11/12/2011 The Politics Show London

This week on the Politics Show: Clegg and Cameron seemingly at war

over Europe. Can the coalition survive the Deputy Prime Minister's

fury and dismay over last week's Euro veto? We will be joined by

Nick Clegg's closest adviser, Norman Lamb.

And as Tory Euro-sceptic MPs celebrate what they see as David

Cameron's victory in Brussels, is Britain headed for the EU exit? We

will ask John Redwood and a very worried Lib Dem peer.

Can the government really turn around the lives of Britain's

problem families by the end of this Parliament? Communities Secretary

Eric Pickles thinks so, but how? And remember this? Why have you

issued a briefing document called Calamity Clegg? I have not. This

came from your office on Friday to the Politics Show. I did not see it.

As the Politics Show says goodbye, we look back on our highlights from

the last nine years. In London - parking war in

Westminster. Westminster Council resists calls to scrap plans for

And with me throughout the programme are the former political

editor of the Observer, Gaby Hinsliff, and the Sun's associate

editor Trevor Kavanagh. Welcome to the show. First, the News.

Thank you, good afternoon. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

has told the BBC he is bitterly disappointed by the outcome of this

week's European summit. He warned Britain could be left isolated and

marginalised after David Cameron's decision to veto a new EU treaty to

stabilise the euro. Here is our political correspondent, Adam

Fleming. They are the two leaders of

different parties whose personal bond holds this coalition together.

Until this morning when Nick Clegg delivered his verdict on the EU

summit. I am bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week's

summit, precisely because I think there is a real danger that over

time the United Kingdom will be isolated and marginalised within

the European Union. I do not think that is good for jobs in the city

or elsewhere. I do not think it is good for growth or good for

families up and down the country. That is why I as a Liberal Democrat

will do everything I can to make sure this setback does not become a

permanent divide. It is a much tougher tone than the one he used

on Friday when he offered the Prime Minister lukewarm support. And it

is very different from David Cameron's message, hours after he

refused to be part of a new European treaty. I think it is

right for Britain to say which bits of Europe both -- most benefit ass

and focus on those. I'm not frightened of the fact that

sometimes you might not be included in something. Are we better outside

the euro? You bet we are. Nick Clegg also infuriated Euro-sceptics

in the Prime Minister's party calling them spectacularly

misguided. I hear it this about the bulldog spirit. There is nothing

bulldog about Britain hovering in the mid-Atlantic. But he does not

want to push the eject button on the coalition and Conservative

ministers say the relationship still works. Certainly there are

differences between parties in a coalition on a subject like this,

but as we always have over the last 18 months, we work through those

things to a common position. David Cameron will make a statement on

the summit in the Commons tomorrow. The reaction of MPs and the squirms

on the front bench will tell us how far apart the two coalition

partners have become on the issue of Europe.

United Nations talks in South Africa on climate change had ended

with a last-minute deal to compel, for the first time, all the world's

biggest polluters to take action to curb global warming. Delegates

agreed to work towards a new legally binding accord to come into

effect by 2020. The climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, accepted

that a lot remained to be done, but insisted the agreement was a big

step forward. In what we have done today is actually a great success

for European diplomacy. We have managed to put this on the map and

we have managed to bring the major emitters like the United States and

India and China into a road map which will secure an overarching

global deal. A report from the Financial

Services Authority will be highly critical of its own role in the

events which led to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland three

years ago. The report will say staff at the City regulator lacked

the skills to monitor companies as complex as RBS, but that its

failure was ultimately due to decisions made by the bank's

management. Our next bulletin on BBC 1 is at

5:30pm this afternoon. Now back to Jon Sopel.

Thank you. What an unbelievable image, the

pro-European Deputy Prime Minister alone in his apartment in Sheffield

being run at 4 o'clock in the morning by David Cameron to say

that he had used the veto and the rest of the EU were going it alone.

The reverberations in Europe and the ructions in the coalition are

still playing themselves out. Trevor, how DEC this unfolding?

don't think anyone in London or Brussels fully anticipated the

consequences of what David Cameron did on Friday but what he has done

is to trigger a sequence of events which I now unstoppable and will

lead to the logical conclusion of which means we will leave the

European Union. This cannot be reversed. I have got to ask you

this. Is that wishful thinking or is that cold political analysis?

think it is an analysis which has proved correct since the launch of

the European single currency. It was never going to succeed. It is

doomed to failure one way or another and this is simply a part

of that process. Do you share that analysis? I don't think it is

irreversible. I don't think there is anything which cannot be stopped

in politics if you have the will to stop it. But I think we are set on

a trajectory which will be hard to get off. The other possibility is

not that we will leave the EU but there will be no EU left to leave.

If you look at the failure to deal with the eurozone crisis, you can

see the political entity coming apart as well as the economic

entity. Thank you. In a moment, we will talk to voices

from both sides of the coalition and both sides of the euro divide,

but first, here is a reminder of how we got here.

Agent Cameron packed his attache case for a trip to Brussels this

week for what turned out to the Mission impossible. The assignment,

support a treaty which might help to save the eurozone crisis if by

creating a deeper fiscal union and protecting the city. By the early

hours of Friday morning, that mission was aborted as Sarkozy and

Merkel rejected the plan. The result, a bleary-eyed Cameron.

was on offer was not in Britain's interests. And the plan is a two-

speed Europe. The response was furious with President Sarkozy

Colin Cameron's demands unacceptable and Angela Merkel cent

Cameron was never really at the table. At home, Tory MPs were

celebrating but the morning's front pages are dominated by Nick Clegg's

fury and dismay over the veto. Triumph or disaster? Victory or

defeat? It is too early to decide. That depends on whether the crisis

can be resolved in the reserves. If it cannot, Britain will gain credit

for standing aside. But if it does not, the veto could blow up in

David Cameron's face. Norman Lamb joins us from Norwich

now. Thank you for being with us. Nick Clegg sounded furious this

morning, is he? I think he is clearly disappointed. Many people

are, particularly in the business community. It should be said that

both coalition partners agreed the terms that we should go into the

negotiations with. They were modest and reasonable demands. But there

is no doubt there where we have got to is not a good place for Britain

to be in. If your interest is in jobs and growth and the interests

of British business, we have to build alliances across Europe and

that has to be the priority now. believe the veto was used because

of the unacceptable proposals or because of the constraints that

David Cameron finds himself under in the Conservative Party.

knows? As Nick indicated this morning, the Prime Minister was

clearly caught in a very difficult position with complete

intransigence it seems, from the French in particular, and it is a

great pity that those reasonable demands, that the British put

forward and remember, there was no demand for repatriation of powers,

this was just about protecting the single market. It is a great pity

that those reasonable demands were not accepted. Was it right to use

the veto? Ultimately, where we have got to is not a good place. Hang on.

The viewer can listen to that and here you not answering that

question. Was it right to use the veto? What we cannot say is whether

if the negotiations had continued, we would have got to a better place.

The truth is that Britain's interests are damaged by being

isolated in Europe. We may also have been in a difficult position

had we gone along with a compromise that did not meet the demands which

we, as a coalition government, put forward. I think the critical thing

now, seriously, is to look forward and the choice that we face is a

really important one. Faced with a position that where most of us take

the view is... I will talk about the future, I promise I will come

to the future but you have raised something very interesting their

way you refused to answer the question about whether it was right

to use the veto, you said negotiations should have continued

longer. Was this a failure of negotiations? Who knows? Unless you

were in the room, it is impossible to make the judgment. All I can say

is that the demands were reasonable and a picnic's analysis this

morning that he was trapped between intransigence from France and the

Euro-sceptic Right of the Conservative Party was the right

analysis. What I want to focus on is the future. We have a really

important choice as a country. Faced with the fact that most

people take the view that Europe is in need of serious reform, it

regulates too much, it irritates people intensely, the amount that

it interferes with people's lives, it needs the reform. The choice is,

do you walkaway which the Euro- sceptic Right want to do, or do you

lead the case for reform. The Liberal Democrats will support the

growth. We are part of a single market of 500 million consumers. It

is critical for Britain's interests that we lead the case for

liberalising back market, for jobs and growth. You talk about the

future. Should Nick Clegg be at the summit to be part of the

negotiations? I think in the lead- up to Thursday night, Nick played a

very prominent role in talking to European leaders. The without much

effect. Well, in seeking alliances. The key thing is that Britain is

not alone in its analysis that we need to reform Europe. We need to

make the single market more liberal. There are a lot about eyes out

there and the challenge for British diplomacy is to build those

alliances and Nick will lead the case in talking to businesses, in

working with business now to support the case for supporting

alliances to make the single market work effectively in Britain's

interests. You heard Trevor Kavanagh's analysis that ultimately

this will lead to a decision about whether Britain stays in the EU or

not. Do you think this could lead to Britain's withdrawal from the

European Union? As I said, there is a choice. Trevor Kavanagh

represents the view that we should move all the way to leave the EU.

Our view is that that would be disastrous. To walk away from the

world's biggest single market of 500 million consumers, where over 3

million jobs defend -- 3 million jobs depend on trade with Europe,

it would be crazy so let's reform Europe, recognise where it fails

but don't walk away. Thank you. And I'm joined by men with two very

different views about Europe and David Cameron's veto. Liberal

Democrat peer Matthew Oakeshott and Conservative MP and renowned Euro-

sceptic John Redwood. John Redwood, I'm sure you disagreed with a lot

of what Nick Clegg at said. I think David Cameron used the veto for

very good reasons. The deal on the table was unacceptable to the

United Kingdom's. It was against the interests of the government and

people. What we are talking here is a set of proposals that the

European Union come up with for more and more austerity measures to

be enforced on countries from the EU with sanctions in order to

enforce them. I don't think Mr Clegg does actually want more cuts

and more tax increases at the moment in Britain, so surely he is

rather relieved that we did not sign up to that, coming from the EU.

Did you sense relief when you listen. Was that the emotion you

would describe? No, I was trying to reassure him that Britain did the

right thing in the right situation. We were out of the room on the euro

from the day we wisely decided not go into the euro. I think most

people in Britain are heartily relieved that we did not go into

the euro. We have never been in a room on the euro because we are not

part of it. We should take it further to political union. Britain

cannot conceivably be part of that process so we need a new

relationship which makes sense for Was it a disaster? Of course it was.

It was bad for Brittain. John is a very old friend and a very old

political enemy. The agenda is to get as out of Europe. This is

deeply damaging both for the country and a coalition. Haven't we

witnessed the Liberal Democrats huffing and puffing, unhappy, and

unable to do anything about it? am not huffing and puffing. Nick

Clegg has called it a bad deal for Brittain and he did not know that

David Cameron had exercise the veto. I would say a veto should have been

exercised you said, I am not having an puffin, Vince Cable is not

huffing and puffing. The position of Vince Cable is, he gave a very

serious warning last Monday in the Cabinet, against elevating these

financial regulation points in a make or break deal. He did not get

any support on that. That warning his birth. Make Clegg was warning

David Cameron -- Nick Clegg was warning David Cameron there was a

fear it could break down and it did happen. You are a very close friend

of Vince Cable. Is he considering Nick Clegg said this was a bad deal

for Britain. Nick Clegg is the Deputy Prime Minister and he will

be pushing that we should not walk away. Are you absolutely sure the

Vince Cable will not resign? I have no idea what Vince Cable will do.

Are not huffing and puffing. We are in there fighting. The Liberal

Democrats are going to fight to ensure that we are not cut off from

Europe as John Redwood and his friends want. You would have to ask

other individuals, Vince Cable is fighting to ensure that we are not

cut off from Europe. We are not coughing and puffing. So he could

be outside the Cabinet? You could read the newspapers this morning.

He is saying that it was a mistake and most Liberal Democrats are

saying it is a mistake. It was a mistake to try and look after

frankly the speedier area of the city of London to make that are

David Cameron needed to say something that was hostile to jobs

and prosperity. It was wrong to suggest we do not need European

trading partners. I always found it easier to export to non- EU

countries. The fact that Britain had some involvement in rule-making

did not help us much. We need to meet the needs of the customer,

that can include government rules and customer requirements. It is

not a magic box. You need to tailor it for the different parts of the

world. It was easier to export to non EU countries. Speaking on

economics, these countries are our biggest trading partners. They are

not. They are. On manufacturing, it is over half. The point is, this is

much bigger. We could have had this argument in 1931. This is much

bigger. We are talking about the Western economies. It seems to me

we have a fundamental difficulty with the way the coalition operates.

These circumstances were not seen by the coalition agreement. Is it

time to go back to that agreement? I do not think that is quite true.

What happened was there was clear agreement about what they were

trying to achieve. They put forward a very reasonable package. France

blocked it. The Prime Minister had to make a decision about getting a

deal that Nick Clegg wanted. He had to say No For a start he immediate

the reacted and said he did not agree with the Prime Minister. --

no. The reason for the mess was the Conservatives broke away from the

mains -- mainstream grouping. He should have been talking with

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. Now we're in with their head

bangers in Eastern Europe and cut- off without influence. They up

serious democratic politicians as well. Here you have lost a lot of

influence. I wanted him to be negotiating seriously with our

friends and allies in Western Europe. You think you should have

had a veto over the veto? The point is, we are here, we are where we

are. There is no political leader in Britain who could have come away

with the deer that meant surrendering �30 billion of tax

revenue from the City of London. -- a deal. Was there a Fayette in

negotiation? As Nick Clegg said, I want to quote him exactly. -- a

failure. I think David Cameron, I do not know whether he overplayed

his hand or did not want to do anything in the first place. There

is considerable evidence that a walkout quite suited him. The

problem is there was a majority in parliament. -- there is no majority

in parliament for a veto on Europe. I am sorry. If you looked at the

thought bubble coming off David Cameron, it would be, what the hell

have I just done? He was forced into it. We only have a minute left.

Do you think this could break the coalition? I think that Nick Clegg

needs to go back and say we are not going to have a bad deal for

Britain and the need to keep fighting. It is a very tense

situation. So, it could break the coalition? It could do. I think

there is no chance of that was up his first reaction was that David

Cameron had no choice to do what he did. I do not think the Liberal

Democrats want to have a general election over this issue. You want

to get out, that is what you want to do. Four out of five voters

agreed with David Cameron. We should trade and be friends but we

do not want to be bossed around, taxed. Listening to you two, you

seem utterly irreconcilable. If you a marriage guidance counsellors,

you would say, you know what kind it is over. We're not in the

coalition that we have different views. The Conservative right has

never accepted the principle in the coalition agreement that they keep

arguing for the referendum, they are the coalition wreckers. There

we must leave it. All of you, thank you very much indeed for being with

us. As we have been discussing, Nick Clegg has dismissed the idea

that the veto last week showed the bulldog spirit of David Cameron.

Earlier ice-pick to Eric Pickles and began by asking him whether he

thought David Cameron was channelling his in .. In Brussels.

-- I spoke. He was channelling his communication. It is strange for

someone to say one thing on the House of Commons and follow it up

in Europe. He did that. Infuriated the Liberal Democrats saying, Tory

Euro-sceptics were spectacularly misguided. There is nothing bulldog

about Britain hovering somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. He is furious.

They did follow an agreed coalition blind. I was pleased with the

reaction from Nick Clegg on Friday. -- line. You are pleased with his

reaction today? It means we can move forward on things like the

single market. We have been together on foreign policy. Indulge

made. You are less pleased with what he said today. Nick Clegg

speaks for himself but we can unite on many things. He blames your

party for the mess we are now in. It was not an agreed coalition

policy. We made for a modest bequest would regard to Industry.

Our colleagues in the European Union could not succeed on that and

the sensible thing was to use the veto. He said that Tory Euro-

sceptics were misguided. I'm not under the same can straighten my

Parliamentary Party that David Cameron is. In other words, he had

to use the veto, not because what was happening in Brussels but

because of his party. That it is misreading the situation. We needed

to ensure there would not be any presumption in favour and needed to

protect our financial institutions. It was not part of a treaty with

their -- renegotiation. So, Nick Clegg has got that wrong. We are

prepared to work with Liberal Democrat colleagues on the things

that unite us - foreign-policy, spreading out the single market,

insuring our markets are opened. We recently saw an increase in trade

with North Africa and the like. There is a massive split that

Britain finds itself in - alone. The rest of the EU is getting on

without us. We are not going to be a member of the euro. We made clear

in the coalition document it would not be included in any preparations

that were made in the lifetime of this Parliament. Our future lies

outside the euro. We need to ensure our institutions are not threatened

by that. Let me ask another thing. You said David Cameron negotiated.

Nick Clegg said the opposite. For one reason or another, there was no

negotiation about the menu of negotiating tasks we made. There

was no give and take battle. It became polarised. Over time it is

damaging to Britain as a whole. There is an element that we feel a

bit let down by our European partners on this. It became clear

they were not so willing to cope with an hour -- go with our very

modest proposals so we use the veto. Mr Pickles, you know very well that

you took your party out of the European People's Party - the

centre-right coalition of mainstream European parties. It is

what Angela Merkel Leeds, what Nicolas Sarkozy is part of the,

Manduel Rosso is part of. The Tories were not there able to

influence things. They could have been influencing matters. They were

isolated. There is something intrinsically wrong with the

Conservatives being in the EPP. has left too isolated. -- left you

isolated. We continue to work with our European partners on the single

market and European policies. We work very closely with France on

foreign policy and on defence policy. Our two nations have never

been quite so united in terms of foreign defence policy for

generations. Is there a logic that we need the European Union?

course not. There is no suggestion of that. Britain is subject to all

the things we do not like. The most important thing, so far as the

European Union is concerned, is the single market. We want to see that

spread out. We are a trading nation. Can we turn from the problem family

that is the European Union, to problem families in the UK? How

serious a problem is it? It is a very big problem. It is costing the

nation �9 billion a year. In an extreme case it can be anything

from a quarter of a million or rising. The average is about

�75,000. Her per family. It is a very big deal. Quite often it is a

generational thing. Parents have never been in work, children have

never been in work. I do not like the idea of a sighting of the life

chances of people. What you do? writing off. What we will be doing

is establishing a unit to co- operate with local authorities

surveys people have one person dealing with them. Her we will turn

around the lives of the most troubled families in this country.

It is a bold claim. It is a bold claim and a bold objective.

Something has to be done. How can we measure success? Fairly

straightforward, kids into school, people into jobs and a reduction in

antisocial behaviour. We have tended to be too complex in the way

we deal with these families. That will happen in the lifetime of this

Parliament? Absolutely. Absolutely. So, truancy will be history and

petty crime will be history. have good co-operation with local

authorities. There is a broad political consensus on theirs. We

will look to the authorities like Salford, which is Labour lead, it

is doing a lot of work in S. We have seen results in particular

authorities. -- in this. They want to spread that to authorities over

the country. With Council Tax, if it goes up by more than 3.5%, maybe

there should be consulted in a referendum about whether they want

it. What about the reverse? If the council tax is slashed and they

want to cut services massively, should that go to a referendum as

well? No. The job is to remove my powers of capping. I did not have

any powers to force councils to put up council tax. This is in place of

me deciding what to the level should be. The people should decide.

What about if the council were to cut council tax? This year, because

of the other we have made with the council tax freeze, we will be

giving local authorities extra Later in the programme, as the

Politics Show takes its bow, we will bring you some highlights of

our eight years on air. But first, and for the last time, the Politics

Show where you are. Hello and welcome to the Politics

Show here in London where later on we will be asking if drastic

economic times need equally drastic solutions. We will be hearing from

people trying to think the unthinkable about what could help

plug the deficit gap. But first, with Christmas

approaching, make the most of free evening parking in the West End

because it is not around for much longer. From January, Westminster

Council is introducing parking charges on Sunday and the evenings.

It has led to a chorus of complaints from seemingly everybody

except borough residents. If it could cost local firms �800 million

in lost business and 5,000 jobs. The battle lines are drawn as the

controversy surrounding Westminster council's decision to introduce

parking charges on evenings and Sundays escalates. We have become

men. It is another way to make money out of us. Now is the time

that we should come in and relax and we should not have to worry

about parking charges. The area designated stretches from Oxford

Street in the north, to Hyde Park in the West and the Strand in the

south. Drivers will have to pay �2.40 pap hour from Monday to

Thursday. On Fridays and Saturdays it goes up to �4.80 Para. With

restricted public transport services running through the night,

how will those doing night shifts in the capital manager and what

will be the knock-on effect for the night-time economy? He will hit the

worker's hard and I cannot compensate their wages. What will

happen? I don't know but I can guarantee that our job losses from

the 9th, people will not be able to afford to work in the West End.

impact of these new parking regulations will be immense. I

believe it will cripple Westminster and it will make it into a ghost

town. He a report commissioned by worried local businesses has

estimated that this new initiative could take �800 million out of the

local economy and cost some 5,000 jobs. This week, two senior

politicians weighed in with further What remains to be seen is whether

Westminster will stick to their guns in the face of what appears to

be widespread opposition. Joining me here is the Cabinet men

before parking at Westminster Council, Councillor Lee Rowley and

the Labour opposition, Paul Dimoldenberg. What will it take to

persuade Westminster Council to give up these plans? Everyone

appears to be opposed to it. It is certainly proving very

controversial but we must not forget that there are a lot of

people in favour of it, particularly residents who live

close by. Even people who disagree with what we're doing agree there

is a problem of congestion in the West End so that is what we are

trying to tackle. Where trying to manage a city which lots of people

want to use at different times of the dead which is causing these

kind of issues to be raised and the solutions to be tried. Paul

Dimoldenberg, you have to take your hat off to them for the bravery in

the face of criticism? This is about jobs and the economy as much

as about parking. A latest study shows that 5,000 jobs could be lost

by this. In the depths of the recession, this is the last thing

the West End needs. West End stores and businesses are the people who

depend on the night-time economy. It is a disaster for the West End

and for the broader London economy. It is not good news at all. I think

the problem is that Paul has quoted a report. Another person has said

that his voodoo economics, lies, damn lies and statistics is the old

maxim. What is wrong with the figures? Bake are not based on

anything. -- they are not based on anything. They do not have any

bearing on any recollection or likelihood of what is likely to

happen. We do realise that these things are not popular. We realise

they may have an impact and that is why we have said we will only bring

these in on an experimental basis to see if they have the effect of

reducing congestion, imprison people's quality of life in London

and we will see how it goes. and reliable survey you are

quoting? He can rubbish the report, the company was done -- report was

done by a company which works for 47 of the top FTSE 100 companies so

I am confident it was done well. He can rubbish the report but the

council has not done one or the impact of what they have called

themselves an experiment in the West End. At the depth of recession,

next year, 2012, the West End will see unprecedented numbers of people.

If it is so obvious, why are they doing it? It is about money. The

council has a huge hole in the finances. Over the years, that has

been a reduction and parking income which has helped subsidise the

council tax. What, Westminster Council, the model for the last 20

years? Yes, Westminster has relied on this pot of gold called parking

income which has helped subsidise the council tax for residents. That

money has been reducing ovaries years because drivers have become

more compliant. The result is, the council has no money. It has

refused to put up the council tax so it has no room for manoeuvre.

That is why the �7 million that the charges will bring in is crucial.

Paul is talking nonsense and it is not the first time. He is playing

politics with this. It is not about the money, it has never been about

the money. It is about traffic congestion. There are several

hundred pages of data finding out what is happening in our streets

which we have used in coming to this decision to see how we can

improve the lives. But the income from parking has been going down?

It varies from a year by year basis. I think it was going up this year.

Anything you do with parking has a financial impact. So you would say

there is absolutely nothing wrong with the finances of Westminster

council. We are breaking even this year. The fundamental point, Paul,

is what is your answer to the increasing amount of congestion in

the West End. If you do not like this, what will you do when you

have 11 million cars on the streets since 1990. Parking income will

drop again this year by an estimated �2 million, thereby

putting more pressure on the council's finances. The issue of

congestion, if you talk to people who live in Mayfair and St James's,

they say there is not any congestion of a note. Of course,

there are some places where there are real problems but they are very

small parts of the West End. think the main point from the

viewers' point of view, obviously have the responsibility of your

residents, but you're also the central London one. You influence a

lot of our lives. When so many people are telling you this is an

idea you should U-turn on, what will it take for you to do that?

did a huge consultation on this already. We recognise there are a

lot of people who do not like it. The what would it take? You were

saying there is no question you will go ahead? We will implement on

the 9th. We believe it is important that people can still get around.

The vast majority of people already come by public transport. The vast

majority of people will not be effected by the changes. Sunday

mornings means the churches will not be affected by the changes.

long will you let it run before you decide whether or not it is

working? We can make changes very quickly. We can make changes within

weeks if necessary. To both of you, thank you very much.

During these hard economic times, are we looking at all the possible

solutions in the capital? We know there will meet the extra borrowing

and cuts longer than we previously thought. Some people think this

presents an opportunity to think again about a lot of State position

and perhaps send a few sacred cows to slaughter.

Last week, the Chancellor announced that come 2017 we are going to have

to fill the deficit by an additional �30 billion, roughly

equivalent to the cost of the Olympic Games three times over

every year. Where in London could we start clawing back that kind of

money? Could it be time to think again about the NHS? There are

around one million missed GP appointments every year in the

capital. By fining them all �10, that could be �10 million in the

kitty. If we charged everybody a �10 to see a GP in the first place,

you could net �650 million a year in London alone. Of perhaps, we

could look at another sacred cow, the drugs laws. According to the

campaign group Transform, by taxing cannabis use, we could save the

Treasury between 200 and �250 million a year. There is also the

transport network. The upgrade to the Underground currently costs us

about �1.5 billion a year. We could also think about road-pricing.

Charging people for every mile they drive when traffic is bad. Far

campaigners, the main aim here is to reduce congestion and help air

pollution. In these times, the cash raised could be useful as well.

Depending on the scheme, the concessions and the time of day,

you might get something like �3 billion a year from a scheme across

the whole of London which is in the order of 10 times more than the

current revenue from the central London scheme. So, that's 3 billion

extra pounds in the coffers. Since we are putting a price on the

use of the roads, why not other parts of the public realm? Hyde

Park is prime real-estate by anyone's standards. According to

the estate agents, Savills, property in the area is worth two

Grand a square foot. That is �30 billion. Is it better to have money

in the bank or art in the vaults? 90 % of the British Museum's

election is not on show. Neither they nor the government know how

much it is worth although the figure is so big that they do not

bother to ensure it. Me that under current rules that allowed to be

sold. I think it is quite right that it is not allowed. This is an

incredibly important resource and this is a time when we need all the

art we can get. It is easy to see that people actually want art and

they want us to have it and hold it and keep it. But perhaps the best

way to make money is to go after the money men. Much discussed this

week has been the financial transactions tax. If the UK wanted

to introduce one just for itself of 0.05 % on every transaction, it is

estimated it would bring in �20 billion a year. But there are other

ways to use the city's expertise to use the -- to help the public purse.

What have we were to use London's world-leading financial skills to

invest public money on the nation's behalf. It could pay off part of

the national debt without the pain of cuts or tax rises. Other

countries have used the revenue from that to create lucrative

sovereign wealth funds which have earned them even more money off the

back. Could we have done the same with North Sea oil? Starting from

the 70s when it oil was first sold in the UK on a commercial level, we

would have at least 500 billion pounds to wealth. It is a

conservative assumption. Half a trillion pounds is roughly half the

national debt but in the short term we do not have any more money to

invest. In the meantime, it is the end of free healthcare, concrete

over Hyde Park, a run-down Tube network and a tax which some fear

would send the most lucrative industry packing. What Chancellor

could possibly resist put in a package like that to the

Mark Littlewood it is director- general of economic Affairs. As

well as Adam Lent. You signed up to all those, did you? Not quite all

of them. Apart from the bankers tax. You have managed to think much more

imaginatively and out of the box than George Osborne has managed to.

It is like the Government has tried to get finances under some

semblance of control. Still adding to the national debt but gradually

wearing that dam, rather than doing what they -- what they promised ban

was a Comprehensive Spending Review. Should we be doing this at all?

What should be palatable? Let's start with GPs and charging for

missed appointments. The Government, unfortunately, has ring-fenced the

National Health Service. We have identified if you brought in

radical reform you could cut spending by 44 billion a year. The

NHS is a sacred cow. If it does not need to be slaughtered, it needs to

be tackled substantially. We need to look at assets. To we really

need vast amounts of Art Collections buried in the basements

of museums? Is there a political opportunity to approach state

provision and what we are not charging for in a different ball

greater way? Absolutely there is. It is a chance to think quite hard

about welfare, pensions and health care. They are the three really big

areas of spent by government. I would disagree quite strongly with

the notion that the Government is only skimming across the surface.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the level of cuts now being

brought in is unprecedented in British history. This is extreme

fiscal consolidation going on. good example is the NHS because it

is so sacred to voters. All the parties kind of will agree

privately that you will make slightly distorted decisions

because of its popularity. T think GP should charge? Are there other

areas we should rationalise? -- do you think? We should look at Co

payment whereby the user of the service and the Government shares

the cost was something like the National Health Service. That is

not just because of the deficit. The demands for the National house-

owners are rising extraordinarily over the next 10, 20 years. --

National Health Service. We need to find ways of doing this that

protects people who are least able to afford those sorts of extra

charges that might come in. Why, when we were talking about in

London, the congestion charge, we have seen similar but not exactly

the same schemes in the country, why are we not talking more about

road pricing? We should be talking about that. The bit of the film in

the package show was more nervous about his, if you start trying to

shove up taxes more, I think we have reached the limit. We spend

not far off 50% of income in the public sector. B cannot raise that

money through taxation. We should be looking at the side of cutting

and not raising revenue. It was that kind of radical thinking that

we need. I would like to see a much bolder privatisation programme of

the roads rather than a bunch of bureaucrats trying to work out

whether you should charge a fiver for a tenner. This is the sort of

area we should be looking at. It is about raising revenues and

challenging types of behaviour like carbon emissions, smoking, eating

junk food. The sorts of thing - as macabre sort of things that cause

problems for the deficit and into the future. -- the sort of things.

I would not agree that privatisation is the solution.

Privatisation has ramped up costs for the Government. We need to go

about it in a pragmatic way. What about things like modernisation

work to the tube or upgrades? The perception is, you need to invest

because it will benefit the whole country. You could afford to stop

doing that. The difficulty is, can you raise prices if you do

upgrades? Does it have a rate of return. The solution to the

economic hole is not to say, stop spending any money on anything

anywhere. We need economic growth. We need to live cattle areas which

are potentially wasteful. You highlighted Hyde Park. If

concreting over that is a goer, that would be more controversial.

40% of space in London is Green Park area. That is extraordinary.

It is a metropolis. A do we need every single one of those blades of

grass? -- do we need? Would the public accepts that? No. Mark raise

the issue of taxes and said, I do not think we can be taxing more

than we do. A key example is take - - pension tax relief. We provide

pension tax relief for higher-rate tax payers. We're talking about

removing benefits, should we not talk about tax relief? I would like

to see the system simplified. It is so complicated. The tax rule book

is 14,000 pages long. Definitely simplified all of that. Most

economists would agree, you cannot squeeze more than about 40% out of

the overall economy, however you do it. We are above that level now.

Most of it has to be on the side of cuts. I would like it to go below

the 40% level. Time is running out. After nine years of bringing you

the big political stories and interviews, this is the final ever

edition of the Politics Show. Before we say goodbye, we will look

back over our time together. Hello and welcome for the first time to

the Politics Show. With me now to discuss Iraq is Labour Party

chairman, John Reid, the first We have not given unqualified

support to the Government. We have been critical of the Government

where we believe they have not made the case. We want the weapons

inspectorate to complete their task. It is possible for the crisis to

have a peaceful resolution. welcome to the Politics Show in the

week that war was launched on the rack. Some things are going to plan,

in some cases ahead of expectations. -- on Iraq. That is really amazing.

Hang on! I even felt comfortable like this. I am ready to go, ready

Here is the bit the muesli munchers Do not talk politics to me, I have

had enough. I am joined by David Cameron. It is difficult to work

out what your policies are. There is the pre-manifesto document.

you believe you can win the election? Absolutely. Anyone who

takes the British electorate for granted is a full. -- fool. Today,

something for everyone. Dawn is breaking in a city that never

sleeps. I am on Air Force to for an exclusive interview with Jack Straw

and Condoleezza Rice. How far are we away from Iraq being stable

enough for the US and Britain to pull out its troops? We do not want

to talk about timetables. We want to talk about results. Which you

give us a tune? I will never again allow anyone ever to make fun of a

degree in sports science. This is just a holding position before I

get to be a rock and roll star. I do not know what will hold me back,

I have the looks, I am a fabulous musician. I have been speaking to

the possible future leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron.

not want his party to be out of power for 17, 18 years. -- this

party. So, at the G8 next year, you will still be Prime Minister?

have made it clear I will carry on doing the job. Do you know when

you'll go? I am going to get on with the job. There is no point

asking me for dates or whatever. the end of John Reid as a Cabinet

minister? I intend to stand down from the Cabinet towards the end of

June, when Tony goes. I think you will see we are in a position,

whether in one capacity or another, to draw on the talents of our

society. Why had he issued a briefing document called Calamity

Clegg? I have not. Up this came from office on Friday. Do you owe

him an apology? If it is the first time I have seen it. It is called

Calamity Clegg! There is a sense of excitement, a buzz, as I am

discovering in this sports bar. Down at the farm, Oinkbama has been

consistently winning. We're at the main base in southern Afghanistan,

Camp Bastion. I am the most high profile backbench Member of

Parliament in all history - in all history. Google it and see. Google

my name and see. From Downing Street, to your street, it is time

to judge the Prime Minister of the DUP Gordon Brown, welcome. I am

very sorry about what happened. I am sorry for the grief the deaths

in Afghanistan have caused people. We want to scrap tuition fees. We

cannot scrap them overnight. It will take longer. What are we

talking? Just in order of the sort of cuts. Tempting as it is to set

heard a budget on this programme, I will be doing that before the

election. -- set out. Presumably when you talked to Nick Clegg, you

raise the possibility that this is a resignation issue. You meet a lot

in politics of politicians who like humanity in general but dislikes

them in particular. That is it for our first programme. Thank you very

much ball-watching. Thanks for being with us. Goodbye. -- for