31/01/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. French President


Francois Hollande pops across La Manche to meet David Cameron. Later


on, they are off for a pint in a pub. On the agenda, energy, defence.


And the future of Britain in the EU. The Prime Minister suffers another


large-scale backbench rebellion with 86 Tory MPs voting against


government policy. We'll discuss Mr Cameron's party problems. Danny


Alexander tries to bowl Ed Balls a googly over his plans to reduce the


deficit. Labour say it is just not cricket. In our latest look at


influential political thinkers, financial journalist Louise Cooper


tells us all you need to know about Friedrich Hayek. This Austrian


upstart trick on Keynes. For that committee is incredibly brave. --


took on. All that in the next hour. And with us for the duration, Zoe


Williams. She writes a column for the Guardian and describes herself


as a bon viveur, so she's taking us for lunch after the show. And by Tim


Shipman, he writes for the Daily Mail but is soon off to be political


editor of the Sunday Times. It wouldn't have happened in my day.


First, today, let's talk about the Immigration Bill. We throw the word


farce around fairly liberally here at Westminster. But it certainly


applied to events in the Commons yesterday. It all centred around an


amendment to the bill by the Tory backbencher, Dominic Raab. He wanted


to stop foreign prisoners using the right to family life, enshrined in


the Human Rights Act, to stay in Britain. Now here's where it gets


complicated. The Government said Dominic Raab's amendment was illegal


and unworkable. But ministers said they would rather abstain on the


vote rather than risk unecessary confrontation with backbench rebels.


In the end, the bill itself passed easily, thanks to Labour and Lib Dem


votes but 86 Tories rebelled on the Raab amendment. So, is this a case


of the Tory backbench tail wagging the dog? Let's have a look at the


debate. Is the Government going to vote for it, against it or abstain?


I would say that what I am doing is indicating a few comments I have in


relation to this. I would like to hear my honourable friend speak on


this issue and here indeed whether he does intend to move this


amendment. You really do have to study the case law of the


immigration Tribunal to appreciate the extent to which these cases walk


the moral balance of British justice, endanger the public and,


frankly, for many people outside of this place, make Newman writes dirty


words. I recognise the concerns my friends have about inability to the


port foreign criminals. How could she tell the Prime Minister, I


propose the Government should not support the amendment because it


should not be compatible with the easy HR and counter-productive. The


Home Secretary, responsible for enforcing law and order in Britain,


is sitting there. It is a shambles. Is anyone watching? It is a real


shame. It is a shame for me. I always thought Dominick Raab was


normal. He is intelligent. He seemed to be quite smart. This seemed to be


quite unworkable on any basis. He knew it was not a real issue. He


knew it was just a way of getting the Government on the back foot.


There is a terrible mismanagement. If he is trying to force a wedge


between... He is trying to highlight that, it is a long game. It is not


just between the high command and the backbenches, it does not look as


if the Prime Minister promised to tell the Home Secretary how they


would vote or not on this matter. Number ten web easy breathing people


like myself that they were going to abstain. -- Number ten was busy


briefing people. The whole situation, he has avoided a massive


confrontation with backbenchers and avoided splitting the party. He has


shown he is cared about what they were thinking about. The alternative


was to back an amendment he believed was illegal. That is what they say


about Cameron. The way to deal with rebels is either to grout them or


give in to them. He freezes them out and then gives into them. There is


no question that it raises real problems about his party management


skills, which he has had from the start they seem to be accumulating.


I come back to the question, does anyone outside 500 yards off here


care? The one thing we noticed more and more, we get e-mails and


tweets, the machinations of Westminster are of no interest to


the country at all. It is a tragedy that people out there do not care.


They will have to thought about this. The Tory party is divided and


things at the centre are vaguely shambolic, which they are. Neither


of those things is something that David Cameron wants the public to


have in its mind. All you need is a general perception of division and


then it does matter. The press has no import in telling people how to


vote, whatever we think we can do. We can make a government pay united


or divided. That is a huge difference. This government makes


itself appears so divided. The thing with Cameron, we say this has no


connection to normal people but it does. They are trying to bring UKIP


defectors back into the fold. Anything that sets up a fight


between the more UKIP against the less UKIP plays to some level to


that faction. That is a huge deal. There have been a number of voices


saying it is time the backbench Tories stop this death wish, there


is an election looming. It is time he showed more loyalty and


discipline. Mr Michael Howard was on the radio earlier this week saying


the same thing. Here is a question. Even in the Spectator. You can see,


as the election approaches, that will have some weight because they


want to win, most of them anyway. Doesn't the headless chicken


tendency get a new lease of life when the Tories get lumped in the


European elections? What is interesting about what happened


yesterday is that Cameron decided not to pick a fight with the Dominic


Raab group of backbenchers. As Tory backbenchers go, he is normal. The


other amendment which caused a problem, the Nigel Mills amendment,


that was clearly illegal. It was also much more from the wing of the


party that wants to have a fight about Europe. Dominic Raab is seen


as an international lawyer who wants to make a serious point. A lot of us


think he will end up as A Minister. He says, when you look at the case


law, everyone looks at the case law. The -- it is not like the ban


against torture which has no caveat. He was simply trying to get some


guidance to the judges that they have given too much weight to the


caveats, sorry, they have not given any weight to the caveat. We can


ignore the right to a family life. Their body has to take any notice of


that. That is not right. Legally, it would not stand up. He did not pick


this fight. He could have picked a fight. You go back to the prisoner


voting issue, he voted against them. Yesterday he told them he agreed


with them and he abstained. Does he come out of this enhanced or


diminished? I think he is marginally menaced. -- diminished. We were


never going to vote for him anyway. He does not care about me. Amongst


his peers, he made an argument which they think had merits. He persuaded


Downing Street it had merit. The Prime Minister did not come down


like a tonne of bricks. Now, it's time for our daily quiz. The


question for today is, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has told a


magazine she has to shout at her husband, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls,


as they get their children ready for school in the morning. But what's


the reason? Is it: a) Because he's reading the Treasury red book at the


breakfast table, b) Because he's practising his hand-gestures for


PMQs in the bathroom mirror, c) Because he's playing the piano, or


d) Because he's watching the Sound of Music again? And crying, as he


does, because that is what he told us. At the end of the show, Zoe and


Tim will give us the correct answer. President Francois Hollande is in


the UK working hard with David Cameron on the next phase of the


intent called Gal. That is what a lot of us think. Where else would


the Prime Minister take such a distinguished head of state than the


traditional British boozer? He can look forward to pork scratchings and


a pint of pale ale. What will be on the menu when the two men at their


head to head? There will be plenty of cooperation plans. Such as


dealing with defence, nuclear energy and the space industry. After that,


things may get a little frosty. It is well known that Mr Cameron wants


to renegotiate the European Union treaty to create a more flexible EU


ahead of the promised referendum by the end of 2017. That is assuming he


wins the election in 2015. Partly because of his own faith in a


referendum in a Eurosceptic France, French officials have warned that


President Francois Hollande will say no. His election is in 2017. He may


have a thing or two to say about the Conservatives mocking his economic


policies, especially when comparing them to those of Ed Miliband. Grant


Schaap said President Francois Hollande has put his countrymen back


into the dust. I did not know they came from the dust. In the last few


minutes, the two leaders have been speaking to the media in a joint


press conference in the beautiful Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Our


partnership is as close and important as ever. We are two


leaders determined to keep our citizens safe and to secure a better


future for them all. That has been the focus of our discussions today.


First, on defence and security cooperation, we are both similar


sized countries with similar Armed Forces and similar ambitions. We


both see the link between domestic prosperity and being active players


on the global stage. With us now as always on these occasions, the


member of the French parliament representing Northern Europe,


including the UK. Welcome back. Will President Francois Hollande where


his helmet? I suppose so. In case Mr Cameron wants him with a baseball


bat! How would you categorise Anglo French relations at the moment? Icy


it as entente amicale. -- I see it. The reality shows that we do agree


on many issues and important and strategic ones. It is close


cooperation are probably closer than with any other country in Europe,


except for the Germany. In life, you have discussions, splits and


agreements. ER going to go into space today. Apparently so. -- we


are going. Stay quiet, sit and watch the oceans together. Here is the big


question... Am I right in thinking that the president has no real


interest in a major renegotiation of these issues? I think you are right


in thinking that. Not that he agrees on the fact that Europe needs to be


reformed but he disagrees on the methods and the means that David


Cameron wants to use for that. We have had enough of treaty


negotiations. People want to see what Europe brings them. He wants to


push an agenda on youth unemployment, on growth and how to


create jobs, innovation in Europe. You do not need treaty changes for


that. You do not need treaty changes to work closer with countries


belonging to the Eurozone. We, in France, think that what David


Cameron is asking us is actually down to his own domestic political


agenda and that should not take any role at all in the discussions


taking place between 28 member states.


The last thing the president wants is a referendum on Europe. This is


something which is never, ever discussed in French politics. You


have had a referendum. The pro-Europeans have lost it. Exactly.


At the moment, the economic situation is critical. We are


focusing on trying to create jobs. It is not an issue. Believe me, it


is not something we ever discussed in Parliament. I understand that. Mr


Cameron has got problems with UKIP. The French mainstream parties have


problems with the right of the National front, and they are


anti-Europe. Do they want to pull out of Europe altogether? Just euro.


You have got the hard left as well who are anti-euro. It is hard to see


how Francois Hollande... I can't see anywhere the friends can give Mr


Cameron even a fraction of what he is looking for. You are right. We


don't really know what he is looking for, to be honest. He hasn't put any


precise demands on the table. We know the direction he wants to go


in. Probably something to do with financial services. He was to be


part of the decision process when it comes to City regulations. It is


already the case. I am not sure that a stronger euro zone integration


will have any impact on the City. The National front, it is rising. We


are worried, it is true. It is not so much on an anti-EU agenda. It is


a lot about immigration and a lot on social issues. It is probably


broader than what UKIP once. This will be covered by the diplomatic


niceties. I am told that Francois Hollande doesn't want many questions


so it would be a quick press conference. I wonder why! The mood


music from the French, to be blunt, Mr Cameron... The whole strategy has


almost collapsed before it has left the box. Arguably, he would say he


needs to get Angela Merkel onside. She now has the social Democrats to


deal with, who have the same view as the French president. That is right.


We don't know what David Cameron once, precisely. People in his own


party would like to know that. There is no way that Francois Hollande is


good to have a referendum before his election. Here, Cameron is wanting


to make the argument that Francois Hollande and Ed Miliband are the


same disastrous socialist experiment. That is another issue.


That is using France in British domestic politics. Where does Mr


Cameron go from here? I am baffled by the use of the word strategy. He


is wandering from one place to another. On paper, I don't think his


renegotiation is to do with financial services. I accept that


might be what it looks like. He probably would like to present


himself as the person who curtails free movement between different


countries, between Labour forces. That seems to be where he is coming


from, if only we could make sure that people couldn't move around,


the mobile poor is his big problem. I don't see what on earth he could


do about that, whether he renegotiate the treaty or not. His


main thing is to look like the person who is strong on that. Where


do we go from here? The mobility of workers in Europe, the president has


really pushed that issue in brush off because he wanted to renegotiate


a directive to put more control into companies that do not apply laws and


pay salaries of the country of origin, which is called social


dumping. It is paying somebody from Poland at the Polish rate here in


England. David Cameron opposed that. He didn't want it. He was one of the


leaders in that confrontation are posing that. He didn't want any more


control. I don't get it. It is paradoxical. As this year goes on in


the grand Coalition takes control in Berlin, with major social Democratic


influence, will is not become apparent that although there is a


general will in Europe to reform - there always is - it will become


clear there is no appetite among the leaders of the EU to give Mr Cameron


any kind of repatriation. It is looking like that. The other


problem, with the German government having changed, ministers here made


a big effort to get to see the guys in Germany and now they are dealing


with a whole different bunch of people with his priorities. They


don't yet understand what the Coalition partners are about on what


they are after. They are having to get to know these people ahead of


European elections which are going to be disastrous for the Tory party


and there will be more pressure on Cameron to do and say more about


what he wants back after that. There are not the Allies out there. There


are a few. The Germans will say to Britain, we will do what we can for


you but don't ask us to choose between you and Europe and don't ask


us to choose between you and the French, because you would like the


answers. How is the former first lady doing? It is a difficult one to


answer. You know that the split has been made official. Since then, the


president has been very neutral. I think he wants to protect himself.


He wants to protect his family. She has been to neutral. Is she going to


turn nasty? We don't to that. Her nickname is the Rottweiler. The


French are now keen on supporting her. She had an 89% disapproval


rating and now it has changed! TNI on it for us. -- keep an eye on it.


I know what you are thinking. What is happening with the EU bill?


Haven't heard about it for at least a week. The private members bill,


which is trying to put a referendum in 2017 into law, it is back in the


law survey, now at committee stage. It is the -- only being supported by


the Conservatives. Still paying attention? I hope so. This morning,


Michael Dobbs, the author and peer, he is the Bill's sponsor, aerated


the operation for holding it up. -- aerated. They take advice from


Strasberg and Japan and yet they are failing to convince anybody they are


keen to take the advice of the people. If we pursue these


amendments, my Lords, we are doing only one thing. We're turning around


to the people and saying that their voice, there will come in the


instruction, isn't enough. -- there will, then struck.


This is why we need a referendum, to cleanse the stables. We have been


joined by the Conservative peer, patients Wheatcroft. Is he ever


write? Is this bill a dead parrot? It is apparent that may be


resurrected. Why? It is a bill that the public want to see made law.


What has the public to do with it? The laws will do their best to get


it through. There is a lot of opposition, not just from Labour but


from our Lib Dem colleagues. It is not dead yet. Is it close to being


dead? Is it in intensive care? Yes, but miracles happen. We are not


writing off the bill. When was the last miracle? When the lid Dems do


as well as they did in the election. -- the Lib Dems. Last Friday, there


were lumber of amendments to the bill. Are the acceptable to your


fellow Conservative peers? We don't think we need those amendments. The


bill as it stands is quite straightforward. If anybody were to


ask you, should the UK be a member of the EU? You would understand what


the question meant. Is it not all a bit of a waste of about five Fridays


in a row? Shouldn't you be out in your country estates enjoying


yourselves? We know this is going nowhere. We know now that Francois


Hollande is not going to agree to any major treaty change. He may not


have a say in it. Probably will. He will be there until 2017. That is a


position at the moment. Things change. Now, the French have fixed


the terms for their president. He will be there. You'll agree his


position looks difficult at the moment, I would suggest. -- his


position looks difficult at the moment. It is true that the British


people do want a vote in the EU. At the moment they say they would


leave. If it would be the same after debate, that is another matter. This


parliament can't bind the next parliament. Even if they got the


next bill, it doesn't mean there will be a referendum. Are the wheels


coming off the whole Camerin strategy on your rug? This is the


less do something to get to summer ploy. -- let's do something. By


throwing his weight behind it and saying this is a good thing, it


means he doesn't have to come up with anything concrete about what he


would like to negotiate. He is not going to get away with that after 22


May. What about Labour? Will Ed Miliband maintain his anti-reverend


opposition? It is maddening. The amount of time we have spent talking


about it, we could have held the referendum and put it on YouTube.


The only intelligent thing about this is that... The only intelligent


thing about suggesting a referendum is that anybody who says no is


somebody who doesn't want to know what people think. That is not a


good look for anybody. Will Labour maintain its anti-referendum


position? I think they will maintain. If your question is,


should they? I wonder whether the smart money would be on having


courage and saying, we believe fervently in the EU but we are


prepared to make our case. Their courageous behaviour was to waive


the bill through in the Commons. Neither the Labour Party nor the Lib


Dems were able to oppose the bill there. They encouraged their members


in the Lords to struck it at every turn. That is not a very courageous


approach. Thing is, this is bicameral politics. You get perverse


result that nobody wanted because the only way people can


realistically postings is through the kind of back doors. The Lib Dems


are tabling amendments. They don't want to divide the whip but they


want to look at -- like they have made an amendment. The government is


pretty much of the view that what is happening in the Lords is not going


on against the wishes of Ed Miliband. The camera position is


that he hopes, contrary to what we have been saying, that he will get a


major repatriation of powers and that he will campaign to keep in


Europe on this new basis, which he has renegotiated. Does it not follow


that if he fails to get the repatriation come he still has to


have the referendum and he has a campaign against staying in the EU?


He has left that position open. Most people think he wants to stay in. He


has painted itself into a position where he may have to campaign for


out. I agree with Zoe about Ed Miliband. It is a test about whether


he things you can win the next election. At the moment he thinks he


is doing to be the next Prime Minister. The strongest line you


will have if this bill falls is that you will campaign, I presume, saying


Labour won't give you a referendum. Absolutely and we know the public


want a referendum. If the choice was between staying in, largely on the


existing status quo terms, or coming out... That won't be the question.


But it could be the choice. It won't be because David Cameron will


negotiate. What happens if he doesn't get much? I would be in


favour of staying in but in a more effective EU. We have already seen


they would Cameron get the first cut in the budget. There is scope for


change here. Last week, the comedian Rufus Hound


caused a bit of a stir when he announced his intention to stand as


a candidate in the European elections this May, for the National


Health Action Party. Mr Hound accused the Conservative Party of


wanting to sell off the health service to party donors. The NHAP


campaigns against what it says is the privatisation by stealth of the


NHS. The Government is upfront about wanting more private companies to be


involved in the NHS but says its reforms are designed to give health


professionals more control over budgets and improve services. Here's


how David Cameron described the reforms back in June 2011. The


fundamentals of our plans, more control to patients, more power to


doctors and nurses, less bureaucracy in the NHS, those fundamentals are


as strong today as they have ever been. He wanted us to make clear


that competition is not therefore its own sake but to make life better


for patients. Done! You wanted us to get specialists and nurses, not just


GPs to commissioning groups, done! You wanted us to join up the


different parts of the NHS, to put integration right at the heart of


reforms. Again, done! And we've been joined by Dr Louise Irvine, who is


standing in the euro elections in May for the National Health Action


Party. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Your campaign group says


that the Government is threatening free at the point of use health


care. Where? At the moment, we are hearing stories of services that


were once available on the NHS being rationed. Today there was an item in


the news about that. The health service is always rationed. That is


why there are queues. What was previously free and where are they


having to pay for them? People cannot get cataract operations. They


get one I'd done because that is what they need to see with. Many


health groups say people have to wait until they are extremely


disabled before they can get a hit or knee replacement. You are saying


we are having to pay. Give me an example of where patients are


painful care which they have revisited got free. We are


predicting the construction of a publicly funded health care service


will lead to people having to pay. People are taking our health


insurance to cover the possibility they will not be able to get the


kind of care they need. This is happening already. The health


insurance sector is desperate to get more customers. The way to do that


is to start to shrink down what the NHS provides. That is what we are


seeing. Private companies are providing health care and procedures


free at point of use. The private sector has always been involved in


the NHS. The private sector has always been used in a small way in


the NHS. Now it has a growing role. The private sector wants to cherry


pick the most profitable services and remove them but that will mean


they will be removed from NHS hospitals, which would destabilise


the financials of NHS hospitals. Also the cost of turning the NHS


into a market means at least ?10 billion, ?15 billion a year in


transaction costs. The costs of lawyers and accountants managing


that market. One study has been done by the Kings fund and it is quite


useful. It talks about providing services free at the of use. It says


they were no worse than the NHS and, in some cases, superior. We are


going to go from a publicly provided system to one which is fragmented.


Greater competition will undermine the collaboration and cooperation.


David Cameron said it is important to provide good health care. The


gains we have made in health care in the last ten years, in cancer care,


stroke care and heart care, have all increased no end. The independent


sector treatment programme was established. What was wrong with it?


Labour, I think, has lost its way. It has some very good policies but


it also brought in to much of the private sector. Independent


treatment centres where paid more per case. You are a GP, aren't you?


We are not a company. We are not driven by shareholders. You are not


employed by the NHS. This is a historical situation brought about


at the beginning. We are part of the NHS. Why can't we have services


provided on the same basis as you? GPs do not disappear when they can


no longer make a profit, unlike virgin and care UK or United health.


We are there for the long haul. Our patients can well see the difference


between a local GP and the big, private, profit driven corporations


which are circling the NHS to make profit at the People's illness.


There is a huge difference. It is interesting you're going to stand in


the European elections. Will it be quite tough, given that your


personal to do with the health service? They will all be arguing


about repatriation of powers and the euro and UKIP at all the rest of it.


How will you get the health service onto the agenda? There is one really


important aspect of Europe which people need to be aware of. That is


the EU-US trade agreement, which is currently being discussed. If the


NHS does not get an exemption from that agreement, it would make all


privatisation irreversible because it would be possible for foreign


corporations to sue the British Government no matter what decisions


they made, even with the democratic mandate. Also Europe does legislate


on many other health issues to do with health and public health. I'm


struck by the fact we're talking about structures within the NHS


rather than front-line patient care. The Government made a big mistake by


dimming its top reorganisation in terms of the public. -- doing its


top-down reorganisation. Jeremy Hunt has desperately tried to make it


about patients again. I am intrigued that someone is coming along and


talking about structures again. Can I raise the issue about private


companies. Companies are given 1.5 million in donations to the


Conservative Party. They have 70% of contracts. Have you got that figure?


Have you got the background... ? Lots of things are said by MPs that


are not true in Hansard. Have you got the detail of the 1.5 million


days I have been trying to get it? I think it was the European register


of contracts which were given out. They surveyed it all and added it


all up. That sounds true to me. Sounded true and being true are not


the same. I want to get the fact. Andy Burnham has made the point to


me and I want to get the facts to put the Secretary of State for


health when I interview him. That is why I am looking at it. Can I ask


you one final question? Your candidate in the European elections


said, David Cameron wants your kids to die, do you regret that? I do


not. I think David Cameron, as a man, does not want children to die.


As a Prime Minister in his political role he is presiding over a system


which will lead to deaths. The faculty in public health has said


that. He said, David Cameron once your kids to die. Wanting your kids


to die, was not a regretful thing to say? Is someone is driving a car


recklessly you say, do want to kill someone in this car? He is being


reckless. You think the Prime Minister is a killer. I do not think


he is a killer. It is a rhetorical statement. It is not about


structures, it is about patients. The money that has been taken out


into funding this big market has been taken from front-line care. We


have lost 6000 nurses, 8000 beds, A departments have been closed,


ambulance stations have been closed. It is affecting people 's health.


And we did ask for an interview with a health minister but none were


available. Over the past few months, we've been taking a look at some of


the political thinkers who have influenced British politics. We've


discussed Karl Marx, Tom Paine, John Stewart Mill and several others.


Today it's the turn of an Austrian economist born in 1899, the choice


of financial journalist Louise Cooper.


You know, I think it is fair to say that these days, most others have


enough trouble managing our own bank accounts let alone an economy. For


the people in this building, the Treasury, and those outside who are


economists, that is their job. I will meet a financial analyst and


blogger who you cannot use that job unless you have studied the work of


Frederick Hayek. Louise, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you as well.


We are in the Institute of economic affairs. We are sat at his kitchen


table, having a cup of tea. It is exciting to be here. I imagine he


would not have drank tea. Why do you like him so much? He was an Austrian


immigrant and his family suffered deprivation between the wars. He


took on Keynes full stop wealth, privilege, education, establishment,


Cambridge. This Austrian upstart took on Keynes. For that, he was


incredibly brave. When it became apparent the world fell in love with


Keynes, he stuck to what he really, really believed in. It was an


unpopular message but he kept saying it. For that, you have to admire


him. ) he starts his lecturing career and he is of a British


economic journey. -- he starts his lecturing career. So, we're in the


London School of economic old theatre where Frederich Hayek used


to lecture. It is astonishing they gave him a job. His earlier attempts


were turgid. Incomprehensible is also a good word. He had a strong


Austrian accent, he spoke in long sentences with lots of subclauses


and through triangular diagrams that few in the audience understood. I am


honoured to stand on this stage but his entry here was not great. Can


you explain what he is trying to tell us? He believed firmly in free


markets. He thought that economies were highly complex and therefore


government interference would always end up badly. In fact, when they did


interfere, and the outcome was worse than if they had done nothing at


all. Does he have anything at all to do with monetarism? Yellow matter


you can affect an economy by changing interest rates. The initial


work was done by Frederich Hayek. It was not for another 50 years that


someone really adopted him. We have come to what is now Europe


house in the heart of Westminster. Back in the days of Margaret


Thatcher, this was Conservative Central office. She is crucial to


Hayek's story. Absolutely. Hayek was ignored the decade. Everybody went


mad for Keynes. Then we had the economic crisis of the 1970s. Keynes


was maybe not such a great solution to the world's problems. What


Thatcher did was go back to Hayek, and in particular this book.


Apparently she came into this building, slammed it down on the


table in a very Thatcher way and said, this is what we believe!


Fabulous. It is all about rolling back the state, privatising


state-run businesses and introducing competition as much as possible.


Even Bill Clinton, a Democrat, famously said, this is the end of


big government. You don't get much more Hayek than that. So everybody


starts to study him. The real question is, is he relevant to


today? Doctor Elizabeth Fraser thinks that to answer that you need


to look at Hayek's view of politics versus economics. For Hayek,


politics is bad. Whether the we think of it as politicians doing


their best or as them being snakes, the him, both ways, politics is


bound up with coercion and it has always got that element of violence


in it. For Hayek, economics is the realm of freedom. Hayek died in


1992, never seeing the financial spectacular knock-down of 2008.


Having written the book on one economic theory, does he have


something to offer today? I have brought us back to the Treasury,


because it seems relevant to me that they are trained to lay up the mess


if they can. Does Hayek have anything to teach them? Without a


shadow of doubt. If you took Hayek to an extreme, most of the


government buildings behind us would be ripped down. I am not suggesting


that. None of them, none of the big economists, have all the answers.


They all have something well done to save. -- to say full stop what's


interesting in this case, in Britain we have chosen to cut spending and


impose austerity. That is wrote much of principle after Hayek. -- very


much. Many of his quotes 80 years ago, such as, if you want to avoid


the excesses of the business cycle, banks should keep a close check on


their lending. Oh, if only they had here in the UK! We would have saved


?80 billion of taxpayers' money. That is the reason you should all


vote for Hayek. That has told you! And Louise joins us now. I didn't


know he was standing for election. Is he in the European elections?


Doubt it. He's dead. I know. Am I right in thinking he was influenced


very much by the experience of Nazi Germany and the rise of Stalinist


Russia? Yes. He was, as all great men are, flawed. One of the things


he predicted was that the prediction of a more welfare state would create


dictatorships in Europe. That hasn't happened. His initial coming up


against Keynes was quite personal and vitriolic. The liberally sought


the job in the University of Arkansas to get the cheap divorce


from his first wife. He got things wrong. He must really wanted a


divorce if he was prepared to go to Arkansas. What is sad about that is


that the man who brought into the NFC didn't talk to him for 20 years


because he basically left his first wife and child for a cheap divorce.


He was deeply flawed but also to be brave in his view. He was ridiculed,


held in contempt, the decades. Everybody went crazy for Keynes and


hit back at Hayek. 1979 as seen as the end of the post-war Keynes


consensus. Since the crash, it has been tougher for the Hayek


followers. Some would say the reason the crash happened was because we


didn't go enough Hayekian. There were still some control over


interest rates. Extreme Hayekians would say you shouldn't have a Bank


of England or federal reserve. Isn't that like iron Rand? -- Ayn Rand? He


is not as extreme as some of his supporters. He did believe there is


some sort of level. It is the line, it is difficult. Where do you draw


the line between complete anarchy of free markets and where do you


believe in state planning? It is where you draw the line on that


spectrum, whether you are Keynes or Hayek. Nobody quite knows the


answer. If you look at the size of government, it has got artificially


high after the crash, a cyclical thing. Roughly, it is smaller


government at around 40%. France is the exception. It is 57%. Would he


have been happy with a government that was about two fifths of the


overall economy? I can't believe he would have been. But he did have


this concept that he believed that too much government involvement


would lead to dictatorships. That hasn't happened in Europe. He was


wrong on that. I don't think he believes the level now is right.


Some of his thinking was actually flawed. You have got to love a man


who comes up with a reason why you shouldn't buy way should be wary of


buying a second-hand car from a car salesman. He came up with that


original idea. I think we knew that already. He called it... Go on. The


economic term is asymmetry of information. Hayek was a


micro-economist. He looks at the individual decisions people make.


That is what he was into. That is where he got the sense of where the


economy was going. He said, when you buy a car, the seller has more


information than you do and that is why you should be wary. Asymmetry of


information. Before that, everybody thought it was fine. I've dabbled. I


think most people have Milly Dowler in his books. We micro most


Hayekians are on the side that -- I think most people have dabbled in


his books. I think most Hayekians are on that side. He gets a lot of


that logic from people who are in favour of propping up the banking


system, which is really weird. It is easy to write an academic book


saying, you shouldn't save the banks. It could have been anarchy


not to. That is politics. The interesting thing is, this guy is


still a rock star in the Tory party. Among the new intake... Do you think


Mr Cameron has read Hayek? I think it is unlikely. Too busy playing


Angry... Birds, with the NSA looking in. Here is that we give 62


seconds. If some parts of the country have


been under will the weather, other parts have been underwater. The Lib


Dems try to exit the eye of the Lord Rennard storm by choosing a new


deputy leader. Not one of their seven Baroness is sore the light of


day. -- Baroness is. Ed Balls permit Labour would bring back the 50p tax


rate. David Cameron said his government were the real Robin


Hoods. I want the richest to play more tax. -- pay more tax. Mark


Carney tossed his cave into the Scottish independence debate. A


durable currency union requires some seeding of national sovereignty. The


Immigration Bill was back on the borders. Conservative rebels pushed


or even tighter laws to deport foreign criminals. But their


amendment was sent back where it came from.


Danny Alexander is doing the rounds, saying, oh, Labour, they


would borrow much more. That is true. But we don't know by how much


they will spend on capital spending. It has just been made up. The


interesting thing is the weight Danny Alexander has gone about


trying to put a figure on it is by protecting government spending for


two more years. The Lib Dems are not signed up to do that, by the way. It


is interesting that Danny Alexander is making this case. One part of the


Lib Dems want to go with Labour on the economy, and the other doesn't


want to do that all -- at all. He has also said he would bring down


the national debt. If he is going to balance the current budget, but


spend a deficit on the capital, in the national debt will continue to


rise. It will continue to rise as it has for the whole of this


government. The projections are 0.7%. Nobody can say they were


earth-shattering. I am disappointed by how much they are not


earth-shattering. Danny Alexander reminds me of somebody who is


playing world of war craft and he has found some tiny technical thing


and he is really excited about it and he has lost the crowd. It is


certainly the Tory narrative that the recovery is underway, growth is


back. If you had it back to Labour, they will just spend, spend, spend


again. What does the public take away from this? Ed Balls has tried


to do two things, to say, I'm going to be responsible on spending and I


am going to put the 50p rate back. The public body takes away from this


sum doubts over whether Labour will be responsible, which means job done


for the Tories and Lib Dems. The interesting thing is the flagship


measures they take on whether it is the 50p rate or bedroom tax, those


are the smallest amount of money you can conceive of government. 100


million quid on one side. They are irrelevant to deficit reduction.


They sell themselves on these policies which make no difference to


the comic reality of the country. The reason polls are shown as


narrowing... Do the Tories expect, not hope, do they expect the polls


to narrow as the recovery gathers pace? I think they do. People are


realising that the cost of living thing is working for them. It will


only work if they all stay skint in the country. A member of Yougov says


there is a new incumbency factor for MPs. OK, we shall see.


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


question was: Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has told a magazine


she has to shout at her husband, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, as they


get their children ready for school in the morning. But what's the


reason? I think it is playing the piano. It is playing the piano.


Interestingly, Yvette is better than Ed on the piano. You heard it here


first. That's all for today. Thanks to Tim


Shipman, Zoe Williams and all my guests today. I'll be back on BBC


One on Sunday from 11 with the Sunday Politics. Do join me then.


Bye bye.


Download Subtitles