29/06/2014 Sunday Politics East Midlands

No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.

But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?

Doctors want to ban smoking outright.

A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all

Fewer hospital beds and fewer medical staff `

Plus, should teachers sit exams with their students?

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political

panel in the business Nick Watt Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in

Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence

He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made

it big in the world of European politic.

I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg

He'll soon be President of the European Commission,

He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.

But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up

on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.

-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist

So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes

of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?

Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr

Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got

harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The

majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts

power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right

cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European

Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European

countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of

Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on

how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the

mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming

European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The

Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to

integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.

What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at

different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new

Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the

approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime

Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general

acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to

the single currency will want to press forward with closer

integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country

in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern

that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with

28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the

extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and

integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable

geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is

that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the

slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which

backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that

there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to

seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the

election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the

British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the

British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will

take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron

secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,

not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with

Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't

think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of

reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do

put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission

to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers

around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things

cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger

of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of

work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of

countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election

results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing

parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing

real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch

decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the

condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would

have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.

Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role

in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed

up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from

that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I

think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and

it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament

to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.

They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are

the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms

of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The

current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The

Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?

We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at

the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on

whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you

think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest but

also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't

challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.

Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of

State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the

existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He

doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is

the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the

position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a

distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government

now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and

the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that

important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and

that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a

whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going

to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in

2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today For

one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press

ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done

in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain

outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of

migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this

week and we should welcome that Very briefly, finally, when will

you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the

government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the

election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg

speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,

more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is

all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's

not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in

the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries

those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories

and I'm sure the Prime Minister as we get towards the general election,

will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and

perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank

you for joining us this morning The harsh reality of this is that there

is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring

back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I

think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,

those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay

regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on

renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would

vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20

years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only

stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be

re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the

referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single

biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not

what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure

to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against

Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr

Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only

because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these

changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that

would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the

biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of

coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of

benefits, and he might get that He wants to restrict freedom of

movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is

a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is

also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was

encouraged because it said, let s look at closer union, but it did not

say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted

in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The

fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when

he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling

to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela

Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the

European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,

he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this

basic stitch up by the European Parliament that meant he was

presented, and when Angela Merkel put the question over his head there

was a huge backlash in Germany and she was unable to deliver. I

understand that, but I'm looking forward to Mr Cameron's predicament.

I don't know how he squares the circle. It seems inconceivable that

he can bring back enough from Brussels to satisfy his

backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of them fundamentally want out. They

don't want to be persuaded by renegotiations. Where it's hard to

draw conclusions from the polling is that if you ask people question that

sounds like, do you like the fact that our Prime Minister has gone to

Brussels and stuck it to the man, they say yes, but how many people

will go to the voting booths and put their cross in the box based on

Europe? We know mostly voters care about Europe as a proxy for

immigration fears. In ten people in this country could not tell you who

John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir is replacing. -- and who he is

replacing. And I'm joined in the studio now by

arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by

staunch European and former Liberal war? His declared objectives would

leave Britain still in the common agricultural policy, the common

foreign policy, the European arrest warrant, so the negotiating aims

which we just heard Nick setting out wouldn't fundamentally change

anything. It would be easy for the Government to declare war on any of

these things. The danger from your point of view as someone who wants

to stay in is that if David Cameron only gets cosmetic changes, the

chance of getting the vote to leave the European Union increases,

doesn't it? Hypothetically it probably does but we have two big

things to get through first in domestic politics before we even

reach a negotiation. One is are we going to have the United Kingdom

this time next year following the referendum in Scotland? Secondly,

are the Conservatives after the general election next year going to

be in a position to pursue a negotiation? In other words are they

going to be a majority government or even a minority government? For the

sake of this morning let's assume the answer to both is yes, the UK

stays intact and against the polls they were saying this morning, David

Cameron forms an overall majority after the election. There is a

danger, if he doesn't bring much back, that people will vote yes

correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press

comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold

Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to

say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is

different however, and this is really an appeal if you like, it

cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government

to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land

will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on

the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European

Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the

line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting

dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will

not get away with this, will he It will be an acceptable to his party.

If it is an acceptable to Tory backbenchers it is because it is

working and they are reflecting what their constituents say. A majority

of people in the country are unhappy with the present terms. They can see

there is a huge wide world beyond the oceans and we have confined

ourselves to this small trade bloc. There is a huge debate to be had

about whether we could be doing better outside. It is not danger, it

is democracy, trusting people. If the only person offering a

referendum at the moment is the Prime Minister, it has serious

consequences for his party, your party, that's what I'm talking

about. I am very proud of being part of the party that is trusting people

to offer this. If he only gets cosmetic changes he cannot carry his

party. But ultimately it will not be his party, it is the electorate as a

whole that has to decide whether the changes are substantive. Everything

we have been hearing just now is about staying out of future

integration, protecting the role of the non-euro countries. People are

upset about what is going on today with the EU. They can see laws being

passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are

prejudiced, and they conceive that the European Union has just put in

charge in the top slot somebody who wants a United States of Europe into

which we will eventually be dragged into as some kind of Providence

Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist, you are Federalist, why did the Lib

Dems oppose him? We shared the view that whilst you take account of what

the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the

choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political

leaders, the governmental leaders at a national level, and that's why we

went down the route we did. It was more to do with the system than the

individual. Although I would say that you need to bear in mind, I

mean Daniel, I respect him personally and the integrity of his

views, as I think he does mine, but to dismiss the European Union as a

small trading block globally, when you have got the United States of

America, China and other countries acknowledging its importance, it is

really Walter Mitty land. Are we closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we

closer to an exit after what happened last week? Yes, because the

idea that we could get substantive reforms, gets a mythic and powers

back and be within a looser, more flexible European Union has plainly

been closed off. We have to face up to the actual European Union that

has taken shape on our doorstep Are we going to be part of that or are

we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship

with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or

another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on

and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can

remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the

referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it

sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is

a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we

will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to

ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I

thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the

Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional

implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to

established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we

mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the

institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by

federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate

but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains

national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it

makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the

Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU

wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you

liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to

you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be

disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only

had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,

France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of

menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the

North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an

army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms

of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you

can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having

the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the

United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,

Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is

an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want

to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a

referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he

was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and

restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw

everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born

after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those

plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British

was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men

smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a

political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in

those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,

more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that

thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in

enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately

we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think

it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has

improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.

Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on

those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the

introduction of plain packaging There is still those who take pride

in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.

We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson

from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban

on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark

They're here to go head-to-head There are plenty of things which are

bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in

our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as

children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start

smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for

you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we

totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make

that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol

eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is

totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes

which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping

children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops

shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so

you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a

36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you

will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the

younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily

addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this

becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you

would have to take your birth certificate, wouldn't you? We have

no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if

we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 2

years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't

have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their

20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes

the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting

cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get

better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is

going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.

Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see

adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is

for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop

young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they

never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds

who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government

increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to

18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,

we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal

says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a

motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There

is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they

doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not

about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and

they have to get their act together because they are bringing the

medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about

things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,

but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes

altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It s

not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to

smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would

be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So

even if I am born in the year 2 00, it would still be illegal to smoke,

just illegal to buy the cigarettes? Indeed. The point being that the

habit of smoking is very strongly linked to your ability to buy, so

that is why things like Price and availability and marketing are so

important. People will flood across the Channel with the cigarettes One

thing you will find is that throughout the world people is

looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and

different countries like Australia, they were the first with a

standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all

of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the

tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with

cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going

head-to-head. "Unless we have more equal

representation, our politics won't be half as good as it should be "

So said David Cameron back in 2 09. So how's it going?

Well, you can judge the quality of the politics for yourself,

but we've been crunching the numbers to find out what

parliament might look like after the next year's general election.

Here's Giles. Politicians are elected to

Parliament to represent their constituents, but the make-up of

Parliament does not reflect society well at all the parties it. In 010

more women and ethnic minority candidates entered Westminster but

not significantly more inner chamber still dominated by white males.

Looking at the current make-up of the Commons, Labour has 83 female

MPs, the Conservative have 47 women MPs, which is just over 47% -- and

the Lib Dems have 12% of the parties. All of the parties have

selected parliaments in those seats where existing MPs are retiring and

to fight seats at the next election, and they've all been

trying to up the number of women and ethnic minorities because discounts

and can be capitalised on. A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the

all-male front bench before us. And he says he wants to represent the

whole country. Despite the jibe the Labour Party know they have a long

way to go on the issue of being representative. So we

way to go on the issue of being look at this particular area of lack

of women and ethnic minorities. Women first.

In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they

got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 1%

The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy

at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most

marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn

In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected

If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones

they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.

The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won

at the last election, if they manage that, they would have

However all the indications are it could be

a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform

swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.

One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all

options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is

The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at

evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life

experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.

They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be

represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary

projection for gender, According to the last census

in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from

black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they

get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party

were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME

candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,

that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats

don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling

on to their current number of seats they would have two,

giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost

their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix

of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve

the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to

a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford

or Cambridge. Only a fifth

of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with

the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like

us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they

cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the

turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20

points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and

that is getting worse with single election.

And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a

Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get

It's just gone 11.35pm, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.

The power of the backbencher. the Sunday Politics where you are.

We meet the MPs who make Prime Ministers tremble.

If you can swap your desire for power for asking diffictlt

Being a backbench MP can be very rewarding indeed.

Should teachers sit exams alongside their pupils?

I think it just adds added pressure, because when you're in your exams,

you don't want to turn round and your teacher is sitting there,

you want to be calm and ready for the exam, so I don't think ht is

Hello, I'm Mhairi Ashby and my guests this

week, two backbenchers who cause more trouble than most.

Andrew Bridgen and is the Conservative MP for

North West Leicestershire and John Mann is the Labour MP for B`ssetlaw

But first, the plans for a radical shake`up of hdalth

Under proposals announced this week, Leicestershire and Rutland will

lose acute services and have fewer hospital beds.

The Better Care Together pl`n unveiled by health bosses w`rns that

NHS services in the two counties are heading

for a ?400 million shortfall unless something is done to cut costs.

The plans include reducing the number of acute care hospit`ls in

Leicester from three to two, with Leicester General Hospital dealing

It also calls for investment in better facilities

The plan is expected to lead to fewer hospital beds and job cuts.

Well, Andrew Bridgen, fully last week, we were talking about the

NHS Trust in Leicester having the biggest debt in the country

These latest cuts are as a direct result of this, or they?

No, these plans have been created by health care professionals

looking forward to the future health care requhrements

of the city and the county this is their response to that.

What we are actually seeing is migration of health services

So you're saying this has got nothing to do with the huge deficit

The trust had a ?39 million deficit last year, I don't

I think Peterborough has got far the biggest deficit.

No, Leicestershire Leicester was higher.

That has got to be addressed, but what we are looking

at is a long`term plan for the shape of health card moving

So you're saying this is a good thing?

Most people do not want to go into hospital, most people want to

GPs are going to be offering more primary care, and it is good for the

patients, it is good for elderly people with complex morbidities

There is a funding gap of ?400 million over the next four xears.

Well, you know that health has had a special case as far

as the austerity measures under the Coalition Government.

We have actually increased health spending well above inflation,

which is in contrast to what Labour would have done, they would have cut

Well, John, the health servhces behind this plan have told ts that

they want to use the financhal challenges to reorganise and come up

The report actually says, working together will provide more

community`based projects and support for patients to live at

Keeping people out of hospital is a good thing?

Anyone going into hospital is a bad thing,

However much Andrew and the Tories try and rest this up, cuts cuts

cuts, the cutting the National Health Service and the way to change

the National Health Service is by putting money in and by improving it

and by ensuring everyone gets the best treatment. These ctts,

you know the phrase is workhng together, what is coming next?

A huge cut, doctors jobs gohng, patients suffering, it is what this

government is about, and we are going to see a lot more of ht.

Stop dressing it up, Andrew, and start apologising.

You start apologising for your manifesto last timd where

you proposed what would havd been a 20% cut in the NHS budget.

We protected that and gave it extra money.

Is cuts, cuts, cuts, and we are seeing it in my `rea

as well, we are seeing privatisation and Nottinghalshire

Patients are starting to go private, because they can't get

To be fair, Andrew the report says pretty clearly that thdre

It actually says the exact number of job cuts is not yet clear,

but it is not denying that there will be job cuts.

That is because there is a migration of services

from hospitals to GP practices and primary care, and that is the plan.

At a time where we have got a huge shortage of GPs?

GPs are running this now, through their clinical commissioning groups.

They are shaping the structtre of care.

For far too long, the NHS has been run from Whitehall

What we are actually doing hs empowering

the clinical professionals to come up with decisions of how thdy are

Set more GPs on, well thank you very much.

You have cut the training btdget, you've cut the numbers.

It takes years to train up ` doctor, and you are cutting doctors,

cutting nurses, cutting other health specialist

Where would the NHS have bedn if Labour had got into power

Not getting cut, and Bevan said you have got to stand up for thd NHS

if you want it, now is the time for people to fight against you lot

OK, well as we have just sedn, our guests might not agree on much,

but there is one thing that they do definitely have in common,

they are very effective exponents of the art of back benching.

We thought while they were both here, we might

find out a little bit more `bout how they go about their business.

But first, Chris Doig takes a look at how the backbenchdr can be

If you are Cameron, Clegg, Milleband or Farage, there hs

a threat more scary even th`n that of a bad opinion poll, becatse more

dangerous than the public's opinion is the opinion of the men and women

Does my right honourable friend `gree

with me that continued criminalisation the people whose

only crime is being poor is completely untenable?

The evasiveness of the government on this matter has not escaped

so much no one can remember where the party line is, or their mouth is

What do I do with my money, do I take it out this rotten,

Backbench MPs can be unruly, disloyal...

With power in their constittency, and some independently wealthy like

Andrew Bridgen, many back bdnchers feel they have little to lose.

My questions surround this project have been asked, but

As we all know, the best se`t on the school bus is the one at thd back.

You are grossly negligent, or you are grossly incompetdnt.

It seems the backbenchers have all the fun too.

But wait, we are forgetting something very important.

The former West Derbyshire LP Matthew Parris recalls tellhng

his constituency association that he would settle for being Home

Secretary, because Prime Minister would have sounded pretentious.

In the end, maybe Minister for Transport, he thought, tntil he

lowered his ambitions to just being on a select committee and going to

junkets to the Humber Bridgd, or a bus carriage in Toronto.

Not surprisingly, Mr Parris ended up in a much more important career

The crushing disappointment doled out by the slippery pole is a game

Almost every new MP secretlx wants to live at number ten, have tea with

the Queen, and have a speci`l Branch codenamed like Princess.

Most will be the bridesmaid and never the bride.

But if you can stomach the smell of regret and unfulfilled

potential, then the life of a backbencher isn't too bad.

They are paid ?67,000 a year, you get to tell the governmdnt what

it is doing wrong, and the thoughts of select commhttees,

panels of backbench MPs stuffed full of the mischievous and vengdful

I'm a big fan of getting answers from you.

If you can swap your desire for power

for asking difficult questions and causing trouble, being a backbench

Four Chris Doiges there for the price of one, I think you could say.

A few years ago, Andrew, people were saying that the backbencher was

dead, that MPs just followed their leader, but I guess with Tony Blair

and Gordon Brown, they had huge majorities and they didn't have to

listen, but now that this is a coalition, do backbenchers

like yourself have more powdr because every vote counts?

I think turning to an intakd of the more independently minded, ht was

a very large intake, so it really altered the sort of structure of the

house, where a small intake can be absorbed into the status quo

I think because the intake was so large,

I think the fact that we ard in a coalition, and I think for `

Conservative backbenchers to realise that 57 Liberal Democrats h`ve such

power over the government, ht is not hard then to work out that hf I can

get 56 of my colleagues on the backbenches of my party, we can have

as much say over what the government policy is as the Liberal Delocrats.

I don't know about more powdr, but the role of an MP is not to

spend their time sucking up to some top politician and saying ghve me

a job, it is to represent the people who have put you there.

And, you know, for better or for worse, to put forward what you

If the government is doing something good, get more of it for yotr area,

and if they are doing something bad, stop it in your area.

Well, we know, John, that you are always very happy to offer `

friendly advice to your own leader, but if Labour do get into power

does that outspoken persona that you have, does that hold you back?

If it comes to getting a job in Cabinet, if they get into power?

I am not really interested in the greasy pole.

Do I want to live in ten Downing St, I can tell you, no.

I wouldn't dream of living hn some kind of a mansion house likd that.

If Labour is in power, I will be there twisting arls to

ensure that the very best comes to my area, so that there is more money

If there is more money for the NHS, I wanted.

If there is more money for new roads, I want it.

And I will get more access hf Labour is in power,

And you don't care that it might damage your career?

By being outspoken and upsetting a few people along the way,

If I don't upset people on the way, I am not doing the job propdrly

I do, at the end of the day, common sense isn't always

as common in the House of Commons as you'd like it to be and I think the

However I finished being an MP, I want to look back at Hans`rd and

say, yes, I don't take any of that back, everything I said I bdlieved

Well give us some of the trhcks of the trade, then.

How do you go about making an impact as a backbencher?

Well, you get a government linister, and you say to them, indirectly

I am going to make you a st`r and a hero, or I am going to make

What backbenchers do have, we have the power of the argument, `nd

if you make that argument wdll and you can persuade colleagues, not

It is always about putting your case over well, isn't ht?

Then you get a chance to make that case to the media, and if you take

the people with you, the power of the argument is very strong.

It's a shame he doesn't fault with me more often.

He is always agreeing with le, I'm always speaking, and he's up there

nodding, thumbs up all the time that is alliance across the chamber.

What he needs to do is transfer that into votes.

That might get some popularhty for you then.

What effect has social medi` had for both of you?

I mean, John, you take to Twitter quite a lot

Oh, yes, I get plenty of abtse from people, normally from London.

I am interested in what the good people further north think,

They tell me, in no uncertahn terms, and I take

their life experiences and their advice back into Parlhament.

If it is a Labour Prime Minhster, they will be hearing

from me what the people of Bassetlaw think In no uncertain terms.

How much pressure do you cole under to toe the party line, though?

Because you must come under pressure.

On the government benches, obvious the votes are predominantly whipped.

But at the end of the day, bigger all free vote if you are

At the end of the day, it is down to each member's

What I would say is to the listeners or the viewers is when we are

discussing politics in the local pub, it is all black`and`whhte.

It is a little more shades of grey when you're down taking part in it.

You don't agree with each other at all, do you?

Well, he is a favourite of privatising the NHS.

I say to the whips, don't tell me how to vote, xour job

Well, the latest target for Andrew Bridgen's fire is te`chers.

He says that teachers should be sitting A`levels alongside

In a moment, we will be hearing from a teacher's union

on how they feel about the hdea but first Des Coleman's been back to

school to hear from pupils who will be taking their A`levels next year.

Well, I have come to this school in Hucknall, to ask a group

Do you think teachers should set their A`level exams

Like, they have already got their qualifications,

I don't think you need them to take their A`level to prove that

I think that your results speak for how they teach.

I think it just adds added pressure, so when you are in your exal,

you don't want to turn around, and your teacher is sitting there.

You want to actually be call and ready for the exam,

so I don't think it is necessary that they do it with you.

Yes and no, really, because it would show their capability

of teaching the subject, but now because, like Jodie said, you are in

your exam, and seeing your teacher there could just add pressure.

It is like, they have already got their

I think all the teachers I have had no thoroughly about their stbject,

but whether they are a born teacher and whether they are good

at portraying that to their pupils is sometimes a different matter

The problem is their teaching capabilities over because they are

obviously going to be brillhant in their subject, but that doesn't

necessarily mean they are going to be brilliant at teaching it.

Thanks very much to the sixth formers At the National in Hucknall.

Well, Ian Lever from the National Union of Teachers

Well, I was going to say, I am actually reassured and

not entirely surprised that the students there were saying that it

They were more afraid of them actually being in the same

room while they were taking their exam Partly that, but also

one of the students there also said about the fact that there is more to

You can see how this governlent at the moment seem to be absolutely

obsessed with the fact that as long as somebody is a graduate they are

quite capable of being in the classroom, they are even happy to

in the classrooms in academhes and free schools, and their latest

idea seems to be that anybody who happens to have a degree was retired

Well, actually, the thrust of my debate about the A`levels was to

reschedule the timing of thd exams so that people could get thd results

and apply to university with known grades rather than a prediction

We know that the predictions are four out of five are incorrdct,

three are overpredicted out of five, and one is under predhcted.

I thought that was the way to get the meritocr`cy,

and get the best people to go to the best universities.

But you were talking about teachers sitting exams?

Or was that a flippant, throwaway remark?

That actually came from a constituent of mine who is ` sixth

former at the moment who actually e`mailed me on that day when we were

debating about A level policy, and he said he thought that somd of the

teachers on different coursds on A`levels were better than others.

He thought that a good test of it for rigour would be to let the

I agree with the pupils from the National in Hucknall.

I mean, come on, you might as well have an MP in

It means nothing, because times have moved on

They are harder now, teachers are better, and a good teacher hsn't

just with the knowledge which they certainly need, ht is the

That is what makes a brilliant teacher, that inspires,

What about an idea of taking exams earlier?

Well, before I come to that, a lot of other students there were

saying about the fact that they recognise the scrutiny that teachers

are under at the moment, with classroom observations and

It is a shame that that is not recognised

Do they see this as more meddling, really?

They ought to recognise that morale is at rock bottom at the molent

A recent report showed that morale amongst teachers in this

You are going to have a strike again, aren't you?

Yes, and teachers don't strhke for nothing.

They don't strike unless thdy get to the stage were morale is th`t bad.

It is a shame that that isn't being recognised.

The issue of, as John was s`ying, about it being more than just simply

having knowledge and being `ble to impart that knowledge, recently

There are huge changes coming in to the A`levels...

The NUT requested an additional training day to

Instead of having to sit ex`ms, that would have been far more

useful, but that has been knocked back by Michael Gove.

So you are saying you have got enough on your plate,

without people coming in and suggesting the sort of things?

Teachers are quite happy to engage in CPD, but the career spechfic ..

Continuing professional development...

teachers are very happy to dngage in that, but a lot

of the career specific profdssional development has now disappe`red

What he is also saying is they have clearly had enough,

they have got to meet all of these targets, they are stressed,

they are overworked, they fdel there is underpaid, they are worrhed

But how can a teacher in part the knowledge

I think if you are teaching A`levels,

A`levels are very important exams, they are going to ship the rest

of the student's life, and they only get one chance at an educathon.

I would suspect that students should be able to expect that the teacher

taking them through the course of an A`level course should be able

How prepared are you to take this further?

How far do you want to take this idea?

At the end of the day, we need to have...

Have you spoken to Michael Gove about it?

I am very keen to change A`levels so we can actually have a true merit

` meritocracy and get peopld going to the right universities, `nd I

think the way we are going to do that, I am sorry about the

disruption to teachers, but I think the prize is worth it to

have a genuine meritocracy, because I think the current system

really does discriminate ag`inst people who go to state schools.

I think they're grades are tnder predicted, and I think that

if they do achieve better than that, they are not going to go to

Would it make a difference, taking exams early?

I think that Michael Gove otght to be taking a few A`levels.

Question him, where is the North of England.

Let's just ask you a couple of questions before you leave me.

Consider, John, the extent to which the which the influence

of individual grassroots melbers within the Labour Party has

And the answer to that is that it hasn't diminished.

Not ever since I successfully proposed giving members the vote.

And now the vote to elect individual party leaders.

I would say, get involved in the Labour Party, go and have a say

Andrew, what extent does the contemporary Conservative Party

promote traditional conserv`tive values, 30 marks for this.

Probably for me and some of my colleagues not quite dnough.

I think the confusion is th`t we actually do not have a Consdrvative

government we have a coalithon government and people shouldn't

The one thing I was going to say if I may do is that teachers are

highly qualified and well skilled professionals and if you have got

an amateur in charge, look `t what happens with Michael Gove in charge.

Is tanker 60 seconds. Busindsses any East Midlands are being urgdd to bid

for their share of ?200 million for regeneration. The next round of the

regional growth ground is open for applications. Previous rounds have

given the area the least amount of grass in the country. Firefhghters

say they can't rule out indtstrial action over plans to cut a puarter

of the workforce. Managers say the service need to sate ?7.5 mhllion.

Unions say it would put the lives of viral fighters and the publhc at

risk. Passions run high 18 leeting of borough councillors this week.

Our reporter with interviewhng the council leader when Labour `nd

Conservative councillors behind him almost came to blows. Tempers

quickly calmed and no one w`s hurt. Well, it didn't come to blows, but

emotions were clearly running rather high, weren't they? Put thel in the

stock in the Market Square. That is certainly one solution. That is the

Sunday Politics in the been problems elsewhere in Europe,

but I take your point. Thanks to both of you today. Back to you,

Andrew. Now, there have been some

less-than-helpful remarks about the way the Labour party makes

policy, and they've come from the man who is heading Labour's

Policy Review, Jon Cruddas. In a speech to party activists he

was recorded saying that, "instrumentalised, cynical nuggets

of policy to chime with our focus groups and our press strategies and

our desire for a topline in terms of the 24 hour media cycle,

dominate and crowd out any He added that Labour's election

strategy was being hampered by a The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls

was asked about what Mr Cruddas had I talked to him a couple of days

ago, and he's not frustrated, he is excited about his policy agenda He

is frustrated that one report of 250 pages gets reduced down. So it's our

fault? That is the way we live in the world in which we live, but we

have big ideas about devolution long term infrastructure spending

and new manufacturing policy, new investment in skills, big changes

which, let's be honest, I'm really on George Osborne's agenda. How

serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so let's call it an unforced error You

go to the party speeches, and you don't know who is in the audience.

There is no need for something as serious as this to happen. It's

hugely serious because it speaks about something people have felt for

a long time, that they have doled out little nuggets of policy but no

overarching story. There was a quite saying the Ed Miliband has given as

a shopping list, not a narrative. When people in the party say things

that are true, it's very difficult for people to explain it away. Not

sure Mr Miliband can win here. He was recently criticised for not

having policies. Now he's being criticised for having too many. I

think this line of attack is particularly wounding because he

prides himself on being a politician of ideas. That is his unique selling

point, and the weight that David Cameron's prime ministerial nature

is his selling point. So it is wounding. If I was the Labour Party,

before announcing any policy, I would ask can help fix us on the

economy? It might be radicalised immolating on its own terms, but

it's politically useless. -- radical and innovative on its own terms I

don't think any member of the public does not think they are not radical

enough or creative enough. If anything, it's the opposite. They

are a bit nervous about what a Labour government could do and

nervous about the economic reputation. Reassurance, caution,

maybe a bit of timidity might be the notions that inform their policies

or should inform their policies in night -- my view, not the opposite.

I am worried for Jon Cruddas, because anyone who questions the

Labour Party are part of the nexus of the banking industry who are

terrified of a Labour victory. It's interesting that this goes to the

heart of the debate in the Labour Party, at the highest levels, do

they put a big offer to the British people, or a little off, John

Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander offer? Ed Miliband says that his

ideas about freezing energy prices and rent controls are a big offer,

but his policy chief clearly has real concerns that they don't go far

enough. How important a figure is John Cruddas in the project? He is

hell of the -- head of the policy review and has a huge amount of

power, and so him slagging off the policy review is a bad moment. He is

trusted in that inner circle and the problem for Ed Miliband from the odd

is that he has people with strong opinions, Maurice clasping is

another, big thinkers, but they maybe don't have a precaution that a

professional politician might have in terms of giving bland answers.

So, David Cameron had to apologise after his former director

of communications was convicted of phone hacking.

David Cameron's other former friend, Rebekah Brooks, had a better day.

At the same trial, she was cleared of all the charges against her.

I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did some

on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and

those turned out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned

out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology, and I do that

today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong

decision. I'm clear about that. When I was arrested it was in the middle

of a maelstrom of controversy, politics and of comment. Some of

that was there, but much of it was not, so I'm grateful to the jury for

coming to that decision. Not been a great week for David Cameron. Andy

Coulson found guilty, and another person who had worked in Downing

Street is also charged on an unrelated issue. And he was 26- on

the wrong end in Brussels, and there is a poll this morning which no one

seems to be talking about which puts Labour nine points ahead. Before all

that there was Dominic Cummings criticising the Downing Street

operation is being shambolic. Is Mr Cameron's judgement becoming an

issue? Yes, what often happens when one leader is under pressure for

long enough, as Ed Miliband has been the six months, we get bored. We

then switch the Gatling gun to the other guy. So David Cameron going

into the Conference season might be the man under pressure. The whole

Andy Coulson saga has raised questions about his judgement and

those around him, but any political damage she was going to sustain over

Andy Coulson and phone hacking was sustained years ago -- he was

going. It was Brother beyond the date the News of the World was

closed down three summers ago - it was probably on the date. As the

hacking trial cut through to the general public? Or is it just as

media and political obsessives? I am sure it has cut through in some way

but it didn't necessarily happen in recent days, more likely in recent

years. It was some time ago that Andy Coulson resigned in high

profile circumstances. It has had a slow burning effect over a few

years, and the Prime Minister fears the Big Bang. But there is one theme

and words that unites this week with Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that

is that the Prime Minister can be lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical

in not asking big question is when there was a lot in the public domain

about what had happened that the News of the World. And he was

lackadaisical with Juncker. He made a calculation that Angela Merkel

would support him and it turned out she couldn't. Maybe he needs to

change. He was late in understanding what was happening in Germany when

both the Christian Democrats, her party, wanted Juncker, and when the

actual Murdoch press of Germany said that they wanted him as well. He

never saw that. He only looks at one person in Germany, Angela Merkel,

and it is a grand coalition, and the SDP felt strongly about it. He is,

in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He is, in a sense, an

essay crisis Prime Minister. He s very good in an essay, and the SA

gets a double first the essay. Is Ed Miliband right to be angry? He has

John Cruddas attacking him, and that is the news leading in the Sunday

Times, and has not been a good week the Prime Minister and in which Mr

Miliband has a bigger lead in the polls than he has had some time so

he must be wondering why they are having a go at him. He made a

tactical error in Prime Minister's Questions by asking all the

questions about Andy Coulson. The one at the end about what Gus

O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in the extreme. Politicians can be out

of touch on all sides of the house. The problem is, and there is a great

quote by William Hague, is that the Tory party has two modes, panic and

complacency. At the moment they are complacent. They think Ed Miliband

will lose Labour election but I don't know if they have a positive

plan about how to win it. -- lose Labour the election.

Now, we knew Prince Charles had trouble keeping his views

about the environment and the countryside to himself,

but that's not the only thing he's passionate about according to

a radio four documentary to be broadcast this lunchtime.

Here's former Education Secretary, David Blunkett on how the Prince

had once attempted to influence his policy on schools.

I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and

he didn't like that. He was very keen that we should go back to a

different era where youngsters had what he would've seen as the

opportunity to escape from their background, where as I wanted to

change their background. And you can hear that documentary -

it's called The Royal Activist Does it matter that Prince Charles

is getting involved in this kind of policy, released behind closed doors

question mark on the issue of grammar schools is not clear anybody

listened to him. I think it is a principal problem. I've spoken to

form a government members, and judging by what they say, if

anything we underestimate how much contacting makes with ministers And

how many representations he makes on the issue that interest him. There

has been an attempt to keep it hidden. It's almost a theological

question about whether the future monarch should be involved in the

public realm. If he wants to influence policy, shouldn't we know

what policy he's trying to influence and what position he is taking?

Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly - so

a speech. Prince Charles's views are interesting. He's not a straight

down the light reactionary. He makes a left-wing case for rammer schools.

There is an interview with him in the Financial Times in which his

argument in favour for architectural development takes into account

affordable housing in the wake which no one would have suspected. He has

interesting views, but I'm not convinced on the point of principle

whether someone is dashing his position should be speaking. Your

former employer 's famously described him as the SDP king. You

slightly feel sorry for him. He s 66 and still an apprentice. He's in a

difficult position. We know what the powers of the monarch are. They are

to advise in courage and warned the Prime Minister of the day. These in

the difficult position where the problem for him is that there is a

line that isn't really defined, but you slightly feel he just gets a bit

too close to it and possibly crosses that line with the lobbying that

goes on. I think the worrying thing is that at some point he will become

King and will he know that he has got to work within that framework?

He is somebody that cannot win either. If he doesn't take an

interest in public policy, he will be thought to be a bit of a waster,

going round opening town halls, and when he does have an interest we

think, hey, you are in the monarchy, stay out. There's an interesting

parallel with first ladies who are encouraged to find a controversial

charitable project. Michelle Obama has bought childhood obesity, and

that is the standard thing. Everybody knows that that is a bad

thing, but you are not offering solutions that are party political.

I feel there must be a middle way with what he should be able to do

about finding big causes he can complain about without getting stuck

into lobbying ministers. Which can become a party political issue. He

has had some influence on architecture, because the buildings

we are putting up to date are better than the ones we used to put up

The Daily Politics is on BBC 2 at 11:00am

We'll be back here at the same time next week.

Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.