12/01/2013 Dateline London

the move. There will be a full round-up at 1 o'clock.

Hello and welcome to Dateline London. Britain's coalition

government at half-time - they tell us they are doing well. Are they?

President Assad tells Syrians and the world he will fight to the end

for his country. And a senior US diplomat tells

Britain we are better off within the EU and there are dangers in

having a referendum. My guest today are Maria Margaronis off the Nation,

Catherine Mayer of Time magazine, Abdullah Homouda, an Egyptian

journalist and Adam Raphael of Transport magazine.

Did British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Liberal Democrat

deputy Nick Clegg produced a progress report this week on how

well they claim their government has been doing halfway through its

five-year term. This was slightly spoiled when it was revealed that

they debated whether to keep out a list of the 70 or so promises or

pledges they had failed to fulfil, a list published only after a

senior political aide was photographed carrying a document

which outlined the pros and cons of publishing it. Despite the

slapstick comedy, how well are they doing and how fit are they for the

challenges ahead? What did you make of this show this week, saying,

this is how well we have done? Presentation early, it was a

disaster. They are not very skilled at this for one reason or another.

There has been a series of cock-ups. But it depends what your

expectations of governments are. I don't have high expectations. And

therefore, the idea somehow that this really matters - it doesn't.

It is just one more flurry of things. When you have two partners

disputing with each other, it is never going to be an easy form of

government anyway. When you are in the middle of a serious economic

crisis, when people's real living standards are going down, it is

hardly surprising that this Government is very unpopular and is

likely to commute to be brave considerable time -- it is likely

to continue to be. You could look at things they failed to do, like

House of Lords reform, but on the other hand, you could look at more

serious things, like, are they managing the economy sensibly? Have

their retained the confidence of the international markets? You

could give them a qualified yes. It is a mixed bag - very unpopular

government. Perhaps the most surprising thing is how well the

coalition has held together. Those who used to say, this thing will

fall apart after 18 months, no longer say that. Most now expect it

to go for the full term. There are lots of things we could go on to

talk about like the possibility of a double-dip recession, but maybe

the big point is that they have been together for the last two and

a half years and they may stay together. The main thing the

markets worry about Israel political instability from Greece.

Yes. There are statements that are made by the government for internal

political consumption, and that seems like it was the purpose of

this. Why would you have a mid-term review when the economy is in such

a dire state? With the closure of Jessops and the closure of Honda

and the loss of jobs, it does seem to be about holding the coalition

together. After this announcement, Nick Clegg had to come out against

Cameron's Europe policy. Then there is the key issue of the so-called

welfare bill. That is not popular with the Lib Dems either. So it

does seem to be creaking as a coalition. I alluded to the

slapstick bit, which is that it could happen to any government and

has happened to others, when somebody is photographed with

documents that should not be seen. But one of the big pitfalls for

this coalition is that people assume that the Conservatives will

be competent, whether you agree with them or not. But the past year

has shown incompetence about things, which worries many within the

Conservative Party itself. See, I would say they are doing an

excellent job at filling the gap in the comedy schedules left by the

thick of it. You could praise them for satire! Adam was right. In

presentation terms, this is a disaster. It is interesting, how

hard they found it to get their press operation working smoothly.

They have great people, but they don't work together well enough.

But there are more serious issues here. I don't want to pre-empt hour

later discussion, but I disagree with Adam in that it is very

serious, what is going on. What is worse than a strong government that

does not listen is a weak government that listens to the

wrong people. The problem with this coalition is that it is so much

about it survival and the struggle both to appeal to their bases, but

also to stay together. They are blown about by these populist winds.

As an example, what is going on with Europe is potentially of huge

significance and not just in Britain, and it is something where

they are being blown by populist winds as they try and square this

circle of what they airbases want and that might what their bases

want and what they needed it to stick together. This year, we will

see serious welfare reform, one of the biggest things any government

can do, and a huge reorganisation of the NHS. So two of the biggest

bureaucracies in Western Europe are being reformed by a government

which is open to being pushed on things like the past the tax and a

granny tax, or relatively tiny issues, which could blow them in a

particular direction. Any reform like this is subject to be the --

likely to be subject to disagreement. This coalition could

be described as a mature management of differences. But this also

implies that there are a lot of promises they could not fulfil.

That shows that the unity they have tried to present and not fulfilled

100% means that their eyes on 2015 and are on the election. The Tories

would like to have a comfortable majority, and the Lib Dems would

like to save their ratings in the polls and not be overtaken by UKIP.

Or wiped out completely. You are seeing the UKIP-transformation of

the Tory party, which will be disastrous not just for the Tory

party, but for this country and potentially for Europe. Those two

big reforms, welfare reform and NHS reform, Maria alluded to the

uprating of welfare benefits less than the rate of inflation and, but

that is quite small compared to these other two things, which will

be huge. At the day-to-day note of optimism in how you described them,

Gavin. I wish I share your optimism. The problem with the welfare reform

is, I wish I had more confidence that it will work. It is incredibly

difficult to reform welfare. Iain Duncan Smith is possibly not the

right man to do it. It would need a William Beveridge or more to do it.

I doubt Mr Duncan Smith has that. As for the NHS, I disagree with

Catherine. This is grown-up politics. But don't expect too much

from a coalition government at a time of economic crisis. These

Tudor reforms do make me nervous. The welfare reform in particular

could go seriously wrong, quite apart from the computers not being

able to compute the damn things. The whole idea of cramming all

benefits into one single benefit is incredibly complex. People's lives

are not like that. I come at it from a very sceptical point of view.

I hope I am wrong because it is worth trying, but I am not sure. I

hate to agree with you! But I am not convinced this is a time for

big ideas. You mentioned competence, and what people are really looking

for in this incredibly difficult time his competence and focus on

the big issue, which is how you achieve growth. You don't achieve

growth by launching into his grand visions. Depending on whether you

see that as grown-up politics or politicking, those will not produce

the outcomes we want. The late and largely unlamented

Colonel Gaddafi wants insisted his people would love him until the end.

That was one of many things he got wrong. This week, Syria's President

Assad told the world he would fight for his country until the end. Like

Gaddafi, will the end comes in, and how bloody is it likely to be? The

past year has been terrible in Syria. Having heard what he said,

which was defiant, do you see any sign of that? It is difficult to

see an end, I agree. But Lakhdar Brahimi's approach and the

agreement with Saudi Arabia to include Iran in the quartet as

suggested by the Egyptian President could provide a way out of, because

his friends might convince him to go. The Iranians and the Russians.

If this happens, that would be the only available way out, otherwise

he is doomed. His regime is doomed anyway. But it is difficult to get

people who have taken power without the consent of their own people to

listen to the people. He is finding it difficult to understand - if you

remember, after he took over in 2000, people had hopes that he

would change, but he was subjugated to the old guard, who kept him in

check and continued the old policies. The world has moved, but

the regime has not. There is also the difficult question of what

happens afterwards. It is much more complex than Egypt. Syria seems to

be in a terrible civil war. 60,000 people have died. The Western

powers are anxious about what comes next. We have Israel building a

wall along the goal-line heights and Patriot missiles in Turkey. Who

are the opposition? What will happen between those different

groups? And we have a society like Lebanon's, which is very

complicated. You don't want to keep Assad in power because of the fear

of what happens afterwards. It is wrong to draw parallels between

Libya and what is going on in Syria. The position of Assad is very

different from that of Gaddafi. He has a much more solid backing

amongst the Alawite community. Those are people who will fight on

and on. That was not so true of Gaddafi. There was a loyalist

community around him, but nevertheless, I think civil war is

the right way to describe this. Like most people, I would of course

like it to end as soon as possible, but it is difficult to see this

ending immediately. Gaddafi's position, -- unless his allies in

Iran pull the plug, it is difficult When you talk to diplomats, what is

striking is how little hope anybody has for any of the so-called

solutions. It is not just about as sad's backing, he has a very strong

backing, but it is this strong constituency terrified of what will

come after, they will not support anything which topples him just out

of fear that a Sunni Arab takeover would prove the worse for them. A

third of the country is so called minorities. I have been talking to

a lot of diplomats recently. No one has a strong sense of the way

forward. This makes it incredibly dangerous that where there is a lot

of unanimity, in spite of the noises about this being close to

the end of the regime, they don't actually think that is true. It

looks like he could caught -- hold on for a very long time.

I think he will hold on for some time. I disagree with Adam on the

fact that the Alawite will fight for him, the Alawite have not

fought. By the nature of the spread in the country except for the north

coast, the fear that if they fight for him they could be left to fight

for their own lives, if the balance is tipped in favour of him, they

would, probably. But so far, no. The situation is very difficult.

The danger of dividing the country is still there. The danger of

fundamentalism is still there. It is really thought for danger, and

the more it goes, the more dangerous it becomes.

Any British diplomat or journalist spending much time in Washington

quickly realises that successive presidents and most successful

members of Congress can only see a future for the UK inside the

European Union. So when a senior American diplomat pretty much said

that this week it was nothing new, excepted comes ahead of a major

speech by David Cameron on the subject of Europe shortly. The

American view appears to be that even the question of holding a

referendum may turn Britain in which, which would not be in

British or American interests -- may turn Britain in word. Catherine

Mayer, when you speak to politicians who are interested in

this, do they broadly take the view expressed by the State Department,

that Britain must be in the EU? Absolutely. From both parties?

You have to qualify that by saying there is remarkably little detailed

understanding of the different tensions going on, there is a lot

of impatience at what they see. The effect of the debt crisis in Europe

has been not to increase Euro- scepticism but to actually ram home

in America and places further afield the importance of Europe as

an economic bloc. What they actually care about, and there are

also huge issues like defence, looking at the end of Afghanistan

and possible engagement in other parts of the world, this matters in

Washington. They probably care more about what happens in Europe than

they might do at quieter times. And Britain has always had this role of

being the sort of bridge to those strange continentals. They

telephone exchange, as Henry Kissinger said. He said get me

Europe, there was one number that you run, that was presumably in

Westminster. Maybe they don't think that any more? There have been

leaders in continental Europe who have changed that. Angela Merkel,

just by her longevity, has good connections in Washington. But

there is also a huge churning European leaders. Churn is a good

way of putting it. Although Berlusconi will come back,

obviously! Many times! So it is seen clearly in American interests

that Britain is in the EU? That is how they see it? Absolutely.

America has brought a welcome dose of reality to an insane debate

going on in this country. It is total folly, really. I suppose

Britain is divided into three groups, Europhiles like myself,

Euro-sceptics who are pretty doubtful about the whole thing, and

then Europhobes. The Europhobes group is really so far from reality.

The fact that America has at least indicated quite clearly in the past,

but it is useful in this debate, what future has Britain outside of

the EU? Part of the Commonwealth? Reinventing some sort of trade

grouping? It is impossible. This is what is useful, it is beginning to

concentrate minds. I share the view that this referendum is a

disastrous way forward, it is a total distraction, it will do

Britain's economy no good at all, because why should people invest in

this country if they think there will be a referendum which might

pull us out of Europe? The American influence is very useful. What is

interesting is that the Europhobes naturally align themselves, they

regard themselves to the 51st state, the 52nd state, I forget how many

there are! Just 50 so far. Let's not exaggerate, they will not come

to their senses, the Europhobes, they are far too deeply dug into

their bizarre pit. But nevertheless it is very useful to confront the

realities of what is actually there on the table, what will happen and

why this wild idea that the Europeans will allow us to

renegotiate our way into some sort of wonderful nirvana which will be

suitable to the British electorate, it is just madness. George Osborne

appears to think... In an interview this week, if there is not

significant change in the way the EU is run, we are out? This is part

of Osborne's fantasy land. I completely agree with the others

that Britain's only international role, the only way it can punch

above its very tiny weight, in global terms, at the moment, is as

a bridge between America and Europe. It is part of the fantasy world in

which people who get state benefits live with the curtains drawn all

day. I think the only place that will be harmed his Britain. I think

Angela Merkel would like to see Britain stay engaged, particularly,

as a counterweight to Francois Hollande. Our government is much

more aligned with purview of how things should develop economically,

if not politically. I don't think the rest of Europe will shed a tear

if Britain want to leave. It has already lost influence, that is the

thing about the debate. We are talking about Britain losing more

influence and having less say about what goes on and however much a lot

of people in Britain would like to ignore it, still part of this part

of the world. Still affected by decisions for which you have very

little say? Exactly. If you look at the economy, George Osborne will

tell you one of the reasons the British economy is not doing as

well as he would like is because of what is going on in the eurozone.

Well yes, DoH! Maybe you want to be at the table influencing those

decisions. I think Mr Cameron is trying in his

own way to outdo both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair by trying

to play an unnecessary game of brinkmanship which is going wrong.

He probably does not know until now whether he would prefer to do his

speech in the Netherlands or Germany. He was counting on Angela

Merkel to help him. I am not sure whether she will help him. He is

playing into the hands of the Euro- sceptics and the Europhobes. This

is totally not understanding the reality of the world's, with the

opposition of the business community, the opposition from

people like Heseltine and many others. I think it is not helping.

Here is a possible future for this country, 24 team, there is a

referendum in Scotland on independence, and they win -- 2014,

there is a referendum in Scotland. Those in favour of independence win.

2015, British general election, 2016, referendum on Europe, and

then what is left of the UK, Brits -- England, Wales, and possibly

Northern Ireland, though it's to get out? If one wants to become an

offshore Channel Islands, or Denmark, or Sweden, it might be a

possible future. But what is so interesting is that people who

really want to get out, that is not how they view Britain at all. They

still see it as a great imperial power full of tridents and nuclear

weapons on the transatlantic alliance. The last thing they want

to do is go into some kind of small-scale Belgium or Holland or

what-have-you. I have to be awfully careful, the last time I said

there's a Dutch journalist quite rightly objective furiously.

Belgium, Sweden and Denmark you have also riled, all the letters

can come to you! It depends on how you see Britain's future. That is

why I think reality will dawn on these characters, which makes it so

fascinating. In a sense, they are like small boys, believing in

something which bears no relation to what actually is going on in the

real-world. This clash between their fantasies and the real world

is coming ever closer together, and eventually they will have an

understanding. You are such an optimist. You actually think that

people will listen to this debate and see reason. That is great.

won't see reason, but they will just see what the options finally

are. They still believe they can renegotiate their way out of Europe,

but they can't. One of the reasons I don't think that will happen is

because Europe really has very big structural problems, and the move

towards federalism is an attempt to address problems which are

fundamental. So they will always have more ammunition to turn around

and say look out terrible Europe is. We have always -- already had

several referendums, which I think is a lousy way of consulting the

people. You elect politicians and let them get on with it, you don't

keep going to a referendum which, frankly, depends on the phrasing of