24/06/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. He is one of the

four men who make all the big decisions in the coalition. The

others, of course, you know well: David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George

Osborne. Today, as the British economy struggles to escape the

recession, and the eurozone stares into the abyss, we talk to the

fourth man, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, about the

economy, tax and the coalition. David Cameron and his Argentinean

counterpart went head to head over the Falklands this week. Respect MP

George Galloway and Defence Committee Tory MP Colonel Bob

Stewart go to battle over the same issue.

And our political panel of the best and the brightest, here every week

to analyse British politics in The Week Ahead, and tweeting with the

economy of a Jimmy Carr tax return throughout the programme. He in

London this week, plans to sell off police stations and close front

counters. Is getting rid of police buildings

the only way to maintain police numbers? -- in London this week.

All that to come in the next hour, but first the news with Sophie Long.

Good morning. Hundreds of thousands of young people could lose their

housing benefit as part of a new welfare crackdown. In a speech

tomorrow, the Prime Minister is expected to outline plans for

further cuts to be imposed after the next election. Mr Cameron has

told a newspaper this morning that housing benefit for the under-25s

was costing nearly �2 billion a year, which he described as a

fortune. The Archbishop of Canterbury has

dismissed David Cameron's Big Society as aspirational waffle. Dr

Rowan Williams, said it was a ploy to conceal a deeply damaging

withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most

vulnerable. His comments are to be published in a new book being

prepared ahead of his retirement in December. But speaking on the BBC's

Andrew Marr Show, the International Development Secretary, Andrew

Mitchell, dismissed the criticism. We do not always explain it as well

as we should, but it is about crowding against all parts of

society, the government, the voluntary sector will, -- the

voluntary sector, civil society, to tackle all these endemic problems.

The Archbishop and I will be announcing this week a joint effort

between the government and all faiths on tackling poverty and the

poorest parts of the country. We have been working on this for the

last year. 1,200 branches of NatWest, RBS and

Ulster Bank are opening for the first time on a Sunday as the bank

clears a massive backlog of payments caused by a computer

glitch. Millions of business and personal customers have been

affected, as Andy Moore reports. With one of Britain's biggest banks

still struggling to get its systems working properly, some estate

agents are fearful housing chains could collapse because one buyer

cannot complete. This man is not even a NatWest customer, but he

says he is losing money. If we do not get paid commission, we cannot

run at the business or pay our bills. Then there is the sales

people, they do not live on fresh air. I have a responsibility to pay

them. NatWest says all mortgage completion payments have been

processed and it will continue to make sure that is the case. Online

make sure that is the case. Online comment posted on NatWest's own

website give a flavour of the NatWest cannot say when the backlog

of problems will finally be cleared, but it is promising that no one

will lose money, and that applies to anyone who has been affected,

not just its own customers. The result of Egypt's first

democratic presidential election is due to be announced this afternoon,

three days late. Both candidates have already claimed victory and

their supporters have started gathering in Tahrir Square in Cairo

for the official declaration. England take on Italy tonight in

the quarterfinals of Euro 2012 in Ukraine. The manager, Roy Hodgson,

has described the match as a 50-50 game. Victory would take England

through to the semifinals of a major international championship

for the first time since 1996. That's it. There is more news here

on BBC One just after 5:30. Andrew. Now, how to get the UK economy back

on track? According to one former Chief Secretary to the Treasury,

the Liberal Democrat MP David Laws, more radical spending and tax cuts

are the answer. Music to the ears of most Tory MPs but not, I suspect,

to his own party. Mr Laws says the share of the economy accounted for

by the state is out of kilter with the amount of tax the public are

willing to pay. And if last week's shenanigans are anything to go by,

some very famous people in the economy do not want to pay very

much tax at all. Mr Laws' place at the forefront of the coalition was

taken by another Liberal Democrat MP, Danny Alexander. We will be

talking to him in just a moment. But for those of you who know only

a little about him, here is a little background information.

Danny Alexander is the quintessential coalition politician.

He was Nick Clegg's Chief of Staff in the run up to the totemic 2010

election, and as a key Lib Dem negotiator in the aftermath of the

election, he was there at the very birth of the coalition. As Chief

Secretary to the Treasury, he is responsible for public spending,

central to the coalition's purpose. And along with David Cameron,

George Osborne and Nick Clegg, he is a member of the Quad, who sign

off all important decisions, making Danny Alexander one of the most

powerful politicians in the country. And he joins us now for the Sunday

interview. Good morning. Thank you. Was it a

mistake for the Prime Minister to single out Jimmy Carr? The issue of

Jimmy Carr's tax affairs has been getting widespread coverage in the

media. The Prime Minister in Mexico was responding to those reports.

But as the Treasury minister I would not going to the details of

any individual's tax affairs. We have taxpayer confidentiality in

this country. But I agree with the Prime Minister and I have said so

on a number of occasions, that the kind of aggressive tax avoidance

that has been widely reported over the course of this week and which

the Government has been dealing with since we came into office is

something that has to be crack down on. In these difficult times for

the economy, we have to make sure that everyone is paying their fair

share. Was it morally repugnant? think tax-evasion, aggressive tax

avoidance is morally repugnant. evasion is illegal, but tax

avoidance is not, so is it morally repugnant? We are speaking about

schemes that are set up within the letter of the law at one particular

moment, but schemes which are set up purely with reducing one

person's tax bill. I understand that, but is it morally repugnant?

Yes, but what is the consequence of that behaviour? These schemes save

wealthy people many tens of millions of pound in tax. They are

paid for by everyone else. It we could narrow the tax gap in the

country, things would be better. The working people in the country

are paying the difference. One way the wealthy would have to pay at

even a minimum amount of tax, would be, regardless of the sophisticated

accountants that they can afford to employ. Nick Clegg called it the

tycoon tax, what happened to that? There are a number of tax reliefs

in the tax system, things like interest payments on things like

business investments and so on. These things were uncapped. People

could use them to the maximum. The only relief that remains uncapped

now his charitable donations, which we changed our the on. But there is

still not a minimum amount of tax that people should pay regardless

of to the accountants they employ, correct? In the British tax system,

the consequence of capping releases the Sen, but you are moving on to

speak about the way in which rules can be exploited by people...

are saying it does not matter because they pay and minimum amount.

You proposed this, or Nick Clegg bid. Why did it not make it?

cat has the effect of insuring that people cannot reduce their income

tax bill beyond a certain level. For all the leaves except

charitable giving, where people are free to give as much as they want

to charity, for all those other reliefs, they are limited to 25 %

of someone's income. So if someone makes substantial donations to

charity, which most people would agree is a worthwhile thing to do,

they can reduce their tax bill. use saying that there is now a

minimum amount of tax that wealthy people should pay excluding

charitable reductions? What is it? I am saying is that the cap on and

cat release means that 25 % of someone's income can be set against

those reliefs. They have to pay tax on the remainder of that. I cannot

set a minimum rate because people can use those reliefs in different

ways. There is an important other element to this. In the Budget we

also announced a general anti- avoidance rule. The purpose of that

is to greet the taxman one step ahead of the tax avoiders, do have

a simple rule that allows the taxman to close down schemes

immediately, rather than go through illegal changes like we had in the

past. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE I understand that.

I am trying to establish that the tax has not been introduced. Let's

look at the public reaction to the Budget. This is net satisfaction

with the Chancellor. In December it was only minus 7%. For a Chancellor,

that is not bad. By April, it had gone to minus 30 %. Why was the

budget of 2012 such a political car-crash? It is inevitable in very

difficult economic times that this country has been experiencing that

as a government we are having to take very difficult decisions,

decisions that affect everyone in the country. As Chief Secretary, my

responsibility, particularly in reducing public expenditure...

is not the reason, is it? That means that when we are seeking to

make significant changes in the tax system, as we were by reducing the

burden on working people, the largest ever increase in the

personal allowance for income tax, the biggest tax cut for a

generation, we have to make difficult decisions elsewhere to

get the money to pay for that. There is no such thing as a free

tax cut. That explains some of the public reaction. The Chancellor was

in America in the run-up to the Budget. You were left in charge.

Were you not worried about the dangers of the pasty tax, the

granny tax, the caravan tax, the charity tax. Did you not feel, hold

on? On all those things, except the age-related allowance, which is an

important measure to make the tax system fairer, on those other

things, the VAT changes and charitable giving, we said we were

going to consult on those arrangements. That was part of the

announcement. Did you not think that this was trouble? You were

there, as he was not. In order to be the principal thing we wanted to

do in the Budget, at to deliver the largest increase in the income tax

personal allowance, Abbate Liberal Democrat goal that we sit in the

manifesto, something that I am very strongly in favour of, we had to

make difficult decisions. I knew these were things that were

difficult, but in order to do something that was very important,

hard, playing by the rules, are to have more money in their pockets,

we had to make difficult choices. The Prime Minister has said today

that you terms are OK, because when the facts change, see changes his

mind. When it came to the caravan tax are the static caravan tax,

what actual facts changed? listen to the alternative proposals

that were put forward by the industries. In the case of the

pasty tax, an alternative proposal was put forward by the industry,

which we listen to. We said that we wanted to consult with those

affected. We wanted to listen to industry, to the people affected to

see if there was a different way of achieving the objectives. The truth

is it was the weight of public opinion, let's be honest, they were

deeply unpopular? You were on the wrong end of the opinion polls?

charitable giving, we listen to the reaction of charities in particular

which felt that this sent the wrong signal. I think we made the right

decision and I do not think you should be criticising us for

listening. I am trying to establish When you came to power in 2010, you

said it would take five years of austerity to septet the public

finances. Let's look at what the senior civil servant is saying.

Austerity until 2020 is possible? We have set out the plans that we

did in November in response to the changes in the economic forecast

and the OBR's view about the spare capacity in the economy. We set out

further plans. Is he right? That is a consequence of thinking about

what would happen what if those people who tell as we are going too

fast tell us. He said there is a mass at the mine to do and it's

maybe a ten-year programme. It is a simple question, is he right or

wrong. Those plans go through until 2017. That is the right time table.

People who tell as we are going too far, too fast, means they want more

cuts, deeper cuts over a longer period of time. If you listen to

those people, that is the consequence you would get.

today's Sunday Telegraph, David Laws says public spending should be

cut to 35% of Mattal income. There you agree? If you look back over

the decades you see across governments and different parties

you see the amount in the economy taken up by public expenditure has

hovered around 40%. It has been a long time since it was 35%. Do you

agree? I think around 40% is the right range to be looking at. It is

only in the last few years we have seen it rising towards 50%, as it

did in Gordon Brown's ears. That is why we are having to take so many

difficult decisions in order to make sure this country can pay its

way in the world. You said 40% rather than 35. Mr Lawes is not the

only person seeking larger cuts. The Prime Minister is considering

scrapping housing benefit for those under 25. This is it the

Conservatives won an overall majority after the next election.

Would you consider doing something like that? The Prime Minister is

completely free to set out his own thing. I'm relaxed about him doing

that. There is a debate about the future of the welfare state. We you

consider it? As a Government we have set out already the most

radical welfare reforms system of any Government. It will be a total

transformation in the way our welfare system works. We have taken

major decisions, including housing benefit by younger people. I think

we should let those reforms bed in. In respect of younger people, the

biggest priority is how do we get those young people into training,

education and work, so we do not repeat the mistakes made in the

1980s so young people are blighted by long periods of unemployment.

am not sure if he would consider doing what the Prime Minister is

proposing or not, yes or no? think there needs to be a debate, I

will not react to the proposals. The welfare system we need to have

is one that strongly incentivise is people to go to work, but his

compassionate to those who are genuinely needy in our society.

understand that, I am just trying to find out if you agree with the

Prime Minister or not. Let's come on to the euro. The consensus now

in this country and in the content -- Continent is that the euro works

only if there is a fiscal union. Do you agree? We need to have much

stronger integration, for example eurobond. Then these to be much

closer integration fiscally in order to make it a success. When

you were head of communications for Britain and Europe, the pressure

group that tried to get Britain to join the euro, you were pushing for

us to join the euro. Each country's level of public spending and

taxation is entirely their own business. Were you inaccurate or

wrong? I do not remember that. people argued against the single

currency, you said, we do not eat a fiscal union. Let me answer the

question. As I set at the time, we wanted Britain to join if the

economic conditions were right. They were not right to join and

Britain is benefiting from having the flexibility of managing our own

money. The ability is there. think it is quite important, Mr

Alexander, because I listen to you on authority and you said, your

organisation, a single currency does not need a physical union, now

you say it does. The proposals on the table in the euro-zone at the

moment are not about countries taking control over each other's

taxing and spending. It is about common Deposit Insurance or bangs

in the euro-zone. And submitting your budget to Brussels. We already

have that. There is already a process of surveillance over

budgets. We enter into it on a voluntary basis. We make our own

decisions about our budget. What I am saying is proposals about a

banking union, they are not about countries taking over one another's

taxing and spending. We are now talking about monetary union as

well. You were wrong to want Britain to join the euro and you

were wrong to say it did not require fiscal union, can we agree

to that? I was right to argue we should only join if the economic

conditions are right. It is the strength of this country we are not

in the Europe. Contrary to what you wanted at the time. The economic

conditions were not right and we are benefiting because we have the

flexibility that other countries in the euro-zone do not have. Are you

prepared to rule out joining the euro for us long as you have a

political career? Do you have it out? Do you look out joining the

euro? We have as a Government ruled out joining the euro in this

Parliament. Just this Parliament? cannot for see what will happen in

20 years' time. But for a considerable period to come up we

need the flexibility we have. you do not rule it out in 20 years'

time and the consequence would be that if we were to join in 10 or 20

years' time, we would have to join a full-blooded fiscal union. You do

not rule that out? On the current evidence I cannot foresee

circumstances in the period that we have clear information for it when

Britain would want to join the euro or at when I would want to advocate

it. Kenya for see economic circumstances in 20 years' time any

better than I can? We have got no plans to join the euro, I have not

got plans to argue for us to join the euro, but I want to defend the

-- British economy from the problems that are happening in the

euro-zone. That is why we have taken so many decisions to protect

our country's fiscal position. Danny Alexander, thank you.

According to the front page of the Sunday Times ministers are worried

Argentina may use the London Olympics to stage a protest over

the Falkland Islands. It is 30 years since the war, but attention

has been brewing for months. White is a conflict fought 30 years

ago, 8000 miles away, still making headlines today? First of all,

there are those sounds and images the country will never forget.

not allowed to say how many planes joined the raid, but I counted them

all out and back. The white flag is flying over Stanley. We should

rejoice at that news and congratulate our forces and the

Marines. He saved Mrs Thatcher's reputation and it set up a mood of

euphoria among the British public. It was accompanied by economic

growth, a boom period, so it seemed to symbolise a new, emergent

Britain. Then there is the fact that modern day leaders still quite

like rattling their Sabres, which we saw when David Cameron bumped

into Argentina's President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, at

this week's G20 summit. 15 years after the Falklands War we had much

more harmonious relationships with Argentina than we do 30 years after.

It is not just about the close as to the war. Argentina made a

conscious decision took up the ante on this issue. While the

Argentinians say what was provocative was sending Prince

William on patrol at earlier this year. The economy of those islands

is now more than penguins and squid. British companies are investigating

the size of the nearby its oil reserves which could earn islanders

more than �100 billion in the coming decades. Finally it is what

the fork and say about the state of modern Britain, especially our

Millichip. Protecting the islands cost less than half of 1% of the

defence budget. Some veterans of the conflict are worried. We have

got our guard up, so we are protecting the Falklands well at

the moment, but it depends on the Mount Pleasant airfield. I could

sit down and write a plan of how to capture that. Once that is cut to,

the only way to take it back is to get aircraft carriers. Until we

have got that, we could not recapture the Falkland Islands.

will be hearing more from the small islands. They already seem more

British than we do, but next year they will hold a referendum on

whether to stay that way. I am joined by the Respect MP

George Galloway and the Conservative MP Bob Stewart who

sits on the Defence Select Committee. Bob Stewart, this week

David Cameron said he walked away from the Argentine President.

Should this be our default position when it comes to the Falklands?

fact is the Falkland Islands do not want to be anything but British and

that is clear. We should not talk to Argentina about the future?

There is no reason why we should not top, but they must not be

impossible. The islanders are holding their own ballot and I have

been there recently and I know how they feel. They want to be left

alone and to govern themselves. should not talk to buy his diaries

about the future of the islands? Absolutely, that is not negotiable.

It is silly. Politics is about negotiation, ongoing debate. If

one-man lived on an island, you would not say that one man had the

sovereignty over that island. It is the British Government's decision

about what to do over the islands. 8000 miles away, we are almost

bankrupt and you will not even talk to the people who say the islands

are theirs. White top to people who want one thing and they do not

agree. We cannot even defend these islands. If Argentina invaded,

without an aircraft carrier, we could not fight them. Let's talk to

them and share the sovereignty. Let's be clear, Argentina should

not invade. This is a matter of self-determination. I have worked

for the United Nations. I agree people to decide what they want to

do. These islands were windswept and uninhabited when the first

people went there. They were British. There were no

Argentinian's there. Argentina was not in existence. I think it was

there. It is not a political entity it is now. The key point is

national self determination. The people of the Falkland Islands even

by their own claim are not a nation. They are people who say they are

British. The decision is ours, not theirs. I think we know what the

result is going to be. If a vote overwhelmingly they want to stay

British and have this as a British territory, you do not think we

should listen to that? sovereignty belongs to us, if it

belongs to anybody. We cannot be dictated to by 2000 people.

there any other part of the world Worsell determination is wrong?

in Northern Ireland. You cannot say because a gerrymandered entity has

a majority, you will not talk to the people. We have done the right

thing in Ireland, we started a political process. They are part of

Britain and we listened to their plebiscite. Why can't we do that

with the Falkland Islands? Because the negotiation which led to the

Irish peace process is the opposite of what David Cameron did with

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner the other day. We did not walk away

from them, we engage with them and we had a diplomatic solution.

are 8000 miles away, Argentina is not that far away, it is part of

the geopolitics of that region. Would it not be in our long-term

interest to begin a dialogue? but let's have a dialogue that is

sensible. Would you talk to them? would say, these people want to

remain as they are. I would like to see them open up trade negotiations

and that sort of thing, which is closed in South America, certainly

in Argentina at the moment. That is a problem. I would like there to be

an easy, direct flight into Argentina and back. I would like

Argentinians to come and visit the war graves. It will never happen

because Argentina claims the right to these islands. What is the point

in having a negotiation? If we make a deal now, we can share

sovereignty with Argentina, which, by the way it would make as quids

in. Instead of spending billions with the possibility of many

billions more what aircraft carriers we do not of that have, we

That is wrong. They certainly could not. At the moment we are quite

strong. The Argentinian say that the British are demilitarising the

Falklands. We are down their instruments because 30 years ago,

900 people, 200 of them British, were killed in a silly dispute.

Tories were read BT share sovereignty at that time. I know

you have not been in Parliament that long. Look back. The

Government were ready to share sovereignty at that time. Can I ask

you are realpolitik questions? Lives were lost in retaking the

Falklands 30 years ago. Why would you want to give it up now when it

looks like there could be our revenues to be had? Because you may

have to give it up in total later. The Latin American sub-continent is

100 % behind Argentina. They are not. Even the Spanish have turned

against Argentina. The Spanish are a long way away, but the Brazilians,

the Argentinians, the growing power of Ecuador and the countries that

are rich, we should have good relations with them. Let's have

good relations with them and share the or oil and gas in the Falklands.

What is the answer to this? He is saying that Latin America is full

of emerging economies, it is part of the 21st century, it is more

important we have good relations with Latin America than we just do

not speak to Argentina? We have good relations with Latin America.

They exist. Argentina is not all that popular in Latin America. I

slightly disagree with you, George. Slightly? I quite like disagreeing

with George Galloway. My point is that the South Americans are not as

George has presented. Some of them are very much on side in this

matter. Name names? Brazil. said that Brazil was onside? Brazil

is 100 % behind Argentina's claims. Brazil is someone we should be

friends with. We are not friends with them. The this is politics, we

are not having a battle. We want Argentina to back off. That is what

we require. Argentina is in real economic trouble. This is just

sabre-rattling on their part. They do not have the means to do

anything? I be no at think you are in trouble because you take your

own oil resources back. Argentinians are within their

rights. But Argentina has a nationalist government, you are

right, and their flag is flying ever higher because of this issue.

We simply cannot resist the pan Latin American call for the

Liberation, as they put it mac, from European colonial rule.

would be: Realisation for the Argentinians to takeover and island

where everyone there wants to stay away from Argentina. We have to end

it there. Thank you very much. You are watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up in 20 minutes: I'll be looking at the week ahead with our

political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics

across the UK. Hello and welcome from us here at the London part of

Sunday Politics. Joining me for the next 20 minutes are Emily

Thornberry, Labour MP and Shadow Attorney General. And Gavin Barwell,

Conservative MP for Croydon Central. First today, major cuts to the

capital's police budget are on the way, and as the recent mayoral

election showed, any significant reductions in the number of

officers will be controversial. But what about closing police stations?

Plans have emerged to sell off nine of them in the capital, and more

closures could be on the way, as Andrew Cryan reports.

Fewer police are fewer police stations? With big cuts to the

Metropolitan Police's budget, that is the tries that London has to

face. Keeping bobbies on the beat is a priority, according to some

politicians. They are trying to work out what the need and what

they can afford to get rid of. We have learned that they had even got

as far as calling in estate agents to value existing police stations

with a view to selling them off. We have learnt that there are nine

operational police stations in London that the Metropolitan Police

have proposed to sell, and this has been approved. These are the police

stations. We do not know yet whether they are going to close.

That is a review that is taking place currently over the next 12

months. This is something that is overdue, to be honest, because we

have 800 buildings on the police estate and many of them are not

used enough, they are not modern enough for every day policing.

police stations may have to offer a reduced service. Front counters

look like they may have to take a serious head. As recently as March,

Boris Johnston said that if one closed, another would open,

maintaining the current level of 136. Now he is promising just one

police counter in every bar. Potentially as few as 32. -- in

every district. If people have all local police station, they want to

go and report a crime there. They want to ask questions of the police

and be able to report crime there. It is terrible that we're going to

have just 32. At City Hall this week, the brand new deputy mayor

for policing had this to say. there are counters and lots of

office spaces, but these things that make sure that they work well

operationally, the computer systems, infrastructure is very poor. That

is the real issue. On the streets, London has had mixed views. If I

needed to use the police, I would call them. I cannot think why I

would need to going to a police station. If you get your mobile

phone next, you go to a police station. There is a lot of crime

around the area, so having a police station close by helps. Someone was

marred and the police came straight outside and chased after the man

and arrested him. Details about which counters will close well, I

in the autumn and then the political fall-out will really

begin. John Tully is from the Metropolitan

Police Federation, representing officers. If the choice came down

to closing police stations are getting rid of officers, presumably

the former is more palatable to you? We are in the position that we

around because of the Government's stands on the police budget, at 20

% cut across the whole budget in the next three years, potentially

losing 16,000 police officers. We would argue against that.

16,000 in London, you are talking about national figures? But to

answer the question, it is better that the sell-off buildings? There

are choices to be made. The new crime Commissioner has got to make

difficult decisions, along with the commissioner. Would the best thing

under the circumstances be to sell buildings? I would not go so far as

to say that, because as was mentioned in your report, the

people of London need police stations. They need focus for their

reporting of crime. We have previous statistics around the

previous closure of police stations, and crime rates in those areas have

gone up dramatically, in so far as police buildings have had to be

returned to those areas. It is a difficult balance. They were

concentrating resources on fewer Front councillors, 24 hours a day,

-- front counters -- people would be able to report crimes? They

absolutely would. I live in Havering. One of the police

stations which is not mentioned in your report is Hornchurch. The

local grape are co-ordinating a campaign to try and keep the police

station opened, but the people in that area wanted it kept open.

Gavin Barwell, there is at closure near to your area. Do you have a

problem with it? No one wants to see police station closed -- no one

wants to see police stations closed in an ideal world. But we have to

make compromises. Both the main parties agree that there has to be

a significant reduction in police budgets. The most important thing

is protecting visible policing on our streets. If the choice is

between officers and buildings, I would definitely go with the latter.

Emily Thornberry, do you agree? Selling property is much better if

it means preserving the front line? The difference between the

political parties is that we think we should listen to the experts,

and the experts have said that while we do need to reduce the

amount of spending, we should not go down to 20 %, because if we do

we will cut down on frontline police officers. Here is a way of

preserving the officers, you bring in the cash. We do not need police

counters, or so many of them? Whenever I have gone into a police

station, there has always been a cue. I going, and I am all right,

because I am the MP and I can knock on the window, but for people who

want to ask for help, they is secure. If the other police station

in Islington closes, there will be a great deal of opposition to it.

Final thoughts on this. Clearly there are cuts coming down the

right here, and it may well affect officers'. If we start to see a

rationalisation of counters, what action will you Federation take?

Our aim is to protect the welfare and efficiency of the officers we

represent. Closures of police stations would be met with protests.

The impact on the officers would not be that great but our concern

is for members of the public. I hear from correspondence we get

that the public would rather see the police stations remain open.

Now, how to break the taboos around mental health? Gavin Barwell this

week presented his Mental Health Discrimination Bill to the House of

Commons. Its aim is to remove some of the existing legal restrictions

around what people with mental health issues can and cannot do,

including things like jury service, or being a school governor or

director of a company. It follows a recent parliamentary debate, which

many found moving, where several MPs spoke about their own mental

health issues. In 1996, I suffered a deep depression. It was related

to work issues and other things going on in my life. People in my

family do not know what I'm going to say. Like a lot of men, you try

and deal with it yourself, you do not speak about it. It is hard,

because you have to recognise that it creeps up on you very slowly. In

politics, we are designed to think that if you admit fault, then you

will be looked upon in a disparaging way in terms of the

electorate but also your colleagues. Alastair Campbell joins us now,

Tony Blair's former communications chief, who campaigns on this issue.

You have spoken about your own depression in the past. Gavin

Barwell will speak about the specific measures in the bell in a

moment. Well MPs and public figures speaking about this emboldened

people? I hope so. I first became aware if this 10 years ago. 10

years on, this is the first time that MPs have spoken about their

problems. I know campaigners were looking for other public figures

and celebrities to try and join you in that campaign, but they are hard

to find? Yes, it is me, Stephen Fry, Ruby Wax, who get wheeled out all

the time. I was disappointed at the level of coverage it got. It should

have been a bigger moment. thought it broke through in the

newspapers, but if they did, would it have a wider effect? At the

moment, with concerns about cuts around the country, mental health

services are being cut at the moment. Having people speak about

it in parliament would be useful. I get letters from people all the

time saying that any speaking about it, and I am not blowing my own

trumpet, people say that me speaking about it helps them

understand, helps them understand that there are people out there who

When you were there at the height of your career, when you had a big

job, I know fellow journalists, former colleagues knew, but how

much were you prepared to talk about it at that time? I did not

find it difficult. I have always been open about it. I was the prime

minister's spokesman. I was not out their campaigning in the way I do

now. You didn't speak about it at the time. I would have happily

Dannette. In fact, I did do some events when I was working for Tony

Blair. I have just bought out my diaries. Good that you mentioned

that. Well, you did not. I was surprised how often I've recorded I

felt depressed. If you have got an understanding boss, a family that

understands, networks of friends, and medical support, and a lot of

people do not had that. People in the middle of their careers or

trying to get to the top, they are still not prepared. It is very hard.

I understand why people feel about that and I understand when daylight

on their application forms. When were you last in hospital? If you

broke your leg or survived cancer, people feel nothing about saying, I

am proud of that. If that is why the more that MPs talk about it, it

will be better. Gavin Barwell This is your bill. Outline the important

measures. There are some specific pieces of existing law that are

discriminatory that ban people from doing things because they have a

mental health condition, like jury service, they are automatically

removed as MPs and it you had a physical condition there is no such

rule. But the wider point is for Parliament to send a clear message

that discriminating against people on the basis of mental health is

wrong. We have changed so many things over the last few years,

this is the last taboo. Does the equality act not already covered

discrimination against people on the grounds of mental health?

effectively. It is a private member's bill, so there is a limit

on how much you can accomplish. Symbolic things are really

important. This thing about an M P... I am trying to get from there

is whether it will lead to anything tangible, or is it only symbolic?

An example is jury service. If you have any mental health condition

that means you are seeing a medical practitioner, you cannot serve on a

jury. He could have post natal depression and you cannot be aged

Europe. That debate showed how much better Parliament is with people

with direct experience and the same is true of juries. Were you

surprised when you saw people doing that? If they are reflected, or if

Parliament is reflected by the population as a whole, it will be

much more receptive. I think being an MP is a very stressful job and

those who spoke out were very brave. Can I talk about the tangible

results? I do not want to belittle this bill and I do not want to say

it is not important, but we must not get distracted from what is

happening. My mental health trust is getting cut by 10%. Disability

Living Allowance which is what the person next door is getting, and

you think there is nothing wrong with them, and they may be

suffering from mental illness. Really it is about the money.

it is also about if you start saying there are people around and

there is nothing wrong with them and they are not working, it is

very important for politicians to say mental health can be one of the

reasons. All of these issues are important. There are questions to

be asked about why mental health is being told to reduce its budget. In

terms of welfare there are people who are abusing the system and the

Government has to identify those people without putting those who

are genuinely ill through stress and that is happening. It ice like

you disagree with Emily in this being seen as a limited thing.

standing up and what Gavin is doing with the bill in terms of keeping

the issue out there, I totally agree the cuts are a big issue and

I really worry. But four MPs have come out and there are probably

dozens of more. If they did, that would give political strength to

the campaign. If the Government wants to cut back on Disability

living Allowance by 20%, and I go for an interview and I say on this

day I am fine, and in three weeks ago into a deep depression, how do

you keep a job in those circumstances? Newspapers, many of

them honed in on the comments Tony Blair made about Gordon Brown in

your diaries. Did you not feel uneasy about using that? Yes, it is

the diary and it is a phrase I used and I explained why. Language is

important. Precisely, was it not worth thinking about? Then you

would have said, it is not a real diary because you have changed it.

You must have known the newspapers were going to focus in on that.

you had said that was one of the's things they would have picked up

four s serialisation, I would not have thought that. I accept the

point you are making. In Durham the other day I thought about Michael

Gove's potty plans and I thought about it. Did you pick him up on

anything? No, but when he wrote his own book he talked about two kinds

of mad people. I wrote a blog about it and I said, that shows a

misunderstanding of mental health. If anyone had been described like

that, they would be very offended. And language is very important.

for a look at what else has been happening in the capital. Burmese

opposition leader and Nobel police -- the peace laureate Aung San Suu

Kyi visited London this week meeting celebrities, including Dave

Lee Travis whose BBC World Service show she listen to during her long

years of house arrest. Boris Johnson called for a second

runway at Stansted to be built. He continues to press for an airport

to be built in the Thames estuary. Thousands of bus workers went on

strike in a dispute over bonus pay for working during the Olympics.

Transport for London claimed more than 30 buses ran, but many writs

were disrupted. By his Johnson is being asked about

a meeting he had with Rupert Murdoch, in January last year it.

The meeting has only just been made public and was not declared on City

Hall's register of hospitality. Mr Johnson said it was noted on City

Hall's website. Boris Johnson and Rupert Murdoch another day, but a

strike on the buses a few weeks before the Olympics, this could get

problematic. A cause a lot of misery for my constituents on

Friday. In south London we depend very heavily on the buses. I have

some sympathy with bus drivers, other public transport workers have

been offered bonuses. But I think they were wrong to go on strike.

You could not have done much about this. We have got to sort this out.

We cannot let London in one of its fantastic moments be undermined by

a strike, but we also need to recognise the additional work

people do not have to do. We are expecting an extra 6 million people,

everybody else has had a bonus. It is a matter of sorting out the

details. The unions are holding us to ransom, Alastair Campbell?

think they are using it at this stage. I think the Olympics will be

brilliant. I think there is hype about how bad it will be, but I

think it will be fine. Andrew, it The rain has been pouring down in

time for the start of Wimbledon tomorrow. We hope England will

still be in Europe 2012 after this evening, but what is the great

political game going to serve for us? It is time for the week ahead.

So, post coalition positioning. We have got the Prime Minister at

talking about the kind of welfare reforms he would like it there was

an overall Tory majority and the election is not until 2015. That is

interesting. White is the timing of this coming out now when the

proposals would not come in for another few years. Cameron is

desperate to prove he is the true Conservative because his

backbenchers are very angry he is not sticking up to the Liberal

Democrats enough for now. And we have to look at why he is choosing

to attack benefit cheats rather than tax avoiders when tax avoiders

cost as much more. He did them last week. The problem is very often

they turn out to be Tory donors or you end up looking hypocritical, so

it is much easier to go for a more honourable group which is cynical.

He is trying to deal with criticism. He realises he is not that popular

a prime minister amongst his own backbenchers and is this not a bit

of red meat to keep them happy? What worries me is we have still

got three years to go of this coalition allegedly and already the

partners are acting as if they are up some kind of married couple who

know they are going to split up, but who are being vaguely civilised

to each other, but leading separate lives. If it was a face-off between

the Lib Dems and the Tories on welfare, the Tories will win. If

you look at the opinion polls, there is nothing you can do on

welfare that is too tough for the British public. They think the

Tories are too tough. Absolutely, and so if Cameron finds a way of

engineering a conflict with Nick Clegg over this issue, he is in a

stronger position. They will not do anything they have not signed up to

in the coalition agreement. The coalition agreement is running out.

They have gone through the legislative proposals. Is this what

we will be saying for the next few years? If you listened to Danny

Alexander this morning and look back at the Lib Dems in 2008, it is

chalk and cheese. I used to go to all their conferences. They were a

party of big spending, Keynesians, now they are fiscal conservative

and anti- Keens. You cannot take Danny Alexander as representative

of his party at off. He is pretty deeply unpopular amongst many Lib

Dem MPs and activists. He is not the right person. These are the

policies they have signed up to a. They are, and Danny Alexander is

unrepresentative, but he is not alone. There is jeering it back --

Jeremy Brown and David Laws and a group of Lib-Dems at the top of the

party who are more classic in their liberalism. The party membership is

also changing. A lot of the left wing Lib-Dems have left the party.

I assumed in the grass roots at the party would be going more left wing

in reaction to being in bed with the Tories. Yes, but a local people

have walked away. At the next conference season, they have to

vote every policy they pass and their base is changing. We have got

the house of Lords, the bill is being published on Tuesday? Tuesday

or Wednesday? It will be Nick Clegg's bill. This adds to the grit

in the oyster of the coalition of. What will be really interesting is

how Ed Miliband handles this. We pretty much know there will be a

big Tory rebellion. Where they can rent would like to say he has one

major concessions over this, they are not going to be enough to stave

off a big rebellion. The question for Ed Miliband is as he stick with

these principles or try to score what should be an open goal? Score

an open goal. He will do both. Miliband is a democrat by instinct.

In the previous Labour manifesto there was a call for an elected

House of Lords, but Labour had been careful about saying they need to

see the detail and they are worried about the relationship between the

two chambers. Well they say we believe in an elected chamber?

will do both. I think there will be a call for a referendum on the

proposals and the Government could massively unravel. We know this is

a deal for the Lib Dems in return for the Conservative boundary

changes and that could come apart. As big a dilemma it is for Ed

Miliband, it is a quandary for the Tories. Can they get the boundary

changes through making it easier for them to win the next election?

Marginally easier. Yes, but it will make a difference. If the Lib Dems

choose to make a real stand over this, the Tories are in a more

difficult position. It is still part of the Daily dance that is the

coalition. Did Michael Gove have a good or a bad week? Miraculously I

thought he had a good week. The story emerged in a messy way, but

once it was out he found a big chunk of public opinion was on his

side and a huge chunk of right-wing media opinion, which has been

hostile to the Government, was also on side. He has got a substantial

coalition in favour of reform and he will only need to give a few

cosmetic concessions to the Lib- Dems, maybe not including the

phrase CSC's. We go ahead? thinks it will. He is optimistic it

will still go ahead. He thinks more about keeping the essentials of

what he wants to do than who ostensibly wins the battle so he

will be prepared to hand Nick Clegg some cosmetic victory, saying we

have watered down the wild excesses of the plan, and he will still have

the fundamentals of the reform. It has been good week -- a good week

for him. I do not think he does anything by accident. This is an

appeal to the Tory backbenchers. It is at a time when David Cameron is

being criticised and we will see this going through. You will be

able to do GCSEs, as long as you get an A-C grades. That rules out a

lot of young people in this country who will be forced to submit to

another qualification. I am 110% certain this is not a bid for the

leadership. I agree. Is that the interest rate the Germans are

charging the Greeks? It is not Jimmy Carr's tax rate. There is a

kind of vacuum. The coalition agreement, they have done most of

it. We are going to see more of this. Absolutely and that is why

Steve Hilton has left Downing Street. The Government has run out

of momentum and we are in an incredibly long drawn-out period of

phased withdrawal. That is why I thought it was a good week for

Michael Gove and the Government. It gave a bit of direction to the

Government which has fizzled out in the past six months. That is it for

this week. Thanks to all my guests. Jo will be back tomorrow on BBC Two

with the Daily Politics, but at 11am because Wimbledon is on. I