11/02/2012 Dateline London

austerity measures on Sunday. Time for Dateline London.

Welcome to day nine London at the end of a week in which civilians in

Syria have been attacked with heavy artillery. -- Dateline London. The

US presidential week also took another bizarre twist..

The failure of Russia and China to agree to the UN Security Council

resolution on Syria set the diplomatic backdrop in a week in

which there were many more civilian casualties. In Homs, many have

accused the government of turning heavy artillery on their homes. Can

anyone do more to stop the killing? Technically, today is very

important because the Arab League is meeting in Cairo to try to

resolve the crisis but of course this looks like more of the same,

really. They are talking about sending back the Arab League

observers which were inefficient and potentially in collusion with

the Syrian regime. Military intervention has been ruled out

because of Russia and China. The Syrian army has been well supplied

by Russian weaponry. There had been no substantial defections so far.

Casualties would be enormous. There is also the risk of the escalation

of the conflict with countries like Russia, Iran, China and Turkey

potentially becoming involved. Syria's allies would stand

alongside Les -- Hezbollah against NATO and Israel. There would be a

clear risk of escalation. There are calls in Syria for humanitarian aid

but this would be difficult because you would have to have air cover or

troops on the ground to allow that to happen safely. There is no

question that Bashar al-Assad will be providing shelter for... He

would see that as a declaration of war and would certainly attack.

There are talks about training rebel forces and again that sounds

very unrealistic because there would be inevitable accusations

about breaking international law. And this would require a host

country to train these people and it would also take a lot of time.

The only thing to do is push for a political settlement.

There is not going to be a Benghazi moment in this. When outside is

stand up and say that you cannot kill civilians. Because Libya, for

all its complications, was much more simple. The problem is the

geography of geopolitics. Because of where Syria is situated. Its

size and the complexity of its ethnic make-up. And when you answer

to that the Chinese and Russian elements, it makes it very

difficult to do anything officially. -- when you add to that. There is

still a role for Turkey in this. Turkey was present six months ago.

This has been going on for a year. It began to assert itself, opening

up the refugee camps on its border with Syria. It allows the Free

Syrian Army is meant to meet in an car. At some point, -- to meet in

an career. -- to meet in the Turkish capital. There was no

Benghazi moment in Libya until the rebels were able to convince the

British Foreign Office that they were representing a broad swathe of

the population against Colonel Gaddafi. That will not happen here.

What about Iran? Imagine if successful negotiations with the

previous President had yielded positive results? We also must

investigate the possibility of creating the Benghazi moment. The

onus is on Turkey, which has been very fond of rhetoric until now. We

are marking the 30th anniversary of the butchery of people in Hama,

that Bashar al-Assad's father committed, killing 25,000 people.

Will we witness the possibility that under the umbrella of the

Russian and Chinese, people will be massacred in Hama yet again? The

President is using this Russian refusal to co-operate as an excuse.

There are also historical factors. Turkey's foreign policy has been

summarised as absolutely nothing. The history of the Ottoman Empire

and... They will not return to 100 years ago. While Turkey is

sensitive, its position is also very difficult. It is. It is

interesting in Britain in terms of the British perspective. There has

been a lot of talk this week about whether there would be the

equivalent of the intervention in Libya. And that is on the

assumption that this itself was the cornerstone of success. And an

unequivocal success. I see no evidence at all that the British

government is trying to even contemplate military action or

putting pressure on the US to go in that direction. If we rule that out,

it is not at all clear what, in terms of the West, can be done in

the short-term in this situation. As the Foreign Minister was talking

to President Assad... Russian arms were still being unloaded in the

Syrian ports while Homs continued to be bombarded. When you say take

sides, one of the complexities of this situation is that who are you

going to be arming to remove the regime's just one thought on that -

how is the Russian attitude seen in the Arab world? Effectively,

President Bashar al-Assad is trying to wipe out all form of armed

opposition. These are two sides fighting each other. Now, because

we are hearing about people being killed by the Free Syrian Army as

well, there are also concerns and people are calling for more

security, which legitimises President Bashar al-Assad's

position on the ground. A let us move on.

Despite comments from American politicians about what they call

the UK's socialised a medical system, many people in Britain are

quite fond of the NHS. Why does the government want to change it? Could

these proposals really affected David Cameron's government? We have

heard that there are rumblings of dissent within the Conservative

Party and the Cabinet. This is the most interesting story in the

political sphere of the UK since the general election. David Cameron

used to support of the NHS as a symbol for what he put forward as

being a new kind of party. Within one month of taking office, up came

these new proposals. We now have a situation where the bill as

originally proposed has already been amended. It is still arousing

as much hostility as it did at the beginning. One way or another, I

think that this will not go ahead. David Cameron has insisted that he

will stick with it. Andrew Lansley as well. It reminds me very much of

the poll tax, the famous policy introduced by Margaret Thatcher

towards the end of her regime in the late 1980s, which began as her

defining issue. She decided to stick with it but in the end, she

went and so do the poll tax. David Cameron will not go but this will

not reach fruition. There are too many elements of this which are

totally impractical. One way or another, this will not go ahead.

was speaking with someone who was a strong in busiest for change within

the NHS, wanting to support this bill. One thing they said is that

it is needlessly complicated about things that people don't know about

but are worried about. Instead, people just want better healthcare.

Absolutely. They talk about revolutionary administrative

changes of biblical proportions. That will bring about better

healthcare. But people care more about GP quality. Every debate in

this country about the NHS is very emotive. Each is not rational at

all. It is like talking about the future of the Royal Family all the

sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It is so emotional because people

have been captivated by these three magic letters, NHS. People do not

see the truth, certainly not politicians, that it can no longer

be a free medical services in these circumstances. The public must

contribute. Because we have an ageing population and inflation and

so on. But people want a free medical service. That is correct.

The debate should be about how we pay for this and more money needs

to go in. That is not the debate that we are having, which is that

it should be completely restructured. They argue that this

will get more value for money, which I disagree with. It does not

address the actual problem which is how do we pay for something that is

free? Compared to the US, we get very good value in terms of the

amount of GDP per head? I come from a family of doctors. They are all

in America and they have come a round, believe me. They have been

long-time Republican supporters because they believe that what

happens here is socialism. It is not. I have people in my family my

age who would enrage the NHS in the US because the horrible things they

have to do with insurance companies to get reimbursed... There is no

comparison. -- would embrace the NHS in the US. What is interesting

to me about this is that with the poll tax, it was simple. A

millionaire would pay the same price as the pauper. That was

manifestly unfair and Margaret Thatcher did not see it. Can you

explain to me in one sentence for this is about? If that is the

problem - no Redican! preparation for this programme, I

read through everything I could find and I still could not

understand it other than getting general practitioners to run their

own budget. At the clinic I visit, they are exhausted at the end of

their day taking care of an incredibly diverse urban population.

The last thing they want to do is sit down in front of a spreadsheet

and work out where their money is coming from. It is ridiculous. And

it speaks of something that is not often discussed in this coalition.

They promised to eliminate Labour's top-down a sense of imposing on all

aspects of British life. And yet, they have done nothing but imposed

from the Cabinet. One thing that is not discussed enough here is that

because of his strong affection most British people have for the

NHS, perhaps we are not looking at it critically in terms of how the

system is going to survive in 10 or 20 years' time? It is such an

emotional issue. It is an institution, Ysaye could

institution not just for the Labour Party but for millions of people

across the country. -- a sacred institution. That is why any

tinkering with the NHS pre-Aids outcry. That is why Andrew Lansley

is in such trouble. -- any tinkering with the N H S would it

create an outcry. In France, most people cannot pay

up front. In the UK, it is a Solar System. Once again, -- it is a

pretty solid system. Once again, we turn to the US presidential race.

The nature of the campaign often tells us much about the state of

the Union. What do we make of Republican rhetoric? You make no

apologies because it is so amusing to you. To have a portion of your

fellow-citizens revealed as being in quite a parlous mental state...

We have had another turnaround in the last week. Rick Santorum. These

is not such a surprise to me. The social Conservatives at the

grassroots of the Republican Party endorsed Rick Santorum at the

beginning of this in January in Iowa. He wonders caucus meetings on

a recount. This week -- he won those caucus meetings. This week,

there were a number of meetings in the Midwest, the heartland of

social conservatism. He is their man. If its electability is what

counts... Rick Santorum lost a Senate seat basically by accident.

And from an area that is full of social Conservatives and working-

class Catholics, who would be his If anyone has ever watched on

YouTube or on the BBC, if you have ever seen him, it is obvious why he

cannot seal the deal. He is the least authentic political

communicator I have seen in the last 20 years. Even George Bush, he

has no authenticity. What he does have is massive amounts of money.

Rick Santorum found a sugar-daddy, now he is back in the race. There

is a joke doing the rounds. A conservative, a liberal and a

moderate comes into a bar, the barman says, good morning, Mitt

Romney. Everyone working on Mitt Romney's campaign, they have been

quite candid. In Britain since 2008 and the financial collapse,

politics has been in a east date of -- a state of flux. It is the same

in America. Politics has been in a flux since 2008. Quite often in

these periods, where parties have lost her best and are not clear

where life is going to be in America in ten years' time, they

look for Saviour's... In politics, you can see this with Mitt Romney,

the candidates like Mitt Romney struggle to get through. I think he

will. The politicians are acting like suicide bombers. It is

mutually assured destruction. I like to sit down and watch. The

Republicans are sure that a natural disaster like Obama as they see it,

will not be repeated. What the Republican race shows us is how

divided the Republicans are and how difficult it is going to be getting

Bagger, out of the White House. -- Barack Obama. The main concern for

the Republicans is the low turnout. We have seen how the enthusiasm was

very much up in the Republican camp and down in the Democratic side. It

is now upside down. The reality to this, the economy has, I do not

know what metaphor to use. Turned a corner, employment has gone up. Not

enough to significantly reduce the numbers to a level where Barack

Obama could be comfortable he is going to get re-elected. It has

happened. President Obama is in a much more solid position. This is

not just about this particular political season, it is the fruits

of decades of strategy where the most extreme elements, the ones who

are most far-out to the right in the Republican Party have been made

to feel that they are special. Their discourse, their way of

viewing the world, many people who traditionally vote for Republicans

are concerned about their tax bill. Clint Eastwood, who is everyone's

idea of what a Republican should be, he made a commercial during the

Super Bowl. Karl Rove went on Fox News saying, how dare he make Obama

commercial. This tells us about the mental State of the Union. Rick

Santorum is against contraceptive even in the case of a rape. We had

just got a couple of minutes left. We would like to reflect upon

Britain sending a gunboat and Prince William to the Falklands.

think it was a provocation. It has nothing to do with the South

Atlantic. It should be a gradual transfer of power. As the only

British person on the panel... it was not for the war in 1982,

they would love to get rid of the Falklands. It is expensive to

defend, it caused us all kinds of diplomatic problems. I do not want

to give the NHS to Argentina quite yet. They cannot do it because of

the mythology that rose around the Falklands and the Iron Lady. What

is very clear is that the people in the Falklands are very patriotic,

very British. You see British flags everywhere. There is no question

they would not like to belong to Argentina. The self-determination

of people. A few hundred people, half a million penguins.

submarine question is the interesting one, do we know where

the submarines are? Referring it to the yuan at this moment is a very

good idea. If I look at the agenda for the UN, between a Syria, Iran,

they will get to make a speech and not much will come of it. I think

this is sabre-rattling on both sides. It'll make everyone happy.

Self-determination is very interesting. In Scotland when

people say let them determine their own future, people say, what about

England? In the Falklands, self determination of these penguins and

so on is the defining principle. It is very interesting where power

lies. It could be very difficult to dislodge Argentina in the case of