21/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Are we heading for another financial economic crisis?


Billions of pounds have been wiped off shares here and abroad,


in response to a collapse in oil prices and growing concern


The IMF and other major institutions have all downgraded


Or are we heading for a major downturn?


Some of the biggest political beasts have done the job,


but what does it take to be a good Secretary of State for Health?


Labour spent nearly ?5,000 on this snazzy little number


at the General Election, but was it money well spent?


It is all going to be done, no slanging matches, just say - what


awful weather we are having. And loathe them or loathe them,


the Home Secretary announces she's killing off the friendly


traffic warden. All that in the next hour of TV


gold, which swept the board at last night's National


Television Awards. And with us for the duration,


the former Chairman of Conservative Home,


Tim Montgomerie. He also writes for


the Times you know. At the moment he's upped sticks


and lives in Washington DC, Now first today, to the public


inquiry into the killing of the former Russian spy,


Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The inquiry found that his murder


was probably approved by President The report found it was


likely that the two men who put a radioactive


substance in his tea at a London hotel, were acting


under the direction of the Russian Secret Service,


overseen by Mr Putin. Theresa May has been giving a


statement in the House of Commons and has obviously said not only was


this not a surprise but they have taken action, because this was ten


years ago. Because there isn't much more they can do, is there? There is


plenty they could do if they wanted to. We are sat in, I think probably


the greatest city on Earth at the moment, London, but one of the


reasons why it has had so much money from abroad coming in, is we are


very tolerant of where people get their money from. People buying


properties in London and Kensington and some of the more desire


properties in London. Bout through shell companies. We have no idea who


is behind the shell companies. A lot of those people are the people


supposedly subject to sanctions. Britain could do an awful lot more


to investigate the money that's flowing into London and stop some of


the rich Russians who are behind some of the deeds we are complaining


about, from getting here. Right. You say they could do more, as you say


the problem is there are reasons that they probably won't do much


more, except Theresa May has said that obviously they'll continue to


chase the two suspects and that they are going to freeze the assets of


those two chief suspects. But in a statement from the Prime Minister's


spokesman, they have to weigh carefully the need to take measures


and respond with the need to work with Russia, not just domestically


but also in foreign affairs. That's the great truth, Jo. We feel,


Britain feels, the Foreign Office feels we need to work with the


Russians at the moment in the battle against ISIS, which means cuddling


up to Assad, not annoying the rush yabs. So, it is the battle against


ISIS, more than anything else that is stopping us taking any action


against Russia. Assad, who I think was the cause of the Syrian civil


war, we are keeping him in place, keeping close to the Russians. It is


an una attractive set of real politics situations.


The world's financial markets have settled down a lttile this morning


but it's still the worst start to a year since the 2008 financial


crisis, with investors dumping equities because of the slide


in the price of oil and about China's stalling economic growth.


Both are taken as indications that the world economy


Yesterday, at one point, more than ?50 billion


was wiped from the value of Britain's biggest businesses,


as the UK stock market plunged to its lowest level in four years.


The FTSE 100 is down 20% since it's peak last April.


Well, world leaders are meeting in Davos, at the World Economic


From there let's talk to our Correspondent,


You are full of bankers and global businessmen there. What are they


say? How worried are they about prospects for 2016?


# Well, Andrew, it looks picture perfect here. Those moments in the


markets you were talking about cast a big shadow over this shindig in


the Alps yesterday. As you say the FTSE 100 followed her major indices,


down 20%. That meanses in a bare market, the direction of travel is


down. People are worried about where the global growth is coming from.


You say China is decelerating. Who will take over the baton? Is India


ready to do that? Without global growth, the value of the companies


on the followcy 100 justify the valuations put on them, or have the


markets been pumped up and discourt torted by quantitative easing and


will he interest rates. Now the direction of travel on that has


changed, do they have the fundamentals to fall back on and


that's what people are worried about. How worried are they about


the Chinese economy, one of the main reasons why global equity markets


have gone the way they have gone this month? Well, there is some


scepticism about the official figures. I spoke to the former


number 2 at the Central Bank of China yesterday. He said - look, we


have put our numbers together by generally accepted international


standards. Yes, we are slowing but there is no reason to suspect that


the growth rate there is not 7%. I think what is more worrying in the


Chinese economy is things like the property market which has boomed,


propped up by a massive increase in credit. If those house can't be sold


you might get a property bust which can spread throughout the financial


system. That's the warning light there. But there are waves of nausea


coming off, thinking, is this just a shock market correction, the kind of


thing that happens once in a while after a long wrong, or does it say


down the road there is something more unpleasant coming to the global


economy. Markets often predict what is going to happen in a few months'


time or a year's time in the real economy. It happened in 2008 and


some big hitters are saying we are heading for a 2008-type scenario.


Most of the people I speak to here say they cannot see a global


recession but the question is - does the stock market, is it worth the


valuations it is getting, or is this the moment of reckoning, when people


have a reality check and say prospects


have a reality check and say you very much for, that enjoy your


time in Davos, it is a good place to meet be everybody. Let's pick up on


some of these points. And with us now, the former


International Development Minister, Alan Duncan and Labour MP,


Stephen Kinnock, who used to work Alan, Duncan, the stock markets are


reacting in the way they do, Alan, Duncan, the stock markets are


they are concerned about the course of the world economy. They look at


the price of oil and see of the world economy. They look at


demand. They look at what is of the world economy. They look at


too. Are they right? Are they right to be worried that the global


economy is in danger of recession? I think they probably


economy is in danger of recession? I of the problems of analysts at the


moment is they are underestimating moment is they are underestimating


the significance of the collapse in oil which has been so dramatic and


relatively quick. Although this is great for ?1 at the pumps, it is


going to have very, very tough effects else where. Fist of all, it


is as much a political problem in most Gov-producing companies need


$80 to pay their way. They'll face political turmoil them. 'Have


$80 to pay their way. They'll face suck a lot of money from Western


markets to pay the deficit which will put pressure on liquidity and


interest rates. You will look at companies like Shell that don't have


dividends for pensions. The North Sea Oil is falling to bits. I think


you will see a lot of pressure on companies and company debt. I think


we'll see big corporate failures, not just in the oil sector but also


elsewhere, because of all of this. This is a big problem. Economic in


many respects, but deeply political, in a whole global context. Do you


foresee 2016 being the year recession returns? I think there are


some real risks. What we are seeing is the fundamentals of the economy


are not strong enough. You are seeing a shift in China from being a


country that has been the safer, to being an spender. They are trying to


stimulate domestic consumption. Still a massive safer, though.


Absolutely but I think that transition is painful and there are


growing pains. So it reflects an imbalance. I think we are also


seeing, in the UK, exposure because our economy is imbalanced. Look at


our trade deficit and productivity crisis. What major economy, perhaps


other than America s in better shape than perhaps the British economy? It


depends on how you define "better shape." Give me one. The quantity of


growth fine, the question for me is about the quaulted of growth.


Unemployment figures going down but what sort of jobs are we creating.


Productivity crisis the worst it has been in living memory. That is


depends on the industry. Productivity in the car industry is


one of the highest in the world and never been higher. I'm more


concerned about signs of resechlingts you is both seem to


think it is on the who are eye zovenlt when you look at the


economic fundamentals, of course economic growth, global growth is


hardly sparkling but nor is any major region with the exception of a


couple of emerging markets in recession. What the is to stop us


just continuing to go along at 2% to 3% growth. If you go back to 2006/7,


people didn't see Liamen brothers coming but it came. An economy like


the UK, we are far too reliable on consumer-driven debt rather than


domestic growth. Household debts will be lower than in 2008. It is


massive. Well relative to assets it is not. I'm puzzled to see the gloom


and doom here. I could see you couldn't write a boom scenario for


the global economy, the IMF, World Bank, OECD have downgraded its


forecasts but China is still growing, maybe less than before.


India is growing faster than it has for sometime. Even the eurozone is


now going to get about 1% growth. The American economy is still at


2.5%. We are expected to grow by 2.5%. Where does the recession come


from? I think we, as the UK, are in a comparatively strong position. I


think we are fairly well underpinned. The point I make is not


so much that we are going to go into a 2008 collapse and recession, as


that oil prices at this level are not an automatic stimulus to good,


broad economic global growth and that accompanying dramatic collapse


will be real political pressures. Already Venezuela is almost


bankrupt. That's marginal compared to the global economy. Brazil is in


marginal state in GDP terms? You are in the oil market. You were in the


oil market. Let me ask you this - oil is cyclical. What we will see


this year, the Russians already talking about cutting production.


Partly because they can't get it out, for other reasons as W Shale in


America will take a dive in America because the price has fallen. When


do you think the oil price starts it tick up again? There is a lot in


storage which has to be consumed. Iran is coming onstream with an


extra one or two million barrels a day. Libya if there is a political


settlement could go up from 250,000 barrels a day to 1.6 million. The


volumes stand to be over the next year or two, still a lot larger than


consumer demand. My view isn't so much that we will see complete


economic collapse as that accompanying the fall in oil and


commodity prices, there is no automatic stimulus and there is


massive political danger in already the region, the turmoil, adding to


the turmoil in the region that's there already. Thats' my main point.


It is not universal good news is all I'm saying. If we were to ties


another downturn as a result of external factors -- if we were to


face. We are vulnerable to all sorts of


external forces F that was to provoke another downturn, what


weapons should the Government, whether Labour or Government, deploy


to deal with that downturn? For me, the watchword is resilience. You


need to build an economy that has the flexibility to absorb a shock


and bounce back. In order to do that I think you need a proper active


industrial policy. We unfortunately have a Secretary of State for


Business and innovative skills. What is an active policy Proper


investment in skills, infrastructure, energy. The whole


basis for an economy that actually starts it make things again. These


are all long-term issues. I want to bring Tim Montgomerie in. They are


long-term reforms you are advocating. What should the


Government macroeconomic response be if we hit a downturn caused by


external force this is year? Really there aren't that many moneyly it


levers left. Interest rates are as will he as they can be. You could go


negative. They could. Switzerland is negative and Sweden and the ECB. The


borrowing costs are higher than the headline interests. Still


historically. We are short of weapons. That's why a more Keynesen


approach is the way forward. You are in the United States. The American


economy is chugging along, I put it no higher than that. It has been


said it is growing but no momentum. Where do you think we are in terms


of the economic cycle. Does the market ties another downturn? Good


and bad. India benefits from the lower oil prices and mucher Europe.


Alan is right it talk about the problems in the Middle East but a


lot of the world economy will benefit. The key question is the one


that you ask - we spent an awful lot of money, borrowed a lot to get us


out of the last crash. We are only half way to get right of the


deficit. For example in Britain, in the Autumn Statement last year,


George Osborne gambled on growth continuing to get there.


He spent the ?27 billion he found down the back of the sofa. The other


issue is quantitative easing, you asked about America and there are


now huge questions about inequality. A lot of Republican and Democrat


opposition are using that. The United States has begun the rise in


interest rates before sorting out the bad news, will it continue


rising rates? They will wait. No, and we have to keep calm and carry


on. I agree that they won't. Thank you for joining us. It's a very


large sofa that George Osborne has got. It must be to have 27 billion


in it! Well, David Cameron's due to make


a speech in Davos in just over The Prime Minister's expected


to call on business leaders to make the case for the UK to remain


inside a reformed European Union. He's pledged to hold a referendum


on the UK's membership, once he's finished his attempts


to negotiate changes. Let's talk now to our


Correspondent, Eleanor Garnier. Tell us first about the latest news


on timing and choreography once he has the negotiated settlement he is


looking for? Well, David Cameron said his ministers will be allowed


to campaign to leave the EU but only after the government has come to an


agreed position and it will have to be made at a cabinet meeting. The


summit is happening on Thursday and Friday, but a Cabinet meeting is


held on choose day so Euro sceptics worry that the 48 hours could be


critical will stop and David Cameron may have an advantage over the


weekend because he could come back and say, I have got a deal in Europe


and been victorious, and he can make his case to stay in Europe. The


Eurosceptics will have dessert on their hands because the government


will not yet have come to an agreed position. Downing Street are saying


today that actually there will be a Cabinet soon after a deal has been


done, so we could see one on Saturday or even Sunday. We don't


know yet. They are not giving a time or a day. During the campaign or the


renegotiation, David Cameron and his team have had to rebuff claims that


actually this referendum has been rigged and it's all been far too


easy. Downing Street don't want to be seen to be taking advantage of


the weekend so they will give the Eurosceptics what they want even


though we don't yet have a date and time. Thank you very much.


Joining us now is the Executive Director for Britain Stronger


Welcome to the Daily Politics. First of all, just picking up on that,


what do you make of the change in how they will choreograph the post


negotiated settlement Cabinet meeting? Those 72 hours after David


Cameron comes back are incredibly important. First impressions really


count, lots of people are waiting for the renegotiation is -- the


renegotiation outcome. If he can get the sceptics do say that he has a


brilliant deal that could settle in the public mind and if the Cabinet


Eurosceptics aren't able to speak until Monday or Tuesday after words,


again, the one-sided debate that the Prime Minister has set up continues.


The danger is that there will be resignations from the Cabinet if the


Cabinet meeting doesn't happen very early after renegotiation. It


doesn't sound like the arrangement would hold anyway because they would


speak out anyway. Will they? Are you sure that the Eurosceptic Cabinet


ministers are actually going to speak out, even when the veil of


silence has been lifted? There are at least five Cabinet ministers who


will definitely campaign for an exit. Chris Grayling, Iain Duncan


Smith, Theresa Villiers, Priti Patel, and John Whittingdale. The


people in the balance are people like Sajid Javid. If the Business


Secretary says that Britain will survive outside the EU, that is


significant. I would not be optimistic about Boris Johnson, I'm


pretty sure he will be on optimistic about Boris Johnson, I'm


out campaign ten points ahead? Will that make a difference


out campaign ten points ahead? Will Johnson? It


out campaign ten points ahead? Will lots of them will not want to be on


the losing side. Are you disappointed that that is the case?


the losing side. Are you Boris Johnson would certainly give


them a boost. I am a past unit supporter of Britain becoming


independent like Australia, Canada, Japan. These nations run their own


affairs and Britain should as well. Ministers have said privately and


publicly over the years that unless there is significant change they


would campaign for an exit. In future leadership elections for the


Conservative Party, there could be consequences if they don't.


Listening to that, let's talk about Labour. We spoke to the co-chair of


the Labour campaign to leave the EU and she said around 25-30-0 MPs --


Labour MPs would support Brexit. Well over 90% have been signed up by


Alan Johnson to his in campaign. Most Labour MPs have moved their


mind Andy made up their mind clearly. Jeremy Corbyn is clear


about his position. Alan Johnson has been working with Labour MPs around


Britain. Of course in the cross-party campaign we have people


from Labour, SNP, Greens, the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru, all


working to keep Britain in the European Union. Should MPs have a


free vote? Kate Hoey was adamant that it should be and it will


happen. That is a matter for Jeremy Corbyn. Should it be? People have


strong convictions and should be allowed to set out what their


convictions are. I don't think it is likely to particularly split the


Labour Party as things stand. I don't see the issue with that. There


are big issues at stake about what is best for Britain and how to


ensure that jobs can be created in the future and what is best for our


security. These are serious issues. Over the last week we have had a lot


of momentum on our side. I haven't received it and I don't know where


it is,... Just a matter of time! Is that a promise or a warning? Let's


look at the details. Newspaper reports as adjusting there are


errors as I'm sure you know. The claim is that EU membership is worth


?3000 to the average partnership are year -- the average household per


year. They looked at a range of peer-reviewed studies setting out


what the economic benefits are to the UK from being in the European


Union compared to a scenario where we had not joined in the mid-70s and


they divided that by the number of households. It's not a precise


figure. It's an average of different studies but here is the point, you


will hear a lot from the leave campaign is about the costs of


membership, ?340 for the average household per year, and paired to


that ?3000 figure. Even if that is a rough average we are talking eight


or nine to one in terms of the ratio. The figures work both ways. A


study done for Ukip said there was in the region of ?165 billion to be


saved which you would dispute. Does it help anyone to have these very


bold claims? But they are statistics? We could have a


disagreement on statistics and it would turn off everybody. We are


putting up a wall if we are to leave the European Union, we would still


trade with Europe and a lot of those benefits in the CBI numbers would


still exist because we would still be trading with European Union


partners. What we would get by leaving Europe, the net contribution


is rising year-on-year on year. We can repatriate the money and spend


it on the NHS and having our own trade posts all over the world. What


we don't know is what the trading relationship would look like, this


week Daniel Hannan said he supports the Norway option whereas Dominic


Cummings who runs the leave campaign says that they don't want the


Norwegian model. Will we retain access to the single market and if


so we would have to pay budget contributions and accept rules and


regulations and free movement and all of those things would be true.


It is absolutely true that there is risk in leaving but staying in as


well. Everyone knows that since we joined the European economic


community it has changed beyond recognition. If Britain stays, they


will take as the granted for years. I don't think that's right. There


will be the possibility of a refugee union and there will be consequences


for staying in. It's a choice of two risks. The access to the European


market, 500 million, would have to accept free movement of people. With


Norway and Switzerland who are in the European economic area, who do


have the access, they still have to accept the free movement of people


as well. The rate of immigration into Norway and Switzerland is


higher than in the UK. People need to be honest about what they want


like Tim has been, free movement would stay and you would still


accept rules and regulations. We will have to leave it there. The


Pope is now coming out. He is on our side and we have the farmers! I


don't think he has a vote. The Vatican is not in. He should join


himself. You are very right. What are you guessing would be the


referendum date? There is a growing view that it will be June 23 but it


will be contingent upon an agreement will stop I would say so. -- an


agreement. June 23, don't be away. Now chicken suits, a bright pink


bus and a helicopter Not your head but a politician's


head. Yesterday the Electoral Commission


published figures revealing exactly how much and how the different


political parties spent their money during last year's


General Election campaign. So Jo, how much did


Harriet Harman's bus cost? The Labour party spent nearly ?5,000


on Harriet Harman's 'Pink Bus' I didn't know they were so


expensive. But the infamous Ed Stone wasn't


included in the party's finances. Labour say the eight foot six


monument was left out due The Conservatives spent a total


of ?15.5 million on the campaign, Their costs included ?487,000 on


private jets to get senior Tories across the country, ?2.4 million


for election guru Lynton Crosby and ?40,000 for a personal


photographer to trail the PM. The SNP spent ?1.5 million


on the General Election campaign - including more


than ?35,000 on a helicopter And UKIP spent nearly ?3


million including ?10,000 for copies The Lib Dems spent ?3.5 million


and the Greens spent just So, which party got most bang


for their buck? The figures suggest the Conservative


campaign cost ?1.38 per vote, Labour spent ?1.29 but the winners


were Ukip who spent 73p for each Thanks. If you do it by MPs then the


Scottish Nationalists got the biggest bang for their buck.


And with us now Labour's John McTernan, who has run numerous,


dare I say it, not entirely successful campaigns


Would it be fair or unfair to say that it didn't matter how Labour


spend money in the last election, it wasn't going to win? I don't agree.


If I had my time again in Scotland we would spend all of our money on


social media. Labour were routed in Scotland by the SNP on social media


and in the UK on social media by the Conservatives. You really think it


is that important? Labour spend more in a single advert in the FT than


social media in the entire campaign, not many swing voters are reading


the FT. We have breaking news on the subject we are talking about, it has


been revealed by the Labour Party that the Ed Stone cost ?8,000, more


than the pink bus. It was the most ridiculous and disastrous political


stunt in my lifetime but for the humour that it has given since then


it is a bargain. I tell you, I have had any number of offers from people


in the Australian Labour Party wishing to buy it for more than


?8,000. It is in south-east London somewhere. They haven't broken it


up? It is somewhere in a gigantic yard. That will set everyone off


looking for it again if that is the case.


?2.4 million played to Linton cross by. Sir Linton. We don't use titles


on this programme. Tim. Sorry, Sir Andrew. We don't use titles. Should


he have been given a hereditary peerage for stopping Ed Miliband


from becoming Prime Minister. It was extraordinarily well-spent money.


Linton cross by is a very successful campaigner. Agree with what a lot of


John said, the wisest way in which the Conservative Party spent money


was on social media. It is interesting in America at the moment


watching Fox News and the Wall Street Journal trying to stop the


Donald Trump phenomenon and not succeeding, American vote remembers


getting an increasing proportion of their news from there and other


people and getting a recommendation from a friend a more powerful


reading it on a newspaper leader or television show. That's the future


for political campaigning. Sometimes money doesn't matter that much. Even


the Labour Party's own internal investigation suggested that that


Salmond's pocket had quite a big effect on voters in England to get


them to go back to the effect on voters in England to get


and that cost ?950. That's a effect on voters in England to get


tribute, I think, to Crosby. Not just him. The Saatchis. The texter,


who is a brilliant pollster, he heard the concerns of people in the


focus groups. Turned it into a image. You play back to people their


fears and concerns, a great image like a great line goes around the


world quickly. Basically, it is the inspiration of finding the right


words and then the image that captures it. And sticking at T


Labour had too many messages. Linton Crosby's one of his great advantages


he brings to a campaign, he sits on people. Politicians want to say new


things to people like you Andrew, they want to be interesting. A lot


about winning being repettively dull. They were.


Long-term economic plan. The 2000 election, American election, the


George Bush's first election, I remember being on the campaign and


we were all complaining that he was remember being on the campaign and


giving the same speech again and again and Carol Rove same and said -


he will continue to give this speech until everyone in the country has


he will continue to give this speech memorised it. What is your major


take away from Labour on what to learn? Labour had less money than


the Conservatives, not huge but still a measurable amount less. What


is the main take away for you You shouldn't fight the last war. In the


last election the Labour Party basically spent all its money on


troops on the ground, canvassing, believing that that was - that that


would get across the swing voters. You have to put your money into


really good polling and good communication, disciplined


communication. To people where they are. And actually Tim is completely


right. A recommendation from a friend is far better than a stranger


knocking on your door. I think it is going back to that - how do we


persuade other people to listen to us and then to change their minds?


Thank you very much. Now, there are few jobs in


Government that are as challenging But as Ministers try to settle


the Junior Doctors dispute, what does it take to manage one


of the biggest budgets in Whitehall and one of the largest


workforces on Earth? As well as being held responsible


for every health scare and routine Here he is with the second


in our series of 'So you want to be Whitehall - the heart of Government.


But could you balance the needs of patients with those of doctors,


nurses and surgeons and still be responsible for one of the largest


employers in the world? So, you want to be Health Secretary? You know you


do some things at the start that you probably wouldn't do at the end and


you definitely do some things at the end that you wouldn't do at the


start. In the Conservative Party there are lots of people who know


about defence and foreign affairs. Turned out there were relatively few


who knew about health. The BMA had posters of me all over the country


attacking me. When I went on holiday nurse has wanted posters for me at


the airport asking people to search for the missing minister. The BMA


had a great guy who was their lead negotiator. I called him Scargill


with a sket scope. -- stethoscope. He was brilliant. I think I'm the


first, the only person ever who went into the Department of Health and


had a World Health pandemic declared within four days of arriving in the


department. Jill Rutter is a former civil servant, now with the


Institute for the Government who says whichever party is in charge,


the issue of running the Department of health are much the same Being


Secretary of State for Health, you have the giant budget, second


biggest in Government. You have a small department but you are


basically accountable for this really giant organisation called the


National Health Service. But you don't run it. So that is the key


relationship you have to get right. The second thing is that you are


dealing with doctors and nurses, effectively some of the most


effective trade unions in the country. They have very high


credibility. You are a politician, you have very low credibility. How


are you going to deal with them? Just expect all hell let loose. The


public, the political class, the media get more worked up about


health issues than anything else. Any Secretary of State finds that he


or she is embroiled in constant battle with one group or another. It


requires a great deal of reform and change to keep up with changing in


demands and so on. Every time you want to change something, it is


fought bitterly by some interest group or other and the people who


are most resistant to change are the general public, who want a better


health service but not varied in anyway from that which they are


familiar. The fact is that process of change never seems to end. The


National Health Service is like continually digging a hole under


yourself and you have to continually move forward. It is one of the great


challenges, that the success of the NHS, presents it with an


ever-greater challenge. And there has always been a price to pay for


the Health Secretary. Much so much so, one didn't much like the look of


the job. I had done health in opposition. I had opposed Barbara


cap castle. -- Barbara cap castle. We had a hairy time. She was having


a hairy time. I was in Opposition. She was having a hairy time again


with the medical establishment and BMA and had to be rescued almost to


her complete horror by Lord Goodman, you saw then, this was a Labour


Secretary of State, you saw then how difficult it was to make progress.


One of the reasons why, in the health service there had been so


many reform programmes, is because most of them, people have been hit


hard and pulled back. And they have been half-baked. You know the table


is the littered with half-baked reforms. The point was to try and


accomplish the baking the whole thing.


The opposition to most reforms has come most often over the


controversial issue of who else, apart from the NSH can provide


services My goodness, Dave Prentis and I used to have ding dong


arguments with officials and special advisors sitting there wincing away


as we went hammer and tongs. He didn't believe in alternative


providers on the NHS. I did. We weren't going to reach agreement.


You have a situation in our country, it'll always be like this. That 95%


of care is provided by the public sector. It is neuro. If you can


bring in private sector players who have expertise, knowledge and


capacity and capability who can greet NHS patients for free,


according to their needs, not on the be availability to pay, why wouldn't


you do that. For Andrew Lansley, those who argued you shouldn't were


NHS managers. They had been proposed when Alan Milburn brought it in and


Patricia Hewitt legislated to it, and they continued and are probably


opposed to it, to this day. But there are many politicians, and


people, who sing the same tune, and they are not shy about telling you.


If your colleagues in the House, other MPs, are concerned about


health in their patch, they will get you. And it is no good saying to


them - go and seat guy from NHS England -- see the guy. They expect


you to sort it out. I remember a woman once coming to my surgery


asking me it write it the Health Secretary on her behalf T I was the


Health Secretary. She didn't realise. -- I said - yes, of course,


I should be able to do that in the next couple of days. For one


Secretary of State, the department was more than just treating the


sick. Day 1, Department of Health, I said to the masked ranks of the


senior people in the Department of Health - from now on physical


activity is going to be the core business of this department and I


think it is fair to say a tumbleweed went across the table. They were


thinking - no, that's DCMS. I knew the Department of health culture was


- oh, yes, we like buying pills and Sir rings and, you know, scalpels,


and aprons but we don't invest in running machines or, you know,


because that's the DH kind of culture, actually. It is - we'll


pick up the pieces when you are ill. It truly isn't, to be fair, a


Department of Health. You know, promoting health.


Perhaps the largest reform of the NHS and most controversial was


brought in in 2010 and many people said it had been sprung on the NHS,


breaking a promise Somebody and I have not to this day yet, found


somebody who will own up to t put into the coalition programme -- up


to it, a reference to no more topdown reorganisation, on the basis


that the Prime Minister said it in 2006, therefore it must be true in


2010. Well, in between we had the manifesto. It wasn't in the


Conservative manifesto. Those words didn't appear. They didn't apear in


the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Somebody thought theyed should be in


the coalition programme, notwithstanding the fact they were


neither not in either manifesto. So that simple fact, regardless of me,


was very damaging. As today's Health Secretary, junior doctors and


patients know, right now, the job of providing hale in this country is


not easy at the frontline. -- providing health. But it doesn't


Well us is clear who used to be Whitehall.


Well us is clear who used to be Chair of the royal College of GPs.


It is such an enormous job. It seems impossible to get it right. It is an


enormous job. I would be interested in whether those Secretary of


States, that you had in that programme, got together and asked


themselves why many of them got it so wrong. It is as if, with due


respect, they get the portfolio of health, it is like a new train set,


they take it out and play around with it and then what they then do,


is use another analogy, they plant a plant, dig it up a few weeks' later


to see how it is getting on. Maybe with such a complex organisation,


such as the NHS, who deals with people who are sick and dying, maybe


it beholds to them just to let evolutionary process take its place,


rather than think we have this enormous revolution and everything


is going to be all right. Do you admit, then, on the side of


evolution, you and others, the BMA have sometimes be been a block and


obstacle to reform and change? Well, with respect to myself, I think many


would now say that I was absolutely right with my opposition and my


vocal opposition that the Royal College of GPs had around the 2012


NHS Act and also many of the other policies that the BMA have spoken


publicly about, the private sprieders, and Ken Clarke's


initiative that has brought in. So the BMA does not oppose just for


opposition sake. It is there to represent doctors but it also


represents patients and funnelledmentally


represents patients and right. It is not really her or the


group she represented at the time, or the BMA's fault there are


politicians like Andrew Lansley, for example, introducing what they saw


as an unnecessary and damaging topdown reorganisation. Yes, but if


they really believe that, of course they should oppose a reform that


they think is not in the interests of the health service. The overall


thrust, I find a lot of the health reforms that have taken place under


both Labour and Conservative confusing, but the general thrust


has been to give more power to professionals. I think that's the


general belief, the general aim of the Lansley reforms and it is what


Alan Milburn did when he was Health Secretary. So it would be wrong to


get the impression that politicians are always trying to tinker in the


detail. They have done too many reorganisations, that's true.


detail. They have done too many think the Lansley reforms were


regrettable. I don't think they got at the heart of why


regrettable. I don't think they got facing financial pressures but the


thrust with foundation hospitals and more power for GP purchasing is


pushing #130b89 towards the professionals we can trust. The


problem there, I think it was Ken Clarke, I can't remember, who said -


politicians pulled back sometimes for major change so it


politicians pulled back sometimes as being tinkering at the edges


because of the resistance from health unions, the college of GPs or


If I ask you to pull down your house BMA.


If I ask you to pull down your house every two years because it is in


your best interests and rebuild it every two years you would think I


was mad. What we need now, what we said is that we need stability and


we need to make sure we make the NHS safe, going through its biggest


crisis for decades at the moment and probably does need ironically some


reorganisation at this stage. But I don't think we can blame the BMA, an


organisation that has been there for 200 years nearly, supporting health


care and since the onset of the NHS supporting the NHS. That is rather


invidious. But on their side, the public do have this glorified view


of doctors and nurses, less than 30 years ago. Alan Johnson described


one commentator as Scargill with a stethoscope. Was that fair? I don't


know specifically but there are examples now with the junior doctors


dispute where some of the people involved in the BMA are also members


of the Labour Party. That doesn't help the BMA's case when they allow


people who have other agendas to pollute their message. That is so


unfair, we have this McCarthy era where we are looking for Reds under


our hospital beds. You can't deny that? I am an NHS activist and


Labour speaks to protecting the NHS. As far as my political views, that


is what I'm interested in, the NHS. Our junior doctors are some of the


most obedient and hard-working individuals we have in society, far


from being militants. We should be looking at them as those that want


to care for us. Who was sure favourite Health Secretary? Steven


Donnelly. -- Now, around this time next


year the next President of the United States will take


office. But between now and then,


the country will embark on a long, complicated and unique democratic


process to determine Right now, it's anyone's guess,


since the field of candidates in both major parties


is still very large. # Living in America. Donald Trump is


calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the


United States. And I have decided I'm a candidate


for president of the United States of America. I will be the youngest


woman president in the history of the United States. When I am


president we are going to win the war on Isis and if we capture any of


them alive they are getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay,


Cuba. I would not advocate putting a Muslim in charge of this nation.


I do not like them, I do not like Greenock is an ham. -- green eggs


and Ham. Our government belongs to all of us, not just a handful of


billionaires. Are you ready for a commander-in-chief who will kick


Isis's... That was American television news.


And with us now from our Oxford Studio, William Barnard,


who's the UK Chair of Deomcrats Abroad.


You could argue that the Republicans have too many candidates in the


primary election system, do the Democrats have too few? Just a


correction, I am the former chair. Bernie Sanders is there on the


Democratic side and although he is moving up he is seen as running


behind. There is some energy there on the Republican side. It is true


that the establishment track the candidate is running on that track


are swinging the vote so cleanly and neatly that Trump is at the top of


the heap. Are you surprised Bernie Sanders, the main challenger to


Hillary Clinton, has had a second wind and could do well in Iowa and


New Hampshire? Not really. The primary as we get closer to the


date. They are unique, times when voters know they are not choosing


the person to hold office but choosing people to send a message


sometimes. There is a great deal of frustration and anxiety towards the


national system in the United States, and Bernie Sanders is


representing that. A number of Republicans are in fact supporting


Donald Trump. I would make the point that most people in the UK don't


realise that American citizens who live in the UK can vote on super


Jews they. -- super Tuesday. I will come back to that in a minute. If


the campaign was to be derailed for Hillary Clinton, perhaps because of


the increasing scandal about e-mails, or something just comes to


blow her out of the water in this way, what with the Democratic


establishment do? I wish you may would not want to go into the


election with Bernie Sanders as their candidate? The Democratic


establishment so-called does not really run the party, it is the


voters in the primary 's who control the delegation, and it will be


decided in primarys to come. The primary after New Hampshire tends to


favour the Clinton candidacy but we will have to wait and see. The GOP


establishment is waiting to work out who is the most likely candidate to


see off Donald Trump or even Mr Cruz. Who is it likely to be? Marco


Rubio is a senator from Florida, he is Cuban. His campaign has not


caught fire and in New Hampshire he needs to be the second-place


candidate to Donald Trump if Trump wins in New Hampshire. You have


other leading Republicans and moderates like John Casey from Ohio,


even Jeb Bush is coming back a little bit. Not from much? Yes, a


low base, but they are all around ten points. It is the establishment


track that is giving Donald Trump the advantage that he has at the


moment. Who would the Democrats least like to see as the Republican


nominee? I suspect they think curiously Rubio or John Casey would


be a serious contender. There is still the feeling that the American


people as they enter the fall and get closer to the election and


realise the gravity of their choice, they will go away from a bluster rat


like Trump. Cruz is very ideological. He will be feared by a


good number. In terms of difficulty of winning, Rubio, probably, but


that is for the Republicans to decide. Finally, will we get to know


when the Democrats in the UK, the registered Democrats get to vote on


super Tuesday, will we get to know what the split on the vote was? You


will indeed, there will be partial returns because the votes counted on


March the 1st and fifth in London and elsewhere in Edinburgh and


Cambridge and St Andrews, those will be cast by mail and e-mail will not


be available but you will know the returns from the voting centre.


Thank you for joining us. One of our cameramen went behind the


scenes to see what the Metropolitan Police have up their sleeves, this


fine body of 50-year-olds, the average age, are the first of the


new traffic wardens to keep traffic flowing. They have finished their


basic training. How can we prevent increasing traffic causing a jam?


Parking metres in the City of Westminster have done something but


there are still scores of streets being turned into an official car


parks. You have to park somewhere. All right, but not in the wrong


places say Scotland Yard. From now on traffic wardens will see the


rules are observed as well as informing motorists where they can


park and coming down on those who do so in forbidden spots. It will be


done courteously, no slanging matches. Just say, what awful


weather we're having, and fine him ?2. Take his number, out with the


fine blog, and when the driver comes back he must send the money by post.


Other offences carry a fine of ?2. You know that was a long time ago,


?2! Yes, the humble traffic warden,


who 55 years ago issued But that's not all they did,


they were also supposed to help the public


find parking places. Only 18 remain today,


but yesterday the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced


she was phasing them out in favour Well, with us to lament


their demise, the motoring Is this a sad day or something to


celebrate? It's probably a sad day, I never thought I would say this but


they had legitimacy and accountability because they were


employed by the police and trained to keep traffic flowing. When it was


decriminalised and handed to local councils in the 90s we have seen


parking revenue go up and up. From 2013-14 it was up by 12%, ?700


million, parking profit for councils. That means that consumers,


and I will call them consumers because they are, have spent ?1


billion a year on parking fines that is not spent on the local economy


and that is the issue. We all detest parking regulations, they are too


Draconian. The point is that this enforcement is taking money out of


the economy. You had a more enforcement is taking money out of


view because of their connection to the police rather than the council?


It seems to be about profit. As it said, you have the park somewhere


and you must do it legally. Council tax has been frozen year after year


by most councils in the country and this is one of the ways like


planning applications, they have found stealthy ways of getting money


from people that they don't get from the usual place. It is stopping the


high Street functioning and the usual place. It is stopping the


people buying things in local shops and they shop online. Let's go back


to the idea of the traffic warden as such. Did it make a difference that


they were billed as courteous and friendly? Many people do find civil


enforcement officers lacking a bit of charm. They had an ability to


reason with you and they were approachable and more friendly


because they were accountable. This lot and everybody seems to have the


same lament, are less than courteous and open to reason. Have you ever


had a fight with a traffic warden? I don't drive which is a terrible


thing to admit here! You can't say anything in this discussion. I bet


you have had fights. Arguments, not flights. I did not mean fisticuffs.


I said to want outside my local school -- I said to want outside my


local school... You have been antagonising this traffic warden,


said the police. It is not a job I would like. You become the least


popular person. These people are just doing their job. And we are


just trying to go to work and school and to the doctors and hospital.


Let's make it easier. Make them a little less implacable and a little


less inflexible. Why are there 18 left? They are literally a hangover.


I thought they had gone. So did I. It is always best to leave


altercations to 1's driver! The one o'clock news is starting


over on BBC One now. I'll be back at 11.45 this


evening for This Week, where I'll be joined


by Michael Portillo, Labour MP Liz Kendall,


Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and American He is a director of this


Oscar-nominated movie The Big Short. I will be back tomorrow.


Celebrate a country 4,000 years in the making.


Download Subtitles