14/06/2012 Newsnight

Tonight pl, Cameron at Leveson, how the Chipping Norton set and their

colleagues didn't do. And Rebekah Brooks and the text. I'm rooting

for you, not just personally, but professionally we are in this

together, and there was an exclammation mark and "yes he Cam".

My guests are here, what damage has this done to David Cameron.

While the Newsnight political panel analyse the fall-out from this

week's parade the leaders on the stand. Hundreds of witnesses, reems

of document, millions of pounds, ten months duration, and counting,

will there be any lasting heritage from Leveson.

My guests join me. Also tonight, will the Government

and the Bank of England's roll of the dice to boost the UK economy

actually work. And Paul Mason looks at the desperation putting Greece

into the arms of the far left Syriza Party.

When a party of Marxists, radical greens and feminists, is getting

votes from farmers three hours into the mountains of Athens, something

is going on. Good evening t may be a piece of

correspondence that he regrets ever receiving, because contained in

just 84 words are a set of phrases and connection that is could be

seen as defining David Cameron's time as Prime Minister. It was, by

default, the centre piece of his five-hour appearance in front of

Lord Leveson. You can bet your bottom dollar, that when Mr Cameron

set up the inquiry, he had no idea this short text would ping into the

public domain. Previously in court 73.

We have had Rebekah Brooks. "LOL", lots of love. Murdoch mur. We had

no alternative, but to make war on your company. Gordon Brown? This

conversation never took place. Nick Clegg? I was at the end of the

table where the children sit. the executive producer, the man who

gave us this show, made his own appearance. It is on our screens

now. It is not often you get to see a serving Prime Minister taking the

oath in court. This week pl, Cameron's predecessor as Prime

Minister sat in the same chair and abused him of doing a deal with

Rupert Murdoch. Of course, I wanted to win over newspapers, and other

journalist, editors, proprietors, and I worked very hard at that,

because I wanted to communicate what the Conservative Party and the

leadership could do for the country. I made that argument. I didn't do

it on the basis of saying, either overtly or covertly, saying that

your support will mean I will give awe better time on this or that

policy. Of course the Sun did give the Conservatives its endorsement

in December of 2009, Labour's lost it" of the headline. If gave the

Conservatives massive boost going into their conference this week. A

conference where they introduced the world to this slogan. We are

all in this together. From the day after that speech, the inquiry saw

evidence of the close relationship between David Cameron and Rebekah

Brooks. It was taex that Mrs Brookes sent to Mr Cameron, it was

the eve of his big conference speech. The text talk about meeting

for a meal. It seemed Mrs Cameron had dep but

advertised for her husband attending a News International

The phrase, "but because professionally we're definitely in

this together ". What was your understanding of that? I think that

is about the Sun had made this decision to back the Conservatives,

to part company with Labour, and so the Sun wanted to make sure it was

helping the Conservative Party put its best foot forward, with the

policies we were announcing, the speech I was going to make and all

the rest of it. I think that is what that means.

So the adverb "professionally", is covering the fact that the Sun and

you were bound together, to some extent. I think what it means as

she put it, we are friends, but professionally, me as leader of the

Conservative Party, her in newspapers, we were going to be

pushing the same political agenda. And the "country supper" she refers

to. Sort of in a forward-looking way, is that the sort of

interaction you often had with her? Yes, we are neighbours.

Mr Cameron was also asked about his decision to hire Andy Coulson as

Downing Street's Director of Communications. It wasn't, he told

the inquiry, principally to forge closer links with News

International. If what lies behind the question,

were you after a News International executive, because this is going to

make it easier to win over the News of the World, or whatever, no, that

wasn't the calculation. Mr Cameron was also quizzed at length about

his decision to give the job of deciding the BSkyB bid to the

Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Despite the fact that Mr Hunt had

already made his views clear, that he supported BSkyB being taken over

by News Corp. The decision had to be made in something of a hurry.

Vince Cable did have the job, but he was secretly recorded saying he

had declared war on Rupert Murdoch. As Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt

would have been the natural person to take on the role. But he was

known as a Murdoch supporter. The Government's top lawyer, Simon

Jenkins, was on leave at the time. He -- Paul Jenkins, was on leave at

the time, he gave his opinion over However, it turns out, that when Mr

Jenkins cleared Jeremy Hunt to decide the bid, he hadn't been told

about a rather chummy text message, that Jeremy Hunt had sent to James

Murdoch in support of the bid. "congratulations on Brussels, just

Ofcom to go", it said. Nor was he told about a note he had written to

the Prime Minister, warning that if they block it, the bid, the media

sector, will suffer for years. contention is what is in the

private note is not really different to what he said publicly

indeed what he said publicly is more effusive. I think it is note-

worthy that we have now got this witness statement from Paul Jenkins,

the Government lawyer, who says very clearly "skap I'm quite clear

that my advice to Sir Gus would have been any different had I seen

the note at the time ". I accept there is proves, but the backing

two of permanent secretaries and lawyer is quite a strong state of

affairs. Although Mr Cameron commissioned

this blockbuster series, doesn't get to write the script. Today was

embarrassing, perhaps rather than explosives. Even so, the

cliffhanger we have been left with, how much, if any, damage has been

done. To talk about the Prime Minister's

appearance today, with me are the Conservative Deputy Chairman,

Michael Fallon, and Tom Watson, the Labour member of the culture select

committee. Fallon, first of all, the phrase -- Michael Fallon, first

of all, the phrase from Rebekah Brooks's text "we're all in this

together", that was made and we thought it was for us, but it was,

the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Chipping Norton set?

made that point, we were all in this together, and they were. When

they decided to back the Conservative Party, the leader of

the party and the editor of the newspaper were in in together.

the Chipping Norton set were in it with News International, is the

point we make. What is a country supper? I don't know, if it is an

embarrassment this text, it is to Rebekah Brooks, she sent it, not

David Cameron. Obviously he and she knows what a country supper is,

whether you do or not, this is an intimate gathering? They live quite

close to each other. Her husband has been a friend of David

Cameron's for 20-30 years, they see each other at weekends. That

doesn't prove anything. Is it outlandish to say she had a hand in

the speech that came the next day? Yes t the paper had only just

decided to put its weight behind the Conservatives. It is

uncomfortable? For her. It is also for David Cameron? Why, he had been

trying to win over the support of the newspapers, he has been trying

to win over the support of all the other newspapers. That is why we

chose him as leader, it is his job. It wasn't friendship, it was one-

sided friendship, it was not a two- way street, it was Rebekah Brooks

courting David Cameron she was a friend of her husband's foreyears,

and there is no mystery about. That he was on the stand for five hours

today. He answered every single question, if this text is all you

can come up with, I don't think that is sufficient evidence of some

conspiracy. The point s the text, as embarrassing as it is, it might

be uncomfortable, but, in fact, there was no smoking gun, no

problem about the News International bid for BSkyB. We

heard today it had actually followed what should have happened,

Cable was then followed by Jeremy Hunt, there was no problem. Michael

is right on, that the text was deeply embarrassing, and showed the

closeness of the relationship. Where I was more disappointed today

was the fact that David Cameron seemed lukewarm on the process. And

wasn't prepared sketch out his ideas about what reform would look

like. My fear for in the last few weeks, is that the coalition are

beginning to go cold on Leveson. I think he really owes the Dowler

family and the country a greater explanation about what he intends

do when Leveson reports. It will be interesting because Lawrence

Leveson will not be keen to hear. That your suggestion will be that

nothing much will come out of it, simply because David Cameron didn't

show his colours today? You know I think everyone now knows they were

very close. We just saw mores conversation of that today. More

woreing -- more confirmation that have today. More worryingly, we are

seeing PR people saying unless Leveson deals with this over the

Internet it will be flawed. This strikes me as the beginnings of the

Government to go kopbld it and put it into the long -- cold on this,

and put it into the long grass. That would be a betrayal. He missed

the opportunity to restate the case for Leveson. Looking at one of the

other major topics of conversation today on Andy Coulson. Don't you

and other Conservative MPs feel kind of let down by David Cameron

over this. Now we know he wanted to get to the part of the country he

couldn't really get to. That is why he hired Coulson. There were four

other candidates. This was not only a mistake, it was an error of

judgment? With hindsight all these things look easier. At the time he

sought assurances from Andy Coulson, he got assurances from Andy Coulson.

The same ashourpbss were given to parliament. They were given to --

assurances were given to parliament. They were goifrpb a court of law.

If it turns out those -- given to a court of law. If it turns out those

assurances were false, that was down to Andy Coulson. It was

incredibly regretable that when you wanted to get on and bring on

policies, the Coulson affair was hijacking what you were promoting?

That is correct. That is why we have gone forward with the inquiry

to find a better way forward for these issues. What was striking by

the Prime Minister's evidence today is he finished talking about the

Dowler case. To show this isn't just about celebrities and people

who can afford lawyers, but we need a situation where we have a system

that provides redress to families like the Dowlers and others. Even

the almost always patient Lord Leveson said last month he was

ready to go back to productive judicial work. His phrase. That may

be some way off. There are still many more witnesss to hear from.

And then the judge has to think deep thoughts.

Since David Cameron established the Leveson Inquiry last July, it has

already cost more than �2 million. There have been over 300 witnesses

in the hot seat, and the publication of 500 pieces of

evidence, since the father and mother of murdered schoolgirl,

Milly Dowler gave evidence in front of Lord Leveson in November.

felt like such an intrusion into a really, really private grief moment.

They include three former prime ministers, six cabinet ministers, a

host of celebrities, and even a splash of TV presenters. Most

facing Lord Leveson's attack job, chief inquisitor, Robert Jay.

are formally presenting this as your evidence to our inquiry.

cameras were installed in court 73 in the Royal Court of justice to

broadcast the hearings worldwide, as only court participants and 14

members of the public are allowed actually to sit in. The testimony

is due to end in July, although the judge's report is not expected

until the Autumn. Here to discuss the legacy of the Leveson qieorny

are a former editor of the Times, Simon Jenkins, phone hacking victim,

Abi Titmuss, ex-tabloid reporter, Richard Peppiatt, and the Labour MP

culture select committee member. From what we saw today, Simon

Jenkins, of the awkward closeness, between politician and journalist,

is that in itself not a good subject from the Leveson Inquiry to

air. We need to hear about these things, don't we? We need to hear

about them, we have heard about them for several months. It is not

unusual, nothing knew about it. It is worth knowing about things that

were probably hidden and should be brought into the open. I have no

problem with that at all. I think it is great pity an opportunity is

going lost. This is being run as a show trial for the Murdochs, but

honestly if there is serious things to discuss about journalistic

ethics you need to be balanced about it. It shouldn't be a court

of law t should be a seminar, or committee of inquiry, rather than

this take-dog figure, going for everyone in a Richard Nixon way.

be fair, it is not just Murdoch in the frame, the conversation is

about other newspapers as well? Hardly, you could be forgiven for

thinking this is a show trial of the Murdoch empire. The Murdoch

empire was trying to exert political pressure, no doubt about

t every newspaper does and every proprietor has. Is that what you

think? It's him just defending Rupert Murdoch. There is Richard

Peppiatt talking about what toxic tabloid journalism is really like,

Abi Titmuss here has been attacked. This is PR from the media people.

Abi Titmuss, your phone was hacked, you took a settlement. Do you feel

that watching this inquiry we are actually getting something that is

productive and will make a change, or are you, perhaps, of the mind

that it will go away, it will just be the same. There was an inquiry

20 years ago and nothing really changed? I imagine Lord Leveson

feels the weight of history on his shoulders at the moment. I imagine

he's keen to make changes. That is the right thing. When it comes to

press regulation, that is a very difficult question, I think free

press is vital for democracy. For example, obvious low the media give

me the information I need to vote, but, therefore, for me, what I

would like to see regulated is the relationship between press and

politician, the leaders and the media owners, I would like that to

be formal and transparent. In your own case, I think you talked about

it as being one part toxic co- dependency your relationships with

the tabloids. Did you feel in any way, not that you were complicit,

but you were in a game? You even if the Faustian pact that Steve kooing

began was referring. To when I talk about this subject, I start about

saying, yes I have a relationship with the press, I still do I

embraced it to begin with to a certain extent. You courted them?

They came to me I wouldn't say to start off with I courted them. I

didn't have a choice that they hacked my own or followed me and

took my picture -- my phone, and they followed me and took my

picture. I tried to take some sort of control over it. It came toxic

co-dependance, it was symbiotic. It is very different now. Do you think

it has changed, the whole question of the relationship between

celebrities and the red tops? fascinating seeing some of the

defences put forward by the tabloid editors, picture desks, saying a

lot of the paparazzi pictures are set up, and the stories are set up.

What I don't seem to recognise is when you are presenting a story in

a newspaper, if it is set up, and you are not admitting to the reader,

you are lying to them. You are pretending something is happening

that is not. This isn't news, this is entertainment. That is an

entertainment product. There needs to be a distinction drawn between

proper public interest journalism and entertainment. The problem for

the public is trust has gone in many ways, not only of politician,

but of newspapers. That, in a declining market, is a pretty awful

thing. Leveson n a sense, has exposed that lack of trust.

I think he has. Tom's select committee did a bit of work on.

That it became ludicrous to the extreme, I'm not a PR man for the

Murdoch press, but for the Guardian, I resent the suggestion I am. The

only way to conduct the debate t seems, that if Tom disagrees with t

they are hack for the Murdochs. Let's go back to your point. There

is a real chance here of trying to get a Code of Practise for

journalist, I don't think it can be handled statutoryly, we tried it on

a previous committee and we didn't succeed. The Calcot committee, that

set up the press complaints committee, it was right to say, if

this is not working in 18 months, we will look at it again. Here we

are 0 years later, they never looked at it -- 20 years later,

they nevered at it again? That was the third committee. Can you make a

voluntary code? Can you make a code, and plead with a new press

complaints commity. That is what will happen any way. Plead with

them to be more tough on journalist, more independent and all of that.

You can pass a law and set autopsy quango to run the press, it is not

on. You are setting up a false dichotomy, with the greatest

respect. This is not a decision between statutory regulation and a

free-for-all. There is a huge grey area. Let's be clear, you are in

favour of statutory regulation? in favour of a statutory

underpinning of regulation independent of Government, and of

the press. It will have members of the press involved with it, but

there is statutory balances to make sure that politicians cannot

interfere with the freedom of the press. Let's not forget that proper

regulatory system will protect journalists as much as the public.

It will mean the excesses we have seen, where journalists feel

pressure today do immoral and illegal things won't occur because

there won't be the pressure within the companies themselves. I think

that is possible. There needs to be a Press Complaints Commission,

which is the mediator, between the complaints and the press. There

need to be a body overseeing the professionalism of journalism.

is why it is so important to have the inquiry, and it is worth having.

I spoke to people, knowing I was coming on the show, the general

public are bored with it, they think it is all about celebrities

whose phones have been hacked, who are getting settlements, as you

mentioned. It is bring to go the attention issues pertinent to all

of us, which is the power of media owners and the relationship between

press and politicians. In a democratic society we should be

concerned. Isn't there danger the public will be turned away from the

politicians and the press, and there has to be a positive outcome,

would that positive outcome for you be statutory legislation. I think

Richard nailed it on the head. Independent regulation. The goal

should be that. We are meant to have independent regulation at the

moment? We haven't any regulation, we might be reaching a consensus

here. The goal should be to oblige an editor to put a matter right

when they have made a mistake, or deliberately done something wrong.

The remedy is slightly harder to find, but it is not beyond the wit

of man do that. It is very difficult. We are looking for the

same thing. We are trying to find some way of making journalists to

behave more responsibly when they do their work. Nobody has any

quarrel with that. They are up against fierce competitive forces,

and actresses and politicians, keen to get on with them in various ways,

it is extremely difficult to regulate these relationships. I

genuinely believe you won't get there. You won't get a law that

makes any sense here. All you can get is some form of discipline,

that has to be self-discipline, out of the system you have at the

moment. It will be another version of now. It really won't make much

difference? I don't think so. you believe after all these months,

Lord Leveson must be head in hands listening to this discussion. He

wants proper judicial work hast to sit through these endless witnesses.

It will be much more than �2 million at the end? If all the

money, wasted by Government, I would happily see an inquiry every

other year into some element of our political process. I think we have

more insight, as a public, into how the machinations of Westminster,

how decisions get made, than we have in decades of parliament.

have greater participation in democracy because of it do you

think? I think so. I think it is refresh to go see when newspapers

editors are sending lots of love to prime ministers. This we should

know about. I think it is brilliant. I think Lord Leveson put it

beautifully in the start of the inquiry, saying who guards the

guardians. Do you think it will make any difference, Simon is being

cynical here, but doesn't actually think the Leveson Inquiry will make

any difference? I hope so. It will take radical and robust proposals

all parties can rally behind, I hope he can do it. People were

doing far worse things in the 1980s than now. Journalists were doing

worse, the relationship between journalists and politicians was

closer and more venal. The BBC was getting into bed with politician,

and the lawyers getting into bed with politicians. I'm all for

exposing things, I agree with Richard to this extent. It wasn't

that bad this time. This is not just all about what we are hearing

today about David Cameron there were other former prime ministers,

including Gordon Brown earlier this week. And then Gordon Brown

insisting that there were no briefings, his relationships were

all sweet and light. And yet, people were saying, really? Murdoch

asked John Major to switch his policy on Europe. Tom you worked in

Downing Street when Gordon Brown was there? I didn't do press

briefings. The interesting thing for me is every Prime Minister that

has been in front of Leveson has denied what, Tony Blair, Alastair

Campbell, Gordon Brown denied Damian McBride, David Cameron

denied Andy Coulson. They are all at it, then? They should know what

their spin doctors are doing in their name. It is pretty

inreceivable that they don't? is for them to -- Inconceivable

that they don't? That is for them to say, but it is pretty

inconceivable. The Chancellor and the governor of the Bank of England

announced today they were working together today on an �80 billion

pot for lending. Speaking at the Mansion House event, they plan to

kick start lending to households and businesses within weeks,

through an emergency bank funding scheme. Under the proposal British

banks will be offered vital funding at low interest rates, but the

money will be linked to bank lending performance. The governor

and I will take co-ordinated action on liquidity and funding for new

bank lending, in order to inject new confidence into our financial

system. And support the flow of credit into where it is needed in

the real economy. We are not powerless in the face of the

eurozone debt storm. Together we can deploy new fire power to defend

our economy from the crisis on our doorstep.

We have Allegra Stratton and our Economics Editor with us, Paul

Mason, what do you think of it? What is the thinking behind this?

One newspaper tomorrow is saying Mervyn King is pressing the panic

button. It is not quite that. But people in Government are scared of

the effects of Sunday's election in Greece and what it could do to the

eurozone and how it would affect our economy, because 40% of our

trade is with the continent. It has already had problems. They are

announcing tonight a new way of getting money directly out. They

had reports for a long time now that small businesses weren't

getting lending. Equally mortgages were not passing on the low rates

to people. It is an attempt to get it on the treat. If quanative

easing was about the same initials of the Queen of England, I would

like to think this is the Prince William version. It is much more

and they are trying to get it out on to the streets to make it more

modern. If it hadn't been for Sunday's elections, all those

people, small business, and people with mortgages, would have been

banging on for months and not getting results? I think these

things were in train, this is a summer of great announcements,

somebody said there would be four, it is all the same principle, how

do you get much more activity out on to the streets. At the moment it

is hogged in the bank and out in the weird computerised money, not

thriel in people's pockets. Also, there is a sense -- in people's

pockets. Also there is a sense they have to knock each other's heads

together and get on with it. We are joined by Paul, filming in Athens.

Do you think this will work? Chancellor is doing two things

today, and Mervyn King together with him. The first thing is to

pump ready cash into the banking system. �5 billion a month, �30

billion over six months. That is the equivalent of inflating an air

bag in car before the crash happens. We know what the crash will be,

here in Athens, whoever wins the election, nobody thinks Greece can

do what it is supposed to do under the bail out. The eurozone is

facing a pretty decisive moment pretty soon. That is what that is

for. The other thing, the bank printing money and lending it to

banks so, the banks can swap their bad detects for some good money,

and then lend some more. That is what is talked about. That is there

to solve a different problem. That problem is the existing policy is

not working. The Project Merlin, supposed to get banks lending to

small businesses and lending mortgages, is clearly not doing

enough for the Chancellor. The other thing this policy is supposed

to do, is fill the gap that fiscal policy can't. Obviously the

Government is terrified of one thing, that is that we get dragged

into this whirlpool of downgrades and counter downgrades that the

rest of Europe is undergoing. It is the last moment when the Government

thinks it can move on tax and spend. It has to get Mervyn King to move

on printing money and doing something creative with it. The

problem is, though it doesn't affect Britain's triple-A rating t

says that the Bank of England is strong enough to say a bit of risky

lending with its own money. That is a kind of unknown ter treatment we

wouldn't be in it unless we were expect -- territory, we wouldn't be

in it unless we are expecting dire events from Europe. This money is

getting out there fast? You say, that there is no detail to the plan.

On the bigger scheme, the �80 billion is what they are talking

about. The liquidity they can get out fast. The �80 billion to

restart bank lend to go small businesses and households, we have

-- lending to small businesss and households, we have to see the

detail. The Treasury couldn't explain tonight how the money would

be swamped from the banks to banks. Is this an admission that Project

Merlin has failed? This is pulling out all the stops on Plan A. This

is using the hard-won fiscal authority, to get money through to

businesses that we needed. That is the suggestion, that you hadn't

been pulling out the stops up until now? The economic environment is

deteriorating around the globe. We are facing more instability in

Greece, we have to work harder at Plan A. But we have the chance to

do that now. This wasn't in Plan A. Isn't that the point, you are

stretching Plan A, just so you can't call it Plan B? We can

stretch it because of the hard-won fiscal credibility. For two years

we built it up. We have a stronger balance sheet, now we can deploy

that to help the banks get more money through. The other thing had

a has changed is the banks are finding it more expensive to borrow

on the international market, at the same time they have to stack more

capital up for regulatory purposes. The money isn't getting through to

home owners who need it and businesses. Paul Mason said it

wouldn't affect Britain's credit rating, but does it reveal tonight

how worried George Osborne and the governor of the Bank of England,

Mervyn King, are? It is an understanding that the economic

outlook is deteriorating for this country. We trade enormously with

the eurozone. There is more instability there. We have to do

everything we can to keep Britain safe through the storm. That means

making sure that businesses can get the money they need, not just small

businesses, but all businesses, and home owners can get the mortgages

they need. How long will you give it before you decide it works or

not? The scheme is decided to be up and run anything few weeks. If it

increases the stock of running in a few weeks. It increases the stock

of lending and if we can get it running this year it should make a

difference. Today Paul ventured far from Athens to a village to see

what hopes Tierney have -- tis it is have of picking up the --

Ahtisaari to see what they have -- For this man the decisions are

usually measured in kilos. Kilos of hey, which is expensive, kilos of

beef which he rears, but finds hard to sell. This is deep Greece. The

mountains of this. Essili, a Greece res nant with the past, and from

from which the parties draw their history. Something is happening in

the small squares, deep discontent. TRANSLATION: People are desperate,

they can't take it any more. We think Tsipras can do things

differently let's see what he has to offer. He's never been in power

before. TRANSLATION: We are a generation that should be peaking

now, if I had known this would happen I would never have gotten

married, I'm very worried about them. Most of the young farmers I

spoke to in this village said they would spoke for the far left party

Tsipras, but more out of desperation than conviction.

TRANSLATION: Greece could be out of the euro, which we don't want. But

we have to vote for him, because in the last 20 years of PASOK and New

Democracy, we saw nothing good. Now let's see what happens.

Now, hi no idea they were going to say that. In fact, I came here

thinking they would say the exact opposite. But when a party of

Marxists, radical greens and feminists, is getting votes from

farmers, through hours into the mountains, away from Athens,

something is going on. Tsipras's rise has been spectacular,

a coalition of the radical left, they never scored more than 5%

until the crisis. In the may election they scored 17%,

and this man, Alexis Tsipras, came the figure head to resistance to

austerity. Now they are polling as high as 27%. And within a few

percentage points of power. But what would a Syriza Government

do? In the first place rip up the bail out deal agreed in March and

then says the party's economics expert, tax the rich. For the next

four years we want to introduce measures to increase public

receipts by 1% a year at least. Raising taxes? Raising taxes.

all income tax? It will be income taxes, wealth taxes. It will be

taxes on, I don't know, even the church, this Channel Tunnel doesn't

pay. What is the Greek word for "goodbye ", as the rich and middle-

class leave the one? Well. there is only one answer to capital

flight and it is taboo? Capital controls. Would you introduce

capital controls to prevent capital flight? You need to introduce

capital controls, and all kinds of measures to stop these, the

reaction. But capital controls in the eurozone are only legal for

security reasons. The Greek left is well aware that would prompt a

clash with the euro authorities? we are push today the precipice, we

will have to default. If you default you will be forced out of

the eurozone? Is it better to default under a left-wing or right

left-wing Government. We have Once Seen a Government of Marxist eco

radical feminists in the eurozone? To put your mind at rest, we are

mild in those things. We are for peaceful change.

Greek political commentators believe the Syriza vote is not just

left-wing voters moving further left, it is something more

emotional. The young people are turning massively towards Syriza,

older ones like me tend to go with old parties. But it is people

feeling desperate as things evolve in Greece. It is a vote of grief,

rather than a vote of anger. People feel helpless, they feel

abandoned. So they feel that somebody has stood up for them.

This somebody is Syriza. nowhere is that clearer than in the

mountains and the villages that many urban Greek also return to

this weekend, to cast their votes. It was the small businessmen who

formed the backbone of the old political system. Many of them,

like this man, feel they have been ruined by the bail out programme,

and they despair of politics. will vote more just to say

something, for example I will vote Syriza just to say that I don't

want these measures any more. This is not working. We need to grow our

economy. But you don't believe in the party itself? No, no, no, no.

And private polls indicate that Greeks going to this election with

a tight margin, between the mainstream and Marxism.

We apologise for the technical problems with that film.

Gordon Brown, George Osborne, John Major, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg,

Alex Salmond, and today, David Cameron, all got a grilling at the

Leveson Inquiry this week. But was it a grilling or a light steam. Our

panel are here to give their verdicts. Danny Finkelstein, Sally

Morgan, former righthand woman at Downing Streeting, and Miranda

Green, one time adviser to the Liberal Democrats. What do you

think we learned about David Cameron today, apart from the fact

that he's your mate! First of all, prais prime ministers having to

answer questions under oath at the Royal Courts of Justice is not

great look. The whole thing has been an ordeal for the incumbent

party, and more of an ordeal than they thought about when they set it

up. The first part of the inquiry which learned a lot about press

ethics, that will help in the future. The next section has been

less successful, embarrassing for the Government, the texts have been

embarrassing. They went after the idea that there was a big

conspiracy and didn't prove it, they wasted a lot of time with that.

That is disappointing. The public, which has never been that engaged

with this part of it, has now become much less engaged with it. I

suspect the political consequences of the prime ministers' performance

-- the Prime Minister's performance, not what you want, it makes them

look out of control, will not be that great, because public interest

has waneed. The idea at the beginning of the inquiry that

people felt passionate about, now not so much. Did you learn

something about David Cameron, how he handled himself today? I thought

he handled himself well, he looked uncomfortable at times, as you

would expect. It is not great listening to testimony like. That

it was excruciating, wasn't it. I suppose what I think Is the sort of

damaging smell, or taste that is left at the end of today, really,

there was nothing killing there. It was just this added perception of

this kind of clique, living a life. It adds to the feeling that they

are very separate from the rest of us. That is the problem, I think.

The thing was, the text, as has been said several times, was from

Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron, not the other way round. It

suggested a close relationship, and the language of the text was all

about that. Was she quite close to him at the time? I mean I couldn't

tell you, but it certainly does, as Sally said, leave this idea,

amongst the general public, that there is a cosiness, a media and

political elite, it is all terribly chummy, and what is the fate of the

rest of the population. It leaves the rest of the population out?

important thing to note is they started with that view. I don't

think it will have changed much. You don't want it to reinforce that

view, do you? No, and I think David Cameron hoped during expenses to

separate himself from that view. It is about the whole of the political

class. The party political damage, I expect Tom Watson hopes he has

induced, more that it has damaged David Cameron's relationship with

the rest of the press rather than causing the Tories' problems.

largely agree with that, I think the public have switched off and it

has done nothing for politics or media. But I do think it is

particularly damaging for David Cameron, at the moment. It just

adds to that general view of, not just that politicians are different,

but that this group are not suffering like the rest of us. They

are living a different sort of life. You, from your own background know

exactly what happens when things get out of control. It looks to me

that Leveson setting the agenda, not the politicians, that can't be

good for any of the parties. Let's take Gordon Brown's performance,

Gordon Brown looked as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. I mean,

how did that happen? There was no challenge to that, of course?

challenge during the inquiry. really? They let it run. I thought

there were two parts of Gordon, there was the section where he was

talking about his son. And I think in a sense, there would be a level

of sympathy from people listening to 0 that. And there was -- to that.

And then there was the briefing and the spinning, you could ask six

questions, if you were going to get the answer Gordon gave, why ask it

six times. My point of view is it wouldn't convince anybody. With the

Liberal Democrats, they have been in parade, looking back, Nick Clegg

actually came out of it quite well? I think Nick Clegg is much better

talking like a normal person. Funnily enough he returned a bit to

the Nick Clegg USP that he has lost so disastrously in Government. He

was charming, self-deprecating humour worked very well on TV, and

a bonding moment with Brian Leveson. It is true,'s good at that.

managed to distance himself, that crack of being at the children's

end of the table, was an effective way of saying he's not part of the

circle. Is it that the Liberal Democrats don't matter? The thing

to remember is people aren't watching. I spent a total of eight

days watching the Leveson. But that is because I do that for a living.

Other people, they went to work. They didn't watch the inquiry.

is the point. You said earlier on that there may well be proposals

out of that, and they will have arisen from the early part of the

inquiry. The problem is, for the public, this is making politicians,

and the press, so far removed from them? The early part of the Leveson

Inquiry was gripping and moving. And any journalist would have to

lock at it and think, beyond what I even thought, this make as case for

having some form of redress, and changing the way the press behave.

I think this part of the Leveson Inquiry, particularly after a while

beginning to repeat itself, was much less effective and has lost a

lot of public interest. The public thought they already knew that

journalists and politicians were living separate lives from them,

that is how they feel about them. I don't think it has changed that an

awful lot. I think it will have forced a change in behaviour.

it? To deal with the whole aftermath of Hutton, how did you

get things back on track and they didn't stay on track that long?

Hutton, I was saying to Danny, beforehand, looking at it, you

think, oh no, you set an inquiry up, and it takes over. No matter how

stietly you have set up the framework for an inquiry. Once you

set it up? It runs itself. can't interfere? It consumes vast

hours and days and weeks of activity in the centre. When you

look at what else is happening in the country at the moment. How do

you get back, you have to weight until Leveson finshes? There will

be pause in the summer, they will wait until he finshes and they will

need to respond to his propoetsals quickly. Do you -- Proposals

quickly. Do you think that is the way to knock it on the head, to

respond quickly? An interesting difference emerged between Ed

Miliband, Nick Clegg and David Cameron. David Cameron was much

less on statutory underpinning, clearly the Conservative instinct

is different. There will be a genuine debate about what to do.

The Times has been very against statutory underpinning, other

moneys are more favourable. There is an appetite for change, it is

interesting, John Major's evidence was fascinating this week. Tony

Blair appealing for the current Prime Minister to act in the way

that he never did. I think there is a moment hire that must be seized.

If it -- Here that must be seized. If it isn't seized, public will be

doubly disengaged, thinking it is all a waste of time? There are

other things going on. We are in the middle two of massive threats,

the eurozone, Syria. One of the terrible things this week is we had

Leveson and PMQs this week where nobody asked anything about Syria

or Europe. The issues that relate to real people at the hands of the

press, people are interested. The Government have to do something

about it. Do you think whatever happens it withers the relationship

between the politicians and the press? In the newspapers, a lot of

the consequence is the Tory press has turned on the Tory Party, that

is one of the consequences. It will all change soon. Tomorrow morning's

front pages. Thank you all very much.

�140 billion to kick start the economy. The Independent has the