:00:14. > :00:21.Tonight, the Olympic symbol has always been five intersecting rings,
:00:21. > :00:26.might a more appropriate thing be five fattening doughnuts. As the
:00:26. > :00:31.athletes prepare to gather in London. An angry cardiologist asks
:00:31. > :00:35.why some key sponsors are linked to obesity and unhealthy eating.
:00:35. > :00:40.find is fascinating that the Olympics chooses to be associated
:00:40. > :00:46.with sugary drinks, fast food, and alcohol. We speak to an olympian
:00:46. > :00:51.and marketing man. Cuts in benefits and making work
:00:51. > :00:55.pay, an ally of David Cameron wants to means test pensions and cut Sure
:00:55. > :01:00.Start for children. What is the difference between a
:01:00. > :01:03.cess pit and our banking system? Paul Mason knows.
:01:03. > :01:06.A key official at the Bank of England testifies, somebody's
:01:06. > :01:10.reputation is going to get flushed away.
:01:10. > :01:13.And having failed with electoral reform, Nick Clegg is on the eve of
:01:13. > :01:23.the first major Government defeat over House of Lords reform, at the
:01:23. > :01:26.
:01:26. > :01:33.hands of Tory MPs. Good evening, the Olympic Moto is
:01:33. > :01:40.Citius, Altius, Fortius, faster, higher, stronger. Why are some of
:01:40. > :01:46.the key sponsors of the greatest sporting events in the worlds,
:01:46. > :01:56.McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Heineken, likely to be associated with the
:01:56. > :01:58.
:01:58. > :02:03.motto, fatter, et cetera. The logos of those associated with the
:02:03. > :02:09.Olympic Games are responsible for some heart disease.
:02:09. > :02:13.We turn to a cardiologist and see what he has to say.
:02:13. > :02:17.Over the last 30 years, processed food has taken over the British
:02:17. > :02:23.diet. And over the past 30 years, obesity
:02:23. > :02:27.has more than doubled. Now, as London prepares to host a
:02:27. > :02:35.global sporting celebration, processed food has taken over the
:02:35. > :02:37.Olympics. It is a scandal the food and drink industry, are high-
:02:37. > :02:42.profile sponsors of the Olympic Games. The Olympics are supposed to
:02:42. > :02:45.be about fitness, and health, and to associate them with products,
:02:45. > :02:51.which are damaging our health, particularly our children's health,
:02:51. > :02:55.is quite wrong. A human heart is a thing of
:02:55. > :03:00.simplicity and wonder. It is designed to pump blood around your
:03:00. > :03:06.body, at 60 beats per minute, for close on 80 years. Unless, you live
:03:06. > :03:12.on a diet of processed food. I work at the Heart Attack Centre
:03:12. > :03:22.in London's Royal Free Hospital, where we have witnessed an
:03:22. > :03:22.
:03:23. > :03:26.explosion of diet-related diseases. By 2050, 90% of Britain --
:03:26. > :03:30.Britain's population will be overweight. And treating obesity
:03:30. > :03:34.will cost the NHS �45 billion a year. The UK is on the verge of a
:03:34. > :03:40.major public health disaster, the cost of which could dwarf that of
:03:40. > :03:44.alcohol and tobacco, and even cripple the NHS. What is the most
:03:44. > :03:47.important factor? Sugar and carbohydrates added to processed
:03:47. > :03:50.food. I believe what we eat is killing us.
:03:50. > :03:56.This is not the same old warning about junk food. I'm much more
:03:56. > :04:00.concerned about all processed food. Processed foods contain few of the
:04:00. > :04:04.natural nutrients we need to survive, yet are loaded with added
:04:04. > :04:10.sugars and carbohydrates that the body does not need. So the body
:04:10. > :04:19.converts them to fat. If you look at when the obesity
:04:19. > :04:24.epidemic took off in the UK, late 1970 early 1980s, our consumption
:04:24. > :04:30.of processed food has increased in parallel. It is not an add on to
:04:30. > :04:35.real food, it is our entire diet. Zoe Harkumhas studied the rise of
:04:35. > :04:40.processed food in our diet, she says we have it all wrong. Bodies
:04:40. > :04:45.know how to process butter, meat and eggs, but it has no idea what
:04:45. > :04:50.to do with all the added sugars appearing in processed foods.
:04:50. > :04:55.is the only thing that humans digest that has no nutritional
:04:55. > :04:58.value, no protein, vitamins or minerals, it is unique in that
:04:58. > :05:03.respect. In terms of sugar, we eat it on top of what we should be
:05:03. > :05:07.eating, in which case it can make us fat, or we eat it instead of
:05:07. > :05:11.what we are eating, in which case it leaves us nutritionally
:05:11. > :05:14.deficient, so we end up sick, so we are getting fat and sick at the
:05:14. > :05:20.same time. Globally, diet-related diseases
:05:20. > :05:24.kill 35 million every year. That is five-times more than tobacco.
:05:24. > :05:29.Whilst big food companies continue to make huge profits, in Britain,
:05:29. > :05:34.the bill is borne by the NHS and the taxpayer.
:05:34. > :05:38.In the shadow of the Olympic stadium, doctors are facing an
:05:38. > :05:44.epidemic of diabetes. Within the borrowing of Newham, we
:05:44. > :05:49.are probably seeing -- borough of Newham, we are probably seeing
:05:49. > :05:55.doubling of patients with type two diabetes in the last ten years. 40-
:05:55. > :06:00.50% of the consultations in the practice are related to diabetes or
:06:00. > :06:04.the complication. I have come to a GP's surgery, just two miles from
:06:04. > :06:11.the Olympic Park. The doctor says the majority of his resources
:06:11. > :06:16.already go towards fighting diet- related illness.
:06:16. > :06:19.Diabetes is a multiorgan, multisystem disease, leading to
:06:19. > :06:23.heart attacks, strokes and amputation, treating it early is
:06:23. > :06:28.vital. We are seeing patients present with other conditions, like
:06:28. > :06:32.high blood pressure-related to the diabetes, high levels of
:06:32. > :06:39.cholesterol, some long-term complication of diabetes, which is
:06:39. > :06:45.affect the eyes, the kidneys, with chronic kidney disease. Every day
:06:45. > :06:53.the NHS has to battle the effects of sugary foods, and the marketing
:06:53. > :06:57.campaigns used to push them. Surely the Olympics should be sorting this
:06:57. > :07:03.out. I find is obscene that the Olympics
:07:03. > :07:06.is associated itself with sugary drinks, fast food and alcohol, and
:07:06. > :07:11.fast food. The sponsors can't be held accountable for Britain's
:07:11. > :07:15.health, but they send a dreadful message being associated with the
:07:15. > :07:21.games. I'm not the only one who thinks so? I think it is shocking
:07:21. > :07:26.that companies like McDonalds's, Coca-Cola, Cadbury's and Heineken
:07:26. > :07:32.are the main food sponsors. These are products which are all very
:07:32. > :07:38.well as a treat. But what Olympic sponsorship allows them to do is
:07:38. > :07:43.promote their brand, and insinuate their way into people's Dail yiey
:07:43. > :07:47.day yet. Whether you are looking at obesity -- daily diet. Whether you
:07:47. > :07:54.are looking at obesity, or people's dental problems, whether you are
:07:54. > :07:58.even looking at the rising youth alcohol issue, these companies are
:07:58. > :08:03.the culprits. They shouldn't be such prominent sponsors of the
:08:03. > :08:06.Olympics. Diane Abbott is not only shadow
:08:06. > :08:12.public Health Minister, she's also an East End MP.
:08:12. > :08:16.In the 19th century, the poor faced illnesses like cholera, and typhoid,
:08:16. > :08:19.today, with inner city areas, effectively fresh food deserts, and
:08:19. > :08:26.childhood obesity levels rocketing, the health of Britain's poor is
:08:26. > :08:31.still determined by class. Obesity is now a disease of poverty.
:08:31. > :08:36.When you look at the statistics, as I have done, what you find is
:08:36. > :08:41.obesity is a bigger problem for people on lower incomes. For
:08:41. > :08:45.instance, just recently we found out that the largest number, and
:08:45. > :08:50.the rising number, of gastric band operations, for people who are
:08:50. > :08:54.heavily obese, are amongst the people with the lowest income. Once
:08:54. > :08:57.upon a time, poor people couldn't get enough to eat, nowadays poor
:08:57. > :09:03.people's health is threatened by obesity.
:09:03. > :09:09.In Newham, the largest McDonald's in the world has been built, in the
:09:09. > :09:12.Olympic Park. It is 30,000-square feet inside, and will seat over
:09:12. > :09:19.1500 people. That the London Olympics allows this kind of food
:09:19. > :09:24.such prominence, is, in my opinion, disastrous for public health.
:09:24. > :09:29.I avoided excess sugars and sugary products, I try to keep to fairly
:09:29. > :09:37.normal, mother would tell you, fresh vegtables rules that kind of
:09:37. > :09:41.thing. Athletes don't base their diet on processed food. One of the
:09:41. > :09:47.Olympic greats tells me even 30 years ago he was avoiding it.
:09:47. > :09:51.the Olympic Games people would take a lot of sugary products and it was
:09:51. > :09:55.free, and you see athletes pump on the weight in the games. I noticed
:09:55. > :09:58.that and avoided it. Weaning ourselves off fast food and sugary
:09:58. > :10:04.drifrpbgs, appears to be a problem for the International Olympic
:10:04. > :10:09.Committee too. We know the negative health impact, obesity, of
:10:09. > :10:13.processed foods and sugars, I suppose the IOC, now, have a really
:10:13. > :10:18.challenging situation. Yes, they need the money from the sponsors,
:10:18. > :10:25.and that money has come in, and really helped. But more than that,
:10:25. > :10:31.they have benefited for many years of the reach these sponsors had
:10:31. > :10:34.into new market places. To children, and others. It isth has really
:10:34. > :10:40.helped. Now their challenge -- and it has really helped. Now their
:10:40. > :10:44.challenge is how to deal with the health impact of that. But there
:10:44. > :10:48.seems little sign that the Olympic movement will move away from its
:10:48. > :10:55.current sponsors. Indeed, when challenged, the London organisers
:10:55. > :10:59.talk of the financial black hole their absence would cai. -- create.
:10:59. > :11:03.But obesity will open up a much bigger black hole in the NHS's
:11:03. > :11:06.budget. It may not be a priority for the London Olympics, but the
:11:06. > :11:15.costs of obesity are foremost in the mind of all of us who work to
:11:15. > :11:19.improve public health. Obviously we asked to speak to
:11:19. > :11:22.someone from the London organising committee, and the IOC, as well as
:11:22. > :11:24.the sponsors mentioned in that report, but no-one was made
:11:24. > :11:27.available. There is plenty of statements from all of them on our
:11:27. > :11:32.website, broadly saying that all is well, and the Olympics would not
:11:32. > :11:36.happen without their support. We can speak to the cardiologist you
:11:36. > :11:41.saw in that report, Michael Payne, former director of marketing for
:11:41. > :11:50.the international Olympic Committee, and CRACKING, the rower, who twice
:11:50. > :11:55.won Olympic -- James Cracknell, who won gold twice for Britain.
:11:55. > :12:03.Surely there is other manufacturers? It is a broader
:12:03. > :12:06.lifestyle agenda of people getting active, to do with obesity.
:12:06. > :12:12.Associating the epitomy of health with foods that make people obese,
:12:12. > :12:17.there is a mixed message there? McDonald's from when they started
:12:17. > :12:22.to become a sponsor of the Olympics sake how do you broaden the agenda.
:12:22. > :12:27.They introduced salads, and the testing of salads and the
:12:27. > :12:30.broodening of the menu started at the Olympics. Same with Coca-Cola,
:12:30. > :12:34.sports drinks, and sugar-free drinks, started with the Olympics.
:12:34. > :12:38.It is not just kies of the revenue and funding these companies bring,
:12:38. > :12:43.not just to the games but the TV and sport. But the programmes, in
:12:43. > :12:47.Germans of Go-active that they run. You wouldn't accept cigarette money,
:12:47. > :12:51.would you? The IOC was the first to drop that. Or weapons manufacturers.
:12:51. > :12:56.You accept beer money, but not whiskey money? Not spirits, you can
:12:56. > :12:59.go after every industry. Before you know it you will say not cars
:12:59. > :13:04.because they impact the environment, not airlines, and sports clothing
:13:04. > :13:08.made in India. Do you think athletes care about this, the IOC
:13:08. > :13:12.President said in the FT today, that there is a question mark over
:13:12. > :13:17.whether to continue with McDonald's? As within athlete there
:13:17. > :13:21.is people in society, and they will always fall down the gap. I don't
:13:21. > :13:29.think people who watch the Olympics will assume that as a fast food
:13:29. > :13:32.chain and a drinks chain sponsoring them, that those are the products
:13:32. > :13:41.the athletes live on. When you are training, you wouldn't have much of
:13:41. > :13:46.that in your diet? Athletes need to have self-discipline, but also, in
:13:46. > :13:52.the 20 years I was an athlete, I consumed a lifetime of food. I had
:13:52. > :13:56.6,000 calories a, as opposed to 2,000. I had 60 years of food in 20
:13:56. > :13:59.years. Not processed food? No, but you also have to live. Everything
:13:59. > :14:06.in moderation is good. The most important thing an athlete can do
:14:06. > :14:12.is when they stop competing, is that they don't change shape, they
:14:12. > :14:16.don't balloon in weight. So they don't eat this stuff? They keep
:14:16. > :14:20.moving, you know, as long as you burn off more calories than you put
:14:20. > :14:24.in, and you do eat the sensible things. You don't want to show you
:14:24. > :14:28.are just healthy and fit because that's what you needed to do in
:14:28. > :14:34.order to win. You need to have that as a guiding principle in life to
:14:34. > :14:38.make the most of it. Would you accept that if you don't companies
:14:38. > :14:41.to sponsor the Olympics, there might not be an Olympics, and it
:14:41. > :14:46.helps people and encourages people to take part in sport, which is
:14:46. > :14:51.part of a healthy lifestyle, it is good, in other words? Firstly, I
:14:51. > :14:54.would like to say that I don't believe we need to rely purely on
:14:54. > :14:58.food companies that promote unhealthy foods for the Olympics.
:14:58. > :15:01.Secondly, I want to pick up this point about physical activity, it
:15:01. > :15:07.is an interesting one. From my perspective, I think it is
:15:07. > :15:10.something that is used quite well by the food industry, almost to
:15:10. > :15:14.deflect from their own culpability and marketing to children, if you
:15:14. > :15:17.look at the data and evidence, over the last 30 years the physical
:15:17. > :15:21.activity levels have increased slightly. That may sound odd, but
:15:21. > :15:26.all the data, when we have looked at this, suggests that our
:15:26. > :15:31.overconsumption of cheap sugary and cheap junk foods is the main thing
:15:31. > :15:36.to contribute to obesity. To put it in context for you vooers, if I was
:15:36. > :15:39.to have a barf chocolate, a pact of crisps and a burger and chips
:15:39. > :15:46.washed down with a fizzy drink, I would have to run for five hours to
:15:46. > :15:50.run off the calories. To talk about physical activity isn't there.
:15:50. > :15:54.Clearly there is a benefit to these companies in associating themselves
:15:54. > :15:58.with the healthy living of athletes, that is why they do it. But it is
:15:58. > :16:02.phoney, isn't it? In a way the Olympics is saying this is OK, you
:16:02. > :16:07.are endorsing it? It is not phoney at all. I think the whole issue is
:16:07. > :16:10.whether you take any of these products in some moderation. The
:16:10. > :16:13.programmes that these sponsors are running, without it, in terms of
:16:13. > :16:18.not just from the funding of the game, but the programmes around the
:16:18. > :16:22.world, in getting kids active. The Government's are cutting back, they
:16:22. > :16:25.are not putting the funding in. just heard the doctor saying, the
:16:25. > :16:31.question of exercise, you would have to exercise and run for five
:16:31. > :16:36.hours to burn off those calories? Would we be better off saying let's
:16:36. > :16:43.not have the Olympics. That is not what we are saying, it is we would
:16:43. > :16:47.be better off if the sponsors were other people? Where is the queue of
:16:47. > :16:50.people to sponsor the games, they don't exist. Each company, every
:16:50. > :16:54.time the Olympics come along, you get a call saying you can't have
:16:54. > :16:58.this company and that company. If the IOC took that position and
:16:58. > :17:04.walked away from all the companies, game over, no Olympics, no support
:17:04. > :17:07.for support. The challenge -- sport. The challenge is to make sure these
:17:07. > :17:12.companies understand their responsibility and the way the IOC
:17:12. > :17:21.has told them. Are you literally a spoil sport, if you had your way
:17:21. > :17:25.there might be no Olympics? I don't agree with that. Let's look at the
:17:25. > :17:29.statistics, in 204, the World Health Organisation announced that
:17:29. > :17:33.obesity was a global epidemic, yet eight years later we have the
:17:33. > :17:36.Olympics, on our own turf, and the statistics tell us that we have now
:17:36. > :17:40.one in three children, by the age of nine, who are overweight or
:17:40. > :17:44.obese. So, these called intervention about physical
:17:44. > :17:46.activity, as far as I'm concerned, the most effective intervention
:17:46. > :17:50.needs to be a public health strategy that targets the
:17:50. > :17:53.population as a whole. You have to remember, the Olympic Games is the
:17:53. > :17:57.most effective international marketing platform in the world.
:17:57. > :18:02.This will go out to over 200 countries, reaching billions of
:18:02. > :18:07.people. We have the main sponsors associated with unhealthy foods. In
:18:07. > :18:12.particular, I'm most concerned about the children.
:18:12. > :18:15.James, there is comments from the head of the IOC, suggesting there
:18:15. > :18:19.may be some reconsidering here. Most people have not heard of him,
:18:19. > :18:22.they have heard of you and other athletes, don't you think you have
:18:22. > :18:25.a responsibility, not just not to get fat in your old age because you
:18:25. > :18:28.are not training so much, but to set some example while you are
:18:28. > :18:34.training, because you are a role model? There is a responsibility.
:18:34. > :18:40.And there is also a responsibility that we have as a society. Because
:18:40. > :18:44.the hugely complex issues here, just to say it is the sporting
:18:44. > :18:50.event every four years and the sponsors cause the obesity children.
:18:50. > :18:53.If the children under nine are obese, they will have had maximum
:18:53. > :18:57.two Olympic Games in that period. It is something as a society we
:18:57. > :19:01.need to make sure that there aren't people falling through the gaps,
:19:01. > :19:10.the same we support them in every other way. But it is absolutely
:19:10. > :19:14.crucial to change the way that we lead sedintary lives. There are
:19:14. > :19:17.other sponsors. The Olympics plays a part in that by encouraging you
:19:17. > :19:23.to get involved in sport? There are other sponsors other than the food
:19:23. > :19:26.and drink products. Whether it is the technology, whether it is the
:19:26. > :19:31.television company. There is so many other sponsors, but they are
:19:31. > :19:35.the ones with the money to fund it. Our Olympic warm-up continues
:19:35. > :19:38.tomorrow night with the first black power olympian, Tommy Smith, and to
:19:38. > :19:42.great fanfare, we will unveil our plans on how Newsnight will cover
:19:42. > :19:46.the games this summer. Throughout the year Newsnight is
:19:46. > :19:49.looking at the increasing cost of living in hard times, tonight we
:19:49. > :19:52.have a radical piece of thinking about what might be done. It comes
:19:52. > :19:55.from the Conservative thinker, Nick Boles, a close ally of David
:19:55. > :19:58.Cameron. He's suggesting something that many of his Conservative
:19:58. > :20:03.colleagues will regard as politically pose sonous, the
:20:03. > :20:06.scrapping of universal benefits, to better off pensioners, a deeper
:20:06. > :20:10.overhaul of housing benefits, and possible cuts to the Sure Start
:20:10. > :20:13.programme for young children. All with the aim, he says, of making
:20:13. > :20:23.Britain more productive and competitive, and in the end,
:20:23. > :20:25.
:20:25. > :20:29.increasing wages. We will debate it in a moment, first Allegra Stratton.
:20:29. > :20:35.It has been called the great stagnation, but you could call it
:20:35. > :20:40.the incredibly shrinking family budget. We just keep getting poorer.
:20:40. > :20:45.Disposable income for low-to-middle income homes will fall 8% by 2015
:20:45. > :20:51.then where do we go from there. For optimists it will take to the end
:20:51. > :20:55.of this decade to get back to where we were before the 2008 crash. For
:20:55. > :20:59.the gloomy among us, we go into 2020 earning what we earned in 2001.
:20:59. > :21:02.It is a mark of the size of the problem, that the Resolution
:21:02. > :21:07.Foundation, an independent think- tank, is kept busy by its scale,
:21:07. > :21:10.and what can be done about it. are saying a deterioration in some
:21:11. > :21:14.countries, a breakdown, in the relationship between overall
:21:14. > :21:18.economic growth, even in the good years, and the benefits flowing
:21:18. > :21:21.through to ordinary workers on middle or below middle pay. That is
:21:21. > :21:24.happening not just here in the UK, that is happening in a number of
:21:24. > :21:28.countries, particularly Anglo-Saxon countries, not just them, where in
:21:28. > :21:33.the past you would have seen quite a tight relationship where GDP went
:21:33. > :21:36.up, ordinary wages tended to go up with it, that has dissipated
:21:36. > :21:39.significantly, wherein some countries you see almost no
:21:39. > :21:45.relationship over the last 10-20 years, between economic growth on
:21:45. > :21:47.the one hand, and the benefits felt by someone on an ordinary pay pact.
:21:47. > :21:51.That is a massive change in an ordinary economy.
:21:51. > :21:54.The way to deal with it in the past is you would try to get a pay rise
:21:54. > :22:00.or work longer hours. A pay rise is difficult to imagine when you have
:22:00. > :22:04.real wage increases not due on the horizon until 2013, 14, working
:22:04. > :22:08.long hours is a diminished possibility. The people who want to
:22:08. > :22:11.work longer hours is running at its highest level since 1992. Then
:22:11. > :22:14.there are historical trends. The reason we have rising living
:22:14. > :22:18.standards over the last 40 years in large part due to women entering
:22:18. > :22:22.the work force. In the last ten years rising living standards have
:22:22. > :22:26.also been affected by tax credits. Neither of those things are due to
:22:26. > :22:30.be replicated. Now, a close ally of the Prime Minister, Nick Boles,
:22:30. > :22:34.also a parliamentary aide, has been doing some work on this, and in a
:22:34. > :22:44.speech tomorrow, but given to Newsnight, he issues this morning.
:22:44. > :22:52.
:22:52. > :22:56.Of the historic roots to increased earning, either a partner entering
:22:56. > :22:59.work, or one or other of a couple working more hours, Nick Boles says
:22:59. > :23:02.neither of the trends are sustainable, and if they were, we
:23:02. > :23:04.shouldn't want them to be. What will it do for our health and
:23:04. > :23:09.happiness if the only way to achieve a growing income is to work
:23:09. > :23:14.longer hours. His prescription could be described
:23:14. > :23:18.as an intense workout. Nick Boles wants to improve people's chances
:23:18. > :23:20.of earning a better wage through improving their skills. He wants to
:23:20. > :23:24.make us more competitive and productive.
:23:24. > :23:29.What does it mean? Nick Boles is saying that any policies that don't
:23:29. > :23:32.have a discernable impact on our productivity or competitiveness,
:23:32. > :23:36.they should go. For him it means that pensioner benefits for the
:23:36. > :23:39.very well off should go they next election, and Sure Start, and
:23:39. > :23:45.policies he doesn't think have a proven ability to keep us in work
:23:45. > :23:49.or better us at work, they should go through. You may just be
:23:49. > :23:52.digesting the last round of cuts, this is the taste of the next round
:23:52. > :23:55.to come. Nick Boles believes there should be
:23:55. > :23:58.growth in public spending, only where the productivity and
:23:58. > :24:03.competitiveness of the British people is improved. He believes
:24:04. > :24:10.there should be further cuts elsewhere, to ensure as a total,
:24:10. > :24:14.spending falls. He suggests the Chancellor should come up with
:24:15. > :24:24.policies that augment this thinking, and bin those that don't. It leads
:24:25. > :24:36.
:24:36. > :24:41.He also proposes re-examining Sure Start children's centres. He says
:24:41. > :24:44.they have no measurable impact. Improving competitiveness is
:24:44. > :24:48.clearly desirable, but analysts point out, that wages may not have
:24:48. > :24:53.gone up as GDP has, because companies have chosen to make
:24:53. > :24:59.larger profits. There are a number of different factors behind it, one
:24:59. > :25:02.of these is we have seen a large scale increase for wage
:25:02. > :25:06.inequalities. The top half of earners, are seeing an ever-larger
:25:06. > :25:09.slice of the cake going to them. That is part of T we have also seen,
:25:09. > :25:15.particularly over recent years, a growth in the share of GDP going to
:25:15. > :25:21.business, in the form of profits. That happened in the UK in the 200
:25:21. > :25:25.0s, there is another squeeze on the pay pact bit of GDP. What of Boles'
:25:25. > :25:28.view that tax credits haven't work to get us into work. When it comes
:25:29. > :25:33.to social security, the tax credit system, I think two things are
:25:33. > :25:37.rather important here, first of all, the tax credit system for people in
:25:38. > :25:42.work, of course it is redistribute today poor families, but it is also
:25:42. > :25:45.helping to move them into work. It is good for productivity, it is
:25:45. > :25:48.worth being clear that whilst this Government has taken some money out
:25:48. > :25:52.of those budgets, they are still more generous than they were back
:25:52. > :25:56.in 1997, before the last Labour Government really started putting
:25:56. > :26:00.significant amounts of extra money into the tax credit system.
:26:01. > :26:05.Families running up the down escalator to build living standards
:26:05. > :26:09.back up. Leading politicians are now lending a hand, it sounds a
:26:09. > :26:15.simple task, but it is actually as ideolgical as it gets.
:26:15. > :26:25.Nick Boles is with us, as is the former Labour minister, Lord Adonis,
:26:25. > :26:27.
:26:27. > :26:32.and the editor of a sister organisation for mums net.
:26:32. > :26:38.How much of this will feature in the next Conservative manifesto?
:26:38. > :26:40.don't know, I'm thinking out loud. We live in an age where we face
:26:40. > :26:44.uncomfortable choices. Politicians have to be straight with people.
:26:44. > :26:48.None of us want to do any of the stuff I talked about, we would all
:26:48. > :26:51.love the ship to go rolling on as it has, people get better off and
:26:51. > :26:55.the state providing lots of stuff. It is not possible, it is not
:26:55. > :27:00.honest, and I'm hoping others will pitch in with their ideas. David
:27:00. > :27:04.Cameron, and Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne and others are not
:27:04. > :27:10.being honest with us? We have done a lot, nobody has accused the
:27:10. > :27:14.coalition of not having taken radical and difficult steps with
:27:14. > :27:17.educational maintenance allowance. Are they listening when you are
:27:17. > :27:20.transmitting? I don't know, I haven't given the speech yet.
:27:20. > :27:25.you see some merit in this, the stagnation of living standards, or
:27:25. > :27:28.wages not keeping up with prices, is causing real problems to just
:27:28. > :27:33.about everybody. This may be, in the long-term, a way of tackling
:27:33. > :27:36.it? I'm not exactly sure what Nick is proposing. But the general theme
:27:36. > :27:39.of improving the productivity of the economy is vital. The root
:27:39. > :27:43.problem is high levels of unemployment. The I can't remember
:27:43. > :27:48.I have been paying close attention to recently youth unemployment,
:27:48. > :27:58.youth unemployment of a million, 24% of under-24-year-olds
:27:58. > :28:02.unemployed. We have to give a kick start to the youth market. So not
:28:02. > :28:07.giving benefits to very well off pensioners, Mick Jagger doesn't
:28:07. > :28:11.need it, does he? We should be providing subsidised jobs for the
:28:11. > :28:16.long-term youth unemployment. It is quality of spending, education
:28:16. > :28:19.standards aren't high enough and not a proper apprenticeship route.
:28:19. > :28:23.He's pointing out that politicians are great at spending money, but
:28:23. > :28:26.finding money, he has found some money, and it is a hard choice?
:28:26. > :28:29.is the old politics that Nick is talking about, the hard bit is
:28:29. > :28:35.simply about finding money. The hard bit is producing programmes
:28:35. > :28:38.that work. Where are the apprenticeship programmes for those
:28:38. > :28:42.not going to university. Where are the subsidises jobs, which the
:28:42. > :28:45.Government says it is providing, it won't provide figures forks the
:28:45. > :28:52.long-term youth unemployment. You have to have a Government machine
:28:52. > :29:01.that works and it doesn't work well enough. What do you think people
:29:01. > :29:07.joining Mumsnet and Gransnet, what will they think, that the better
:29:07. > :29:11.off pensioners et cetera? I think it is hard to argue that Mick
:29:11. > :29:16.Jagger needs pensions, people on the websites would accept that
:29:16. > :29:20.those on pensions of �60,000 plus shouldn't get universal benefits.
:29:20. > :29:24.The problem then comes where the cut-off comes. Only 10% of
:29:24. > :29:30.pensioners have an become of over �30,000. So you are talking about
:29:30. > :29:33.people probably with incomes of between �11,000-�30,000, you have
:29:33. > :29:36.to decide where you you are going to make that cut. We know that
:29:36. > :29:40.whenever you have means testing, you get a cliff edge, and very
:29:40. > :29:44.often the wrong people fall off the cliff. Do you think there is some
:29:44. > :29:48.merit in universal benefits because they are for everybody, there is no
:29:48. > :29:54.stigma and that is the traditional argument? We know the take-up is
:29:54. > :29:59.better, they are cheaper to run and they are efficient. The politics
:29:59. > :30:03.are pretty poisonous. The Tory plans here are to axe pensioners
:30:03. > :30:07.benefits on the front page, it is the granny tax all over again.
:30:07. > :30:11.Whenever you argue this you are the nasty party? This is what has got
:30:11. > :30:14.us into this mess, where we have the biggest budget deficit of any
:30:14. > :30:18.OECD country, and yet we have all the social problems that Andrew has
:30:18. > :30:21.been referring to and everything else. The fact is, it is because we
:30:21. > :30:25.have had a series of Governments, and I am afraid the last Labour
:30:25. > :30:29.Government was good at making choices about spending money and
:30:29. > :30:32.badly about getting the money. Maybe it is true of your Government,
:30:32. > :30:35.it is not practical politics? Government has been more radical
:30:35. > :30:39.and been willing to court unpopularity, through a series of
:30:39. > :30:42.decisions to begin to get the deficit under control.
:30:42. > :30:47.reversing, not implementing the 3p extra on fuel. This is not a
:30:47. > :30:51.Government that immediately you say this is going to take courageous
:30:52. > :30:58.decisions of the type you said? completely overhauled tuition fees
:30:58. > :31:02.so students now have to pay �9,000 a year, and scrapped educational
:31:02. > :31:06.maintenance allowances. These were all things people valued and mostly
:31:06. > :31:11.young people who were paid those. It is not fair to say we weren't
:31:11. > :31:15.brave. And more bravery is needed. Hopefully people will come up with
:31:15. > :31:18.an idea more palatable. More bravery is needed, and perhaps the
:31:18. > :31:23.headlines fail to understand the sophistication of the argument?
:31:23. > :31:27.is the absence of growth causing the pressure on the welfare date,
:31:27. > :31:30.the absence of growth since the 2008 crisis. I agree we have to
:31:30. > :31:35.make the economy more productive, we have to get more people into
:31:35. > :31:39.jobs, and get them sustainably into jobs, earning higher wages. So, of
:31:39. > :31:42.course, the economy is in a much healthier state. Could you defend
:31:43. > :31:48.all the universal benefits for some that don't need them, could you
:31:48. > :31:53.defend them, all of them? Obviously there needs to be continuing debate.
:31:53. > :31:57.This shouldn't be cast in aspic. These aren't easy decisions to be
:31:57. > :32:01.made, nor are they simplistic. of the things people like to see
:32:01. > :32:06.the occasions where politicians might agree and form consensus on
:32:06. > :32:09.things, is that at all possible? there is going to be a consensus,
:32:09. > :32:13.it requires a Government that is prepared to seek to promote
:32:13. > :32:19.consensus. We have been debating long-term care over the last two
:32:19. > :32:24.years now there still hasn't been a consensus generated by that. A lot
:32:24. > :32:28.further to go. People are now more resistant to any cuts in living
:32:28. > :32:31.standards, if you are told in a few years time younger people will have
:32:32. > :32:34.higher wages, and you have to pay the electricity bill this week, it
:32:34. > :32:39.is difficult? One of the things worrying about this, and worries a
:32:39. > :32:42.lot of our members. Is there seems to be an underlying resentment of
:32:42. > :32:46.older people. And a sense that older people are some how selfish
:32:46. > :32:52.or greedy and not productive. One in three working families relies on
:32:52. > :32:55.grandparents for childcare. We know that grandparents and older people,
:32:55. > :33:03.contribute, net, more than �4 billion a year to the economy. It
:33:03. > :33:11.is ridiculous to say that older people are not a productive part of
:33:11. > :33:14.the economy. I agree we need big thinking. A huge issue about older
:33:14. > :33:18.people's contribution to society, we know social care is a big issue,
:33:18. > :33:23.and the Government is not addressing the problem. The debate
:33:23. > :33:27.is what does it mean to age well in the 21st century, there is no
:33:27. > :33:32.answer to that. There is a debate about where older people among us
:33:32. > :33:38.fit in and what it means to be old in 291st century? Agree with that,
:33:38. > :33:41.-- I agree with that, there are no debates about a lot of important
:33:41. > :33:45.questions in this country. Most people at work have been stagnant
:33:45. > :33:49.for over ten years, through the period of growth. And unless we
:33:49. > :33:52.make Government spending focus on those things that actually supports
:33:52. > :33:56.people to gain skills, supports people to make investments in
:33:56. > :34:00.infrastructure and in research. Unless we do that, we are going to
:34:00. > :34:03.fail the next 100 years, not just the next two or three. The trouble
:34:03. > :34:08.with that it is jam tomorrow? their kids and grand kids, they
:34:08. > :34:13.want their lives to be better than the lives they had. It is jam
:34:13. > :34:16.tomorrow and cuts today. That is the world we are in.
:34:16. > :34:19.The deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Paul Tucker, effectively
:34:19. > :34:23.exonerated the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, and other former Labour
:34:23. > :34:28.ministers, from charges that they had asked him to lean on Barclays
:34:28. > :34:31.Bank in the rate-fixing skam scandal. He shot holes in the
:34:31. > :34:35.allegations made by George Osborne last week in a heated Commons
:34:35. > :34:39.debate. We have been dipping a toe into what Mr Tucker described as a
:34:39. > :34:45.cesspit. This is Barclays.
:34:45. > :34:51.This is a cesspit. Today the second in command at the Bank of England
:34:51. > :34:54.poured a bit dollop of approbium on to Barclays and the entire LIBOR
:34:54. > :34:58.market. You can't be confident of anything about learning about this
:34:58. > :35:03.cesspit. For those not used to Central Bank terminology, the word
:35:03. > :35:07."cesspit", is not normally used to describe a major bank, or financial
:35:07. > :35:12.market. This was Mr Tucker fighting back furiously against a PR
:35:12. > :35:17.offensive, by Barclays, that it sought to put him, and senior
:35:18. > :35:21.Labour politicians, in the frame. When Barclays boss, Bob Diamond,
:35:21. > :35:26.resigned last week, the bank released a note of his conversation
:35:26. > :35:30.with Paul Tucker. At issue, why did this man, Jerry Del Missier, end up
:35:30. > :35:38.thinking, he had been instructed to manipulate LIBOR by Paul Tucker.
:35:38. > :35:48.Does that file note of 29th of October, 2008, accurately reflect
:35:48. > :35:48.
:35:49. > :35:54.the conversation with him that you had? Not completely. It would help
:35:54. > :36:00.to explain...Why Don't we do it in stages. Is there anything in that,
:36:00. > :36:05.that is wrong? The last sentence gives the wrong impression, yes.
:36:05. > :36:08.He has impuned my insteingity. there was more, last week the
:36:08. > :36:14.Chancellor, George Osborne, provoked fury in the Commons, with
:36:14. > :36:20.an interview in the Spectator, in which he said Ed Balls was clearly
:36:20. > :36:27.involved in pressuring the bank to manipulate LIBOR, with other
:36:27. > :36:35.accusations at aides of Gordon Brown. These assertions seemed to
:36:35. > :36:43.be swept away. Did anyone urge you to. Absolutely not. Did Shriti
:36:43. > :36:47.Vadera ever ask you to lean on Barclays or any bank to lure the
:36:47. > :36:51.LIBOR submissions? No. What's more, I don't think I spoke to Shriti
:36:51. > :36:55.Vadera throughout this whole period at all. Did Ed Balls ever ask you
:36:55. > :36:59.to lean on Barclays or any other bank? No. Or any other Government
:36:59. > :37:04.minister? No. Labour tonight demanded an apology and restrax
:37:04. > :37:09.from George Osborne. It is just a shame that -- Retraction from
:37:09. > :37:13.George Osborne. It is a shame the Chancellor doesn't have the biggest
:37:13. > :37:16.of character to come forward and admit he was misleading in those
:37:16. > :37:18.allegations. Sources close to the Chancellor said they were
:37:18. > :37:21.dismissing Labour's call, there would be no apology, and those
:37:21. > :37:25.close to Gordon Brown still had questions to answer. And Paul
:37:25. > :37:28.Tucker too came in for a hard time, confronted with minutes, that
:37:28. > :37:31.showed a committee he had chaired had seemed to recognise that
:37:31. > :37:36.somebody was doing something wrong with LIBOR, he said it didn't
:37:36. > :37:41.really mean that? This doesn't look good, Mr Tucker. I have to tell you.
:37:41. > :37:47.It doesn't look good. We have in the minutes, and in the
:37:47. > :37:52.15th of November 2007, what appears, to any reasonable person, to be a
:37:52. > :37:57.clear indication of low-balling, about what nothing was done.
:37:57. > :38:01.thought was a malfunking market, not a dishonest market. Today was
:38:01. > :38:04.just another step on the road to finding out the truth about LIBOR.
:38:04. > :38:07.At the end of it, we still don't know whose representation is going
:38:07. > :38:14.down the pan. When you wake up in the morning and
:38:14. > :38:17.contemplate the day ahead, in the middle of a horrible wet come here,
:38:18. > :38:23.an economic crisis and the defeat of Andy Murray, it is unlikely the
:38:23. > :38:29.future of the House of Lords will come to mind, except if you are a
:38:29. > :38:32.parliamentarian. The other place debated the issue among stress in
:38:32. > :38:35.the coalition. 70 Tories threatening to vote against t and
:38:35. > :38:39.tomorrow, this plan so dear to the Liberal Democrats, could turn into
:38:39. > :38:43.the first major defeat for the coalition. Is it doomed? I don't
:38:43. > :38:46.think the Government expect to win the vote. I don't think that the
:38:46. > :38:53.Liberal Democrats even expect to win it now, it is the scale of the
:38:53. > :38:59.extent to which they lose it. Political journalism, hyperbole, I
:38:59. > :39:03.think we would be in a new phase for the coalition. So far you had
:39:03. > :39:06.have things -- have had things in the coalition put through, they
:39:06. > :39:10.have gone through with it and tried to enact it. This is now, many
:39:10. > :39:14.Liberal Democrats are saying, the first instance of things not going
:39:14. > :39:18.into action. That means game on for them, in terms of, in future, they
:39:18. > :39:23.don't know quite over what, but in future they will say, you didn't
:39:23. > :39:31.support us on this, we won't support you on. That we haven't had
:39:31. > :39:37.it that clearly so far. With us is the Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries,
:39:37. > :39:46.and the Lib Dem minister, Jeremy brown, who supports it. This is a
:39:46. > :39:50.Conservative bill, piloted by a Conservative minister. Why are you
:39:50. > :39:54.not supporting it? It was not in the manifesto, a commitment to look
:39:54. > :39:58.not go ahead of the bill was in there. It wasn't in the bol
:39:58. > :40:02.coalition agreement to come forward with a bill to reform the House of
:40:02. > :40:05.Lords. Ultimately it is damaging to the constitution, and damaging
:40:05. > :40:08.long-term to the Conservative Party. Which is why many Conservatives are
:40:08. > :40:14.opposed to this. It is almost inconceivable we would have a House
:40:14. > :40:17.of Lords that would become a Senate, elected by PR, with a greater
:40:17. > :40:21.political mandate than any MP in the House of Commons, and the
:40:21. > :40:24.Commons would remain "first past the post". It is a way of getting
:40:24. > :40:28.PR in through the back door. What would be the sanctions or
:40:28. > :40:33.consequences for the coalition, and for the Government, if this fails
:40:33. > :40:37.tomorrow, because of a major rebellion, which David Cameron
:40:37. > :40:40.can't control? There are consequences. The worst types of
:40:40. > :40:44.coalitions nobody agreeing on anything, so you agree to do
:40:44. > :40:48.nothing. The best type of coalitions, and this one has
:40:48. > :40:53.achieved this, is when you are more than the sum of your parts, and you
:40:53. > :41:00.have a mutual trust and faith in each other. There is a reciprocol
:41:00. > :41:03.nature to that relationship. There is a contract, if you like. The
:41:03. > :41:06.coalition agreement is be a agreement between the parties -- is
:41:07. > :41:11.an agreement between the two parties. What will be the
:41:11. > :41:16.consequences? You have to act in good faith to your partner. We know
:41:16. > :41:19.the consequences. Let's see what happens tomorrow. Because, what has
:41:19. > :41:23.been striking, I think, in the two years of the coalition so far, is
:41:23. > :41:27.the Liberal Democrats have behaved with, if you like, let me, a
:41:27. > :41:31.maturity. What would you actually do? I think parties in Government
:41:31. > :41:35.have to have maturity and discipline, and act with good faith
:41:35. > :41:39.to their coalition parties. Richard Reeves has said what they would do.
:41:39. > :41:42.Richard Reeves has said. Richard Reeves, head of strategy for the
:41:42. > :41:46.Liberal Democrats, until days a has said, quite clearly, that if this
:41:46. > :41:49.does not go through, the Liberal Democrats will not support the
:41:49. > :41:52.boundary changes. That is almost blackmail. The Liberal Democrats
:41:52. > :41:54.were given, it is political blackmail, Jeremy, they were told
:41:55. > :41:59.there was a deal, there was a coalition agreement. And the
:42:00. > :42:02.agreement was this, that in replacement, in exchange for AV
:42:02. > :42:08.referendum, for the Liberal Democrats, they would support
:42:08. > :42:13.boundary changes. The public said no the AV referendum. Is that
:42:13. > :42:18.blackmail? Of course it is not. And I have read this in newspaper, I
:42:18. > :42:24.think it is ridiculous. Richard Reeves said it, he was Nick Clegg's
:42:24. > :42:30.righthandman. If I had a contract with you, and I discharge my
:42:30. > :42:35.contractural obligations to me and I to you, I can't be accused of
:42:35. > :42:39.blackmailing, the person who has acted in bad faith is you not me in
:42:39. > :42:44.that situation. We did not have an agreement that in exchange for
:42:44. > :42:49.Lords reform there would be boundary reforms. It is a package
:42:49. > :42:53.as a whole. You lost AV, now you want Lords reform. I will give you
:42:53. > :42:56.an example. Will you support them on bound radio changes? Will you,
:42:56. > :42:59.will you support bound wry changes if you lose Lords reform in the
:42:59. > :43:04.Commons tomorrow? I'm answering the question, there is a package of
:43:04. > :43:09.measures, on the NHS, on health, on police, that constitutes the
:43:09. > :43:16.coalition agreement. You can't go along, and an a la carte menu
:43:16. > :43:20.taking the ones you like. Is this an answer? Just stick to boundary
:43:20. > :43:23.issues? This is crucial. You don't know what I'm going to say. Will
:43:23. > :43:29.you or will you not support them on boundary changes? I support the
:43:29. > :43:33.Government proposals as a whole. that a no then? Is that a yes or a
:43:33. > :43:38.no? Let me finish the sentence, I support, I'm a Government minister,
:43:38. > :43:42.I support the package, which is the coalition agreement. If one of the
:43:42. > :43:48.parties, within that agreement, reneges on their commitment to the
:43:48. > :43:53.package, that, of course. Lords reform is not in the package.
:43:53. > :43:56.have to look afresh. I'm committed to the coalition, I think it is
:43:56. > :43:59.essential to tackle the sorts of issues you have been discussing
:43:59. > :44:06.with Nick Boles, and the deficit this country faces. All the parties
:44:06. > :44:09.and people in the coalition have to act in good faith. This is not
:44:09. > :44:13.happy Government relationship, is it? That was an answer constructed
:44:13. > :44:16.out of nonsense. Lords reform is not in the coalition agreement.
:44:16. > :44:20.Everything you said was based on the substance of nothing. You were
:44:20. > :44:23.asked a very simple question, if tomorrow, the Lords reform bill is
:44:23. > :44:30.voted down, in the House of Commons, will you still support the
:44:30. > :44:33.Conservative Party on boundary changes. That is a yes or no. It is
:44:33. > :44:37.a ficticious? I have answered that. You support the package, one bit of
:44:37. > :44:41.it goes, you can't support the other? Give me a chance to explain.
:44:41. > :44:46.I will give you an example, directly elected police
:44:46. > :44:49.commissioners, constitutional change, not in the Lib Dem
:44:49. > :44:51.manifesto, but in the Conservative manifesto, it went into the
:44:51. > :44:54.coalition agreement, the Liberal Democrats supported it because we
:44:54. > :44:57.were honourable and disciplined about the coalition agreement and
:44:57. > :45:01.the Government as a whole. We hope that the Conservatives will be
:45:01. > :45:04.honourable and disciplined tomorrow as well. We will have to see. I'm
:45:04. > :45:08.not responsible for discipline in the Conservative Party. I want the
:45:08. > :45:15.coalition to be a success. Do you vote for some things that you
:45:15. > :45:19.weren't entirely for. There is something simple here, the police
:45:19. > :45:21.commissioners agreement was in the agreement for Lords reform. I don't
:45:21. > :45:24.know how long you can continue to say Lords reform is in the
:45:24. > :45:27.coalition agreement, it was not. I will be rebelling tomorrow, as will
:45:27. > :45:30.many of my colleagues, because we think it is bad for the
:45:30. > :45:38.Conservative Party, bad for the country. And David Cameron doesn't
:45:38. > :45:44.get that? It is bad for the parties interested. I have no idea, but I
:45:44. > :45:48.don't know why we are spending time discussing this when we have so
:45:48. > :45:52.many other problems. Would you like the coalition Government to end?
:45:52. > :45:54.won't end t will stay until 2015 there is nowhere to go. It will put
:45:54. > :46:04.it under extreme stress over the next few months.
:46:04. > :46:20.
:46:20. > :46:24.That's all tonight. We wanted to leave but news that NASA has
:46:25. > :46:27.released pictures of the Martian landscape taken by their Mars
:46:27. > :46:37.exploration Rover, which they described as the next best thing to
:46:37. > :46:49.
:46:49. > :46:54.being there, or, by the look of it, # The chances of anything coming
:46:54. > :47:04.from Mars # Are a million to one
:47:04. > :47:10.
:47:10. > :47:14.Simply put, there is more rain to come this week overnight, outbreaks
:47:14. > :47:17.of rain across many parts of the UK, heavy rain developing and targeting
:47:17. > :47:21.parts of the Midlands going into the morning. The north and East
:47:21. > :47:27.Midlands in particular becoming heavy and thundery downsupport r
:47:27. > :47:32.pours into the afternoon. -- downpours The afternoon. An amber
:47:32. > :47:35.warning for the Midlands. Further south, scattered heavy
:47:35. > :47:38.showers, maybe with rumbles of thunder. To end the afternoon
:47:38. > :47:42.across much of south-west England and Wales, although there is a lot
:47:42. > :47:47.of cloud around. Maybe with hints of brightness, it is mainly dry.
:47:47. > :47:51.There will be outbreaks of mainly light rain affecting North West
:47:51. > :47:54.England and for Northern Ireland showers here. Not a complete
:47:54. > :47:59.washout, there will be dry spells inbetween the showers. Dry weather
:47:59. > :48:02.for western fringes of Scotland. A lot of rain to come down the
:48:02. > :48:06.eastern side, persistent rain here that continues into Wednesday. The
:48:06. > :48:11.rain falling in Edinburgh, disappointingly cool for the time
:48:11. > :48:15.of year. The persistence of the rain may cause problems. Rainfall
:48:15. > :48:21.totals adding up. South on Wednesday in England and Wales,