14/09/2013 Dateline London

to safety. There will be a full bulletin at the

top of the hour. Now it's Dateline London with Gavin Esler.

Hello and welcome to Dateline London. Russia and the US announce a

success at their talks on Syria. Five years after Lehman Brothers and

the stock market crash, is the economy any more secure? And Ed

Miliband's torrid time as leader of the opposition. My guests are Marc

Roche of Le Monde, Nesrine Malik, Ste, Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg

Markets, and Steve Richards. A newly arrived person from Mars might think

such importance that nothing much is that the conflict in Syria is of

such importance that nothing much is being done to stop it. After the

breakthrough of the US—Russian talks in Geneva, are we right to be

cynics? It is a breakthrough it would appear on what can be done

chemical weapons. A breakthrough but also potentially a dead end because

the fear is that faces have been saved all round, the US and Obama

have saved face because something has happened, but in got his way,

and the fear is that the fixation on the chemical weapons issue will

stymie any serious conversations about decommissioning

diplomacy conversations about decommissioning

weapons, and basically forget the fact that 90 something % of

casualties in Syria have been from conventional arms. That's the bit

that worries me. On the plus side, though, what has happened over the

past few weeks with Parliament striking down the decision to go to

war and with US Congress doing it as well, its people are beginning to

get over the concept of a good war, for ending war, and I think that is

not cynicism but a maturing of international foreign policy. Give

us a sense, as people across the Arab world see what's been going

on... All around the world people have been affected but particularly

in Arab countries, so what are people thinking? What people don't

for the Arab world because this is for the Arab world because this is

not something we are accustomed to seeing. Apart from Saddam Hussein

and gassing the Kurds, there have not need a wholesale massacre on

behalf of a sitting president. There's been repression, torture,

disappearances into secret jails but there hasn't been a wholesale —

especially in the age of the there hasn't been a wholesale —

especially in the age of the internet and satellite TV — so

people can't get their heads of these images. Tens of thousands of

people being murdered or massacred. And with Citizen journalism, this is

across North Africa and the Middle reaching every single Arab

across North Africa and the Middle East. There's a bit of paralysis, I

think, in terms of how the Gulf and think, in terms of how the Gulf

this because it's something people the Arab League is going to do with

this because it's something people have not got their heads round.

Nesrine Malik talked about saving Nesrine Malik talked

government, you might think, well, government, you might think, well,

we give up government, you might think, well,

we can government, you might think, well,

Absolutely. There's this weird relief in the West that we won't go

go to war but the public opinion in to war. Francois Hollande wanted to

France didn't. They were happy that France didn't. They were happy that

Jacques Chirac didn't go to relief all over because there's feel

that helping the rebels is fine that helping the rebels is fine but

the rebels, part of them are quite an unsavoury lot. Al—Qaeda talked so

recently about beheading and all that. There is also the future of

the Christian community, which is important for many Europeans, so all

this means that it this means that it is a great

decision but I'm not very proud it, like after Munich. Peace in our

time for a short time, possibly. A time for a short time, possibly. A

short time and we can be proud of it but it's a relief. I think it's a

temporary lull in the fighting. This will give the Assad regime a bit of

a retreat to regroup, I think, in a way, but it's not going to solve the

overall conflict. There are a lot of question marks, as people have said,

about how realistic it is to pull weapons inspectors into a conflict

zone. The most and spear instead —— experienced weapons inspectors come

from the US and western Europe and were talking about putting them in

the middle of fighters. You can talk the middle of fighters. You can talk

about a sad's chemical weapons stores. He should have them in

government territory but you're government territory but you're

inserting weapons inspectors into a raging civil war. And somebody's got

to inspect them so whether were talking about blue helmets or how

would that be done? We're not would that be done? We're not

talking about disposing of washing up liquid but something absolutely

noxious. If you transported, it's noxious. If you transported, it's

difficult. If you transport it —— dissed throw it on site, that is

also difficult. —— destroy it. Yes, and this goes to another thing that

was still secretary of state? Kerry this situation if Hillary

anything Assad could do to head off a military strike and he said that

he could hand over his chemical weapons. Putin has backed him into a

corner. Ironically, that saved Obama the embarrassment of almost certain

defeat in Congress with a US public that is dead set against any further

military action in the Middle East. There is an isolationist mood in the

$1 trillion. Should we, just go back $1 trillion. Should we, just go back

to what Nesrine Malik said, at least raise a cheer that it's the least

bad option at this point? Because the alternatives are pretty

horrible. Absolutely. And the point you made earlier that this won't

solve the wider issue would apply to the military action, which was aimed

explicitly at dealing with his chemical weapons and nothing more.

So in a way, this is the diplomatic alternative to that very specific

military option. If that had happened, all those other issues

would still have applied. This, it seems to me, is much preferable to

that military option for the reasons that you've just explored. So I

think it is unequivocally the better think it is unequivocally the better

it seems increasingly unfashionable it seems increasingly unfashionable

in the UK — that the outcome in the in the UK — that the outcome in the

House of Commons the other week space for this diplomatic initiative

outcome because it has created the to unfold. I think of the House of

happened. We'll return to Ed Commons had voted for military

happened. We'll return to Ed Miliband's leadership in a moment

because he was instrumental in that. because he was instrumental in that.

But could we be optimistic or hopeful enough to think we can build

on this, if Russia and America are at least agreed on this particular

killing and do so with the pressure on a sad to stop the

the diplomatic option wasn't pursued opposition. We have to remember

the diplomatic option wasn't pursued wholeheartedly in the first place.

It's been open for 18 months and has been pursued. The problem is that

the US, to engage in a forceful way the US, to engage in a forceful way

with Assad, they have to engage with the US, to engage in a forceful way

Russia and they have to basically accept that the Hara and is a

been reluctant to follow the been reluctant to follow the

to engage with other players in the to engage with other players in

region, which is arrogant and region, which is arrogant and

unrealistic. So in that sense, I think there is a fear that the US

will say, will say, we will stop here. We've

had a resolution on had a resolution on chemical

weapons, we look like we've done something, but to go further in

false too many interlocutors and the US is not comfortable. Let's move

on. The Lehman Brothers collapse five years ago was the trigger for

the great recession, the great recession, the most

lifetimes of most others. So is the lifetimes of most others. So is the

crisis now over and if it is, why did two thirds of Americans polled

by the Pew Research Centre Inc that the system is no more secure than it

written a book about Lehman written a book about Lehman

about what happened economic everyone refers to when they talk

about what happened economic league? It was a domino effect. The

next day it was Morgan Sachs and goal Stanley —— Goldman Sachs and

Morgan Stanley. We would have gone if there hadn't been the action

taken internationally, back to the recession of the 1929.

there's been lots of change in the there's been lots of

effect to pick up the sub—prime. But regulators and in other bodies

there. The banks are too big to there. The banks are too big to

fail. The banks still have big bonuses. They're still have been

many scandals since 2008. JP Morgan, UBS. The banks have managed to

pressurise feeble governments by blackmailing them. " we won't spend

and we won't allow the economy to recuperate". But the argument is

made that banking culture is made that banking culture is

have learned the lessons, there are have learned the lessons, there are

different people at the top, and they're not the casino bankers. All

this is good and, for instance, TSB, this is good and, for instance, TSB,

part of Lloyds banking group, is now going its separate way. So things

banks of the head of these banks of the head of these

conglomerates is. But the profit still comes mostly from the

investment banking, from the investment banking, from the

trading, and trading, and since we haven't

separated trading from retail, we are back to square one. There will

be another crisis. It would be sub prime, it will be something else.

Stephanie, do you share his gloomy views and the gloomy views of the

American public? I think in the US, that reflect profound economic

uncertainty felt by the majority middle class and the poor. The

reflection that government's and central bank's response to the

crisis has benefited big banks and the wealthy. And I think that is one

of the reasons why. I think the is of the reasons why. I think the is

face of another financial crisis than we were five years ago? And I

Regulators have forced banks to would say the answer is yes and no.

raise their capital base and to get raise their capital base and to get

funds and private equity. It's still result, they've pushed some of that

funds and private equity. It's still there. I think the bigger question

is, we don't know how central banks have embarked on this vast

experiment of quantitative easing. No one has figured out on how to

unwind that without triggering another slump. That is the tapering

question in the United States — winding down slowly in some

then the hangover effect that then the hangover effect that

there's been no criminal prosecution of anyone involved in the crisis so

about housing, which concerns a lot about housing, which concerns a lot

of people, including the Chancellor. If you probably housing market, many

middle—class middle income voters will say thank you but a lot of

young people will say they can't afford housing and then there is the

question of a bubble. I find it interesting that when an economic

crisis of any sort erupts, what ends crisis of any sort erupts, what ends

up happening, like some film War movie, the political leaders repeat

the same mistakes again, even though they know it's going to lead towards

the same sort of crisis. So here in the UK, for example, the fragile

recovery that has taken place and has been hailed in a slightly

premature way by George Osborne has been hailed in a slightly

based largely on the property boom in the south—east of England, which

means young people have to borrow heavily to get into that property

market. The government is going market. The government is going to

help them do that with various schemes, which doesn't build more

housing to meet the demand, but housing to meet the demand, but just

feels the property boom. So here we go again. Similarly with the banking

situation, we have in the UK a very radical coalition policy towards

banking reform, a lot of it kicked into the long grass over the second

term of the Conservative government. into the long grass over the second

term of the Conservative government. So I don't think many of the lessons

have been learned in a practical have been learned in a practical

way. I think on one level, leaders in the US and the rest of Europe

have learned the lessons but in in the US and the rest of Europe

political four solutions and repeat the same

mistakes again. I wondered whether the Luxembourg Prime Minister got it

right when he said we do know what to do, we just don't know how to get

re—elected when we have re—elected when we have done it.

Absolutely, and that leads into the Absolutely, and that leads into the

fundamental question right now, which is, are we talking about

people feeling say the economic league, or are we talking about

angst and financial is to tuition is feeling safer? The two are quite

separate. There is a lot of talk in the media and on behalf of

government about each other, about this bank doing well or shape prices

doing well —— share prices, or a bailout and so on, but you wonder

how this affects people in their everyday lives. Can we talk about

unemployment? Can we talk about the fact that household debt is up # we

talk about how Americans lost their houses and then had to break the

trust funds of children, who can no longer go to college? If we talk

about how about how the median wage has

actually fallen over the last five years, and how people leveraged

themselves a lot and therefore household debt is a significant

issue. What I find really intriguing is that there has been a separation

of concerns. The government and bankers are in cahoots because they

need to make themselves more secure. But on the ground, and this is what

the Pew Research came up with when they talk to Americans over

the Pew Research came up with when couple of weeks, and they didn't

feel is still very much with us. There is

a few in the United States that the is still very much with us. There is

middle—class is finished. This great middle class that built the American

dream, it's time is over. Well, that's why it is very important that

why the problem of taxation is not at the forefront. You has to tax the

rich, and the poor pay less, and so the middle—class Payless tax. But

from the banking crisis, the have been a lot of winners, and the

winners have been the people who have most assets. But there is

another problem, and it is the rebalance of the economy. Less

finance, more industry. The best example is Germany. Yes, and not

Britain. Not Britain. Britain. Not Britain.

The vice president is the of the US was once compared to a bucket of

warm spit, and the job of leader of the opposition of the UK is seen in

a similar way. How difficult will it be to convince the voters that Ed

Miliband has the right stuff to become panellist in 2015? —— Prime

Minister. He is seen by some people as being weak. Yes, in a way it is

quite surprising. When I heard about that government defeat over Syria in

the House of Commons that this would actually reduce a real crisis for

David Cameron will stop the Prime Minister wanted to go to war but

could not wind over the House of could not wind over the House of

Commons. Curiously, it has become a crisis for Ed Miliband. The reason

for that is that politics is much more of an artform than a science,

and he is not one of the great and he is not one of the great

artists in British politics. He is artists in British politics. He is

one of these people who, whatever happens to him and look strong and

as if he is seizing the initiative , as if he is seizing the initiative ,

and he is not one of those figures. But he

evident context. He has still got a evident context. He has still got a

very high chance of winning next general election, or at least

becoming Prime Minister because becoming Prime Minister because the

electoral system benefits him. The Tories will lose some vote to UKIP

at the next general election, and because Labour will pick up some

votes from disaffected Liberal Democrats. Even though he is not one

of life's political artists, he might still win. You are not saying

he is boring snoring, are you? I don't think we are allowed to say

that! . Actually, the that! . Actually, the other

interesting thing he did, including taking on the trade unionists and

going against the United States on going against the United States on

Syria, including taking on Rupert Murdoch when the whole cracking

thing happened in the UK, he is thing happened in the UK, he is not

but because he is not an artist, he but because he is not an artist, he

is seen as boring. It's taken indications difficulty that he does

not quite connect with the British public, so people don't think so

much about his policies decisions, but as the person, and could you see

him as being Prime Minister? I think it is partly a communication issue.

I don't think the British public have warmed to him. They can't

figure out how to connect to him, despite his efforts to the contrary.

He is a very sincere politician I think, on some levels, that the

ratings, for instance. His ratings economy affecting the

ratings, for instance. His ratings were much higher when the economy

argument against the sitting coalition

seems to be staging a recovery and seems to

his argument is a bit we can. If the his argument is a bit we

—— weekend. If the economy continues to strengthen, he will have a very

hard time. If a politician made some hard time. If a politician made some

of Steve's arguments, you would of Steve's arguments, you would say

you are talking down the economy. That is always a problem for any

not to be on the good news... Yes, I not to be on the good news... Yes, I

think Ed Miliband's problems are than the fact he is not an artist.

There is a stench of doom around Ed Miliband, and it has been developing

for the past six or seven months. I have never seen a UK opposition

leader turn every victory into defeat. He messes it up himself. It

in lane, it did not have a in lane, it did not have a

majority, it has been hobbling ever since. He keeps missing the goal.

Once an opposition leader gets a nickname, then you are in trouble.

He is now known as Absent Ed after an article. There has been an

accumulation of problems, the most fatal one of which was when David

Cameron, who is also not the most charismatic Prime Minister, and

still hasn't managed to really win over the British public, but David

Cameron at least articulate Cameron at least articulate a

position, and Labour has not managed to articulate a contrary position

that at least people can relate to. that at least people can relate to.

Eight years before the French Eight years before the French

election, Sarkozy was charismatic, going for a landslide, and Francois

alarmed was very boring, but he won alarmed was very boring, but he won

on the economy. On this, it doesn't look very good for Ed Miliband

because the economy is doing better. At the end of the day, Howard Wilson

said a week is At the end of the day, Howard Wilson

politics, and the election is a long time away. I agree with about 80% of

your analysis about the open golf that he has not scored and so on,

but if you just step back from all of that, Labour are still ahead in

the polls and have been all the way of that, Labour are still ahead in

they are on 34% in the UK, only to ahead. But

be on about 41% or 42% to be winners in a general election, and I don't

think they can reach that point, which implies that Ed Miliband may

still be promised. And the European elections come before the national

elections. elections.

We are back next week at the same time. Goodbye.