:00:00. > :00:00.to safety. There will be a full bulletin at the
:00:00. > :00:26.top of the hour. Now it's Dateline London with Gavin Esler.
:00:26. > :00:32.Hello and welcome to Dateline London. Russia and the US announce a
:00:32. > :00:37.success at their talks on Syria. Five years after Lehman Brothers and
:00:38. > :00:41.the stock market crash, is the economy any more secure? And Ed
:00:41. > :00:52.Miliband's torrid time as leader of the opposition. My guests are Marc
:00:52. > :00:57.Roche of Le Monde, Nesrine Malik, Ste, Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg
:00:57. > :01:02.Markets, and Steve Richards. A newly arrived person from Mars might think
:01:02. > :01:05.such importance that nothing much is that the conflict in Syria is of
:01:05. > :01:11.such importance that nothing much is being done to stop it. After the
:01:11. > :01:13.breakthrough of the US—Russian talks in Geneva, are we right to be
:01:13. > :01:18.cynics? It is a breakthrough it would appear on what can be done
:01:18. > :01:21.chemical weapons. A breakthrough but also potentially a dead end because
:01:21. > :01:25.the fear is that faces have been saved all round, the US and Obama
:01:25. > :01:30.have saved face because something has happened, but in got his way,
:01:30. > :01:34.and the fear is that the fixation on the chemical weapons issue will
:01:34. > :01:34.stymie any serious conversations about decommissioning
:01:34. > :01:48.diplomacy conversations about decommissioning
:01:48. > :01:51.weapons, and basically forget the fact that 90 something % of
:01:51. > :01:59.casualties in Syria have been from conventional arms. That's the bit
:01:59. > :02:02.that worries me. On the plus side, though, what has happened over the
:02:02. > :02:06.past few weeks with Parliament striking down the decision to go to
:02:06. > :02:11.war and with US Congress doing it as well, its people are beginning to
:02:11. > :02:16.get over the concept of a good war, for ending war, and I think that is
:02:16. > :02:22.not cynicism but a maturing of international foreign policy. Give
:02:23. > :02:28.us a sense, as people across the Arab world see what's been going
:02:28. > :02:32.on... All around the world people have been affected but particularly
:02:32. > :02:35.in Arab countries, so what are people thinking? What people don't
:02:35. > :02:41.for the Arab world because this is for the Arab world because this is
:02:41. > :02:46.not something we are accustomed to seeing. Apart from Saddam Hussein
:02:46. > :02:51.and gassing the Kurds, there have not need a wholesale massacre on
:02:51. > :02:55.behalf of a sitting president. There's been repression, torture,
:02:55. > :02:59.disappearances into secret jails but there hasn't been a wholesale —
:02:59. > :03:00.especially in the age of the there hasn't been a wholesale —
:03:00. > :03:05.especially in the age of the internet and satellite TV — so
:03:05. > :03:10.people can't get their heads of these images. Tens of thousands of
:03:10. > :03:11.people being murdered or massacred. And with Citizen journalism, this is
:03:11. > :03:17.across North Africa and the Middle reaching every single Arab
:03:17. > :03:18.across North Africa and the Middle East. There's a bit of paralysis, I
:03:18. > :03:20.think, in terms of how the Gulf and think, in terms of how the Gulf
:03:20. > :03:24.this because it's something people the Arab League is going to do with
:03:24. > :03:28.this because it's something people have not got their heads round.
:03:28. > :03:31.Nesrine Malik talked about saving Nesrine Malik talked
:03:31. > :03:34.government, you might think, well, government, you might think, well,
:03:34. > :03:35.we give up government, you might think, well,
:03:35. > :03:40.we can government, you might think, well,
:03:40. > :03:46.Absolutely. There's this weird relief in the West that we won't go
:03:46. > :03:50.go to war but the public opinion in to war. Francois Hollande wanted to
:03:50. > :03:53.France didn't. They were happy that France didn't. They were happy that
:03:53. > :03:59.Jacques Chirac didn't go to relief all over because there's feel
:03:59. > :04:04.that helping the rebels is fine that helping the rebels is fine but
:04:04. > :04:11.the rebels, part of them are quite an unsavoury lot. Al—Qaeda talked so
:04:11. > :04:15.recently about beheading and all that. There is also the future of
:04:15. > :04:19.the Christian community, which is important for many Europeans, so all
:04:19. > :04:20.this means that it this means that it is a great
:04:20. > :04:27.decision but I'm not very proud it, like after Munich. Peace in our
:04:27. > :04:32.time for a short time, possibly. A time for a short time, possibly. A
:04:32. > :04:41.short time and we can be proud of it but it's a relief. I think it's a
:04:41. > :04:46.temporary lull in the fighting. This will give the Assad regime a bit of
:04:46. > :04:50.a retreat to regroup, I think, in a way, but it's not going to solve the
:04:51. > :04:55.overall conflict. There are a lot of question marks, as people have said,
:04:55. > :05:04.about how realistic it is to pull weapons inspectors into a conflict
:05:04. > :05:09.zone. The most and spear instead —— experienced weapons inspectors come
:05:09. > :05:10.from the US and western Europe and were talking about putting them in
:05:10. > :05:16.the middle of fighters. You can talk the middle of fighters. You can talk
:05:16. > :05:20.about a sad's chemical weapons stores. He should have them in
:05:20. > :05:22.government territory but you're government territory but you're
:05:22. > :05:27.inserting weapons inspectors into a raging civil war. And somebody's got
:05:27. > :05:29.to inspect them so whether were talking about blue helmets or how
:05:29. > :05:36.would that be done? We're not would that be done? We're not
:05:37. > :05:37.talking about disposing of washing up liquid but something absolutely
:05:38. > :05:44.noxious. If you transported, it's noxious. If you transported, it's
:05:44. > :05:54.difficult. If you transport it —— dissed throw it on site, that is
:05:54. > :05:54.also difficult. —— destroy it. Yes, and this goes to another thing that
:05:54. > :06:13.was still secretary of state? Kerry this situation if Hillary
:06:13. > :06:15.anything Assad could do to head off a military strike and he said that
:06:15. > :06:23.he could hand over his chemical weapons. Putin has backed him into a
:06:23. > :06:26.corner. Ironically, that saved Obama the embarrassment of almost certain
:06:26. > :06:34.defeat in Congress with a US public that is dead set against any further
:06:34. > :06:38.military action in the Middle East. There is an isolationist mood in the
:06:38. > :06:51.$1 trillion. Should we, just go back $1 trillion. Should we, just go back
:06:51. > :06:56.to what Nesrine Malik said, at least raise a cheer that it's the least
:06:56. > :07:02.bad option at this point? Because the alternatives are pretty
:07:02. > :07:06.horrible. Absolutely. And the point you made earlier that this won't
:07:06. > :07:09.solve the wider issue would apply to the military action, which was aimed
:07:09. > :07:15.explicitly at dealing with his chemical weapons and nothing more.
:07:15. > :07:20.So in a way, this is the diplomatic alternative to that very specific
:07:20. > :07:24.military option. If that had happened, all those other issues
:07:24. > :07:29.would still have applied. This, it seems to me, is much preferable to
:07:29. > :07:32.that military option for the reasons that you've just explored. So I
:07:32. > :07:35.think it is unequivocally the better think it is unequivocally the better
:07:35. > :07:41.it seems increasingly unfashionable it seems increasingly unfashionable
:07:41. > :07:41.in the UK — that the outcome in the in the UK — that the outcome in the
:07:41. > :07:49.House of Commons the other week space for this diplomatic initiative
:07:49. > :07:56.outcome because it has created the to unfold. I think of the House of
:07:56. > :08:02.happened. We'll return to Ed Commons had voted for military
:08:02. > :08:02.happened. We'll return to Ed Miliband's leadership in a moment
:08:02. > :08:06.because he was instrumental in that. because he was instrumental in that.
:08:06. > :08:11.But could we be optimistic or hopeful enough to think we can build
:08:11. > :08:16.on this, if Russia and America are at least agreed on this particular
:08:16. > :08:22.killing and do so with the pressure on a sad to stop the
:08:22. > :08:25.the diplomatic option wasn't pursued opposition. We have to remember
:08:25. > :08:29.the diplomatic option wasn't pursued wholeheartedly in the first place.
:08:29. > :08:32.It's been open for 18 months and has been pursued. The problem is that
:08:32. > :08:37.the US, to engage in a forceful way the US, to engage in a forceful way
:08:37. > :08:45.with Assad, they have to engage with the US, to engage in a forceful way
:08:45. > :08:51.Russia and they have to basically accept that the Hara and is a
:08:51. > :08:54.been reluctant to follow the been reluctant to follow the
:08:54. > :08:56.to engage with other players in the to engage with other players in
:08:56. > :09:01.region, which is arrogant and region, which is arrogant and
:09:01. > :09:03.unrealistic. So in that sense, I think there is a fear that the US
:09:03. > :09:06.will say, will say, we will stop here. We've
:09:06. > :09:09.had a resolution on had a resolution on chemical
:09:09. > :09:15.weapons, we look like we've done something, but to go further in
:09:15. > :09:20.false too many interlocutors and the US is not comfortable. Let's move
:09:21. > :09:22.on. The Lehman Brothers collapse five years ago was the trigger for
:09:22. > :09:25.the great recession, the great recession, the most
:09:25. > :09:30.lifetimes of most others. So is the lifetimes of most others. So is the
:09:30. > :09:34.crisis now over and if it is, why did two thirds of Americans polled
:09:34. > :09:39.by the Pew Research Centre Inc that the system is no more secure than it
:09:39. > :09:44.written a book about Lehman written a book about Lehman
:09:44. > :09:48.about what happened economic everyone refers to when they talk
:09:48. > :09:53.about what happened economic league? It was a domino effect. The
:09:54. > :10:03.next day it was Morgan Sachs and goal Stanley —— Goldman Sachs and
:10:03. > :10:09.Morgan Stanley. We would have gone if there hadn't been the action
:10:09. > :10:18.taken internationally, back to the recession of the 1929.
:10:18. > :10:22.there's been lots of change in the there's been lots of
:10:22. > :10:32.effect to pick up the sub—prime. But regulators and in other bodies
:10:32. > :10:38.there. The banks are too big to there. The banks are too big to
:10:38. > :10:44.fail. The banks still have big bonuses. They're still have been
:10:44. > :10:52.many scandals since 2008. JP Morgan, UBS. The banks have managed to
:10:52. > :10:57.pressurise feeble governments by blackmailing them. " we won't spend
:10:57. > :11:00.and we won't allow the economy to recuperate". But the argument is
:11:00. > :11:04.made that banking culture is made that banking culture is
:11:04. > :11:07.have learned the lessons, there are have learned the lessons, there are
:11:07. > :11:12.different people at the top, and they're not the casino bankers. All
:11:12. > :11:16.this is good and, for instance, TSB, this is good and, for instance, TSB,
:11:16. > :11:22.part of Lloyds banking group, is now going its separate way. So things
:11:22. > :11:27.banks of the head of these banks of the head of these
:11:27. > :11:30.conglomerates is. But the profit still comes mostly from the
:11:30. > :11:35.investment banking, from the investment banking, from the
:11:35. > :11:38.trading, and trading, and since we haven't
:11:38. > :11:43.separated trading from retail, we are back to square one. There will
:11:43. > :11:47.be another crisis. It would be sub prime, it will be something else.
:11:48. > :11:53.Stephanie, do you share his gloomy views and the gloomy views of the
:11:53. > :11:58.American public? I think in the US, that reflect profound economic
:11:58. > :12:06.uncertainty felt by the majority middle class and the poor. The
:12:06. > :12:12.reflection that government's and central bank's response to the
:12:12. > :12:16.crisis has benefited big banks and the wealthy. And I think that is one
:12:16. > :12:22.of the reasons why. I think the is of the reasons why. I think the is
:12:22. > :12:30.face of another financial crisis than we were five years ago? And I
:12:30. > :12:34.Regulators have forced banks to would say the answer is yes and no.
:12:34. > :12:40.raise their capital base and to get raise their capital base and to get
:12:40. > :12:52.funds and private equity. It's still result, they've pushed some of that
:12:52. > :12:57.funds and private equity. It's still there. I think the bigger question
:12:57. > :13:01.is, we don't know how central banks have embarked on this vast
:13:01. > :13:05.experiment of quantitative easing. No one has figured out on how to
:13:05. > :13:12.unwind that without triggering another slump. That is the tapering
:13:12. > :13:15.question in the United States — winding down slowly in some
:13:15. > :13:19.then the hangover effect that then the hangover effect that
:13:19. > :13:26.there's been no criminal prosecution of anyone involved in the crisis so
:13:26. > :13:31.about housing, which concerns a lot about housing, which concerns a lot
:13:31. > :13:35.of people, including the Chancellor. If you probably housing market, many
:13:35. > :13:38.middle—class middle income voters will say thank you but a lot of
:13:38. > :13:45.young people will say they can't afford housing and then there is the
:13:45. > :13:46.question of a bubble. I find it interesting that when an economic
:13:46. > :13:50.crisis of any sort erupts, what ends crisis of any sort erupts, what ends
:13:50. > :13:55.up happening, like some film War movie, the political leaders repeat
:13:55. > :14:01.the same mistakes again, even though they know it's going to lead towards
:14:01. > :14:06.the same sort of crisis. So here in the UK, for example, the fragile
:14:06. > :14:07.recovery that has taken place and has been hailed in a slightly
:14:07. > :14:12.premature way by George Osborne has been hailed in a slightly
:14:12. > :14:16.based largely on the property boom in the south—east of England, which
:14:16. > :14:18.means young people have to borrow heavily to get into that property
:14:18. > :14:23.market. The government is going market. The government is going to
:14:23. > :14:23.help them do that with various schemes, which doesn't build more
:14:23. > :14:27.housing to meet the demand, but housing to meet the demand, but just
:14:27. > :14:33.feels the property boom. So here we go again. Similarly with the banking
:14:33. > :14:38.situation, we have in the UK a very radical coalition policy towards
:14:38. > :14:44.banking reform, a lot of it kicked into the long grass over the second
:14:44. > :14:46.term of the Conservative government. into the long grass over the second
:14:46. > :14:48.term of the Conservative government. So I don't think many of the lessons
:14:48. > :14:52.have been learned in a practical have been learned in a practical
:14:52. > :14:56.way. I think on one level, leaders in the US and the rest of Europe
:14:56. > :14:56.have learned the lessons but in in the US and the rest of Europe
:14:56. > :15:11.political four solutions and repeat the same
:15:11. > :15:14.mistakes again. I wondered whether the Luxembourg Prime Minister got it
:15:14. > :15:16.right when he said we do know what to do, we just don't know how to get
:15:16. > :15:19.re—elected when we have re—elected when we have done it.
:15:19. > :15:22.Absolutely, and that leads into the Absolutely, and that leads into the
:15:22. > :15:25.fundamental question right now, which is, are we talking about
:15:25. > :15:29.people feeling say the economic league, or are we talking about
:15:29. > :15:34.angst and financial is to tuition is feeling safer? The two are quite
:15:34. > :15:38.separate. There is a lot of talk in the media and on behalf of
:15:38. > :15:43.government about each other, about this bank doing well or shape prices
:15:43. > :15:49.doing well —— share prices, or a bailout and so on, but you wonder
:15:49. > :15:53.how this affects people in their everyday lives. Can we talk about
:15:53. > :15:58.unemployment? Can we talk about the fact that household debt is up # we
:15:58. > :16:02.talk about how Americans lost their houses and then had to break the
:16:02. > :16:06.trust funds of children, who can no longer go to college? If we talk
:16:06. > :16:11.about how about how the median wage has
:16:11. > :16:20.actually fallen over the last five years, and how people leveraged
:16:20. > :16:23.themselves a lot and therefore household debt is a significant
:16:23. > :16:29.issue. What I find really intriguing is that there has been a separation
:16:29. > :16:41.of concerns. The government and bankers are in cahoots because they
:16:41. > :16:43.need to make themselves more secure. But on the ground, and this is what
:16:43. > :16:45.the Pew Research came up with when they talk to Americans over
:16:45. > :16:46.the Pew Research came up with when couple of weeks, and they didn't
:16:46. > :16:56.feel is still very much with us. There is
:16:56. > :16:58.a few in the United States that the is still very much with us. There is
:16:58. > :17:03.middle—class is finished. This great middle class that built the American
:17:03. > :17:09.dream, it's time is over. Well, that's why it is very important that
:17:09. > :17:21.why the problem of taxation is not at the forefront. You has to tax the
:17:21. > :17:27.rich, and the poor pay less, and so the middle—class Payless tax. But
:17:27. > :17:30.from the banking crisis, the have been a lot of winners, and the
:17:30. > :17:36.winners have been the people who have most assets. But there is
:17:36. > :17:41.another problem, and it is the rebalance of the economy. Less
:17:41. > :17:43.finance, more industry. The best example is Germany. Yes, and not
:17:43. > :17:50.Britain. Not Britain. Britain. Not Britain.
:17:50. > :17:58.The vice president is the of the US was once compared to a bucket of
:17:58. > :18:03.warm spit, and the job of leader of the opposition of the UK is seen in
:18:03. > :18:08.a similar way. How difficult will it be to convince the voters that Ed
:18:08. > :18:15.Miliband has the right stuff to become panellist in 2015? —— Prime
:18:15. > :18:26.Minister. He is seen by some people as being weak. Yes, in a way it is
:18:26. > :18:29.quite surprising. When I heard about that government defeat over Syria in
:18:29. > :18:32.the House of Commons that this would actually reduce a real crisis for
:18:32. > :18:35.David Cameron will stop the Prime Minister wanted to go to war but
:18:35. > :18:39.could not wind over the House of could not wind over the House of
:18:39. > :18:43.Commons. Curiously, it has become a crisis for Ed Miliband. The reason
:18:43. > :18:45.for that is that politics is much more of an artform than a science,
:18:45. > :18:47.and he is not one of the great and he is not one of the great
:18:47. > :18:55.artists in British politics. He is artists in British politics. He is
:18:55. > :18:58.one of these people who, whatever happens to him and look strong and
:18:58. > :19:08.as if he is seizing the initiative , as if he is seizing the initiative ,
:19:08. > :19:14.and he is not one of those figures. But he
:19:14. > :19:16.evident context. He has still got a evident context. He has still got a
:19:16. > :19:21.very high chance of winning next general election, or at least
:19:21. > :19:23.becoming Prime Minister because becoming Prime Minister because the
:19:23. > :19:27.electoral system benefits him. The Tories will lose some vote to UKIP
:19:27. > :19:31.at the next general election, and because Labour will pick up some
:19:31. > :19:36.votes from disaffected Liberal Democrats. Even though he is not one
:19:36. > :19:44.of life's political artists, he might still win. You are not saying
:19:44. > :19:46.he is boring snoring, are you? I don't think we are allowed to say
:19:46. > :19:51.that! . Actually, the that! . Actually, the other
:19:51. > :19:53.interesting thing he did, including taking on the trade unionists and
:19:53. > :19:56.going against the United States on going against the United States on
:19:56. > :19:58.Syria, including taking on Rupert Murdoch when the whole cracking
:19:58. > :20:07.thing happened in the UK, he is thing happened in the UK, he is not
:20:07. > :20:12.but because he is not an artist, he but because he is not an artist, he
:20:12. > :20:14.is seen as boring. It's taken indications difficulty that he does
:20:14. > :20:18.not quite connect with the British public, so people don't think so
:20:18. > :20:27.much about his policies decisions, but as the person, and could you see
:20:27. > :20:31.him as being Prime Minister? I think it is partly a communication issue.
:20:31. > :20:35.I don't think the British public have warmed to him. They can't
:20:35. > :20:39.figure out how to connect to him, despite his efforts to the contrary.
:20:39. > :20:47.He is a very sincere politician I think, on some levels, that the
:20:47. > :20:52.ratings, for instance. His ratings economy affecting the
:20:52. > :20:55.ratings, for instance. His ratings were much higher when the economy
:20:55. > :21:00.argument against the sitting coalition
:21:00. > :21:04.seems to be staging a recovery and seems to
:21:04. > :21:13.his argument is a bit we can. If the his argument is a bit we
:21:13. > :21:16.—— weekend. If the economy continues to strengthen, he will have a very
:21:16. > :21:22.hard time. If a politician made some hard time. If a politician made some
:21:22. > :21:27.of Steve's arguments, you would of Steve's arguments, you would say
:21:27. > :21:31.you are talking down the economy. That is always a problem for any
:21:31. > :21:36.not to be on the good news... Yes, I not to be on the good news... Yes, I
:21:36. > :21:45.think Ed Miliband's problems are than the fact he is not an artist.
:21:45. > :21:50.There is a stench of doom around Ed Miliband, and it has been developing
:21:50. > :21:53.for the past six or seven months. I have never seen a UK opposition
:21:53. > :21:59.leader turn every victory into defeat. He messes it up himself. It
:21:59. > :22:03.in lane, it did not have a in lane, it did not have a
:22:03. > :22:12.majority, it has been hobbling ever since. He keeps missing the goal.
:22:12. > :22:21.Once an opposition leader gets a nickname, then you are in trouble.
:22:21. > :22:29.He is now known as Absent Ed after an article. There has been an
:22:29. > :22:36.accumulation of problems, the most fatal one of which was when David
:22:36. > :22:41.Cameron, who is also not the most charismatic Prime Minister, and
:22:41. > :22:42.still hasn't managed to really win over the British public, but David
:22:42. > :22:48.Cameron at least articulate Cameron at least articulate a
:22:48. > :22:51.position, and Labour has not managed to articulate a contrary position
:22:51. > :22:55.that at least people can relate to. that at least people can relate to.
:22:55. > :22:59.Eight years before the French Eight years before the French
:22:59. > :23:05.election, Sarkozy was charismatic, going for a landslide, and Francois
:23:05. > :23:11.alarmed was very boring, but he won alarmed was very boring, but he won
:23:11. > :23:16.on the economy. On this, it doesn't look very good for Ed Miliband
:23:16. > :23:21.because the economy is doing better. At the end of the day, Howard Wilson
:23:22. > :23:26.said a week is At the end of the day, Howard Wilson
:23:26. > :23:34.politics, and the election is a long time away. I agree with about 80% of
:23:34. > :23:40.your analysis about the open golf that he has not scored and so on,
:23:40. > :23:40.but if you just step back from all of that, Labour are still ahead in
:23:40. > :23:46.the polls and have been all the way of that, Labour are still ahead in
:23:46. > :23:55.they are on 34% in the UK, only to ahead. But
:23:55. > :24:00.be on about 41% or 42% to be winners in a general election, and I don't
:24:00. > :24:05.think they can reach that point, which implies that Ed Miliband may
:24:05. > :24:10.still be promised. And the European elections come before the national
:24:10. > :24:15.elections. elections.
:24:15. > :24:19.We are back next week at the same time. Goodbye.