16/06/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

On the brink of all-out sectarian war.

As Iraq slides into chaos, the Foreign Secretary,

William Hague reiterates there'll be no British military involvement.

The US is said to be talking to its arch enemy Iran over what to do.

We'll be asking does the West have a coherent foreign policy any more?

The Chinese Premier's in London on a mission to change "misgivings and

Nick Clegg's been outlining plans for the Liberal Democrat

Will it be worth the paper it's written on?

Now his former right-hand man is dishing the dirt.

All that in the course of the next hour.

Let's begin, though, with the crisis in Iraq.

The debate over just how the west should intervene over the situation

there is likely to intensify this week as more reports of fierce

The militant group Isis appears to have caught the Iraqi government

and a number of world leaders off guard, but just who are they and

The name ISIS stands for the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, which

It grew out of al-Qaeda in Iraq and is a Sunni militant group

fighting what it regards as an oppressive Shia regime in Baghdad.

Led by this man, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group wants to

build a strict Islamic caliphate straddling between Iraq and Syria.

Isis already has large areas of both countries under

its command, including the key cities of Tikrit, Mosul and Faluja.

Their control has given them access to vast amounts of wealth

The organisation is notorious for imposing a strict literal

Yesterday saw the release of a number

of images reportedly showing ISIS fighters executing a group of Iraqi

soldiers, although the pictures have yet to be independently verified.

Yesterday, the former Prime Minister,

Tony Blair, defended Britain's role in the Iraq war arguing that

the invasion in 2003 was not the cause of the current crisis.

Again, as I've said many times, of course you regret the loss of life

and the difficulties we encountered. Did you say to me where I would have

preferred a situation where we left Saddam Hussein in 2003 in place,

would the region be more stable, my answer to that is unhesitatingly no.

However, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has this morning

been highly critical of the former Prime Minister

and said the war in 2003 is partly to blame for the current problems.

What I'm trying to say is that Britain should be engaged with the

world and be positive about the good things we can do, but in order to do

that, you've got to be honest and realistic about where it has gone

wrong. And it has gone wrong. Andy Payton we opened the way to a lot of

sectarian bloodshed -- and it paid to a lot of sectarian bloodshed --

and it patented leak went wrong in 2003. And that was not the case

before the invasion of Iraq. What would your message to Tony Blair be

today? I can understand that he feels very shattered and guilty

about the whole thing, but my general message would to be put a

sock in it, and paper bag on head time is my advice.

Well, earlier I spoke to our Correspondent,

I asked him whether the government forces were in a state to push back

against ISIS? The Prime Minister has said that they would start fighting

back soon. They in a town called Samarra, which is 70 miles north of

Baghdad. They are preparing to push forward from there towards Tikrit,

and they are mobilising somewhat ominously, large numbers of Shia

Muslim volunteers, who are being registered at special centres that

have been set up. It looks a little bit like an act of desperation, to

rely on civilians wielding pitchforks. It's not quite like

that, but it is the image it brings up. They say they can, but there is

a lot of doubt, because they fled from Mosul with little resistance

and the officer corps is clearly quite poor. A lot of the officers in

the old army with years of experience fighting the Iranians and

others, they defected because they were Sunni Muslim and were sent home

after the Americans dissolve the Iraqi army. They make up the

backbone of some of the fighting going on from the rebel side. That

is one reason why the Iraqi army has put up such a poor show. What about

the international response? We've heard in the last hour or so that

the Iranians have rejected the idea of talks with the Americans, but

where you are, are you hearing intelligence that the Americans are

probably preparing for a bombing campaign? I think it's hanging in

the balance. I don't think they want to wade in on one side in a very

divided and polarised situation. They are not too happy about the way

the Prime Minister has handled things. He is quite close to Iran as

well, but the way he alienate it large sectors of Sunni Muslim

opinion, they don't want to see -- seem to be wading in on one side.

They want to see him or someone else pulled together and national unity

government where they could bring the Sunni Muslims on board and drive

a wedge between the disgruntled men who joined the campaign against the

government, and the extremists of ISIS, the Al-Qaeda related people.

That's a hard thing to do, but the Americans don't particularly want to

get involved in hostilities on behalf of people in factional

situation like this. With me now is the Conservative MP,

Rory Stewart, he is the new Chairman In 2003, he served as a Deputy

Governor in southern Iraq, appointed We're also joined by

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader, and by the

journalist John Rentoul who writes John, first of all, referring back

to Tony Blair and Boris Johnson. Who is right in terms of how much the

2003 invasion has to answer for what is going on now? Obviously the 2003

invasion had a bearing on what is happening now, but you could equally

say that the failure to intervene in Syria was responsible for ISIS

coming over from Syria, which is where they got their trained men and

materials and the weapons from. I thought Boris Johnson was

unnecessary in using the language of mental health to dismiss Tony

Blair's contribution. If you look at what Boris Johnson was saying should

be done, it was pretty much the same as what Tony Blair says. Let's

discuss what we should do now rather than what happened 11 years ago. Is

it time to stop going over the recriminations of whether we should

or should not have gone into Iraq, bearing in mind this is a threat

happening right now? The Chilcot Inquiry still has to come, and that

is bound to renew the debate, but to some extent I agree with John. It is

facile to say that the invasion of 2003 had no influence on today's

events, but it's equally facile to say that without it to say that

without it the place. The truth is, it's a complex situation, made

complicated further by Syria and by the fact, as we heard earlier, that

the government has been pretty inept. My hope is that both the

United States and Iran, inspired of what has been publicly said, -- in

spite of what has been publicly said, realise they have a common

interest in ensuring the integrity of Iraq is protected, as indeed do

all this. Because further instability in the Middle East, for

a no go area of everyone, except terrorism, which extended from the

northern part of Iraq into Syria would be an enormously helpful thing

for them in the prosecution of their barbaric way of life. That is why it

is so important that we have barbaric way of life. That is why it

is so important that action which has the effect of maintaining the

sovereign Iraqi government. We will come back to the action that can be

taken, but let's go to the Syria intervention that never actually

occurred. Do you think that has been critical in allowing the space for

ISIS jihadist 's to create a power base not only in Syria, but also

take advantage, as many critics have claimed, of the Prime Minister's

relentless Shia Muslim agenda, to do what they are doing now? I think

that's undoubtedly the case. I'm not an expert on Syria. In Syria, we

would have had to intervene much earlier than ever suggested

would have had to intervene much anybody to produce some kind of

decent outcome. Actually, all that was proposed last August was a

punitive strike was to persuade Bashar al-Assad to not use chemical

weapons. It had gone ahead, I think it might have been worthwhile, but

don't think it would have stopped the Civil War in Syria ISIS coming

into Iraq. -- or ISIS coming in. Has he pursued this Shia Muslim-led

agenda, the prime Minister? He is a man of the West, and that was the

mistake. There was an election. It's interesting what Jim Weir -- Jim

Muir said earlier, that there should be a government led by somebody more

temperate in their views. But what was proposed last September was to

bomb Bashar al-Assad. That would not have weakened these people, and it

might have strengthened them. That could have been a recruiting

sergeant for them. But if we come back to who should be running Iraq,

the West does have themselves to blame in terms of pulling out too

early, allowing Nouri Al Malachy to pursue the agenda with tacit support

from people on the ground. I was in the United States last week and I

saw people say it was Barack Obama's polled for pulling out, but

the Prime Minister of Iraq did not want to say -- Barack Obama's fault.

It has turned into the Americans and Republicans against each other. It's

a bit like the argument of whether the invasion of 2003 caused this. It

is not the sole cause. What that requires now is a common approach by

people who have influence, and the truth is, the UK does not have

influence. We are entirely subordinate to the US in this. We

can give them some technical assistance, the much admired special

forces might be engaged in some activity, but the truth of the

matter is, the solution to this lies in Washington and at the desk of

Barack Obama which might explain why he's making -- taking so long to

make up his mind. Do you agree that we can and we often shouldn't do

anything? I don't know. We should listen to people like Tony Blair who

have experience and have thought about it, instead of insulting him

by calling him mad or rate war criminal. I love and respect Menzies

Campbell. He opposes war in a constructive and measured language,

which is the sort of thing we should have in this debate. But if you're

listening to somebody like Tony Blair who has, in many quarters been

vilified for 2003, and calling for more intervention, which is his only

line, to go into Syria and then into Iraq, you can't say it was a

resounding success, so why would you listen to Tony Blair? Because he has

actually thought about it and he has important things to say. Boris

Johnson, who calls him mad, proposes the same thing and says we should

help the Prime Minister as much as possible. Would you listen to Tony

Blair and his suggestions? I did have do for quite awhile on some

television channels. I thought it was long on analysis and short

solution. Much of what he said I was agreeable to, but then he said in

general terms something has to be done. But if you leave the gap but

something has to be done, in the mind of somebody like me, the

something to be done, the thing that comes to mind is military

intervention. Philip Hammond just ruled that out in the last hour.

William Hague ruled it out this morning on the Today programme, and

there is a statement in the House of Commons where it will be ruled out

again. The fact is, the US will look to us for the assistance we can

provide which does not involve boots on the ground. As our closest ally,

we will be under pressure to assist. How long can we allow the vacuum to

continue? It Barack Obama does not come up with some sort of coherent

plan, do we sit here and wait for direction from Washington? What else

can we do best we can't go in on our own. We don't have the Armed Forces

that we had in 2003 -- what else can we do? We cannot go in on our own. I

hope that they will consider that there is a possibility of some kind

of agreement with the Iranians. You can't want to leap into bed with the

great Satan, as they describe the US, without some sort of

explanation. So far there is no obvious explanation. But remember

that back channels are as important in diplomatic exchanges as what is

said in front of the TV cameras. What about Iran and Saudi Arabia? If

you're looking at the big sponsors Shia and Sunni Muslims, is that the

way to go and what can Britain do? I'm not the expert. People like

Menzies Campbell and Tony Blair have views on this and we should listen.

But we should also accept, as Sir Menzies does, that this is

America's problem. We can't act on our own. All the debate in this

country is focused entirely on it Tony Blair do this, did he get it

wrong? It was in his war, it was George Bush's war. He had to support

it or not. If we could perhaps reduce the level of debate somewhat.

We are where we are, and it is quite right to identify it ran Sidey

Arabia. Both of them in their own ways would have their interests

materially registered by terrorism, so looking from outside, there is

compulsion. But this dispute goes back to the seventh century, so it

is difficult to persuade people to accept the situation. We are looking

to something approaching partition and a change of boundaries. And we

have not yet mentioned the Kurds. We could be looking at dividing the

region into three, which would be very unstable, and against our

interests. I apologise for Rory Stewart. We thought he was coming.

Maybe he is still in the building. Thank you, gentlemen.

It's three months to go until the Scottish independence

referendum and both campaigns are holding events in Edinburgh today.

In a speech this morning Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is

laying out the Scottish government's plans for a draft constitution

And then later this afternoon, the leaders of the Scottish Tories,

Labour and Liberal Democrats are releasing

their plans for further devolution in the event of a no vote.

I can speak now to Patrick Harvie, the leader of the Scottish Green

party - and supporter of independence - who's in Glasgow.

Welcome to the programme. What would be in this draft interim

constitution? The Scottish government has published today

consultation and a draft interim is gone -- constitution. There is a

strong thread of social justice in there. It is not intended to be the

permanent constitution, which would be developed afterwards. It is

important to keep the momentum and keeping gauge meant all the way

through from the referendum to transition. But there is a strong

element of social justice on issues like human rights, equality,

disarmament, many of the powerful issues which are motivating people

to vote yes in the referendum. Wider Scotland need a written

constitution? It is an important symbol of the modern country we are

trying to build. The idea of a comprehensive written constitution

that everyone can read and understand is necessary to hold

Government accountable. Britain does have hundreds of years of

constitutional documentation, but you need to be a lawyer to

understand any of it. Constitution is important for the citizens of the

country to power accountable. You said it is draft, interim, there

will obviously be discussions. But you want an independent Scotland to

be nuclear weapons free, enshrined in law. So it means a nuclear

deterrent would not be able to be used as a bargaining chip. I

wouldn't want it to be. I would want a very clear statement that says we

get rid of nuclear were and as quickly as Austevoll. I am not

consulting on this, I am in an opposition party. I am on the yes

side of the referendum debate, but I will be responding to this

consultation just as everybody else is, and I will have ideas on how it

might be improved, for example ensuring the natural resources, the

land of Scotland, is held in the common good. There are important

principles about the ownership of Scotland which need to be addressed

if we are to close the gap that we were rich and poor. The Herald

reports that an independent Scotland would borrow billions of pounds, so

to close that gap you are talking about, are you prepared to do that?

Would you support a Government that would borrow billions of pounds to

support the gap at wing Richard Poor? What John Swinney has said is

that he would favour a stimulus approach, are wing to invest. --

borrowing to invest. That could be achieved partly through are wing,

but the emphasis needs to be on taxation as well. But I certainly

welcome the idea of an end to the austerity agenda. Thank you very

much. And joining me from our Edinburgh

studio is the leader of the Scottish The three prounion parties in

Scotland supports devolution but have different plans. What is

important is that the SMP and others would like to see more powers. This

is a choice between two different visions of Scotland, one a separate

independent country, and one a strong Scotland within a strong

United Kingdom. Can you give any specifics as to the powers Hollywood

will get? We will be working our way through this. It is about fiscal

accountability, taxation, a more coherent welfare system and looking

at how you decentralise power is out of the Scottish Parliament. The

issue here is looking about what works best. We know that for the

SNP, no powers will ever be enough, but we want to ensure we strike a

balance between a strong Scottish Parliament and the best of both

worlds. So why won't labour for the Scottish Parliament full income

tax-raising powers? One of the benefits of being in the United

Kingdom is we are able to share and resources. So we want to make sure

that we get the balance right, because for too long, Scottish

Parliaments have had no accountability for raising money,

and we want to strike that balance. You say you want clear-cut plans

from the other side, but your campaign to some extent has been

about knocking their plans down rather than producing your own

positive narrative about what would be on offer. I don't accept that is

true. Scotland is strong enough and confident enough to work with

neighbours across the whole of the United Kingdom. We cannot say that

all our ills have been as a result of being done down by the rest of

the United Kingdom and me -- we must separate off. We don't need to be

separated to be able to stand strong and tall within the United Kingdom.

China's prime minister, Li Keqiang, arrives in the UK today for a

three-day visit before jetting off to those other well-known economic

Mr Keqiang says he wants to "present the real China so as to

The Government however will be less concerned with perceptions

They're hoping to secure some serious Chinese investment.

Our reporter Eleanor Garnier has been taking a look

London's Chinatown, but the Chinese premier will be too busy taking tea

with the Queen to put a visiting here. In search of a little luck, I

went along to find some Chinese words of wisdom. Everything will now

come your way? And troubled economies are trying their luck,

too, looking to Chinese investments to help turn their fortunes around.

Whether it is paying hundreds of millions for a 10% stake at

Heathrow, spending billions building railway in East Africa or pouring

millions into upgrading a Greek port, all around the world, China is

investing, and fast. China above all is investing in the developing

world. It's now accounts for more lending to the developing world than

the World Bank. It is focused in particular on East Asia and also

Africa. It invests mainly in commodities, but increasingly also

in manufacturing and capacity. And also in other significant areas of

investment, in Latin America. But it is not just investment in

infrastructure and energy. Wealthy Chinese people are being cleared to

leave -- are coming to Europe in return for investing is little as

500,000 euros. Remember this? David Cameron's visit to China last year.

It went some way to warming up the diplomatic relationship between the

two countries after things had got a little frosty because of the PM's

meeting with the Dalai llama. And on this return visit, one expert told

me that he will be careful to be seen to be calling the shots. When

the British premier visited China, they welcomed it quite understated,

the way the government would like it to be. When the Chinese premier

visits the UK, the Chinese government would

visits the UK, the Chinese is a much more positive development,

so I think the Chinese media will also projected as a much more

positive and successful event. I'd like China's got plenty of dough,

and the UK needs it. Expect lots of wooing as the UK competes with many

others after China's good fortune. Joining me now is the Business

Minister Michael Fallon and the What will success look like for you

on this trip? Continuing to strengthen the trading relationship

we have with China. It is a very important business partner for us.

Exports are up 15% last year. It is very important for us to make this a

full two-way relationship with a valued partner. They invest in us in

infrastructure, in oil and gas, but we also invest there. Are we reliant

on the Chinese for British infrastructure investment? Not at

all. This year, Siemens are investing, and Japanese companies

are investing in our cars. We welcome the Chinese investment, they

are a big part of it. It is a big part of EDF, the French company, and

its plans to build a nuclear reactor in Somerset. But do we need to

ignore human rights questions to make this a priority? China is a

valued trade partner. We have a human rights dialogue with China.

The Prime Minister will obviously continue to raise human rights and

human rights cases. There are important issues coming up like the

election for the chief executive of Hong Kong. But we should allow these

issues to get in the way of a very old and deepening trade

relationship. Do you agree with that? Would you risk upsetting the

Chinese by raising human rights? Not at all. This relationship does come

with responsibilities. It is right for the prime Minister to be raising

the concerns that UK nationals have about investment in the UK, and

making sure that that in estimate comes with significant

responsibilities about human rights issues. Hopefully the premiere of

China will take those issues on board. Do you think he actually

will? It is important that he does. If China is going to be a world

player, it needs to play in the world environment in the proper way,

and that is a significant responsibility. And Michael Fallon,

if they don't take on these concerns, will you stop or at least

restrict the two-way trade investment? These are not opposites.

These are things we do with a mature trading partner. We raise these

issues is the oldest and most important

ally in that respect. But you said you wanted to view it as we do the

relationship with the US? It is getting to that scale. There is big

investment on both sides. China is an important trading partner for us.

We are not part of a security alliance with China, so there are

differences, but we want China to play a full role in the

international community. They have been extremely helpful in dealing

with issues with North Korea, for example, and it's important that the

relationship is deepened and it is not just trade. In government, will

you do anything different here? There is a problem here, because the

office of budget responsibility said the trade gap is widening and it is

a drag on growth. We are relying on housing bubble that spin

artificially made, so we have to get exports. We have a target of ?1

trillion exports by 2020, and that just won't happen with the current

rate. They are an incredibly important market for trade to

rebalance the UK economy. So you would not do anything different? You

have laid at the reasons we are in this situation, but you wouldn't do

anything different with regard to China? We want to have Chinese

people coming here. The Visa problems are a significant issue. We

need the cat connectivity -- the connectivity with China. We also

need to have the export guarantee schemes announced two years ago,

?5.5 billion of UK taxpayer cash, and not one business has applied for

it. We need businesses exporting to rebalance the economy. Do you accept

that government restrictions on immigration have harmed relations,

because the Chinese have repeatedly said that they have stopped Chinese

people coming over here, whether it is students or business people

question the last Labour government did nothing about Chinese trade. In

terms of visas, there are 90,000 Chinese students in this country. We

have more Visa centres in China than any other country in terms of

processing applications. 96% of people in China applying for a Visa

get one. Well why has Downing Street just put out something that they

will ease restrictions to Chinese visitors, so that means they've been

restricted. We want to make it easier, so that is why we opened

more centres and it easier for companies to get visas for the

people they want to bring in. You can always improve these things.

There is a significant contradiction there. While we welcome Chinese

investment in the UK and we need to increase exports, we are turning our

back on the EU and they are our biggest exporting market. So we have

the government saying we need as much Chinese investment and

exporting as we can get, but we will risk the relationship with the EU

for political propaganda purposes. We are reforming our relationship

with the EU, as the Chinese understand that, just as the

Japanese and Americans do. We want to make it competitive, less

bureaucratic, less harmonising and we want to focus on the things that

really matter. They understand that perfectly well. One of the reasons

the Chinese invest here is because we are full members of the EU. How

would they feel if Britain left the EU in 2017? Like the Japanese and

Americans I'm sure they want us to stay in the EU, but they understand

that Europe has to reform. And so do the other member states of Europe.

They understand that Europe needs to reform and they see the way now

through the free trade deals to an expansion of growth across small

trade, and China and Britain's trade relationship is a part of that. This

is an area of growing trade that creates jobs both here and in China.

And the EU free-trade deals are fundamental to the relationship with

China and the rest of the world. The Japanese, the Americans and the

Chinese want us to stay in the EU but our own Prime Minister is

unclear if he wants to stay in the EU. The CBI have said this and the

EU, it is critical to the UK economy for them to stay in the reformed EU

system with reform. It's a busy start to the week, along

with the Chinese premier arriving in the UK and an interim constitution

arriving in Scotland, the public sector union, Unison, has arrived in

Brighton for their week long annual conference, where they're expected

to debate strike actions And a new law comes

into effect making forced marriage a criminal offence in England

and Wales, punishable with up to Tomorrow,

DEFRA publishes its report on Winter Floods, setting out what needs to be

learned from last winter's crisis. And the government serves up

its freshly prepared Food School Plan, aimed at improving both

school dinners and food education. And on Wednesday,

the Bank of England appoints former White House economic hotshot

Professor Kristin Forbes to Welcome to Jim and Isabel. Isabel,

what has been the response of Westminster to Tony Blair's comments

and Boris Johnson's response? I think there are people on both sides

of the debate of intervention who agree with Boris Johnson, and they

wish that Tony had Blair did keep quiet when these matters, because he

does poison the debate about intervention -- Tony Blair. Just as

he did about the debate in Syria. He tends to bring this back to events

in 2003, but we are talking about what is happening in Iraq now rather

than digging through the lessons of history. In terms of the government

response, Jim, it's clear there won't be any deployment of boots on

the ground. There are no soldiers going over. What can Britain do

except, as my guests earlier said, wait for America and Washington to

decide? That was what Nick Clegg was saying at his press Conference, that

he will provide support to America and Britain was provided

intelligence -- will provide intelligence. There is the

possibility of special forces going in but I doubt we will hear

confirmation of that. Let's move onto special advisers, and I see you

laughing, Isabel, and the special adviser to Michael Gove. His

comments were strong. Does this leave Michael Gove in a difficult

situation? I don't think Michael Gove is ever in a difficult

situation. People say it might be awkward during education questions,

but normally Labour thunder ratting across the Commons and the response

with ornate words that means he avoids answering the question, and I

suspect he will do it today. Jim, is it for time Dominic Cummings to bow

out of the public debate? I'm not sure anyone can can control him. He

seems to be having so much fun with this, briefing against everyone and

not caring what anyone thinks. You could see how riled Nick Clegg was

this morning, saying that he had deep issues with anger, and people

like these get above their station when they get within a sniff of

power. I think this one will run. And the reaction from ten Downing

St? He has been unhelpful to number ten. Their responses that David

Cameron has faith and trust in all his advisers, because Dominic

Cummings criticised the operation in number ten, but the criticism also

went to David Cameron's wrap dashboard for Michael Gove's

reforms, which suggests that the Prime Minister is not committed to

the Ed Miliband has been getting

themselves along with others about the photo shoot for the World Cup.

Were they right to apologise or should they have stood their ground?

We are into another phase where posing with a newspaper that read by

more than anybody a country demands a republic -- an apology from the

prime minister. When he telephoned labour Liverpool politicians, they

were furious. He said he did not know how he could go out on the

doorstep and tell to vote for Ed Miliband as prime minister given

that he had posed with the Sun newspaper. An almost impossible line

to tread Vura Labour leader given how much -- for a Labour leader,

given how much the Labour base is mistrustful of the sun. Do you think

the people around Ed Miliband made a mistake and setting it up in the

first place or agreeing in the first place? There was a mistake and that

there wasn't a strategy. If he had decided to pose with the Sun

newspaper, he should have thought ahead and thought about the problems

it might cause for some groups. The Liverpool Labour MPs did not know

about the photo until it emerged on Twitter, and that is one reason why

they were upset. This is the problem with the team, they don't have that

kind of strategic thinking. There's lots of different people all doing

slightly different things. What about Ed Miliband himself? Should he

have seen it coming? He doesn't seem to have been calculating about this

and in the end he's upset everyone. He then apologised for posing the

newspaper, and then they wrote an aggressive leading article next day.

So he has annoyed everyone. That was very successful of them. Jim,

looking briefly manifestoes, because the Liberal Democrats have been

talking about theirs. Will anybody ever take any notice of what is

written in them again? Even Nick Clegg said it wasn't even worth

putting together a coalition manifesto any more, because we don't

know what it will be until after the result. Basically the tone this

morning was, you elect the MPs you want, and we will sort out what

policies the government will deliver the next five years. I just don't

really see. No one is really too hopeful of a majority on either

side. Maybe they are not really worth the paper they are written

on. Jim, Isabel, thank you very much.

And with us for the rest of the programme is the Treasury Minister

and Conservative MP, Andrea Leadsom, Labour's Meg Hillier, and from the

Now let's talk about the Liberal Democrats, because

Nick Clegg has been outlining the party's pitch to voters

This is what he had to say at his press conference earlier

This will be an independent, Liberal Democrat manifesto from an

independent Liberal party. It will not be written with an eye to what

Labour or the Conservatives think or might sign up to. It will be written

with an eye for what Britain needs. It will be written as an answer to

one simple question. How can we build opportunity for all? Cars, for

liberals, no matter what your background, your race -- because,

for liberals, no matter what your background, your race, your colour,

your sexuality, we believe in you. We don't write anybody. Britain must

move from austerity to ambition and think about how a restored economy

should function. Just very recently the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,

Danny Alexander, a positive growth force from the IMF said they should

not review their austerity policies -- policies. So which is it? We have

managed to do the hard job of turning the economy round in the

last four years, but we have to make sure we do it in a way that makes it

fairer for all parts of society. Right behind Nick Clegg it had

stronger economy, fair society. The bit that comes after that is

enabling everybody did get on in life, and that's the important part

we need to deliver. Because you failed to deliver it in coalition

over four years? Absolutely not. If you look at the people premium. That

will be ?2.5 billion that will make sure the most disadvantaged children

in society are given help to ensure that they keep up with their peers.

That is making sure that we are creating a fair society and helping

them get on in life. There is much more to do. The indication is the

austerity has achieved what the government set out to do, so you

have got rid of the deficit and debt is falling as a proportion of GDP.

These are things that were promised by George Osborne, and the

timetables have been missed. So you have not finished the austerity

project, and if you leave the austerity policies behind, you will

end up in another financial mess? Austerity in itself does not mean we

should not have ambition for those people in society who we can help to

get on. So austerity will continue, won't it? It has to, because the

finances were in such a poor state. But Nick Clegg said they would move

from austerity to ambition, but the Liberal Democrats said out of the

rubble of the 2008 crash we must build a new economy. We can no

longer accept a society of inequality in opportunity. We cannot

mortgage the future of our children by ignoring the threat of climate

change. It sounds like a man who's not been in government for the last

four years. Not at all. There were difficult decisions are made, and we

made them. There will be more difficult decisions in the next

parliament, but it doesn't mean we can't have an eye on the future and

making sure we are creating a society that will help the poorest

and the most disadvantage and help to get them a foot on the ladder so

they can catch up with their peers. In the past, they have been

forgotten about. What about a red lines. What would be red line are

you? Would it be a mansion tax? I'm not going to talk about red lines.

You are putting together a manifesto, so there must be some,

surely? We will wait to see what the electorate says. So who is the

largest party. Depending on where we negotiate depends on who we get.

Let's not concentration -- let's not concentrate on negotiation. What

Nick has done today set out a vision of what the Liberal Democrats want

to achieve in the next Parliament. It's up to the other parties to do

the same, then we will have each put our vision in front of the

electorate of the UK, and it's up to the people to decide what they want

to achieve in the next Parliament. We each have to sell a positive

vision for what we want to achieve. Well, all the parties are

deliberating and cogitating But how important is it to get

your manifesto pitch spot-on? And this time round,

might the parties consider playing Anyone who needs to ask why are

manifested needs to be got right has forgotten the so-called long suicide

note of Labour. Manifestoes have to be realistic and believable like

never before. All parties ought to have known that if you don't end up

with and -- a majority, you won't be able to deliver your manifesto. The

problem, and in fluent Lib Dem that is pronounced tuition fees, is that

unfulfilled promises can look like deliberately broken ones. Never

overpromise. Always under promise and overdeliver and it comes to the

manifesto. We saw what happened to the Lib Dems when they made up, some

tuition fees and were not able to deliver it. Manifestoes are vitally

important to restore trust and credibility. What has hung parties

is that voters don't trust manifestoes any more than promises

to be different. So should the manifestoes be so honest that they

acknowledge parties may have to compromise with another party? It is

not our duty to start hedging our bets. Bid if there is a hung

parliament, we have to assume there is a clear result to the general

election and let people know what our approach to all of the important

issues that people worry about would be. And then they know what they are

voting for. So should there be red lines in a manifesto before polling

day is that know what they might get in a no majority situation after?

You have undermined your ability to get what you want if you don't. All

of the parties have created their own processes this time took include

input from as many as possible, but when it comes to word in the

document, there are things to watch. The most successful manifestoes are

the ones that say the least, because that gives you the opportunity to

set the tone. Margaret Thatcher's 1979 manifesto was barely ten pages

long. We have a finely balanced and sophisticated way of ensuring that

we come up with a manifesto that is a winning manifesto rather than just

a great big wish list. In the run-up to May 2015, you can bet voters and

journalists will be looking closely at the final documents to decide

which of those things each manifesto actually is. Andrea Leadsom, what

sort of manifesto would you like to see for the Conservative Party?

Something that promises that also you don't have to go back on it, or

you lay everything out as a purely Conservative manifesto regardless of

what might happen in any future accommodation negotiations? It is

certainly the case that we intend to win a clear majority at the next

election, and what is really important to us is that we stick to

our guns. We have had the worst recession since the war, and it has

been much worse than was expected even at the time. Our loss of GDP

was enormous, so what we have to do is to continue with what we are

doing, to help businesses to create more jobs, to get our education

reforms working so that young people can get onto the job ladder and so

on. A pure conservative growth manifesto and no knowledge of the

Liberal Democrats, then? I think that conservative values are about

giving people opportunities to reflect the fact that people aspired

to do better than their parents did, and they want their children to

do better than they did, and that I hope will be the foundation of a

Conservative manifesto. What about red lines in the sand? Top rates of

tax, for example? July to bring it down a little further? In the

referendum on renegotiation, with there be more specifics on Europe?

That is well above my pay grade. The Prime Minister has made very clear

his determination to deliver a referendum on Britain's membership

of a reformed EU, and I think he will make that referendum condition

but beyond that, as I said at the start, we fully intend to try to

form a Conservative majority government, and to be able to

continue with our current long-term economic plan. What you think of

Nick Clegg saying we must have a distinct ambition away from the

Conservatives? The obvious he wants to differentiate his party from the

Conservatives, but the economy is still in a very difficult position,

we still have a deficit and a huge mountain of debt that we have made

great strides towards improving as we said we would. But we have to

carry on along that path. There is no short cut or easy decisions or

ability to start rowing and spending more. Or cut taxes? In terms of what

you do to try to stimulator growth, that is something for the manifesto.

Are they worth the paper they are written on? They tell a story about

a party. A lot of what you deal with in government today today is never

going to appear in a manifesto. I agree with Angela Eagle and others

that you set out your party's store and not talk about what you might

negotiate, because we want to win an overall majority, too. It gives

people be economic freedom to make their own choices. Isn't it a slight

of hand? The Liberal Democrats promised the tuition fees but

couldn't live in the end, and we know all the explanations. Isn't it

dangerous to be a hostage to fortune, to promise to introduce

something quite specific or dramatic that you may not be able to do if

you are in coalition? The feedback on our original pledge card was

positive as they were quite pacific, but they did allow room for

manoeuvre, and it is being clear about the direction, but also we

ought to be honest and open and acknowledge that as soon as we get

into Government, what you have been left is different to what you

expected, and things may be slower or faster than you expect, there may

be an imperative for running the country, that you then need to take

into account the speed at which implement something. I think there

needs to be better discussion with the public, that it is not just a

shopping list where you choose your party, but you also get a feel for

the way the party would run the country. You mentioned UKIP, who

don't have a manifesto, and seem to have done quite well, certainly at

the European elections. Would that be a better recipe for success, if

you did allow be a better recipe for success, if

for your party without it being specifically written down?

for your party without it being be a mixture of both. The feeling

people have about your party on the doorstep makes a big difference.

UKIP shouldn't be let off the hook, they need to be pinned down, because

what Nigel Farage tries to put across, in the end he has to have

something to write down. He is promising vague things that he would

never be able to deliver, playing on a dissatisfaction and fracturing in

the political system. You need something more concrete for people

to make a decision. And for them to come back and hit you over the head

with when you don't deliver it, Andrea Leadsom. I think manifesto is

a very important. I deeply agree that a lot of it is about not so

much the words but the values that you have and the vision that you

have for where you are trying to move the country to, and that is

incredibly important, too. So from a conservative point of view, it will

be about trying to get that long-term recovery and to move

towards a position where people have opportunities to help themselves. We

are very much about that. And I agree that Nigel Farage needs to

start to talk about very specific ideas for how he thinks the country

can develop and grow. If you were describing your manifesto, would it

be austerities of the Conservatives, what would it be for Labour and the

Liberal Democrats? Opportunity. Fairness, particularly for those

left behind. I would probably go for two, opportunity and recovery. Thank

you very much. Now the Education Secretary can't

seem to keep out of the headlines, although in fairness to Michael Gove

his former special advisor is making Dominic Cummings has given

an interview to today's Times newspaper, and he's not very

complimentary about many people. Our correspondent Chris Mason

is outside Westmisnter. Andrea, do you expect former special

advisers to behave like Dominic Cummings? Michael Gove has made this

clear that it is nothing to do with him. He has done an incredibly good

job as an education Secretary, and that is important. I believe it was

reported that he was back in the Department of education to deal with

the problems around the Birmingham schools. And he is still an

officially informing Michael Gove, should he be? What Michael Gove

needs to be known for is his own track record in that part, and there

are no quarter of a million fewer children in failing schools than

when took over. He has created a revolution in improving the

education of our children, so he can't be held responsible for some

that even a friend of his says, which was completely not with his

authorisation or agreement. Sign quo she hits on the 20s as a friend of

his, because it is a time when the Prime Minister has one reshuffle

left in his back pocket, people are jockeying for position, and the idea

that Dominic Cummings didn't have some understanding with him before

coming out with this huge swathe of criticism, it helps to keep Michael

Gove in the headlines and makes it difficult for him to be moved sacked

if it will come to that, and it also gives him a platform after the

general election. He is just a frame. He is in and out of the

Department. Is he Batman and Michael Gove Robin? Or is it the other way

around? I dread to think! But should he be told to shut up? Should

Michael Gove be told that he needs to sever all links? If it was me,

that is what I would be saying, but again, you have to look at the

fantastic job that Michael Gove has done. He ought to keep his friends

in check. When Dominic Cummings was on the payroll, he did at least have

some accountability, now he does not. Gordon Brown's advisers were

hardly held on a pedestal. Some advisers get a little above their

station. They are only there because the politicians they work with were

elected into government. But do they do their bidding? Is it the

Minister's problem? Yes, it is. The One O'Clock News is

starting over on BBC One now. I'll be here

at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the day,

and an interview with this lady. Yes, I'll be speaking to Baroness

Trumpington, so do join me then. Trumpington, so do join me then.

Something has got me through, and I think I'm terribly lucky.

Yes, I'll be speaking to Baroness Trumpington, so do join me then.

to the cutting-edge science that's driving it,