:00:40. > :01:00.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Could the Chancellor be
:01:01. > :01:03.thinking about a big giveaway in the autumn statement? An independent
:01:04. > :01:06.Scotland faces higher taxes or steeper cuts in public spending
:01:07. > :01:08.according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. We'll be talking to
:01:09. > :01:11.Scotland's Finance Secretary, John Swinney. Happy days for the UK
:01:12. > :01:15.Independence Party. One of Britain's wealthiest men wants to give the
:01:16. > :01:18.party an awful lot of dosh. We'll be asking him how much and why? And
:01:19. > :01:21.should this man ever have become chairman of the Co-Operative Bank.
:01:22. > :01:24.The Reverend, Paul Flowers, was caught buying crystal meth and crack
:01:25. > :01:30.cocaine shortly after this appearance in front of MPs.
:01:31. > :01:35.All that in the next hour, and with us for the first half of the
:01:36. > :01:39.programme today, is the chief executive of the Royal Society for
:01:40. > :01:49.Arts, Matthew Taylor. He used to be head of the Number ten Policy Unit,
:01:50. > :01:52.under Tony Blair's government. So, first to Labour and the two Eds.
:01:53. > :01:56.Because, according to leaked e-mails, Ed Miliband's team think Ed
:01:57. > :02:02.Balls is a bit of a nightmare. Do you think they are right? When
:02:03. > :02:08.people 's jobs overlap with one another, you will get this kind of
:02:09. > :02:14.tension. It always exists. I do not think you should make too much of
:02:15. > :02:19.this. It is kind of inevitable. I think there is a bigger problem,
:02:20. > :02:24.which is the culture which exists within politics. There is an
:02:25. > :02:28.increasingly weird kind of culture compared with other organisations.
:02:29. > :02:33.When politicians have problems, they do not do what most organisations
:02:34. > :02:37.do, which is to create a structure where they think strategically and
:02:38. > :02:43.create the change process, politicians were within their teams
:02:44. > :02:47.and they do not share ideas. It is brittle. These e-mails revealed to
:02:48. > :02:53.us what is always known in that senior politicians have tension. In
:02:54. > :02:59.a way, it is not relevant. If you are talking about two people at the
:03:00. > :03:09.top of the leadership structure, on a crucial issue like the economy,
:03:10. > :03:15.you have to share the same idea. You have to share the idea. You are
:03:16. > :03:22.trying to give advice to your boss. You want your boss to take your
:03:23. > :03:27.advice. You are irritated because it is getting in the way of what you
:03:28. > :03:32.want to achieve. All this friction is inevitable. The way politics
:03:33. > :03:38.works, the failure to think about issues in depth and work as a team.
:03:39. > :03:40.When I worked at number ten I desperately argued there should be a
:03:41. > :03:47.different culture for decision-making policies. You are
:03:48. > :03:52.involved in the biggest division of all between Tony Blair and Gordon
:03:53. > :03:58.Brown. In the end, doesn't it damage the product? If Ed Balls does not
:03:59. > :04:10.obey orders, that is a problem. The Blair, Brown thing was very toxic.
:04:11. > :04:15.That is an extreme example. Also, a broader question of how it is you
:04:16. > :04:21.achieve change. The RSA is going through a change process. The team
:04:22. > :04:30.will spend time together. There are coaches working with us. In politics
:04:31. > :04:34.it is highly individual. You do not have those kinds of conversations.
:04:35. > :04:37.We will wait for e-mails to be leaked. Today sees the coalition
:04:38. > :04:41.trying to work through the tricky old problem of taxation. And it
:04:42. > :04:43.seems they are spoiling for a scrap. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg
:04:44. > :04:46.wants to increase the personal allowance threshold to ?10,500
:04:47. > :04:50.before the next election. It would come at a cost though, ?1 billion.
:04:51. > :04:54.Nevertheless, George Osborne is said to be smitten with the idea, and it
:04:55. > :05:00.is thought the Tories next election manifesto might pledge to raise it
:05:01. > :05:04.even higher. But the influential Tory Free Enterprise Group are not
:05:05. > :05:08.too keen. They want the Chancellor to do more for the so-called
:05:09. > :05:14.squeezed middle by ending stamp duty for homes valued under ?500,000. And
:05:15. > :05:18.some Tory backbenchers say there should be a cut in the headline rate
:05:19. > :05:28.of taxation, to help increase disposable income. Earlier, Nick
:05:29. > :05:33.Clegg spoke about this at his monthly press conference. As the
:05:34. > :05:37.recovery takes hold, it is important that we do all we can to make sure
:05:38. > :05:44.the largest number of people benefit from that recovery by helping them
:05:45. > :05:51.retain more of the money that they earn. That is exactly what this idea
:05:52. > :05:58.is about. It is a workers bonus, in order to make sure that people, as
:05:59. > :06:01.they face high costs in their weekly and monthly household budgets, also
:06:02. > :06:05.feels the government is doing more to help them in the way I announced
:06:06. > :06:13.this weekend. Joining me to discuss is Conservative MP Dominic Raab.
:06:14. > :06:18.Also by Stephen Tall. Are you against the idea of raising the
:06:19. > :06:23.personal allowance further? Not in principle. It will do nothing for
:06:24. > :06:28.the 5 million lowest paid. If you want to do something for them then
:06:29. > :06:37.brace and national insurance threshold. Two things are vital. --
:06:38. > :06:41.then raise. We should be prioritising business tax cuts, to
:06:42. > :06:47.get the economy on track and we should not be forgetting this
:06:48. > :06:54.squeezed middle. How would you pay for it? As you said, it will cost
:06:55. > :06:59.about ?1 billion to do. I suspect what will happen is they will look
:07:00. > :07:04.at the fact that growth is kicking in far higher than was expected at
:07:05. > :07:11.this point in the recovery and that has given more wiggle room. I
:07:12. > :07:15.suspect you will see, as the coalition gives up for the general
:07:16. > :07:21.election, a few more of these sweeteners coming through. Now they
:07:22. > :07:24.will go on a spending spree. They have talked about economic
:07:25. > :07:29.management and making sure there was not going to be overspending. You
:07:30. > :07:34.are saying there is going to be a giveaway. Debt is going up. Would
:07:35. > :07:41.you tax the wealthy or have additional spending cuts? David
:07:42. > :07:48.Cameron was saying he wants a mansion tax to be brought in but
:07:49. > :07:52.that is dead in the water. The idea that austerity has gone away is not
:07:53. > :07:56.the case. There will be spending cuts across the rest of the
:07:57. > :08:00.department. There will be bidding process as we get towards the
:08:01. > :08:04.general election. If it starts anywhere, we will stop at national
:08:05. > :08:12.insurance. I disagree with the Lib Dems on this. Do you think it will
:08:13. > :08:16.not help the poorest? Where you have got to the point where ?10,000 is
:08:17. > :08:20.the rate at which you start paying income tax, the more you raise it,
:08:21. > :08:27.the less you are helping people below ?10,000. National insurance
:08:28. > :08:34.equalisation would help to address this. That would be my preference.
:08:35. > :08:39.Are the Lib Dems behaving like an opposition party? Reaction for the
:08:40. > :08:45.political class as a whole needs to do something honest about government
:08:46. > :08:54.spending. Household debts are high. The first priority is economic
:08:55. > :09:03.recovery. Let's not lose sight of the squeezed middle. That is the
:09:04. > :09:09.mantra of labour. I am addressing what Gordon Brown did. They may be
:09:10. > :09:17.saying it is their mantra now but it is not the answer. Is that where you
:09:18. > :09:22.would concentrate any giveaway? This is a wonderful conversation. The
:09:23. > :09:25.Liberal Democrats say raising this helps the poor. The Conservatives
:09:26. > :09:30.are arguing that we should have a tax cut for the middle classes. Most
:09:31. > :09:37.of the benefit of raising the tax threshold goes to middle income.
:09:38. > :09:41.Those who do not benefit are over ?100,000. That is not most people 's
:09:42. > :09:51.account of who you are talking about. The economy is the number one
:09:52. > :09:55.thing. As I wrote today, I will be freezing interest rates and raising
:09:56. > :09:59.the small business rate relief because the high street need a shot
:10:00. > :10:06.in the arm. Secondly, if you look at house prices, the fiscal drought,
:10:07. > :10:11.the average house is over ?250,000 and that is hit by the 3% rate. If
:10:12. > :10:17.you want to help the squeezed middle, deal with that. Answer the
:10:18. > :10:25.question about who it helps more in terms of the squeezed middle. Your
:10:26. > :10:29.squeezed middle is who? If you are dealing with stamp duty, you need to
:10:30. > :10:40.look at thresholds. If you are trying to buy buy a home at over
:10:41. > :10:48.?250,000, they are not the Google which any more. If you can afford a
:10:49. > :10:58.home of over 500,000, why should tax cuts be concentrated there? -- rich
:10:59. > :11:03.any more. I am not against raising national insurance. We can only talk
:11:04. > :11:09.about tax sweeteners if we are serious about government spending.
:11:10. > :11:14.No other party is doing that. Mark Carney has said recovery is taking
:11:15. > :11:23.hold. They are focusing on the cost of living crisis. It seems we have
:11:24. > :11:32.moved into week help other tics. Which party can promise more things
:11:33. > :11:36.to the electorate? -- retail politics. We still have a debt and
:11:37. > :11:44.it is growing. In Birmingham they are talking about reducing the
:11:45. > :11:49.number of people who work for the local authority. Politicians are
:11:50. > :11:52.making promises left, right and centre and austerity will really
:11:53. > :11:58.start to kick in in the next few months. This debate is very odd.
:11:59. > :12:07.Doesn't it mean we should talk about spending? Do you think talking about
:12:08. > :12:13.spending at all is irresponsible. Certainly not. Even when the debt is
:12:14. > :12:18.spiralling? The Lib Dems would be one of the few parties not to say we
:12:19. > :12:21.would ring fence NHS spending, precisely because we thought all
:12:22. > :12:27.public spending would have to be looked at in the round. I do just
:12:28. > :12:33.want to pick up on this point. Tax cuts do not help the low paid. I do
:12:34. > :12:37.not agree with that at all. Too many of the lowest paid have been taken
:12:38. > :12:44.out of tax altogether. That is a good thing. It's incentive rises
:12:45. > :12:48.people to get back into work. If you raise the tax threshold, the bottom
:12:49. > :12:53.earners do not get anything from it. Those people on tax credits will
:12:54. > :12:59.lose the benefit. There are various other concessions you get, you will
:13:00. > :13:03.lose those. Raising the tax threshold will not help the bottom
:13:04. > :13:08.quarter. The Liberal Democrats use this policy as a way of saying, they
:13:09. > :13:17.are wanting to help the pool. What you say to that? You just said it
:13:18. > :13:30.does. The minimum wage is ?12,000 a year. You will be paying income tax
:13:31. > :13:38.directly. The lowest paid on minimum wage are having to pay back in tax.
:13:39. > :13:44.If you make sure that those on minimum wage do not pay income tax,
:13:45. > :13:47.only 10% of that cut goes to the poorest. It needs to be properly
:13:48. > :13:54.costed and the economy needs to be put first. I've found ?30 billion of
:13:55. > :14:00.savings by funding the various Whitehall departments. I would
:14:01. > :14:06.freeze non-pensionable welfare benefits. That would leave 6 billion
:14:07. > :14:13.over to pay off the deficit. Do you agree with those proposals and those
:14:14. > :14:18.cuts? Having only had five seconds to study that information, everyone
:14:19. > :14:25.looks for efficiency savings. They are harder to deliver. I have set
:14:26. > :14:29.out in a long report. Halve the number of government departments.
:14:30. > :14:38.Would it reap the number you are talking about? I do not think I can
:14:39. > :14:46.be accused of trying to rigourously cost what I am doing. Isn't this
:14:47. > :14:49.just about the politics? The Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg are trying
:14:50. > :14:54.to claim they are champions of the low paid. It is an audacious attempt
:14:55. > :14:59.to grab the mantle of economic management at this point in the
:15:00. > :15:04.cycle. The Lib Dems were the only party that went into the 2010
:15:05. > :15:12.election promising tax cuts for the low paid. The Conservatives say it
:15:13. > :15:15.is their policy as well. What Nick Clegg is worried about is that
:15:16. > :15:19.George Osborne will steal that. It is a pre-emptive move to try to make
:15:20. > :15:25.sure whatever tax cuts are offered in the next budget, they are owned
:15:26. > :15:29.by the Lib Dems. He wants credit for something that George Osborne is
:15:30. > :15:37.jumping on the bandwagon about. We want ideas to reduce the overall tax
:15:38. > :15:43.burden. Is Dominik right? Bleeding into this next election, the cost of
:15:44. > :15:46.living crisis continues and that hits the squeezed middle, the sort
:15:47. > :15:54.of policies he is suggesting will be boat winners. We have seen from the
:15:55. > :15:58.revival of Ed Miliband, this issue of living standards and being seen
:15:59. > :16:04.to do something about it strikes a chord. There is genuinely an issue
:16:05. > :16:09.about living standards. We talk about symptoms. We do not talk about
:16:10. > :16:12.the structural causes of the fact that British economy is not
:16:13. > :16:17.generating jobs which pay people the amount of money they want for a
:16:18. > :16:21.decent life. We're not talking about structural aspects of it. The second
:16:22. > :16:28.we get a bit of economic growth, a bit of this school room, we are back
:16:29. > :16:38.into throwing policies around. -- fiscal wiggle room. We are trying to
:16:39. > :16:42.look at the economic fundamentals. The problem is, for Labour and the
:16:43. > :16:47.Liberal Democrats, they will be offering the same array of tax
:16:48. > :16:51.sweeteners that they will not be addressing the knock-on effect on
:16:52. > :16:59.competitiveness which is what Matthew is fretting about so much.
:17:00. > :17:05.I may not agree with the specific package, but if you need things to
:17:06. > :17:10.be directed towards a specific economy, absolutely that is what we
:17:11. > :17:14.need to be doing. Gentlemen, thank you.
:17:15. > :17:16.There has been lots of arguing over the financial implications of an
:17:17. > :17:24.independent Scotland, and that will continue. Both sides claim the upper
:17:25. > :17:33.hand. Today, respected independent think tank, the Institute for Fiscal
:17:34. > :17:38.Studies, published their report, and I asked Carl Emmerson what he
:17:39. > :17:41.thought the impact would be. The UK as a whole faces a significant
:17:42. > :17:44.fiscal challenge because of a loss of oil revenue and an ageing
:17:45. > :17:48.population. Even under the most optimistic
:17:49. > :17:53.scenario we consider, that challenge for Scotland will be greater because
:17:54. > :17:56.oil revenues are more important to Scotland and the Scottish population
:17:57. > :18:00.is ageing faster than that of the rest of the UK. So what will that
:18:01. > :18:08.mean financially for the average Scot? What it means is that for the
:18:09. > :18:14.UK as a whole, we could expect some tax rises or spending cuts over the
:18:15. > :18:18.next 50 years, averaging about 0.8% of what the UK economy produces in
:18:19. > :18:22.any one year. Under the most optimistic scenario for Scotland,
:18:23. > :18:27.that number would be more like 2% of national income, significantly
:18:28. > :18:32.greater. Your figures have been dismissed, surprise, surprise, by
:18:33. > :18:41.the Scottish government to claim that Scots claim -- pay more in tax
:18:42. > :18:46.per head than the rest of the UK. It is true at the moment, but that is
:18:47. > :18:49.entirely explained by all revenue. Over the next 50 years is that
:18:50. > :18:52.disappears, that would go in Scotland would be left with a higher
:18:53. > :18:56.level of expending that they currently enjoy but without the
:18:57. > :19:01.higher level of tax revenue that they currently generate. In terms of
:19:02. > :19:04.spending, the Scottish government will argue that they would make
:19:05. > :19:10.different decisions to compensate for any loss of oil revenue. Is that
:19:11. > :19:17.a sustainable argument? Certainly an independent Scotland could do a
:19:18. > :19:21.better job than the current UK Government does in setting tax
:19:22. > :19:25.policy. You could make a difference as do things better. What is highly
:19:26. > :19:27.unlikely is that you could do enough better things to generate enough
:19:28. > :19:34.growth to offset this fiscal challenge. Even the most optimistic
:19:35. > :19:37.scenario suggests that the challenge for Scotland will be far greater
:19:38. > :19:41.than the challenge the rest of the UK would face. So an independent
:19:42. > :19:45.Scotland would have to increase taxes further, or lose some of those
:19:46. > :19:52.public spending commitments that they have had over the last few
:19:53. > :19:55.years? Over the longer term, we can expect some combination of tax rises
:19:56. > :20:00.or spending cuts for the whole of the UK. What I'm saying is that
:20:01. > :20:06.those would be eager in Scotland, so yes, some combination of tax rises
:20:07. > :20:11.or spending cuts would look likely. Public spending is high in Scotland,
:20:12. > :20:14.so they could suffer disproportionately if they have to
:20:15. > :20:18.cut those public spending commitments. Scotland could look
:20:19. > :20:27.different than it does now. It could, and in terms of defence or
:20:28. > :20:32.aid, Scotland will be inheriting a fairly high burden, so they could
:20:33. > :20:36.cut those. They could cut social housing, transport, economic
:20:37. > :20:43.development, where they spend a lot more than the rest of the UK.
:20:44. > :20:46.Will the Scots have to payback for their extremely level of spending on
:20:47. > :20:49.public services if they gain independence? They will have to
:20:50. > :20:56.finance that level of spending themselves. Over the longer term in
:20:57. > :21:00.the UK, it is conceivable that the higher spending is maintained and
:21:01. > :21:02.financed by the UK Government. Scotland is independent, that option
:21:03. > :21:07.wouldn't be there, so they would have to choose what level of tax and
:21:08. > :21:10.spending they wanted. What they couldn't do is have higher levels of
:21:11. > :21:18.spending without higher levels of tax. Is it difficult to exactly
:21:19. > :21:21.predict Scotland's economic future because of the variables like oil
:21:22. > :21:25.revenue? We don't know what exactly is going to happen to it or how
:21:26. > :21:31.quickly it will diminish, and also the level of debt that Scotland
:21:32. > :21:36.would inherit. Certainly the fiscal position that Scotland has over the
:21:37. > :21:41.longer term is very sensitive to exactly how and when oil revenues
:21:42. > :21:44.decline. We would consider a range of scenarios, the most optimistic
:21:45. > :21:48.where we say that supposed Scotland gets half the debt that the UK has
:21:49. > :21:52.an all revenue is follow the higher level as predicted by the Scottish
:21:53. > :21:56.government for the next few years, even under that more optimistic
:21:57. > :21:59.scenario, it still looks fiscal challenge that is considerably
:22:00. > :22:05.greater than that facing the rest of the UK. Carl Emmerson from the
:22:06. > :22:09.Institute for Fiscal Studies. I had hoped to be joined by John Swinney,
:22:10. > :22:13.Scottish finance secretary, but he can't make it, unfortunately. But
:22:14. > :22:20.Matthew Taylor is still here. What you make of the ISS report? I guess
:22:21. > :22:27.it is bad news, because the ISS is an incredibly trusted organisation.
:22:28. > :22:33.They won't be swayed by headline chasing. This will be pretty
:22:34. > :22:38.authoritative. Whether it makes that much difference to the consideration
:22:39. > :22:47.of the outcome of the referendum, I'm not sure. Either the argument
:22:48. > :22:58.about a wonderful bonanza in streets running with Golden hurricane honey
:22:59. > :23:04.-- gold and honey, or a more realistic argument, I think at the
:23:05. > :23:07.moment people are unlikely to vote yes for independence because the
:23:08. > :23:12.benefits are not clear. That is the point. It is about whether they will
:23:13. > :23:17.be worse or better off with independents financially in terms of
:23:18. > :23:23.literally the amount of money they will be left within their pockets.
:23:24. > :23:26.If there is this idea that I could better off under independence,
:23:27. > :23:32.surely that will sway voters? I'm not sure it will. There are so many
:23:33. > :23:37.imponderables in all of this, it is a matter of faith. Most people in
:23:38. > :23:42.Scotland have a fairly settled view on this issue and are not going to
:23:43. > :23:48.be swayed by an argument saying it will cost ?500 here or there. If you
:23:49. > :23:53.go to Scotland and spend time there, it does not feel like a country that
:23:54. > :24:03.is under the oppression of the UK. My sense is that in Scotland, what
:24:04. > :24:07.will they actually gain from this? The problem is more fundamental,
:24:08. > :24:12.what you gain from independence? That is what is not clear. That is
:24:13. > :24:18.what John Swinney will be setting out. He will say that Scotland may
:24:19. > :24:22.have missed out on economic growth worth more than ?900 a head as a
:24:23. > :24:26.result of not being an independent country, he will say that the
:24:27. > :24:28.coalition government has been dreadful for Scotland and it would
:24:29. > :24:36.be better to go alone. Once that argument holds some weight? I feel
:24:37. > :24:41.great sympathy for having to wade through all this for the next year
:24:42. > :24:48.or so, but the Scottish people will hear, it will save you ?900, it will
:24:49. > :24:55.cost you ?600. I think people will realise it won't lead to any Big
:24:56. > :24:59.Bang either way. See you think that when it comes down to it, it will be
:25:00. > :25:03.an emotional decision, that the money would persuade enough people?
:25:04. > :25:06.Unless there is a really powerful sense of what you gain from
:25:07. > :25:10.independence, in the end, people will say, if there is no really big
:25:11. > :25:17.gain or loss, why would we change it? It doesn't feel when you go to
:25:18. > :25:20.Scotland at the moment that this is a country which is having itself
:25:21. > :25:26.dramatically constrained by being part of the UK. In many ways, it has
:25:27. > :25:31.a very dynamic economy, lots of parts of Scotland do extremely well.
:25:32. > :25:34.If you are going to make a big change like this, you have to feel
:25:35. > :25:39.that you are going to get a big gain, and that argument has not been
:25:40. > :25:44.articulated. We will leave that to the SNP when we speak to them.
:25:45. > :25:52.Last week saw the return of that's biggest annual skills event, the
:25:53. > :25:55.skills show. Our apprenticeships working for Britain's youngsters?
:25:56. > :26:05.David Thompson went along to find out.
:26:06. > :26:10.If they let you try your hand at a whole lot of jobs when I was at
:26:11. > :26:16.school, things might have been very different. Welcome to Britain's
:26:17. > :26:21.biggest careers event, where you can try your hand at everything from
:26:22. > :26:22.baking to welding. It is called the Skills Show, and it might change
:26:23. > :26:33.your life. More than 850,000 people are on
:26:34. > :26:38.apprenticeships, and one of the stars of Dragons' Den is in. All of
:26:39. > :26:42.my business is run apprenticeship schemes, because taking somebody on
:26:43. > :26:47.with a passion and desire for the industry they is far more important
:26:48. > :26:51.to me than finding out that somebody can spend three years at university
:26:52. > :26:54.getting a degree that might not be relevant and then have to catch up
:26:55. > :27:04.with every body else. Earning while you are learning has got to be the
:27:05. > :27:17.way forward. For ministers, these kinds of shows are a win-win thing.
:27:18. > :27:20.There are a record number of jobs in this country, and we have got to
:27:21. > :27:25.make sure that our young people have the skills that they need to take up
:27:26. > :27:28.those jobs. But while the coalition is keen on boosting both the
:27:29. > :27:31.quantity and quality of apprenticeships, the number of
:27:32. > :27:39.16-year-olds taking them up has fallen. We had to remove some low
:27:40. > :27:42.quality provision. There were some apprentices that didn't have jobs in
:27:43. > :27:47.the past, and I think every apprenticeship must be a job. We
:27:48. > :27:50.also need to make sure that every apprenticeship as a minimum of one
:27:51. > :27:55.year in duration, and that wasn't true in the past. We have had to
:27:56. > :28:01.remove some low quality providers, but that trend is now reversing, and
:28:02. > :28:05.various a broad plan of action to make sure that the numbers go up as
:28:06. > :28:09.well as that increase in quality. And if you stick at it, who knows
:28:10. > :28:15.where an apprenticeship might take you? I started as an assistant to
:28:16. > :28:19.the tea boy in Lloyd's of London, and found my passion working in a
:28:20. > :28:23.shop. I got all my skills learning on the job. I had no formal
:28:24. > :28:29.education, so my apprenticeship was being a junior shop assistant all
:28:30. > :28:33.the way through. Apprenticeships might seem a bit retro, but
:28:34. > :28:37.increasingly these days, they are seen as an idea whose time has come,
:28:38. > :28:43.a solid way into the world of work. I think I will stick to my day job.
:28:44. > :28:47.Over 1.5 million new apprenticeships have begun under this government. It
:28:48. > :28:52.should be congratulated, shouldn't it? I think they should. And the
:28:53. > :28:57.apprenticeships, although lots of bits of the policy haven't worked
:28:58. > :29:00.terribly well, and we found out that most apprenticeships are being taken
:29:01. > :29:06.up by people who are over 25 and already have a job, generally
:29:07. > :29:13.speaking, since the late 80s, early 90s, as a country, we have taken it
:29:14. > :29:17.seriously. In our meandering route, and there are interesting things
:29:18. > :29:19.below the surface... There is some evidence that parents are beginning
:29:20. > :29:24.to recognise that apprenticeship might be a good route, and it is not
:29:25. > :29:29.always a second prize to going to university. I think it will take is
:29:30. > :29:37.another generation to get to where we need to get to. But that culture
:29:38. > :29:43.of university being the great Annecy, that was Labour 's fault.
:29:44. > :29:48.They wanted to target 50% of people to go to university, and they made
:29:49. > :29:51.it seem it was the best option. I think Labour felt that the answer to
:29:52. > :29:56.the issue of social mobility was to make it possible for more working
:29:57. > :30:00.class and lower middle-class young people to get into higher education,
:30:01. > :30:05.which is commendable. But the problem is that misses at the whole
:30:06. > :30:08.vocational route, and Britain has been worrying about how to get
:30:09. > :30:12.people to take vocational education seriously for decade. Apprenticeship
:30:13. > :30:18.is a step forward, and we still have to look at what we teach children in
:30:19. > :30:21.schools, and there is still a strong bias towards the academic in
:30:22. > :30:28.schools, and there isn't a strong enough lead into apprenticeships.
:30:29. > :30:31.There are various things that can improve the system such as technical
:30:32. > :30:35.colleges, but most schools think that what matters is pushing
:30:36. > :30:38.children through academic exams. And careers advisers collapsed in
:30:39. > :30:43.schools, so young people who need really good advice at 13 and 14,
:30:44. > :30:47.face-to-face advice that will encourage them not to take an
:30:48. > :30:53.unsuccessful academic route, that is the problem. If combined together,
:30:54. > :30:59.is there the crucial issue, a job? In that film, the Minister that
:31:00. > :31:05.talked about poor providers in the past. You accept that getting rid of
:31:06. > :31:11.some of the poor provision and making sure that apprenticeships
:31:12. > :31:27.have a guarantee of a job at the end might improve the quality of
:31:28. > :31:31.apprenticeships? Employers need to buy what is needed. We need a strong
:31:32. > :31:36.relationship between employers and schools and much more work
:31:37. > :31:40.experience. Employers need to be more engaged in developing what
:31:41. > :31:45.children learn in schools. There are lots of bits to this jigsaw.
:31:46. > :31:53.Expanding apprenticeships is part of it but only a part of it. What will
:31:54. > :31:59.bring the employers on board? Not the big employers. In places like
:32:00. > :32:09.Germany, employers are much more involved at a gang age in schools.
:32:10. > :32:22.What will bring them in? -- a younger age. You need a simple
:32:23. > :32:28.system. It needs to be at Minister of -- it needs to be simple. The
:32:29. > :32:32.language that is taught in schools, what schools feel their job is about
:32:33. > :32:38.does not really engage employers. A lot of employers think that what is
:32:39. > :32:44.taught to young people is not what is needed. It is about a broader set
:32:45. > :32:47.of life skills, capacity to work in a team and communicate. Employers
:32:48. > :32:53.say they are not getting that from young people. Young people turn up
:32:54. > :32:59.with a sheet of qualifications that cannot make eye contact. Another
:33:00. > :33:06.overhaul of the education system will not be welcomed. Ed Miliband
:33:07. > :33:11.has talked about a higher level vocational qualification. He said
:33:12. > :33:20.this is for the bottom 15%. As long as people think that is for the
:33:21. > :33:23.bottom 15%, it is not good. It is in our British DNA about taking
:33:24. > :33:28.vocational education seriously. There are some signs of change but
:33:29. > :33:31.there is a long way to go. Now for a look at the week ahead. Later today,
:33:32. > :33:34.Labour launches its strategy on childcare, they want the banks to
:33:35. > :33:39.pay for extended free childcare for three and four-year-olds. Cameron is
:33:40. > :33:44.also making a statement to MPs on the outcome from the Commonwealth
:33:45. > :33:47.Heads of Government Meeting. Wednesday is Prime Minister's
:33:48. > :33:51.Questions and we'll also be seeing the TUC's national day of action
:33:52. > :33:54.against the use of blacklisting. The unions are unhappy that construction
:33:55. > :33:58.companies who have blacklisted workers have still not been held
:33:59. > :34:02.accountable. And the European Union Referendum Bill returns once again
:34:03. > :34:07.to the Commons for the second day of its second reading today. This,
:34:08. > :34:09.you'll remember, is the Private Members Bill, launched by
:34:10. > :34:13.Conservative MP James Wharton. Joining us now is James Lyons from
:34:14. > :34:21.the Mirror and Isabel Hardman from the Spectator. Isabel, it seems the
:34:22. > :34:27.fight is on in the coalition over which party will prove the most
:34:28. > :34:31.popular at tax cutting. There is unity at the top of the coalition
:34:32. > :34:36.over raising the personal allowance. The Tories have said they wanted it
:34:37. > :34:40.and Nick Clegg has said he wants to do it. Backbenchers are saying, are
:34:41. > :34:45.be really sure this is what we want to do? Is it not better to focus on
:34:46. > :34:50.families who may be affected by the fiscal drought. At the top they are
:34:51. > :34:54.arguing over who takes credit for the policy but colleagues are
:34:55. > :35:02.questioning over whether this is the right thing. So, this is about
:35:03. > :35:05.claiming credit as the economy starts to grow and Liberal Democrats
:35:06. > :35:08.do not want to be forgotten as the ones they claimed talking about tax
:35:09. > :35:14.threshold. Is it about thinking ahead to the Autumn statement and
:35:15. > :35:21.the fact there might be some giveaways? There has been better
:35:22. > :35:23.economic news. That creates problems for George Osborne. It raises
:35:24. > :35:33.expectations amongst his inside and what they might see out of this
:35:34. > :35:39.statement. Isabel is not sure what will be given away. Most people want
:35:40. > :35:44.to see that but they want to see other things as well. They want to
:35:45. > :35:48.see higher thresholds go up and various other ideas. It is all
:35:49. > :35:54.mounting up on the desk of George of Bourne. Demands are coming thick and
:35:55. > :35:59.fast. The other problem -- George Osborne. Demands are coming thick
:36:00. > :36:06.and fast. It will damage the election strategy. George Osborne
:36:07. > :36:12.and David Cameron want to fight a rerun of the 1992 election and tried
:36:13. > :36:17.to scare voters to death about consequences of the Labour
:36:18. > :36:19.government. What happened about posterity and holding on to death
:36:20. > :36:22.about consequences of the Labour government. What happened about
:36:23. > :36:33.posterity and holding onto the purse we have got this growth. The
:36:34. > :36:38.Conservatives do still have the opportunity to say, it is not a done
:36:39. > :36:43.deal. We are not back to the years of prosperity yet. Stick with us and
:36:44. > :36:47.we will finish the job. They have said, voting for Labour is a boat
:36:48. > :36:53.for wrecking the recovery. They still have a strong message to
:36:54. > :36:58.communicate. They have talked about the cost of living and you have
:36:59. > :37:04.occupied that space. With Mark Carney saying the recovery is
:37:05. > :37:11.finally taking hold, what is Labour 's answer to growth? We would have
:37:12. > :37:17.got this a lot earlier had it not been for the coalition argument. It
:37:18. > :37:22.will be about the old chestnut we used to hear a lot about, sharing
:37:23. > :37:25.the proceeds of growth. This is what is interesting. The Lib Dems are
:37:26. > :37:30.trying to outflank the Tories about what they can do for families,
:37:31. > :37:33.partly in response to the way Ed Miliband set the agenda with the
:37:34. > :37:38.energy price freeze. The Tories are all over the shop. They have a
:37:39. > :37:46.completely confused message. Last week, David Cameron said he wanted a
:37:47. > :37:51.leaner, meaner, fitter state going forward. No one wants the old days
:37:52. > :37:56.of tax rises to pay for spending. You have a long list of expensive
:37:57. > :38:08.demands. The coalition has managed that money for free school dinners
:38:09. > :38:14.and marriage tax breaks. On Friday, the EU Referendum Bill makes it back
:38:15. > :38:18.into the House of Commons. There has been a project to look at the
:38:19. > :38:22.different clever procedures you can use to make this path into an act.
:38:23. > :38:32.The chance of it surviving the house of lords certainly are very slim.
:38:33. > :38:44.There was a big threat about bringing the referendum forward from
:38:45. > :38:48.2017 towards -- to 2014. They are much more interested in what David
:38:49. > :38:56.Cameron wants. They are worried he does not have a slimmer view of a
:38:57. > :39:10.reformed Europe as they do. -- as slim a view. Welcome to our guests.
:39:11. > :39:13.Let's talk about UKIP. The party has received a massive boost from Paul
:39:14. > :39:18.Sykes, who has pledged to do whatever it takes to help the party
:39:19. > :39:21.went next year 's European elections. He previously supported
:39:22. > :39:28.the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher and Michael
:39:29. > :39:35.Howard. He backed UKIP in 2004. He joins us from our central London
:39:36. > :39:40.studio. Welcome to you. You say you will do whatever it takes to help
:39:41. > :39:45.UKIP when the elections next year. How much will it take? You have a
:39:46. > :39:50.limit of 4.5 million for the European elections. The limit spells
:39:51. > :40:02.it out. We will be spending within the law of the land. What we want
:40:03. > :40:06.that money to do? We want a massive awareness campaign. The British
:40:07. > :40:10.people are almost totally aware of the power that has been transferred
:40:11. > :40:16.to Brussels. They are asking questions about what is happening to
:40:17. > :40:20.borders. They are not kept in the circuit. It seems to be people in
:40:21. > :40:25.Britain, especially politicians, do not want to give the British people
:40:26. > :40:29.the opportunity to see what it is all about. We have been holding
:40:30. > :40:41.opinion polls up and down the country. In Yorkshire, two thirds of
:40:42. > :40:43.Yorkshire people do not want the borders taking down on 1st of
:40:44. > :40:51.January. Are you a member of UKIP? No. I am not a member of any party.
:40:52. > :40:58.Will you pledged to support UKIP for the general election or is this just
:40:59. > :41:05.about the European election? -- pledge. It is all about the European
:41:06. > :41:10.election. You could support the Tories in the general election. I do
:41:11. > :41:14.not vote for political parties. I am campaigning for information to be
:41:15. > :41:19.put to the British people so they know where we have got with the EU
:41:20. > :41:25.situation. You have made it clear about your views. Let's say UKIP
:41:26. > :41:29.topped the poll, what will you do then? If you feel so passionately
:41:30. > :41:36.about your messaging to the British electorate, what will you do post
:41:37. > :41:42.European elections? We will see what happens. We have no idea. I have
:41:43. > :41:45.only one target and that is to win the European elections. I know then
:41:46. > :41:51.we will allow other nation states within Europe to take on our
:41:52. > :41:57.particular model. They are trying to get democracy back and control
:41:58. > :42:02.economies of known countries. We intervened in the euro. Everyone
:42:03. > :42:08.sees that as a bad idea. The campaign to not abolish the pound
:42:09. > :42:15.and not go into the euro. We won on that and now it is the bigger
:42:16. > :42:19.picture. What about the promise by David Cameron to the Electric to
:42:20. > :42:23.renegotiate the relationship with the EU and reform it in a way which
:42:24. > :42:30.would be beneficial to Britain and be better to stay in? -- the
:42:31. > :42:36.electorate. A man who wants to negotiate it wants to stay in any
:42:37. > :42:42.way. You would have to break the treaties to start negotiating. This
:42:43. > :42:48.is growing power from Brussels. That is the way it is. The law states,
:42:49. > :42:53.you had to say straightforwardly, we wish to leave and then start
:42:54. > :42:58.negotiations. You cannot start negotiations still being a member.
:42:59. > :43:07.It is still about the party holding a referendum. David Cameron may be
:43:08. > :43:17.nowhere in sight by 2017. Thank you very much. I'm going to have to put
:43:18. > :43:24.some of those points to you, Simon Hart. It is a massive blow to you.
:43:25. > :43:29.It will help UKIP topped the poll. I would not describe it as a blow. He
:43:30. > :43:35.described it as the only election he stands a chance of winning. The
:43:36. > :43:39.greatest prospect for UKIP, I am afraid, next year or the year after,
:43:40. > :43:44.is the returning Labour government. That is what they are hoping to
:43:45. > :43:53.achieve will stop that is our problem. We have to persuade people.
:43:54. > :43:57.What we have on offer is that it strikes the right balance. Those
:43:58. > :44:02.people with concerns over Europe had a huge economic interest in staying
:44:03. > :44:12.in. Do you think the Conservative Party has insulted some of its
:44:13. > :44:16.grassroots? I do take that view. We should look at every person who
:44:17. > :44:23.decides to drift away from our camp as a failure on our part. Not a
:44:24. > :44:30.failure on their part. We have not made those cases. There is no point
:44:31. > :44:35.about talking about UKIP voters or sympathisers in a derogatory way. We
:44:36. > :44:39.need to prove we are trustworthy, confident and relevant. If we can do
:44:40. > :44:46.that, Mr Sykes and be back on our team if he so wishes. That is what
:44:47. > :44:51.will happen. Let's see the state of the national parties after the
:44:52. > :44:58.elections. He will give his party to the Conservatives and that will be
:44:59. > :45:02.the election that counts. He has not said he will do that. I would like
:45:03. > :45:06.to thank him for his long-term commitment to the freedom and
:45:07. > :45:10.independence of this country. I must challenge this point, we are talking
:45:11. > :45:15.about this whole debate as though it were about UKIP taking votes from
:45:16. > :45:19.the Tories. I was up at the Northeast conference in the South
:45:20. > :45:23.Shields constituency on Saturday. We had 300 people there. It was bigger
:45:24. > :45:27.than some of our national conferences. It is Labour
:45:28. > :45:34.heartland. I campaigned in Rotherham, where we came second. Our
:45:35. > :45:42.story on education did extremely well on the Labour doorsteps. We are
:45:43. > :45:48.a common-sense party. Are you still keen on the idea of labour
:45:49. > :45:52.apologising for what UKIP claim was an open door policy on immigration,
:45:53. > :45:57.awkward labour be talking about the benefits of immigration? We didn't
:45:58. > :45:59.get everything right, and we have been clear that the transitional
:46:00. > :46:05.arrangements should have been extended for longer. But whatever
:46:06. > :46:10.Roger says, UKIP are a threat to the Tory party. It is a failure of
:46:11. > :46:16.politicians rather than a failure of voters if they drift away to other
:46:17. > :46:20.parties. But at the same time, I represent Sunderland, and thousands
:46:21. > :46:25.of people depend on jobs at the factory there, and we have been very
:46:26. > :46:29.clear that all of this talk about our future in Europe puts jobs and
:46:30. > :46:35.investment at risk. And business people have been saying it is a
:46:36. > :46:38.threat. At a time when Ford have just removed their van operations to
:46:39. > :46:43.Turkey, it is very difficult for anyone, Nissan or Toyota, to make
:46:44. > :46:49.the case that being outside the EU creates a problem. China exports to
:46:50. > :46:55.Europe, America does, there are free-trade agreements with Korea,
:46:56. > :46:59.one in the pipeline for India. When we leave the European Union, we will
:47:00. > :47:03.have a free-trade agreement from day one, and it will be as easy to
:47:04. > :47:09.export cars from Britain to Europe as it is today. You say that, and we
:47:10. > :47:12.haven't got a time to talk about the possible a tea of tariffs that will
:47:13. > :47:17.be placed on countries that are already outside the EU. They pay all
:47:18. > :47:20.of the costs of being within a free-trade area of the EU but get
:47:21. > :47:26.none of the benefits of sitting at the table. That me just ask the
:47:27. > :47:29.question first of all about expectation management in the
:47:30. > :47:33.European elections. It is factored in that you are likely to top the
:47:34. > :47:39.poll. But if you don't, it will be a disaster, won't it? That is why we
:47:40. > :47:42.are working hard to make sure we do, and we are grateful to Paul Sykes
:47:43. > :47:47.for his help. You think that will clinch it for you? I think that will
:47:48. > :47:55.make a difference. Obviously if you have more money you will do better.
:47:56. > :48:04.So is it going their way? There are two parties with a very clear
:48:05. > :48:07.positions. UKIP are clearly very against Europe, and the Liberal
:48:08. > :48:12.Democrats are very clear that we should stay in. I think the donors
:48:13. > :48:18.are obviously as confused as voters when it comes to Labour and the
:48:19. > :48:25.Conservatives, because they are both try to sound Euro-sceptic but know
:48:26. > :48:29.that we should stay in. Is your party confused? I think we are the
:48:30. > :48:34.party with a referendum on the table, and we are united behind it.
:48:35. > :48:40.This is as close as we has ever been to actually be able to give the
:48:41. > :48:43.choice to voters. It seems to me that that is actually a major step
:48:44. > :48:48.forward and a pretty united opposition. We know that people will
:48:49. > :48:51.have a choice. You spend most of last week tried to stop this
:48:52. > :48:55.happening and talk it out. You have been trying to talk at the bill
:48:56. > :49:00.since it first came in. We spent most of the time in the last time at
:49:01. > :49:03.the European Union for a Conservative amendment on Gibraltar,
:49:04. > :49:07.because Gibraltar was left out of the bill. And it is your side who
:49:08. > :49:12.has actually propose one of the more serious amendments to the Bill. But
:49:13. > :49:20.the truth is, arguing about the menu Shi'ite of referendums is not the
:49:21. > :49:28.big issue. -- arguing about the finer points. Because of jobs, the
:49:29. > :49:34.environment, fighting crime, we need to be in. The conservative argument
:49:35. > :49:40.is absolutely clear that that is a choice that voters should take. It
:49:41. > :49:52.is not up to me. We Mac but do you want to be in or out? In or out? In
:49:53. > :49:55.or out? I don't buy the idea that they have to be on one side of the
:49:56. > :50:00.other. You have three old parties that all want to stay in, and one
:50:01. > :50:03.party that wants to get out. And that is why Paul Sykes was right
:50:04. > :50:06.when he said that this European election next year will be a
:50:07. > :50:09.referendum. The choice for the people is that you can vote for the
:50:10. > :50:13.old parties if you want to stay in Europe and vote for UKIP if you want
:50:14. > :50:21.to get out. And what happens after that? We will have change the
:50:22. > :50:28.agenda. You think all of a sudden the other parties will want to have
:50:29. > :50:34.a referendum? I conceive example Labour offering a referendum. I'm
:50:35. > :50:40.not sure whether these guys will. Very briefly, because I want to move
:50:41. > :50:46.on. You did very well at last you's European elections, and it didn't
:50:47. > :50:54.change of anal. -- it wouldn't change anything. Let's talk about
:50:55. > :50:59.the countryside. Simon Hart, you are a former chief executive of the
:51:00. > :51:04.countryside Alliance. Support has dropped by 20% in just a couple of
:51:05. > :51:09.years. It goes back to what we were saying earlier on. We have to take
:51:10. > :51:15.it seriously, any party who are losing some of its core voters...
:51:16. > :51:19.But why are they being lost? I think it is an exasperation, an
:51:20. > :51:22.exasperation of being in a coalition, that no one ever quite
:51:23. > :51:29.gets what they want when they want or how they want it. Voters have
:51:30. > :51:35.stuck by party leaders for quite a long time, and I think there is this
:51:36. > :51:41.feeling that it is a case of, what have the Romans ever done for me?
:51:42. > :51:45.When you draw up the list, there aren't as many things on it is
:51:46. > :51:49.people perhaps expect there to be. So there is this feeling of
:51:50. > :51:53.uneasiness. I don't think it is terminal. We have to persuade people
:51:54. > :51:57.to come back and we will do that in the next election. But it would be
:51:58. > :52:05.crazy to assume that the role vote is in the bag. It is a case of, do
:52:06. > :52:11.not take them for granted. We will leave it there.
:52:12. > :52:14.Paul Flowers, former chairman of the corporative bank, has been caught on
:52:15. > :52:19.camera by the Mail on Sunday apparently trying to buy cocaine and
:52:20. > :52:22.crystal meth. He has released a statement apologising for his
:52:23. > :52:26.actions, and saying that during an incredibly difficult year, he did
:52:27. > :52:30.things that were stupid and wrong. The recording was allegedly made
:52:31. > :52:32.three days after he feared in front of the Treasury select committee to
:52:33. > :52:36.answer questions about his stewardship of the bank. During that
:52:37. > :52:40.session, he seems to have little grasp of some of the most basic
:52:41. > :52:45.aspect of the bank's asset and balance sheet. Healy is being
:52:46. > :52:54.questioned by Andrew Tyrie, chair of the select committee. It is the core
:52:55. > :53:00.asset of a bank. And you don't know what that figure is, even roughly? I
:53:01. > :53:04.cannot give you that figure at the moment, but I can come back to you
:53:05. > :53:10.with a notice that would be helpful. Your total assets for June last year
:53:11. > :53:20.are listed at 47 million. Sorry 47 billion. Just to give you an idea.
:53:21. > :53:24.You offering me 3 billion, and I am telling you that your annual
:53:25. > :53:31.accounts show it at 47 billion. Forgive me. And your loan book is
:53:32. > :53:39.about 32 billion. These are very basic numbers for the chairman of
:53:40. > :53:42.the bank. Andrew Tyrie interrogating Mr
:53:43. > :53:48.Flowers. It didn't go very well, did it, in the select committee? How did
:53:49. > :53:53.Paul Flowers, somebody was no banking experience, get to be
:53:54. > :53:57.chairman of the bank? I think clearly the evidence we saw of what
:53:58. > :54:00.has happened in the press over the weekend, Mr Flowers has made a
:54:01. > :54:03.number of quite serious personal mistakes, and is in an difficult
:54:04. > :54:09.position personally, going through some difficulties in his life, and
:54:10. > :54:12.that is very sad. But the Treasury select committee should be allowed
:54:13. > :54:16.to look at what went on at the Co-op, because we can't see those
:54:17. > :54:22.mistakes happen again. You are talking about the allegations of
:54:23. > :54:26.drug use, and I'm sure that we also should talk about her summary like
:54:27. > :54:30.him, who was basically a politician, who rose through the ranks of the
:54:31. > :54:34.corporative movement because of the unusual structure of the corporative
:54:35. > :54:39.anchor, was it right that somebody like him, drug allegations aside,
:54:40. > :54:45.somebody was no direct experience of banking, should reach the dizzy
:54:46. > :54:49.heights of chairmanship of a bank? The Treasury select committee will
:54:50. > :54:53.get to the bottom of this. What do you think? I think there are
:54:54. > :54:57.concerns in terms of his appearance that he didn't have the grasp of the
:54:58. > :55:00.figures or to be on top of what happened, and there has been an
:55:01. > :55:03.attempt within the current leadership and within the previous
:55:04. > :55:07.leadership to look around and cast blame as to what went wrong. There
:55:08. > :55:12.was regulatory oversight. Perhaps something went wrong there. But I
:55:13. > :55:17.think it is right that the Co-op is now not in a position to have to
:55:18. > :55:21.rely on the taxpayer to bail it out. It is a very sad state of affairs
:55:22. > :55:25.that the Co-op bank will not exist in the form that it has previously
:55:26. > :55:31.existed. Because it used to be an ethical bank. Can you tell us a
:55:32. > :55:37.little about how it works? The links that we have with the bank are part
:55:38. > :55:41.of it but separate, and a separate ongoing financial concern. Labour
:55:42. > :55:48.and the corporative bank have worked together for a long time, we have
:55:49. > :55:52.shared candidates with the party and many areas. We campaign on issues
:55:53. > :55:59.that matter and we have a good relationship. So this must be hugely
:56:00. > :56:01.embarrassing. If you are a Labour MP sponsored or supported by the
:56:02. > :56:09.cooperative movement, how embarrassing is this? I am a member
:56:10. > :56:16.of the corporative party. And I am proud to be. We do great campaigning
:56:17. > :56:18.work on issues around cost of living, public services, concerns
:56:19. > :56:28.that people have around what matters to them. But in terms of the work of
:56:29. > :56:31.the bank, and it is a big disappointment to many of our
:56:32. > :56:35.customers, this needs to be put on a stable footing. The cooperative bank
:56:36. > :56:38.has to be there to look after its customers, and this needs to be got
:56:39. > :56:43.right for next time is that it doesn't happen again. I'm sure that
:56:44. > :56:47.they will be looking at people going up through the ranks. His
:56:48. > :56:54.appointment had to be sanctioned by the FSA. How did that happen? How
:56:55. > :57:00.did they rubber-stamp that? There are regulatory issues here. I'm a
:57:01. > :57:05.big supporter of alternative forms of ownership, and there are plenty
:57:06. > :57:12.of successful examples such as nationwide, the Halifax and others,
:57:13. > :57:18.who maintain a common ownership model and do well. But there are
:57:19. > :57:20.issues around when you stop having effective financial management and
:57:21. > :57:25.the requirements, particularly on a chairman of a bank, but I think you
:57:26. > :57:31.would expect it to institution, however it is owned and run. And in
:57:32. > :57:37.terms of financial contributions, they will go down, to Labour? I
:57:38. > :57:43.think that point is the right one. The banks with larger management to
:57:44. > :57:49.similar troubles, and of course this has to be right, but there is a
:57:50. > :57:54.difference between the corporative party into the corporative bank. The
:57:55. > :57:59.Labour Party has ongoing financial commit with the bank which is not
:58:00. > :58:04.the same as the party. It is not just about the chairmanship of the
:58:05. > :58:09.party, either stop the Co-op bank will now be part owned by the
:58:10. > :58:22.thriving hedge fund is in America, and there is an argument about
:58:23. > :58:29.whether it is still a corporative. Yellow this guy should never have
:58:30. > :58:35.been in charge of a bank,. It is a failure of the regulatory system,
:58:36. > :58:39.not a failure of that bank. And more embarrassment on banking
:58:40. > :58:48.regulation? It was described on the radio this morning as jaw-dropping
:58:49. > :58:53.lea incompetent. And just recently, the Government were encouraging
:58:54. > :58:56.Lloyds bank to take over corporative branches. Thank you to all of my
:58:57. > :58:59.guests. I will be back tomorrow. Goodbye.