21/01/2016 Daily Politics

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.