14/04/2012 Dateline London

going online or it through the red There will be a full bulletin at

one o'clock. Now it is time for Welcome to Dateline London. The

British Government wants to clobber people who avoid paying tax, but

why is it hitting those who give to charities? The people of France

prepare to choose their President. How big a deal is this for all of

Europe? And is there really any chance of avoiding further

bloodshed in the Syrian peace plan? My guests are Abdel Barri Atwan of

Al Quds al Arabi, Agnes Poirier of Marianne and Stryker McGuire of

Bloomberg Markets. When things went wrong within the Reagan

administration, Ronald Reagan would sometimes joke it appeared that the

right hand did not know what the far right hand was doing. In the

Cameron Government, and attempts to crack down on the super-rich

avoiding tax has ended up in a row about whether wealthy people who

give large sums to charity should lose tax relief on their charitable

donations. How could a government which wants more charitable giving

give itself -- get itself into such a mess? There are worries there are

too many things going wrong. have not had some huge tax impact

on its ordinary families or any big disaster. Those have heart a little,

but what has been striking, particularly in the right wing

press, those have relished the opportunity to kick David Cameron.

It is the same with Parliamentary backbenchers of his own party.

There seems to be a distance between the Prime Minister, the

leader of the Conservative Party, and his troops, which recent events

have exposed. We can come back to that, but significantly about

charitable donations. It seems odd people willing to give �2 million

to charity, and the Government in favour of that, but losing tax

relief. One thing clashing is the Big Society. The idea that social

action rather than state action is how we knit together. The idea of

discouraging people from philanthropy goes against that. One

or other of the, particularly bridged by the that junior --

particularly from the Liberal Democrats, is getting rich people

who avoid tax. I think you should do that, but exempt charities.

Including charities was the mistake. Some people think there are dodgy

charities, but you should crack down on that. It is not quite as

easy as that. People can give to charities within the European Union,

but some countries not regulating charities as well. What about these

small problems turning into big problems? It is a huge mistake.

Talking about the Big Society, and last year talking about 10 billion

people -- �10 billion paid to charities. People are responding to

the Big Society, then suddenly, after the Government spent about

dead -- about �10 million saying to give to charities, now they are

taxing them. Then I look polls, but it is unbelievable. Do what America

does. -- there are loopholes. Encourage people to donate. It the

Government is not donating enough money to schools, hospitals,

research, galleries, then suddenly do not want people to pay for that.

What is the solution? To -- it is a stupid move. It is a public

relations disaster. In France, we would consider the state's remit to

give benefits. Philanthropy can be key here foreign things like the

Royal Court in London, galleries, theatre, for example. And, of

course, universities. British universities without donors? What

could they do? After so many public relations disasters, it is another

one. Such as the granny tax. Some people have been hurt by this, but

not huge mistakes, but adding them together it looks like the

Government does not have a grip on detail. Nobody would disagree there

is incoherence here. A lot of incoherence, perhaps bad

communication, maybe not explaining some things as well. The other

thing that is going on is that there is a certain complacency

about Number 10 that is kind of odd, as if there saying, we are not

going to have an election for three years, let us not worry now. There

seems to be a lack of response to the grassroots. I read in one of

right wing newspaper today that David Cameron is not a real

Conservative. Whether that is true or not, that is what is said, what

millions of readers are reading. Not good news for the Prime

Minister. That is nonsense. He is physically and socially

conservative. But he is also a moderate. -- fiscally conservative.

Labour dramatically increased the power of the state whilst the

Conservatives were out of power. There was a hunger for more radical

conservatism that the right wing wanted to deliver. But he cannot

deliver that, because he did not win out right, he is in a coalition

Government. It is difficult for David Cameron to manage. He has an

audience that wants more than he can deliver. In terms of the

electorate at large, you hear a lot of Conservatives say, we do not

expect the people to love us, but respect us for competence. When you

begin to not look competent, you are in trouble. British politics

essentially is a battle between Labour, the party of a heart,

looking after the poor, and the Conservatives, the party of the

head. It is a huge simplification, but perhaps something truthful. If

the Conservative Party is not the party of confidence, its main role

as voters see it is taken away. Labour had done this, the

Conservatives would be furious. They would ask, rich people have a

heart, too, giving money to good causes. If Labour did that, they

would be flopped in the parliament. And in right-wing newspapers, so it

is amazing why the Conservatives commit these mistakes. Why the

Government actually went that far. Taxing rich people? Yes, no

question. But if you are not going to give tax relief when rich people

pay to charity, why pay for those charities? The Tate Gallery, for

example. We have elections for the Mayor of London, local elections,

Scottish elections. Do you think there is such disillusionment with

the three main parties, and we can discuss the various reasons, Labour

such as not being a credible opposition, so the SNP could do

well in Scotland. Perhaps the vote on the London Mayor will be based

on personalities. This is a very interesting phenomenon. We are

going to discuss French politics, but the Liberal Democrats have

traditionally performed the role of protest politics. But the Liberal

Democrats have joined the Establishment, joined the

Government, so we have seen people vote for the SNP, the United

Kingdom Independence Party on the right, and George Galloway recently

in Bradford. It seems people want to walk all the main political

parties in their eye. -- poke. sort that happened in Bradford what

George Galloway. A total maverick to, lots of reasons why it happened,

but one reason has to be that main parties have lost their allure.

Let us discuss the French polls. When the French people to choose

their next President in the first round next week, there is no

shortage of visions to choose from. It could be a straight forward left

right battle between President Sarkozy and Francois Hollande. What

difference would it make if Nicolas Sarkozy was to lose? They will bob

and I doubt in the wider world. But in Europe? -- year-old Bob and I

doubt it will affect the wider The ones who have not made

headlines have been Francois Hollande or Nicolas Sarkozy. We

should talk about Marine Le Pen, the extreme right leader, with her

father managing to get through to the second round in 2000 to this

nation's dismay and shock. She is going down in the polls. Now a man

nobody knows outside of France is the hard left to pit-bull, as the

British media called him. He is rising and rising. And taking a lot

of light out of others. Maybe this phenomenon is related to the two

main candidates. President Sarkozy has moved to the right to solidify

his base, taking some of the gut out of Marine Le Pen's campaign.

And Francois Hollande has been dull? He still manages to knock

replying, not responding to Nicolas Sarkozy's tack. In a way, he has

been extremely coherent. I do not know whether coherence is dull,

sometimes it is. Nobody is excited by Francois Hollande, he is not an

goods or later. But he has been working on this or more than a year.

-- good orator. Some people would say he is almost as dull as Mitt

Romney. Who I understand speaks French. Will wider Europe will also

look at this, as well as in Greece, and looking at Speen, -- Spain,

saying that Europe is on it yet another round of a euro crisis.

That is true. What I am not sure about is that, whatever happens in

France, it will make a huge difference in Europe. Things sound

different. Francois hollow and sounds like he will tax the heck

out of everybody. -- Francois Hollande. And charitable donations

might be affected. In the end,... Hiring and firing might be more

socialist. But only marginally. France does not have much room for

manoeuvre. Once bond yields that increasing, things have to stop.

is a question of style between these two men. There could be some

room for manoeuvring, but it is extremely tight. What do you make

of it? My favourite line was from Francois Hollande, who said he was

not dangerous. And the left wing gentleman that at this has mention

said he was dangerous, trying to stir it up and be the firebrand.

All of them it seemed quite dangerously complacent about the

fact that Europe is in another euro-zone imposed hell-hole. We do

not have a serious leader anywhere within the euro-zone willing to

face that and the French elections are not going to solve the

fundamental problem Europe faces. It seems to be more an election

about continuity, because these two fringe candidates will not fall

Underlying the French problem is the economic fundamentals. In Spain,

the drop in the stock may occur -- market, unemployment, particularly

youth unemployment, it is all happening again. It is happening

again, but we have to look at have the social side of the French

presidential campaign. I think Hollande is the only one he has

grasped the core of the question, for the Government to spend money

and to create jobs. If you manage to save the banks, you can also

bail out the people for their problems. It is because we build

and the banks we have no money left. You must have some money left for

people. He wants to create jobs for teachers and policemen, he wants to

improve the welfare system. He wants to settle in the colt

immigrants. You can see there is human policy there. Sarkozy, he

says we have too many immigrants and foreigners. He has forgotten,

he is also an immigrant. This kind of rhetoric, Islam a phobia, saying

we have a lot of Muslims. I do not like Marine Le Pen, but when she

said to him, the Islamic radical groups are or organising, his

intervention in Libya is responsible for that. The man who

committed the massacre in it to lose as well. We need to wise men

to get rid of these problems appear facing in Europe. The thing is, you

also need honesty. You can print money, you can borrow more money,

which would be impossible, you cannot create something from

nothing. That is where we are. Hollande, he wants to raise the

pension age again, to bring it back from 60. In the next 10 or 20 years,

that will make a huge difference. You're saying this is the kind of

thing the markets will notice. markets will notice, but the

markets are just about money moving around the world. It does not move

because somebody decides it should move from one place to the other,

it moves because of the situation on the ground, realities. There are

at these realities you have to face up to. Countries moving in the

right direction, looking at how much money they save, but if they

seek a Government elected in France starting to do a kind of thing you

would like them to do, but adding to the impossible debts of France

is already under, there would be a significant crisis in the eurozone.

What they're looking for is a sign that France is truly an author and

European economy or up the southern European economy.

Hollande is a graduate in economy. But his style is more human and

that is what the French want to see. It is a mood, it is a style, it is

a personality. It is a referendum on personality.

Francois Mitterrand managed to put give it a good example to France of

political and economic stability. He created a huge respect for

France will offer the world, but look what Sarkozy did to that.

The would you like to tell us who Walwyn or would you like to move

It all depends on the first round. Sarkozy is capable of anything,

Hollande his office say the darling of the voters, but you never know.

We will no doubt return to it again next week.

The United Nations has been beset by difficulties when it comes to

acting coherently on Syria - chief among them the reluctance of Russia

and China to do anything which might further weaken the regime of

Bashir al Assad. But with the attempts to implement a peace plan

this week - are there any real reasons to be optimistic about an

end to the bloodshed - and how far are Russia and China on the wrong

side of history in their support for President Assad?

Do you have any hope that we might be on the right road? Actually, I

have a little hope. For the second day, the ceasefire is holding and

that is a good sign. A very small number of people like killed and it

seems the Syrian Government are very serious to implement the

ceasefire. What is the alternative? It is a disaster. This is the last

chance to save lives in Syria. It seems the Russians and Chinese are

exerting influence on the Syrian Government. We have had enough of

bloodshed, 9,000 or 10,000 people are killed, so now it is up to you.

It seems that the alternative is Syria turning into a failed state,

a radical organisation will establish power there, a sectarian

civil war or, which could destabilise the whole region. The

alternative is horrible and that is frightening. The other alternative

is basically President Assad in power for work - how long? After

that, what will happen after the ceasefire? These talks, both sides

will put arguments, put their cars on the table and you could have

proper reforms. That is possible. To play devil's advocate, if you

are looking at it from President Assad's position. Even though

people are demanding reforms, do you think the people he represents

would be prepared to give much and we have reforms? He should, because

you cannot rule or less than half of the population. It cannot be

another North Korea, isolated and heated by his neighbours. They

international community are of rejecting his regime. This is the

chance for his people to set on the table and give serious reforms, not

just cosmetic reforms as he is trying to do now. It has to be

genuine, otherwise and would not have a united or its staple cereal.

You have to remember that the Russians have to be responsible and

say to President Assad, enough is enough, you cannot continue to kill

you want people. You need serious of reforms and to talk to your

opponents. I may have to agree for once with

Nicolas Sarkozy, who said this morning that he does not believe in

the peace process or the ceasefire. I am pessimistic, we have reports

from the Syria, but we do not have journalists there any more. Russia

and China, when will they stop? They are looking increasingly bad.

They have leverage. Torquay as well, but the ball is really in the camp

of Russia and China. It is down to them. Build they actually talk to

each other, President Assad and the opposition? They hate each other.

It has gone too far. You negotiate with yet enemies. Palestine and

Israel hated each other, but they sat down at a table and talk to.

Then they stopped talking. Normally, the obstacle in the Middle East is

the United States. The United States is normally Bocking

something from happening, but not end this case. 10,000 people are

estimated to have died in this conflict and 1,000 died in the week

before the ceasefire. Any respite from that is welcome, but I am with

President Sarkozy in thinking this is dangerously close to being an

institutional thing on protecting President Assad has said of

producing a resolution. The international community did not

know what to do for years and years in Bosnia, more killing went on and

on despite the best efforts of people like coffee and. Syria is a

completely different regime, now we have Russia and China saying, we do

not want to be wrong-footed the way we were perceived in Libya. There

is a huge amount of bitterness here. I believe, the only thing available,

this Kofi Annan peace initiative, otherwise military intervention.

Sarkozy would like to see military intervention. Now he is complaining

he once took her up the radicalism which is building now. This is the

question. Syria is different from Libya. It is different from any

other country. It could be another Iraq. Can we afford another Iraq?

Can we afford failed states and radical organisations having arms?