17/06/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon. Welcome to the Sunday politics. It is decision day for

Greece as the country goes to the polls for the second time this year.

The result will determine Greek membership of the Euro and could

plunge Europe into economic chaos. That is our top story. During the

first Gulf war, Britain sent 53,000 troops to the Middle East along

with hundreds of tanks. Could we field anything like that kind of

firepower again? I'll be speaking to Philip Hammond in the Sunday

interview. And we have had Prime Minister

after Prime Minister after Deputy Prime Minister giving evidence to

the Leveson Inquiry this week. But his Levison creating a chilly

atmosphere towards freedom of speech?

All that and the best political panel in the business, looking

forward to the week ahead and tweeting like Levison stenographers

throughout the programme. In London, is at the end of social

housing as we know it? Can the capital's shortage of affordable

homes only be tackled if tenants pay significantly more rent?

All that coming up but first the news.

Good afternoon. Voters in Greece are taking part in the second

election in six weeks. The outcome of which could determine if the

country stays in the Eurozone. The main contenders have pledged to

renegotiate Greece's international bail-out but Angela Merkel has

urged voters to choose a government which will stand by previous

commitments to cut Greece's huge national debt. This report contains

some flash photography. Meet the left wing's Alexis Tsipras.

An unknown a month ago. He wants the terms of Greece's bail-out

radically changed. That is why Europe's leaders fear that he will

lead Greece out of the Euro. One former Prime Minister here said

that if that happened, the whole of Europe would suffer. That has

created ripe ground for populism, racist parties, neo-fascist parties

and an extreme political views, which will, not only in Greece but

in other countries, tear apart the fabric, the values on which the

European Union is based. Thought by vote, this could be the most

significant moments yet in the Eurozone debt crisis. Greeks do not

see this as a referendum on Euro membership. For them, it is a

choice between competing visions of how best to rescue this country's

economy. Before the El-Saoud world, a vote for the Left would create

great uncertainty and fear. -- but for the outside world.

Europe would be more comfortable with Antonis Samaras. He also wants

the bail-out terms to be changed. But whoever takes power, Greece

will still be hundreds of billions in debt. It will still be a problem

for Europe and the world. Polls have opened immediate for a

second and final day of voting to let the country's first President

since Hosni Mubarak was forced from office. Egyptians are choosing

between a conservative Islamist and the former Prime Minister from the

former regime. Some Egyptians have been calling for voters to ignore

the elections or spoil their ballot papers because of a lack of choice.

The Government is expected to announce a contract for work on the

next generation of nuclear submarines this week. The deal as

part of plans to replace the fleet which carries the Trident nuclear

deterrent. The work will be carried out at the Rolls-Royce factory in

Derby, safeguarding 300 jobs. The International Olympic Committee

is investigating claims that officials from more than 50

countries have been caught offering tickets to the London 2012 games on

the black market. The Sunday Times claimed they have evidence of

thousands of tickets being sold illegally for up to 10 times their

face five. The Paper secretly filmed agents from member countries

offering the tickets to undercover journalists.

Part of an outdoor stage has collapsed before a concert by the

band Radiohead in Canada, killing a ban. Another man suffered head

injuries. -- killing a man. The band was not on stage at the time

and the concert was cancelled. More news here on BBC One at 6

o'clock. The Greeks are voting as we speak

and the Poles make it neck and neck between the conservative New

democracy party, he says it is a choice between keeping the Euro and

going back to the drachma, and the anti- austerity party who say that

they can have their cake and eat it. Live to Athens. Matthew Price is

there. If the hard-left party wins and forms the next government, is

if their intention to rip up the bail-out and see what happens?

think that is the crucial point. We have seen SYRIZA's platform changed

markedly since I was here six weeks ago. Then, Alexis Tsipras was

saying that they would repay up the agreement. But now he has become

more nuanced. He is saying that Angela Merkel will have someone

next to her who will not say yes all the time. In essence, they are

saying that if we stick to the terms of the bail-out as it exists,

Greece will be forced out of the Euro. He is saying that he does not

want that and Greece does not want that. He is talking in a more

nuanced way about radically changing the terms of the bail-out

but not ripping it up. If the centre-right wins tonight, they

will attempt to renegotiate the bail-out package? They will not rip

it up but they will attempts to get better terms? I was talking to

their top economics adviser who said he wants to turn the argument

on his head, in his words, he said austerity is killing this country,

that what is needed first is Investment and then austerity. I

said, well, actually, in that sense you are speaking almost as

radically as the left. Laddie said, not at all. The Left want to carry

out some very damaging economic policies, he said. He claims that

the right, New democracy, would wish to press ahead with Europe as

the Belletti exists. But in his words, turn it on its head. If the

left when, the market will be in turmoil which will have

repercussions for her at Spain and Italy and beyond, because they have

been sold this line from Angela Merkel that a vote for the left is

a boat out of the role. In the same time -- at the same time, voting

for the right is still, in Greek eyes, a vote to significantly

change the terms of the bail-out. Whoever forms the next government,

this country is still billions of Euros in debt and relies on

emergency funding. If it has a government that is going to change

the terms of the bail-out agreement, will Europe go along with that or

will Europe decides to cut graceless? Briefly, if they do not

get another large cheque, when will be run out of money? -- cut Greece

loose. In a sense, it is a moot point. In reality, next month, they

need the next tranche of funding next month. The reason I say it is

a moot point, my impression talking to people in Brussels and Berlin

and elsewhere, the irony about all of this is that nobody wants Greece

to leave the Euro. They do not want them to leave the Euro in Brussels

and Berlin. Greeks certainly do not want to leave. The pressure is

higher on Greece and Dromore leaders in Europe who say that

maybe there comes a point in the future where we have to cut them

loose. In reality, they run out of money next month but I imagine in

the way that we have seen so far, barring any accidents, if there is

fudging to be done, Europe will carry it out. They will muddle

through, and find some way of supplying Greece with money while

they sort out the political mess. I am joined by Richard Jeffrey and

David Marsh, an investment banker and author of 'The Euro -- The

Politics of the New Global Currency'.

If Greece votes for the centre- right, the crisis continues to run

along. If it votes for the hard left, it probably brings it to a

head. What will be better for Greece? This is a crisis that has

been 10 years in the making. It is wrong to see one political that as

an event that is a defining moment. I am not sure that the different

outcomes of the election will have a meaningfully different

implication for the outlook for Greece. In the end, Greece will

probably be forced to leave the Euro. That might happen faster or

slower. I suppose that if the Left Party get in and tries to force the

issue with Brussels faster, then it actually could hasten Greece's exit.

What would be better? I think it would be better for Greece to leave.

It would be better for Greece to get back on its own two feet.

also think it would be better if Greece was to leave. Two votes for

the hard left. They are not that different. Samaras is no friend of

austerity. He has done bad things. You have to put it in a wider

context. You have to look at what the critical countries are saying.

Everyone expects that the Germans will come running to the rescue

like a general appearing after an uprising 4th, but that is not going

to happen and this is not a bluff. The Germans are saying that if you

want to have fiscal union, you are going to have to give up fiscal

authority. That concerns France. I agree with Richard, it goes further

than Greece. If Greece goes and it creates a financial crisis, we know

that Spain and Italy and maybe France a week. -- are weak. Is

there a firewall and place big enough to stop contagion? The point

is, the far wall should be in place by now. So there isn't? Potentially,

there is. The problem is the French banking system, it is not Italy and

Spain. What the ECB will have to do if Greece pulls out his insure that

there is sufficient liquidity in the system and they have to get

absolute support for those measures from the Germans. It is the Germans

who are reluctant at the moment. That is natural because it is a

redistribution of German wealth that is demanded if the Euro is

going to survive. George Osborne says that we are not powerless in

the face of the Eurozone debt storm. Do you believe them? Does a team

the in the British government? -- does he mean that the British

government. Clare Liberton as a few less limitations. -- clearly

Britain has. I do not know why they are telling the Germans they have

to do something. I think that shows a lack of power and imagination and

understanding. What Britain is doing is staying on the sidelines,

and offering advice from time to time. It should actually do more to

shore up the economy, not just against Eurozone weakness but

against home-grown weakness. I think the attempt to make the Euro

area the scapegoat for Britain's economic ills is pathetic. At the

British -- we see a storm coming. It could be severe. It could be a

tornado. Have we done enough to Batten down the hatches? I think we

took the wrong policy decisions earlier on in this crisis. I think

when fiscal policy was changed, the Government should have focused on

expenditure and less on taxation. That is water on -- under the

bridge. Has he done enough to keep the economy going? What was done in

the Mansion House speech was helpful, undoubtedly, but I think

when we first had quantitative easing, the Bank of England should

have focused on getting liquidity into the private sector rather than

buying government debt. They should have been buying packages of loans

from smaller companies and forcing liquidity into the areas of the

economy that we are going to rely on for growth. In a sentence, or

will we be in a week? We will be where we are now with posturing,

argy-bargy and threats. -- where will we be. But we will be nearer

to the moment of truth, which will be for Greece to leave. We are in

the sawtooth of a crisis and there are many more teeth that we're

going to have to travel over. Two big news stories this morning

related to defence. First, the MoD is investing heavily in nuclear

reactors for a new generator -- a generation of nuclear submarines,

which is seen as further confirmation that the Tories are

committed to like-for-like replacement of tried and despite

the opposition of coalition colleagues. The second story, there

is a lot of talk about which historic Army regiments might face

the axe in the next round of Government defence cuts. Cuts to

which our Sunday interview guest is about to put his pen. Philip

Hammond took up his role as defence minister in October last year.

Following the resignation of Liam Fox. In his new brief, he is

responsible for overseeing the biggest cuts to the armed forces in

decades. The coalition's Strategic Defence and Security Review means

that the number of full-time troops in the British Army will fall from

over 101,000 in 2010 to just over 82,000 by 2017. There will also be

big cuts to the RAF and Navy. There MoD is hoping that the Territorial

Army will provide 30,000 deplorable reserves to make up the difference.

But with trips to meshed, could the UK still stage major foreign

operations? -- troops diminished. How seriously will be taken on the

Philip Hammond is our Sunday Interview.

You were about to give a �1 billion go-ahead to new nuclear reactors

for our nuclear deterrent. You have decided to keep Trident, haven't

you? What we are going to be announcing is a commitment to the

major refurbishing of the plant at Rolls-Royce in Derby which builds

these core reactors, not just for the nuclear deterrent submarines,

but also for our attack submarines, the Astute class. This is

maintaining a sovereign capability in the UK. It means the Lib Dems

are wasting their time looking for alternatives to Trident, you have

made your mind up? The Government's policy is clear. We are committed

to maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent. We are placing orders

now - we announced �350 million a couple of weeks ago for design

phase work - we are placing orders now for the long-lead items. The

actual decision to go ahead and build them won't have to be taken

until 2016 and what we are doing at the moment is ordering the things

that have to be ordered now to give us that option. In your view, is

there anything credible that is an alternative to Trident? We have

done a review of options and value for money of the Trident programme.

That concluded that replacing the Vanguard submarines and continuing

with Trident was the best-value solution to maintaining a nuclear

deterrent. The Liberal Democrats wanted to have another look, look

at some emerging technologies. Nick Harvey, the Armed Forces Minister,

is leading a review to look at whether there are any... You are

going ahead with everything that needs to be done to replace

Trident? We are carrying on with the Government's policy. We are

doing that is in the critical path to make sure when we get to 2016 we

can make that decision and all the long-lead items will have been

ordered. If you weren't making this massive investment in Trident, you

wouldn't have to slash our Armed Forces to their smallest level for

300 years, would you? The overall defence programme consists of a

number of different parts - an equipment programme, the nuclear

element and the manpower budget. will be smaller - if you spent it

on the Armed Forces, you wouldn't have to slash the Army? Similarly,

if you look back a few years, the Government, the previous Government,

was not spending enough on equipment for the Army in

Afghanistan, for protective equipment and the money was being

spent on maintaining larger force level. What we have done is looked

at how we can have a sustainable force that meets Britain's needs in

the future on the basis that we must equip our Armed Forces

properly. Whatever level of force we ultimately decide to have, we

have got to be able to provide the protective equipment and the proper

fighting equipment that that Army needs. Let's look at what the

Conservatives said before the election. This is Liam Fox to the

Let's see what the Prime Minister Why are you abolishing five

battalions? We haven't said what the structure of the Army will be,

that is a work that we haven't concluded yet. You are cutting

numbers by 20,000? The quotes are from 2007. I think most people will

have noticed the world is a radically different place from 2007.

We have had the biggest economic crisis that we have faced since the

Second World War, we have had a massive fiscal problem that has to

be addressed. Indeed, it was Liam Fox that said that the fiscal

crisis is one of the biggest strategic challenges facing Britain.

Regardless of the deficit - I understand the problem with the

deficit - regardless of that, if the Army was too small in 2007,

it's going fob way too small after you have done your -- going to be

way too small after you have done your cuts, that is logical, isn't

it? The defence has to make a contribution to the fiscal

consolidation to getting the size of the deficit down so we can build

a sustainable economy for the future. If the question is would I

like to have a bigger Army, of course I would. What we are doing,

and the Armed Forces are engaged in this process in a very mature way,

is working within the resource envelope that we have got to create

a force which will deliver Britain's needs in future, be

adaptable, flexible, highly-mobile and deployable and proper he I

quipped. We don't have any -- properly equipped. We don't have

any more of those stories that we were getting in 2007/8 that the

troops didn't have the equipment to do the job. You are not cutting the

deficit in every department. What is the logic you pour billions more

into international aid while slashing the British Army by

19,000? The Government made a commitment to reach the 0.7%...

made a commitment to have a bigger Army, Mr Hammond? But we also

believe that intervening early to prevent conflict, to prevent the

pressures that cause conflict and that cause threat to our national

security is very much in our national interest. Our aid

programme is being reconfigured so it focuses on those areas where

instability represents a threat to us. In Pakistan, in the Horn of

Africa, in places where the problems that we are seeing in

those countries have a direct security impact on this country.

understand that. It is an important part of our security. I'm glad you

mentioned Pakistan. The fact is we are cutting back our military

substantially but we are giving aid to countries like Pakistan and

India with massive and expanding military machines. What is the

logic of that? Well, our aid programme to India is being reduced.

It is now very concentrated. are giving �280 million this year,

next year and in 2014/15. You are giving money to countries with huge

military machines and yet, you are cutting our own military? In the

case of India, it's an aid programme that is running down and

it's focused in one area, on Non- Governmental Organisations with the

primary focus in education. In the case of Pakistan, the threat to the

UK's future security from instability in Pakistan is very

significant and seeking to intervene to help to stabilise the

situation in Pakistan, particularly again in the area of education,

poverty eradication, is critically important to the UK's security. We

also have a very significant programme of military co-operation

with Pakistan, helping the Pakistanis to deal with the

terrorist threat that they face. Could we ever mount another Iraq

War? Certainly not on our own. but making a major contribution?

Yes, we will be able to make a major contribution as an ally in a

broad-based alliance to carry out a major sustained operation. That is

the way... We had 15,000 men last time. We couldn't do that?

wouldn't be able to put 53,000 men... 300 tanks? We would still -

not 300 tanks either. We would be able to make a major contribution

to the operation. The Americans don't think so. They don't think we

could make a major contribution any more. We could do intelligence and

Special Forces. Other than that, they don't need us? I don't think

that is true. The Americans are generally very complimentary about

the quality of UK forces and the contribution that we deliver to a

combined operation. Look, we have forces much smaller than the

American forces. America spends nearly half of all the world's

defence spending. It is overwhelmingly the largest military

force on the face of the planet. We are not comparing ourselves with

the Americans. Our forces, even after the changes announced in the

SDSR 2010, will be, after the Americans, among the most effective,

deployable military forces in the world. Let's look at Syria. If a

decision was made by the UN or NATO to enforce a no-fly zone, what

capabilities, what resources could we contribute? Well, the UK has a

fast-jet capability, Tornadoes and Typhoon aircraft... No aircraft

carriers? We have an airbase in Cyprus which would give us the

capability to mount any operations in the eastern Mediterranean that

we wanted to mount. A part of your strategy involves cutting full-time

troops, replacing them with the reservists. This is what the UK

national Defence Association had to The experts don't think you can

compensate your cuts in the regular forces by boosting the reservists?

The experts are in the British Army and they do think that The

Territorial Army can play a much more significant role. Under the

last Government, training budgets for The Territorial Army was cut.

We broke the covenant between the TA and the reservists who joined up

to it. They didn't get the training that they were promised and that

they needed. We have committed a ringfenced budget, �1.8 billion

over ten years to provide the kit and the training that TA reservists

need. They will be integrated more effectively into the Regular Army,

that's already been talked about, the much-closer linking of TA units

with regular units so they can train together and work up their

skills together. We do believe that the TA can provide a significant

additional support, particularly in a sustained operation. You talked

about Iraq, but the operation in Afghanistan. In future, if we do

get involved in a sustained operation again, as we get into the

second and third year, we will start to see bigger proportions of

reservists being involved. There are a lot of famous regiment names

in line for your cuts. Can you give us a guarantee when it comes to

announcing them, the historic Scottish regiments will bear just

as much of the brunt as the English ones? The work that is going on now,

in preparation for an announcement, is focused on how to distribute the

reductions in manpower across the infantry. What is the answer to my

question? In a way that is fair, equitable and based on military

logic and the needs of the military. Will it be the English regiments

bearing the brunt, or the Scottish ones? I won't pre-empt any

announcement at this stage. I can tell you the way it's done will be

fair and we will make sure... will include Scottish regiments?

will be fair, so people in the Army, in the wider community see it as

fair and based on proper logical analysis, not just something that

we have whipped up on the back of an envelope. Your defence spending,

the Chancellor has told us that there will have to be more public

spending cuts in 2016 and 201. Have defence been exempted? The 1%

increase after 2015 is only on the equipment programme. Our budget has

been built on the assumption which is agreed with the Treasury that

there will be a 1% increase in the equipment purchase and support.

Whatever cuts happen elsewhere, you will get that extra 1%? That is the

commitment that has been made to us by the Treasury. So far? So far.

Thank you very much. It's approaching 12.30pm. You are

watching Sunday Politics. I will be looking at the week ahead with our

political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.

Hello. Welcome from us. Coming up later: The capital's Olympics

spectacle draws ever closer. At what cost to certain freedoms?

We are joined by Lee Scott, the Conservative MP for Ilford North

and by the Labour MP, Stephen Pound. Welcome. First, London's shortage

of affordable housing. One report has claimed that a million young

people will be locked out of homeownership by the year 2020

meaning that they may never own. What about the cost of renting? The

definition of social housing is changing. Many tenants are set to

have to pay more. The Mayor is expected now to take a lead on this,

The Mayor of London has taken control their three billion-pound

fund for housing, land and property assets -- housing assets. We have a

housing crisis in London. We have a massive challenge to provide enough

affordable homes. Homes for London is that, it is there to put the GLA

land together but we have at our disposal to get the pension funds

to invest, to get as many new homes built as we can possibly do. This

week, he claimed he was on track to provide London with 100,000

affordable homes over his two terms in office, but to the figures tell

us the full story? Housing figures are notoriously complex. Everyone

in London knows that they are not really skiing -- really seeing a

big step change in housing. It is just not affordable for people

renting. That is why the mayor, it is right that he has created homes

for London, but he needs to use that organisation to drive to

change. Questions remain whether the target of 100,000 homes is

enough and with soaring rent, or what affordable really means.

The Deputy Mayor for housing, Richard Blake way, joined. Welcome.

Setting off on a second term, are you worried by the task that is

ahead of you? It is a huge challenge in London. I think the

challenge is not a recent one. It has been decades in the making.

Social housing waiting lists doubled during the boom decade. It

is a big challenge. With the new powers, we have an opportunity to

make a difference. It will take many, many years to tackle these

issues. Latest figures show that in the last year there were just 198

Stark's for new homes for social rent in the capital. -- 198 spaces.

If the go is also show that 30,000 affordable homes were completed in

London last year. That is the highest number since the mid-90s

mack. The figures show that in one year, housing starts went up 30%.

The reality is that we are driving through large house building

programmes, and we have done a record number of affordable homes

in the first term. We will continue that work. With the considerable

housing subsidy available, which will come on to, 200 homes for

social rent started this year. So presumably not many more than that

will be completed this year. That is not enough. During this year,

the year we are currently in, our expectation is that we will start

around 8000 affordable homes. last year, you have started just

200. That is all that can be completed in this year. The problem

is you are looking at one particular product. I am looking at

a particular year. You are looking at one particular year and products.

If you look at the Big Picture, over these mayoral terms, we will

deliver 100,000 homes. We have accepted the 50,000 or whatever,

but I wonder what seems to have gone wrong in the last 12 months

that we are set to provide just 200 homes next year. Nothing has gone

wrong. What you have seen is a difficult circumstances, very

challenging economic circumstances, and a record amount of almost been

completed. How many social rented homes will there be at the end of

this year, completed, given that we only started 200 last year. This

year you will see a large number, thousands of social rented homes

completed and he will also see affordable rented homes completed

which are at a range of rents, not 80%. The average is 65%. You'll

also see opportunities for first- time buyers through low-cost

ownership. I want to make his point. London's economy relies on a lot of

people who are not traditionally seen as key workers, people work in

the service industry, restaurants, retail, hospitality. We have to

provide them for opportune -- with opportunities to be able to afford

to live in the city. I think what we're doing is important. Londoners

have picked up that you have put more emphasis on that. 4000 homes

overall including this new model, raising it to 60% or 80% of market

rent, so more expensive than current social housing. Only 4000

of those overall started this last year. Presumably only around that

number can be completed next year. Do you accept that? I accept that

we will deliver 55,000 affordable occupations. In previous years,

there have been 10 or 11 or 12,000 every year. That transfers to

13,000 completions the following year. There has been no housing

this year being built. You know that is not true. In the last year,

we have done more affordable completions than at any point.

thinking about next year. And you also know that in the last mayoral

term we have done a record number of formal completions. And over

this and Bess and round we will do for 55,000 formal completions.

is that possible when the money available over the next few years

is a third to a half of the money available to you over the last

three years. The model has changed. We are levering in a large amount

of resources from our providers, from housing associations. In

London you will see �3 billion coming in from other sources, from

borrowing, from the capacity, the resources of housing providers. �3

billion being committed, still in the billions. It is not a gift. How

are they committing money? It is money that is going to have to be

paid for subsequently by higher rents. Over this invest around, we

are providing around �1.7 billion in housing grants. That is matched

by Housing Association and our providers, who were bringing in

their own borrowing and resources. We have a match of public and

private money, which is seeing a housing delivery continue at a high

level. What you're seeing is affordable completions at a high

number. It is not just about affordable houses. It is a big area.

I think it was important we focus on that. Out in Redbridge, 25

completions of affordable homes last year. After London, not known

for its affordable housing, the worst record in the capital. Is

there something going wrong? point is that what is needed is

quality homes their families wish to live in. There are a number of

start-ups. You're right, but I can't give you the reasons why the

completions are low. However, if you look at the period, there will

be delivery of homes and what I am delighted that is that the mayor

has insisted that there to 3% of them will be family homes. Richard

Blake wasted this first off, that this has been a years and years of

successive governments failing to invest and we are all on a ruptured

-- we're on an upward trajectory. You have to look at when those

building projects started. The key here is one of the bigger social

disasters we have ever seen in this country, the UN control right to

buy frenzy which is being replicated by Grant Shapps, who has

come up with an absurd idea that you can sell the council house for

a massive discount and then by a new one. The figures are mendacious

because we have abandoned the affordable housing components of

the new housing plan. And it was a very sensible thing. If somebody is

building 100 new roles -- 100 new homes, 50 should be affordable. We

now have an idea where housing associations are being funded

directly to provide the housing which then fills in the vacuum, the

short gap that the mayor is promising to provide. That is

mendacious. A final point? What you're going to be building, and we

now know, is going to be 60 and 80% of market rent, be on the reach of

many people. There is a range of rents being delivered. Three-

quarters of rented homes will be social rented levels. They will get

housing benefit as well. By do not think anyone should be no guide the

opportunity to purchase their own home. -- should be denied. We have

a range of challenges and I think we have focused on them. We should

focus on the economic benefits of housing. Also, the opportunity

gives low-paid Londoners. Close to where they work. We have to tackle

homelessness and design and quality problems. Those are the challenges.

Housing numbers are just part of it. There are wide range of challenges

that we will seek to tackle. that note, thank you very much.

The Olympics are coming to London, but do they have too many

conditions attached? Some have expressed concerns at an

overbearing approach to things like restrictions to what marketing

businesses can do and what pictures can be uploaded to you chewed by

spectators. The games are being organised by the IOC and another

company. Have they been invested with too much power?

Singapore in 2005, the day before the International Olympic Committee

announced who has won the 2012 games. Every city had to find --

signed a contract promising all the big bosses powers. New York was

bidding and they wanted to renegotiate the split from

broadcasting rights. They were told, sign it as it is or you do not

enter the ballot. The result is that the IOC and the organisers of

the London Games have been legally -- invested with legal leash

enshrined powers that others could not leave off.

Local fog and the IOC probably want to behave as if they were at an

estate within an estate, in London, they want to impose their vision of

a happy city full of happy people while they are here. Olympic

officials will receive VIP treatment. They will be fast-

tracked through immigration. 30 miles of games lanes will be

reserved for officials and sponsors. The important thing is that we have

negotiated an agreement about flexibility so that they will

operate when the are needed and they will not operate when they are

not needed. There are not going to set their empty threat the Olympics

if there is not a volume of Olympic traffic for which they are

designated. Freedom of expression may also be limited to protect

broadcasting rights. People will be banned from wobbling videos all to

Twitter, Facebook and others have run up works. -- uploading videos.

1 Twitter feed that satirise the Games has been closed down on the

basis that it was using the 2012 Load & Go. We used to their own

language, their own terminology, things like "Please enjoy your

daily sample of sunshine. EDF Energy will be offering you a

specific rate." Companies open to make money out of the game's past

two -- have to walk out -- have to watch out. Using words like London

and 2012 could lead to legal action. I can understand why they have to

protect the brand, there is no question. They have got to raise

over �2 billion and that is a lot of money. Sponsors spent millions.

So they have to protect the brand. I think there needs to be common

sense. We are a out a a two a team sponsors or keeping Olympic --

doing Olympic officials what they asked for, there may have been all

London 2012. Officials may vary as to whether it was worth it.

Over protecting the brand? Contracts have been signed for

billions of pounds with sponsors and built into that sponsorship is

the right to use the local. Any company is who have done any

services to the Olympics can put it on the website, together with other

clients, but not on its own. What about people who want to start up a

all the big cafe, or their shoulders about -- stories about

somebody making choux buns -- sugar buns in the shape of... Who were

that the Government was would have found themselves in these issues.

We have a number of cafe Olympus venues around my way. I saw an

advert for Olympic Clock dogs. You see all of that, and you have to

protect its to a certain extent. But people will do it anyway and

these are just warnings. All that because the cream doughnuts, it's

ironic, I suppose. -- Olympic donuts. Are we bending the knee too

much to the IOC? I am worried. Bending the knee to the IOC, I

think we can work on this. Initially, think everyone would

that their products, look at the land control and the business of

moving people, all of those things. Prison element of something

worrying. But just think about the fact that they are probably only

commemorating the Munich murders. If someone goes wrong at the

Olympics, it could be 10 times the scale all Munich. Paranoid is not

the wrong -- and not the right word. We know about jumping queues at

immigration. Perhaps special arrangements for Health. Can you

understand why these arrangements are in place, and is there a danger

and that it could lead to a backlash or resentment if there is

chaos in the streets of London? think it is important to stop chaos

on the streets, that measures are replaced, and that the lanes should

be in use as is being planned at certain times. The difficulty will

come that, yes, anyone who says there will not be a burden, that

will not be correct. But I hope and believe that the measures in place

will be able to cope with it. But what is vitally important and I

come back to it again is that the games were all was played as they

had to have sponsorship for billions of pounds. The people who

pay that money expect certain results. I think it is surprising

that hospitals are being moved. There are 40 medical suites within

the Olympic village. I think it is just an anticipated back up.

Let's get a round-up in 60 seconds. Plans for the opening Olympic

ceremony were unveiled, revealing a vision of the green and pleasant

land. It will feature 70 sheep, 12 horses and ten chickens and will

cost �27 million! Jeremy Hunt announced the budget

for the Games has come in over �400 million under budget. That is from

the overall final �9.3 billion budget as opposed to the original

one of �2.4 billion. A green light for a levy of up to

�2,500 on utility firms who dig up busy roads in London has come into

effect. Tube staff have voted for

industrial action over a plan to move control centre employees from

Piccadilly to Hammersmith. The RMT staff have voted for strike action,

citing disagreements over jobs and conditions.

I want to talk about roadworks, but you want to talk about this

pastoral idyll? One of the interesting facts was they said

they were going to use artificial rain. There will be a need for

that(!) They may not need the artificial! What about the image?

It's very, very interesting. We will see... As bad as that! We will

have cricket, a village, animals, ponds... The England we know and

love. There is a suggestion that he's released this detail now but

there will be surprises in there. Danny Boyle has been cunning! I

have never seen anything so bonkers since John Major's thing about

drinking warm beer... The grass and the sheep? The idea you can re-

create a non-existent Teletubby Middle-earth that never did exist!

Somebody there, who is following those two shire horses, appears to

be a GM crop protester. We will carry this on. We have to stop.

The week ahead will be dominated by the fallout of the Greek elections

and the meetings in Mexico. This morning, we learned Justice Leveson

was irritated by comments made by Michael Gove, he was moved to call

the Cabinet Secretary to complain. Mr Gove complained Leveson's

deliberations were creating a chilling atmosphere towards the

freedom of the press. It certainly got our Adam all of a Twitter.

It's been open season for political watchers as a flock of top

politicians landed at the Royal Courts of Justice this week. Here's

a big one - it's David Cameron. Giving evidence on Thursday, the

PM's feathers looked ruffle when the inquiry turned up a syncy text

from the former Sun editor Rebekah Brooks. I'm so rooting for you

tomorrow, not just as a personal friend, but because professionally

we are definitely in this together. Speech of your life? Yes, he can!

The Sun had made this decision to back the Conservatives, to part

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

the Conservative Party put its best foot forward. A lesser spotted

Miliband. The Labour Leader used his evidence to launch an attack on

the power of the Murdochs. I don't believe that one person should

continue to control 37% or 34% of the newspaper market. I would say

we should have no worries about someone owning up to 20% of the

newspaper market, there is then a question about between 20-30%,

where would you set a limit? I can see an ex-Prime Minister. Hang on,

a flock of ex-Prime Ministers. The rarest of species, Gordon Brown

raised eyebrows by swearing that no-one working for him ever uttered

a word against his rivals. LOL. John Major said Rupert Murdoch had

demanded he change his policy on Europe ahead of the '97 general

election. Outside the court, it's finally becoming possible to spot

what Lord Leveson might recommend. The fact that everybody's agreed

that we shouldn't be having pre- publication scrutiny, there

shouldn't be any state involvement in censorship, that means that what

will come out of it will be basically a slightly vamped-up

Press Complaints Commission and a slightly improved system of

regulation. And all that's cost �3 million so far, but next month the

inquiry enters its final phase and then I will have to take my

binoculars elsewhere. So, how is all that going to play

in the week ahead? Let's come on to the Prime

Ministers in a minute. This story the Mail on Sunday, which if you

read it, it says he probably didn't offer to resign because of the

criticism. It does seem he called the Cabinet Secretary. This seems

to be a thin-skinned judge, not used to criticism, these judges?

is very sensitive. He seems to think he is heading up a judicial

inquiry. He should take his position seriously. I think the

criticism that Gove was making does hold. The question we should be

asking is what is going to be the outcome of Leveson? We will have an

overly regulated press that still remains a concentrated in terms of

its ownership. That is really quite worrying. We need an irreverent

press. We are all journalists. We know the importance of pushing the

boundaries. We have to wonder what is going to be the outcome. This

judge is not very happy at being criticised? This morning, I watched

again the footage of Leveson ticking off Michael Gove saying, "I

don't need to be told by you about the importance of free speech." I

was really struck by the manner in which he said it. He was not happy.

They are not used to this. other thing that struck me about

the headline is that if anything, that will embolden Leveson to do

more. It plays into what we are looking at here. Yes. Is he being

criticised or is he being undermined? More criticised than

undermined. I do find it surreal that you would respond to

criticisms of being uncommitted to free speech by calling up the

Cabinet Secretary and trying to close down one of your... There is

an irony there. I'm stunned that he thought this wouldn't come out in

some form as well. But I think Rowenna Davis is right, the big

problem is yet to come. What will Leveson recommend as far as

regulation goes and how does the Government respond to it? Which

ever way it goes, it will infuriate some parts of the media. Let's come

to the Prime Ministers. The consensus I suggest, but see if you

agree, is that Mr Brown did not enhance his reputation. Mr Major

did. David Cameron was doing fine until that amazing text of, "Yes,

you can!" It is not his fault that he received such a text. The real

job... We are all in this together. We have to remember this is a

former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who point-blank denied he was

preparing to call a snap election at the time there were a bunch of

limousines going around Parliament Square waiting to pick up ministers

to send them out to the country to begin the campaign. So it didn't

incredibly surprise me to see him being, well, slightly economical

with the truth, perhaps that is not entirely fair. I thought this week

we saw the very best and the very worst of Gordon Brown, so... Where

was the best bit? When he was talking about his child with

movement, a genuine feeling that we cannot question for his child. The

worst was when wu get this pathological sense of -- you get

this pathological sense of - it must be lying. He seems to believe

it himself. If a woman like Rebecca wade did that to your child, and

splashed your child's problems all across the front of a tabloid,

would you then invite her to slumber parties and go to her

wedding? Sarah Brown is the most forgiving person in the world.

we any evidence of that? A lot of journalists would say she is quite

tough in defence of her family. What was remarkable was that all

the prominent people who appeared before Leveson gave karktristy

performances in the sense that Cameron -- characteristic

performances in the sense that Cameron was rattled, Gordon Brown

thinks there are no limits to people's credulity, John Major is a

dignified person, George Osborne can be quite compelling when he ex-

pounds on politics. He came across quite well? He did. Ed Miliband was

very good. This job was not to cause any fuss so the pressure

remained on the Government. I have to say I was expecting a more

polished performance from Cameron. When we started this series, I

remember you saying Cameron stands like a colossus over Parliament.

What we saw here, a man who was quite defensive, quite disorganised

and those texts I think were damaging. The narrative that

Miliband's pushing, that this Prime Minister is now taint and this will

continue throughout, and... That is characteristic of Cameron, even at

Prime Minister's Questions, under intense questioning, he does become

irritable. Somebody is lying under oath. Both Mr Murdoch and Mr Brown

cannot be right about this phone call. Both Mr Brown and all the

Blairites cannot be right about the dogs of war being unleashed by Mr

Brown. Somebody has lied under oath. One significant point is that Peter

Mandelson in his evidence did recall a conversation between

Rupert Murdoch and Gordon Brown about exactly the issue that Brown

claims was never discussed, so something is - it doesn't stack up.

You know people are lying under oath because these positions are

inconsistent. That is going to be quite damaging for public relations.

It should said on Brown's defence, whether he briefed, whether his

allies briefed against Tony Blair. He didn't say no, he said, "I would

hope not." It was unconvincing. He didn't look convinced. He was

playing with his ear and looking down. That was the most, the most

jaw-dropping moment when he was saying that. I thought the main

phone call was made to Mr Murdoch at the party conference when the

Sun was dumping him. That is all for this week. Jo Coburn will be