people are going through the biggest, longest squeeze


in living standard since Queen Victoria, the next generation is set


to be poorer than the last, people commit to action that will improve


their living standards. Cometh the revolution. I cannot believe that Ed


Miliband arrived at the Labour Party Conference and wanted to see a


series of head loins saying he was taking the country back to the 70s.


This is the hysteria... If Miliband taking the country back to the 70s.


can put himself at the head of the little people versus a rich elite,


and if Cameron allowses that to happen, it is not socialism or


capitalism, but it is a winning electoral strategy. That is


Cameron's challenge. There is no doubt that Ed Miliband has won the


argument about which of the two party leaders is most in touch with


the British people. This we go. I haven't heard you say that before.


If you look at the opinion polls they ask who is in touch, Ed


Miliband, you know, comes out in front. There no doubt about it. It


is not about who is in touch. It is not about who empathise, it is who


is seen to be best placed to solve it Can I caution your logic, you say


are these are the last sort of head hypes you want to see. I have to say


the right in the country are in danger of looking like the frothing


at the mouth, let me finish, US-style tea party libertarians


because these, as I say, the public would like to see, public would like


to see him go further, they support public ownership. We will have to


stop it there. Thanks to our guests, the One O'Clock News is starting on


BBC One and Andrew is back tonight on BBC One with This


Download Subtitles