17/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks and welcome to the Daily Politics.


in a government review of their powers


so will it have 11 lords-a-leaping(!)


in outrage this Christmas?


David Cameron says he wants to stay in the EU


but can he do a deal in Brussels that will satisfy his colleagues


The US central bank raises interests rates


from near zero for the first time in seven years,


what does that mean for the rest of the world's


And, politicians on the real meaning of Christmas...


Four tax returns, three more boules, and a rebate of 21p! -- three more


bills. the penultimate Daily Politics


of the year, that means second last(!),


and with us for the duration today and expert of parliamentary


rebellions. Phil Cowley, welcome


to the programme. It wasn't rebellion


in the government's own ranks that gave George Osborne a headache


earlier this year. They rejected his cuts to tax


credits forcing the Chancellor


to perform a U-turn. But he promised to "deal with"


the House the Lords and the PM commissioned


a review of its power. Well that review's reported this


morning and it's recommended that their Lord and Ladyships


have their wings clipped, losing its power of veto over


some changes in the law. Here's the Leader of the Lords,


Lady Stowell, responding


to that report. There was a long-standing convention


in the House of Lords which is about how the house of Lords uses its


powers, that has broken down, there's that has broken down, we


need a new settlements to insure that the elected House of Commons


always has the final say. Lord Strathclyde has had a big piece of


work, coming up with three options, he has made one of those


recommendation, it is effectively a compromise solution, which will


offer the House of Lords a new power, and they will be looking at


that and thinking about that and they will respond in the New Year.


We're joined now by the Conservative Peer,


George Young, and from the Lords' Lobby in parliament,


What is the significance of what has been proposed? On one level, fairly


minor, the Lords really use this power in the past, I think it is


more indicative of a Conservative government, the first Conservative


government that has not had a majority in the Lords. Historically


they could always count on a majority in the upper house. After


the reform in 1999, no party had a majority but the Conservatives were


in opposition, and even last time, there was an effective government


majority in the Lords, so the first time they are having to deal with a


House of Lords which does not have a majority. This is over secondary


legislation, that is what upset them, statutory instruments. This is


what causes me the most concern, we use secondary legislation to much


anyway, and they are not terribly well scrutinised, I think there must


be an incentive, if you go down the road proposed by the government,


that it is an even greater incentive to put more and more legislation


into secondary legislation by governments. George Young, you lost


on the tax credits, isn't this a bit of an overreaction? No, this is a


real problem for whoever is in government, until quite recently


there was a convention that the House of Lords did not overturn,


happened rarely, then it happened on this occasion, and it is in


everyone's's interest. Basically what we have done is apply the


statutory instrument, the same process we have with bills, asked


the Commons to think again, but we can't kill it. What Tom Strathclyde


has recommended is for the House of Lords to have an additional weapon


in their armoury, which more accurately reflect their role of


revising and asking the second chamber, the first chamber, to think


again, instead of the nuclear option, which kills the statutory


instrument if we rode against it. This is a hammer to smash a nut,


governments have only been defeated on secondary legislation four times


since the 1960s! Not only did it happen with tax credits, but there


was a concerted attempt, a few days afterwards, to do it on another


piece of legislation, on electoral reform. There is a need to sort this


out. I hope there is not a knee jerk reaction, that we cannot have this,


the government has said they will think about it and come back with a


response in January, I hope that other parties in the Lords, we may


at some point have the same problem, take the same considered response.


White lets see, Toby Harris, will you care to give as a knee jerk


reaction? -- Toby Harris, will you care


to give as a knee jerk They are overreaction, although the


House of Lords did, using its historic way of operating, was to


refer the matter back to the House of Commons and say, think again. And


then low and behold, George Osborne did think again, changed his mind!


LAUGHTER The whole point, that was the system


working! You make a good point, that was the upper chamber in such power


as it has working in a spectacular way, it made you think again about


tax credits, they were unpopular even among your own MPs, the


Chancellor scrap it altogether, the Lords made you think again, the


government included, it was right that you thought against blue the


proposal by Tom Strathclyde would do the same thing, we could have


rejected it and enjoy invited House of Commons to think again without


using the nuclear option, despite what Toby Harris has said, they


decline to pass it, they did not ask the government to think again. Did


you set out not to think again but to kill it? No, we reverted back, we


said, not at the moment, come back when you have thought about it


properly. The reality is that most statutory instruments are barely


considered an House of Commons, shuffled off to a small


subcommittee, with a government majority, there is not the proper


scrutiny, the things that the House of Lords is all about, what it is


for, what ever is constituted, it is good to me, to look in detail at the


practicalities of what the government is proposing. Ask the


government to think again, but not nuclear bomb it. George Young has


said this several times, that you were out to nuclear bomb it.


Splitting an infinitive there, sorry, to bomb it in a nuclear


way(!) what is your reaction to that? As I have said several times,


we reverted back to the Commons to think again, but the other thing


that has happened, and it is accelerating, government, both


parties, all parties, have being increasingly using statutory


instruments in a way which was never intended, if Parliamentary democracy


is going to work, there has got to be proper scrutiny of important


points of principle, and the mechanics of how government is


operating. If Parliament does not do that, what is the point of the upper


house? The Commons, as I think Toby Harris has said, often has very


little time to do the scrutiny of these issues, it is a convenient way


of the government getting things through under the radar. Surely a


legitimate purpose is not to stop it or bonded with nuclear weapons,


weapons of mass destruction(!), but scrutinised and sent it back? What


we have proposed meets Toby Harris's macro point, it asks the government


to think again by sending these statutory instruments back, if they


approve it, fine, if they reject it, then the House of Commons has had


the last word. -- meets Toby Harris's point. The Lords ask you to


think again... There will be a king without a poll. That is the point?


That is what the House of Lords ought to be all about. -- there will


be a without a partner -- there will be a ping without a pong. If all


that you do is, think again, this is a much weaker process, this would


divide even greater incentive for governments to put it into


secondary. That is to ignore one of the recommendation from Tom


Strathclyde, that we should be careful what we put into secondary


legislation. Part of his recommendation. That is like giving


somebody a pistol and saying, don't use it. Was part of the problem that


the Lords overplayed its hand, you have already defeated this


government 23 times, in the House of Lords, as the of November, perhaps


you need to be more disciplined in the areas where you pick your


fights? Most of those defeats were on world that started in the House


of Lords, we were not saying no to the House of Commons we were saying,


we should look at this bill in a better shape before you even begin


considering it, that is the role of the House of Lords. The government


does not like scrutiny and does not like challenge, and so it is


removing the powers from the House of Lords, diminishing that scrutiny,


it is not doing anything about the powers in the House of Commons. We


need to leave if there are, before you go, Toby Harris, you are share


of the Labour peers group, by all accounts you had a pretty heated


meeting last night, can you give is a little colour as to what happened?


I do not know what you mean by heated, it was a large and well


attended meeting. -- can you give us a little colour as to what happened?


I have attended meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party which


have been much more heated. People raised issues, the leader of the


Labour Party answer them, most people went away satisfied, that he


has been there and answer the question. Was there an altercation


between Peter Mandelson and Ed Jeremy Corbyn? Asked a question, got


a reply, Neil Kinnock asked a question, he got a reply, as did ten


others. Do you think that he was happy with the reply? You would have


to ask them about that. Nothing to see, move along? Absolutely! -- was


there an altercation between Peter Mandelson and Jeremy Corbyn? Peter


Mandelson asked a question, and he received a reply.


The question for today is what was proposed should replace


Was it a) Daleks, b) Royal Marines


c) former chief whip Andrew Mitchell or d) Stormtroopers?


Philip will hopefully give us the correct answer.


This afternoon, David Cameron finally arrived in Brussels to try


to persuade the 27 other presidents and prime ministers to agree to


changes to the terms of Britain's membership of the European Union.


Our correspondent Chris Morris is in Brussels. Is going to need a fuchsia


is because it is going to be so long! What is on the agenda, what is


the timetable? It starts with the migration crisis, which is what all


of those other 27 leaders that David Cameron will be speaking with our


far more concerned about, he will have to wait until that debate is


finished, until dinner time, when his big moment comes, and there will


at last be a substantive, in-depth debate about the UK we renegotiation


proposals, it is very clear that at least one part of it, the whole idea


of restricting access to in work benefits for migrant workers, that


is unacceptable, does not fly in several countries, how to find a way


past that? There has been technical discussions, there has been legal


discussions, four months, the message from other capitals is


clear, we need to hear a notablys political argument from David


Cameron about why he needs this, why this is so important, why it is so


important for the United Kingdom, people are wondering... They want to


help but they need to be given a solid political argument. They have


their own political constituencies back and to think about, they need


to find a way to do a deal. Britain is not just the agenda but on the


menu(!) over dinner, it involves the top politicians, so it has to be a


relatively general discussion, and am I right in thinking that the most


that we can hope is some general words on their attitude towards


Britain's demands, but that all of the real work, a lot of the real


work, is still yet to be done? The next stage is another summit in


February? A lot of the work that still need to


be done but all of the bureaucrats are saying that mini political


guidance from the top level, what is possible in the UK and in other


countries, until we hear that, we cannot move the work along. I have


heard from senior officials that it is intensely complicated comment we


are nowhere near a solution, for the next couple of weeks most people


will go off with mulled wine and Christmas pies, they will not be


paying attention to Britain's problems, and they are far more


concerned about the migration crisis anyway. Despite all of that, we are


told there is a good chance we can have a deal on this by early


February, if there is a rabbit to be pulled out of the hat, at the


moment, Andrew, they are keeping it pretty well hidden. Sounds like it


is going to be a long night! So what impact is the Prime


Minister's renegotiation having on public opinion and how they might


vote in the referendum was altered in September it's looked


like a close race in the nearly 30 internet polls that


have been conducted - most have "remain" in the lead


but they've narrowed recently with some polls showing


the "leave" answer edging it. But polls conducted over


the telephone rather than the internet have consistently


shown a big lead for "remain" with the latest from ComRes giving


"remain" 56% and "leave" 35%. That was bigger than the staying in


campaign in the Scottish referendum. Public opinion could be altered


by the kind of deal David Cameron In an ICM poll published on Tuesday


the percentage who said they would vote to leave went up


from 41% to 45% if "freedom of movement" rules allowing EU


migrants to live and work That is the current state of the


polling. We're


joined now by the pollster Why is there a difference between


online polling and telephone? That is what we wanted to find out,


whether it was house a or method effect. Over the weekend we


conducted an online and telephone poll to look at the differences and


in the telephone poll we had a 21 percentage point lead for the remain


campaign but it was neck and neck online. We found exactly the same


discrepancy. Different people? Yes, and this is the point, with online


samples on voting intention you get similar figures between online and


telephone but that is because it is voting intention is built over years


and people don't change very often but you start from such a low


knowledge base on this issue that bit more of an engaged sample


online, people more engaged in social media, that can have an


impact on how they say they bowled. What should politicians do and


depend on? -- say they vote. Should Boris Johnson lead the out campaign


or stick with the in campaign? It was really interesting because over


the weekend we looked at how voter groups voted in or out and we found


that whereas Labour were very much, their voters wanted to stay in the


EU, in the Conservatives there was a high level among them don't know,


they are the swing voters and that is all to play for. I was told that


that is why David Cameron is crucial among conservative voters.


Absolutely. Given that he won the election when not expected to, his


stock is high with Tory voters and how he comes out will have a big


impact, perhaps not on the whole country but certainly in the Tory


heartlands. Yes, and certainly negotiations will have a massive


impact. Things like migrants and four years of not having benefits,


people are more likely to stay in if that was renegotiated. Are you


surprised by this discrepancy? A little bit in that in the election


as you say, there was no real difference between online polls and


telephone. The argument that this is about knowledge and engagement is


plausible. The knowledge base is quite low. Lots of people have yet


to engage. Loads of people are movable on this and I think the


point about the Conservatives as a bloc, the other key thing is that


it's not just cave David Cameron -- it's not just David Cameron. The


fact that there will be a fight is not necessarily bad, to be able to


show even if the policy offer is limited, to show that he can go and


negotiate and generate change, that could be significant. Are you not


wasting your time at the moment and other people's money? The polls


really don't tell us anything at the moment. People are not focused on


this. They tell us nothing about how people really vote beyond the


hard-core of we should always stay in whatever happens and we should


leave whatever happens. But that is significant at the moment because we


need to know where we are starting from and where the hard-core blocks


are. The conservative voters are the ones who don't know and that finding


is important for the Conservative Party to look out. Certainly


important for the campaigns. Labour voters, I understand why in London,


more metropolitan middle-class Labour voters would be strongly for


staying in but is there any evidence about the attitude of working-class


Labour voters in the Midlands or in the North? For example the people


that gave Labour a strong pre-election majority in the


by-election in Oldham. Yes, this will be interesting to look at as


the campaign develops and progresses because I think it is this point


about how engaged our people at this stage? At the moment as you say


people are not engaged and this is a benchmark. This is where people are


at the moment but as the campaign goes on certainly some of the groups


will change. Unlike the Parliamentary party or even the


Cabinet, the Conservatives are split on this issue. The bigger phenomenon


among conservative voters is don't know rather than split? They are


withholding judgment. The two things, certainly the common mantra


in the media is that what Mr Cameron is looking for is neither here nor


there. But it seems like what he comes back whether and how he sells


it will be an important part of the campaign. There are different


audiences, the Parliamentary party will be following the detail but


would not be convinced by almost anything that is plausibly


returnable. Then the general public are not particularly engaged but I


think they are minded, if there is a deal, to stay in. They are


completely different. My broader point is not just... We are not


wasting money because I think it is interesting but we are less than a


year away from one of the biggest polling disasters in the industry's


history. I wasn't going to mention that in the presence of ComRes! Lets


not obsess about this, find it interesting and get what we can, but


let's not obsess. Let's not let it influence coverage like what


happened in May. How is this big investigation going into the


performance of the pollsters at the election? We did a lot of work after


the election looking at what went wrong. We were the least inaccurate


but fundamentally we were not close enough and we have done a lot of


modelling on turnout and actual data to look at how we can model that. We


actually published hours a month after. Isn't there an industrywide


problem? The first meeting is going to be in January to look at initial


findings and then it will follow in March. We are finding is actually a


lot of what we have already looked at coming out in that. Get on with


it, we need to know! Thank you for joining us. Communities Secretary


Greg Clark has been outlining how much money local authorities can


expect in the next financial year. But it comes in the context of a big


change in way local authorities are funded, which was outlined


in November's Spending Review. When George Osborne became


chancellor back in 2010 60% of the money spent by local


government was given to it in grants But in plans outlined


by the Chancellor in last month's spending review, after 2020 councils


will generate all the money they spend - though


there will still be some This massive change has some


councils complaining At the same time as coping


with the increasing cost of providing care for


an ageing population. That is the key role of local


authorities. a new "precept" which can increase


council tax by up to 2% each year, as long as the money raised


is spent on social care. for the Better Care Fund,


a joint NHS and local council pot to encourage integration


in health and social care. of business rate revenues


from new developments will be Big changes there in the financing


of local authorities, more devolution of money but will it make


for better local government? settlement by the chairman


of the Local Government Association, and Conservative


peer, Gary Porter... Welcome to the programme. What is


your overall verdict? Better than it could have been, there are positives


around the freedoms to raise more money. Lately we have been arguing


for that for some time. The real benefit of a four year settlement


will allow councils to balance the harder times and we can't lose sight


of the fact that next year will be harder out of the whole settlement.


Will it get worse before it gets better? Sometimes life does that but


now we have the freedom to plan which we haven't had before, that is


good. We can't lose sight of the fact that there will be significant


pressures down the line as beings like the living wage and minimum


wage increases. Councils will have do pay low paid workers more? Yes,


and that will have an impact, some of these numbers are quite high, ?10


billion over the life of the Parliament. You don't sound consumed


with enthusiasm! Well, I'm massively more enthusiastic than if you'd have


interviewed me for five years ago. Four or five years ago we were


looking at a considerably worse situation and we had less freedom.


We have the freedoms we have been asking for. The government got


elected on the manifesto. You have freedom to raise council tax if you


spend it on social care and every penny you raise will be quickly


absorbed by the rising demands of social care. You haven't this side


of 2020 got freedom to raise any more money? Business rate retention,


as it rolls through we won't have too wait to see business rate


retention. But you don't get any more money? Don't you get the money


that did go to central government and then they handed it back and now


you get to keep what is handed back? And now what we increase it by. You


can increase rates? We can increase the number of businesses that are


paying. In the old days if we encouraged businesses to come into


the area most of that would be retained locally -- most of that


would go to the government but it is now retained locally. Now we will


have the ability to raise local money to pay for local services.


This could just be the start and we will be making the case about why


other things should be precepted. You said even if councils turn off


every street light and close museums they will not save enough money to


plug the financial black hole that they faced by 2020. This is the


start of being able to do that. Is it not true? Clearly there will be


funding pressures and we will be looking at a ?10 billion shortfall


going forward but at least we have some freedoms to do something about


it. We still need large scale public sector reform. We can't keep


spending money in the way we do. The devolution deals in Manchester and


other metropolitan cities, it will be the start of plugging the gaps in


money, but we need to have access to this money because we keep spending


it retrospectively fixing things that have been broken. But you


aren't going to get access to national health spending? Manchester


will be able to access some of it and prevent pressure being put on


the NHS. How big is this change? It is quite big and local government is


one of those things that does the hard graft, the unglamorous bits of


politics. It has really suffered over the past five years, it was one


of the easier targets for the coalition when they are looking at


savings. I think you are right, the worst of the pain is still to come.


Whether this will work, I am less convinced. Is there not a problem


here in that the councils that are most able to attract businesses will


get the most money from a 2% precept to pay for social care, and it will


be inevitably in the more affluent areas of the country and those


councils that are poorer and don't have the same revenue base will be


struggling? But that was the point of winning the extra ?1.5 billion


for the better care fund which will be targeted at those areas not able


to raise as much money through the precepted council tax. The better


care fund will not be evenly distributed? Yes, and they will have


to be a conversation about what that means, but it is the same with


business rates, local government doesn't think that keeping business


rates means that every single council will keep every single pound


they earn or Westminster will be having a nice life and somewhere out


in the sticks will find it difficult. There will still need to


be a conversation but our argument is rather than the government


equalising, we should do it as a sector and we should work out how


best to redistribute the pot. We have had quite a lot of influence


with Greg and the Treasury team to try to influence how the cake was


cut. We could not make the cake any bigger and that was beyond our


ability, getting someone to put more yeast in there, but given the cake


we have got we have a relatively good settlement for each type of


counsel. Given the cuts that councils have already had to injure


or with more on the way, and rising demand for social care, -- have had


to endure. Hospitals are being courage to devolve stuff to social


care that was currently being done in hospitals, it's a combination of


the precept and social care fund, is that enough money? In the short term


it will be, we anticipate ?3.5 billion of extra need and this is


3.2, 3.3. It's not going to caterer for the increase. We should be


celebrating the fact that we live longer but we are now promoting the


fact it costs a lot and it's wrong. We need to spend the money in the


system in a way that makes it not such a big problem and you have to


start with the health spending and we have to do that as taxpayers,


leaving the central government free to move around money. We should not


have insisted on a ring fence for the NHS.


Now, a new Labour leader who barely featured before his


A relatively unknown as Shadow Chancellor.


And so many Lib Dems no longer on the political scene.


at these time of big political change.


Here's impressionist, John Culshaw, with his review of the year.


-- Here's impressionist, Jon Culshaw,


Well, I suppose 2015 has been rather quiet politically, really.


Although there was the general election, civil war


within the Labour Party, the Lib Dems facing extinction,


and One Direction going in several directions.


It's hard to know where to start, really.


IMPERSONATES ED MILIBAND: Look, I will leave 'not knowing


Turn to camera but don't read out the bits in bold like last time


I was the happy warrior simply wondering if there would be enough


And we decided to capitalise on this by writing on a big


Which turned out to be rather a good kitchen work surface actually.


But whereas I said, hell yes, I'm tough enough.


The hard-working British people just said hell.


And now I'm disposable like a plastic carrier




At least you are still in the Commons.


Do you know what it's like as Ukip leader,


I've been waiting for practically an entire Chilcot.


I was going to install a minibar under the dispatch box.


No wonder I resigned as leader of Ukip.


IMPERSONATES TIM FARRON: No, no, it didn't go well


for the Lib Dems but tiny Tim Farron is going to make it right.


At least we have kept up one great Liberal party tradition.


But we will need a roof rack for Cleggy.




everybody, in all my time as Prime Minister I've never felt


Let's get this EU referendum thingy out of the way then I will be


chillaxing in Tuscany with the best of them.


I will be in pole position on the speaker circuit, Davey, baby.


You can never do too many after-dinner speeches.


Especially when you are Lord Hague of Richmond.


Mr Palmerston. He's a madcat.


Chancellarium retchedarius. Oxbridge and South Ruislip?


Could there be a greater d-d-disaster?


IMPERSONATES JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have a question


Gladys says, Jeremy, why can't you think of any


HIMSELF: Well, I shall close as all accomplished speakers do


with the words of Chairman Mao, in fact, not Chairman Mao but Andrew


IMPERSONATES ANDREW NEIL: That's it from us here at College Green.


Only eight hours until Annabel's opens.


half hours, but I think I was beginning to


Well so much for last year, what does 2016 hold?


It is a quarter of one per cent but it does set the trend,


but not just there, here, too.


Here to read the economic runes with me is the Economist,


Danny Blanchflower flown in at Snow ex p to the BBC, because we didn't


pay! LAUGHTER Welcome to the programme. Thank you


very much. What is this mean for the global economy? If they are right,


then it is picking up. -- flown in that no expense to the BBC -- at no


expense. Every one of the forecasts has proven to be overly optimistic,


the worry is going to be that this will generate all kinds of


volatility in the world, big impact on emerging markets, just like the


previous attempt, and so the on emerging markets, just like the


question is, is the forecast that we have, and the hope that they have,


that all will be well, and next year they can raise rates again, is that


what is going to happen? The worry, just to start with, is that the


markets do not believe it. So they say that eventually rates will go to


three and a half percent and the market say, not on your life!


Interestingly, the people who are responsible for setting the rates,


they have a different view, to the markets. Think about the reality in


the UK, Mark Carney has been saying for a long time, rate rises will


come into focus towards the end of the year, and people like me have


said, no wait, now he has had to backtrack. We have had eight years


of this. The markets do not believe what the central bank says. That is


a big worry if you lose your credibility. One more argument,


about the economy, and then into the United Kingdom, this rate rise,


taking place at a time when, when the global economy is pretty


stagnant, too strong a word? Well, not full of effervescence, at least,


the World Bank talking about growth of more than 3%, it is a drag on


overall growth. Russia, today, Vladimir Putin is making a speech,


talk about how it is performed less well than he had hoped, Argentina,


freely floating the currency. There are those risks, the worry is from


the fed, that Janet yelling, yesterday, put it in technical


language: the risks are balance. -- Janet Yellin. They think the rough


upside is balanced by the downside. Essentially it is pretty hard to


argue that that is right, the downside risk, think about from


China, Brazil, all sorts of other places. Why has there been a rapid


fall in commodity prices, it is actually about demand being lower


than you think, the markets are worried that the central banks say


that things are fine, actually, they are not, in my view, what you have


said is right, the downside risk on emerging markets especially is


gathering pace. We used to have a situation where the global economy,


even if the West was not doing so well, the emerging markets kept the


overall pace going, led by China. Now the emerging markets are


subdued... Are there more signs of life in the two biggest markets, the


Eurozone and the United States? Not really, we have seen relatively slow


growth in both the UK and the US, pretty bad growth in Europe, what we


saw there was in globalisation, the shock in the advanced countries


moved to the emerging markets. Now what we are seeing as some sort of


shock, bad shocks coming in the emerging markets, we hope beyond


hope that it does not spread in the other direction. To put the debate


in context, the business cycle rolls. You would imagine, eight


years into this cycle, sometime in the next five years, there is going


to be another recession coming, hats from the emerging markets, perhaps


from prices, and... -- perhaps from the emerging market. Perhaps from


corporate drones in the energy markets, 60% are now distressed.


Third Ave closed funds in the United States the other day, obviously that


is a big worry. The biggest worry that we should think about is not


that the shock is coming, but that presumably it is pretty likely to


come and are you prepared? In general, the answer has got to be,


probably not! Is it your view that we are likely to be closer to the


next recession than we are from the recession that has just happened?


You can do fancy metrics but you do not have to do that, the Bank of


England has great data for business cycles, 300 years, all you have to


do, you just have to see the shape. Essentially, what you will see is it


goes up and down, up and down, the likelihood is... Unless we are


completely different to what has happened in the last 300 years, it


is absolutely certain that it is coming, it is just a question of


when is it coming? You have got to be prepared for it and we are NOT.


BECAUSE the central bank cannot cut rates again, in 2008, I could vote


for rate cuts of 550, when I was on the monetary policy committee, from


5.5 down to 0.0, tight fiscal policy, health price bubble, no


movement to increase exports. -- house price bubble. Manufacturing is


lower than it was before. With a shock coming, central bank cannot


cut rates, does not sound great! Overall, it seems that you think the


global framework is fluid. How will the British economy, which many


people thought was outperforming the average, will it continue to do so


in 2016? It might well, but most of the forecasts depend upon this


so-called productivity puzzle, being solved. If it is not solved, these


years are going to look like good years. This is the failure of


productivity to rise. Yes, the OBR, the MPC, in their forecast they say


things will be quite good, because the productivity puzzle is solved,


and you say, why is that? They say they do not know, I have spoken with


business, I said, has something changed? If we see decent growth


coming, something has to have changed, at what they tell me is,


same old same old. I am concerned that this is as good as it gets, we


have a shock that is coming and are we ready? We do not have the tools


that we had in 2007 and in 2008, it is logical. You are advising Jeremy


Corbyn, what do you tell him? I'm advising a lot of people and I tell


people that it is important to be prepared for the next shock, for


example, I am carrying out the remit of the Bank of England, what you


should ask yourself, could you come up with tools that would actually


have prevented this crisis in 2007? Then you think of tools that would


help us in a postrecession period? Can we make things better? The


answer, it is really hard. We are a bit gloomy here, anything you can


tell us to do cheer us up? It is great to be here in London today(!)


LAUGHTER New York, London, both are blooming.


House price bubble in New York, and here, the same thing. More cranes in


London. If you go to the US, house prices, they have not risen as much


as they have in the UK, but the two places, New York and San Francisco,


you get that similarity. In the middle, in the north, things are


pretty different. We will see, we have ridden out the storm, of the


worry is that there is a set of shocks coming and we are not ready


to deal with them. We shall see, thank you very much with joining us.


Now, our guest of the day has a new book out.


And that's how we got him for free on the programme!


"The British General Election 2015" does what it says on the cover.


But it's not the only election-themed tome competing


to fill polticos stockings this Christmas.


VOICEOVER: Books about how elections were fought, won and lost may seem


like the academic equivalent of shutting the stable door but in some


cases and in some cases should be the playbook of how to or how not to


do it again in the future. Few Conservatives were expecting to be


handed victory by the voters, polls consistently said they were in a


dead heat with Labour. One lesson might be, so much for polls, but


regardless of numbers, the Conservatives had learned from the


past. In 2010 it was a very disorganised campaign, no joined up


strategy, this time around, in the Conservatives, Lynton Crosby was in


total command, David Cameron, absolutely signed over control to


him which is essential and that meant the buck stopped with Lynton


Crosby. It was clear who was in charge, he made sure that the people


who were putting those messages out, in addition, knew exactly what to


say. Discounted in crucial seats like Nuneaton, once declared that


the Conservatives, team Labour knew that they were beaten. There are


lessons for the Tories, even in victory, a start might be answering


this question. Given the fact the Conservatives could easily outspend


and they had overwhelming press support, I am still amazed that


Labour got over 30%, and that the Conservatives were less than 6%


ahead. Labour have the hardest lessons to swallow, it is hard to


dine at the top table in Downing Street if voters still think you


back the economy and your leader is a bit of a wet fish. Also, if there


is a a bit of a wet fish. Also, if there


it was the failure to learn lessons last time around. One of Labour's


mistakes was refighting the 2010 election, they got into a hung


parliament, they thought that there would be this time. They thought in


many otherwise as well, they had not yet got to grips with the question


of how to make the economy and take responsibility for what went wrong


in 2008, how to properly distance themselves from it. This was never a


two horse race, one key aspect for the big parties was both their


relations with the SNP, a party of the left but with what voters saw as


a credible leader, who could eat in public(!) a direct threat to Labour


and a handy stick for the Conservatives, the lesson for both,


however, may be that all lessons are off for the future.


There is no such thing as British politics, a British political


pattern. Labour in Scotland were banking on that being the case


still. They thought a UK wide shift to Labour could take them into power


and prevent the SNP onslaught. There has been a distinctive Scottish


political system to a degree since the 60s. What made it cements the


Scottish political system was almost entirely separate, subject to almost


entirely different dynamics and politics to the rest of the UK. In


2020 these books might be dusty history but words of wisdom are only


handy for politicians willing to read and learn from them.


Philip is with us. Let me put this past you, Conservatives, Labour, Lib


Dem, most of them are agreed that one of the real influences that


decided the outcome was the Conservative pitch that if you vote


Labour you will also get Nicola Sturgeon, a Labour Prime Minister


you are not that keen on and he will be dragged even more to the left by


the Scottish Nationalists. And that that frightened people back to


voting Tory. Labour people tell me that, Lib Dems, Tories say it was


their strategy. And Ukip. It also frightened people away from


defecting. Is that by and large true? The simple answer is that we


don't know, the empirical evidence doesn't find very much evidence of


people concerned about Scotland, in quotes, shifting. A lot of this is


not terribly reliable. On the other hand you have from every single


strategist the view that it was significant and we take the view


that on balance it probably was and it probably was the fact that means


we have a majority Conservative government as opposed to a minority


government. However, it's important, the bit that you mentioned is that


it's not just "Scotland" or Nicola the bit that you mentioned is that


Sturgeon but also a reflection of views about Ed Miliband and Labour.


When they found that in the focus groups in late 2014 it wasn't


Scotland but the fact that there would be by weak government and it


wasn't the SNP but that they would be propped up by other parties, the


SNP and the Greens and might be reliant on the Lib Dems. That is


what changed the message. It is also a reflection of views of the Labour


Party. Because of the polls, the context within which the election


was fought in the media was that we proceeded on the basis of another


hung parliament and we were moving from eight two and a half party


system to a multiparty system. -- moving from a two and a half party


system. The polls were wrong and we were wrong to be influenced by them?


One of the lessons is not to be so influenced and that is easy to say


but harder to do. A lot of people in the media complained that in


retrospect they reported a false election. The polls have an even


bigger impact on the election. We talk about the six-week short


campaign or even the period from January. If the polls were that


wrong throughout the five years, and we've no reason to think they


weren't, Labour was only in the lead up to 2013. If you imagine a


hypothetical scenario in which we had accurate information and the


Conservatives pulled ahead in late 2013 and increased their lead in


2014 we would have had a very different 2014 and 2015 and Ed


Miliband would not have made it to the election. Labour would have


changed its leader? Part of the reason he stayed on was that he


seemed to be in with a chance right up to the last day. Labour think


even as they are sat there waiting for the exit polls, they think they


are going into government. One bit of detail, in the book you claimed


that the Tory party chairman Andrew Feldman, subsequently famous for


other things, revealed that the US pollster Jim Sina was sent to work


on the Tory campaign having previously worked with President


Obama and he was sent with the explicit approval of Obama. Yes, and


Feldman claimed at the victory party that Obama said, go and stop that


socialist Miliband. That is his claim but whether that happened is


another matter. Maybe one day we will get a chance to interview him


and see. Now - shops use it as an excuse


to sell us things, we use it as an excuse to eat and drink too


much and politicians - well they sometimes take advantage


of Christmas to make Here's the then Shadow Chancellor


Geoffrey Howe back in December 1977 with his rendition of


the 12 Days of Christmas. # On the 12th day of Christmas my


taxman sent to me... following in his footsteps


tonight will be the Eurosceptic Conservative MP


John Redwood who will be the star turn at the Bow Group's Christmas


dinner, with a live reading Brexit is short for


British Exit you know. Well, a ticket to that


will set you back ?65 but, seeing as it's Christmas,


we at the Daily Politics have decided to give


you a sneak preview, for free. So here, live and exclusive,


is an extract from Mr Redwood's It didn't take a grown-up red Riding


Hood long to work out that the European Union had commandeered her


grandmother 's house and was planning to run her home and life as


well. Mr EU was dressed very unconvincingly as grandmother and he


tried to reassure her telling her it was all inevitable and it would be


fine. She could have a bit longer before they shared a bank account


and a better if they liked. He realised it was a bit of a shock but


it would be so much better for both of them when they sorted it out. He


transferred her grandmother for her own safety as she wasn't safe there


any more. He started to threaten her in a gentle way, saying they could


make it tougher, all of that trade she wanted might not be so easy to


come by after all. When she retorted she almost always seem to be paying


out Mr EU began to change and became very cross. What did Britannia do


next? There are two variations on how this ended. Some people say that


Britannia turned the tables and left happily ever after. Others say that


she timorous Lee gave in and was made to work even harder to meet his


demands in their European home. I'm leaving it to you to make the choice


because that's the way modern fairy tales work and I prefer the happy


ending. Thank you, come over here and join me. That was an extract


from the Bracks -- Brexit fairy tale. We thought we would write


something else to persuade people to stay in. Brexit's last Christmas. It


was the week before Christmas and somewhere in the house Brexit lay


dreaming and scheming of out. The Gollum of the Commons, Iago of the


Lords, it slithered and slathered and tried to cross the floor. It's


not known for certain how Brexit came to be at large, some say


Theresa May and mistletoe, a fumble with Nigel Farage. Others should at


Duncan Smith, others side, perhaps in the worst case Michael Gove. No


lovechild was quite so wretched. No monster was there anywhere as


miserable as Brexit. It lied about the rebate and about immigration, it


scowled one eyed upon the world and how old for isolation. Retreat,


retreat was the Bracks -- was the Brexit. Let's pretend we are like


Norway and not in Europe, let's kiss goodbye to Scotland, let's sunder


this proud nation, let's wow the world with one great act of


staggering self castration. Was the week before Christmas and all in the


house excepted that Brexit that last be cast out, no more reasonable


arguments, no more grievance or spin, for Britain is so much


stronger, brighter and better off in. Thank you, Koeman join us for


the final few seconds of the programme. Particularly you, John,


there was nothing Christmassy at all. I could not find any mention.


It was not as negative as his. I will come to that, don't worry. It's


a happy ending. It is for you. For all of us. What is not to like?


People might be asking for their money back. They will want a rebate!


We will get that if we come out. You bowed in the direction of


We will get that if we come out. You but self castration in a


We will get that if we come out. You that is kind of what we


We will get that if we come out. You leave the European Union. It is


clearly the worst idea of all time. Do you think... That is a strong


statement. This is a great one. Do you think... That is a strong


next year? Yes. 2016 for sure. Yes. Probably in June. The government


wants to get it out of the way. They are not offering much. We might as


well get it out the way. Both of you don't really care what the Prime


Minister comes back with? The renegotiation is important but


not critical, it's an important renegotiation but we get what we


get. We have asked for enough so we must get out.


What was proposed to replace policeman outside Downing Street?


I'm assuming it would be policeman outside Downing Street?


might be D. It is Star troopers because the style was people wanted


Thanks to all my guests, especially Philip.


I'll be back this evening at eleven thirty five for a festive edition


brings you some inspiring cultural treats.


Let Darcey introduce us to her ballet heroes.


Then we have more ballet, this time with love, espionage and betrayal


Download Subtitles