:00:12. > :00:17.This morning, the perfect storm, still wreaking havoc after pounding
:00:17. > :00:22.the East Coast with towering waves and punishing waves. Sandy!S into
:00:23. > :00:29.the north-east. Leaving millions without power. At least 50 homes
:00:29. > :00:35.have burned to the ground. Superstorm Sandy leaves a trail of
:00:35. > :00:41.damage and disruption along America's East Coast. Tonight on
:00:41. > :00:44.This Week, as Superstorm Sandy causes death and devastation, storm
:00:44. > :00:54.clouds from Europe are gathering over the Prime Minister and his
:00:54. > :00:59.
:00:59. > :01:03.party. The time has come for politicians to be bold and and take
:01:03. > :01:08.the question to the public. Sandy left millions without power and
:01:08. > :01:10.paralysed the East Coast of America, but could the fallout from policy
:01:10. > :01:16.disagreements paralyse the coalition?
:01:16. > :01:20.The Sun's Jane Moore is feeling the chill. Brrrr... Tory and Lib Dem
:01:20. > :01:24.MPs may not be feeling terribly warm to each other over certain key
:01:24. > :01:30.issues, but the fault line of division hasn't wrong footed the
:01:30. > :01:34.Prime Minister. Yet. As President Obama resumes campaigning after the
:01:34. > :01:41.destruction that was predicted, the politicians always base their
:01:41. > :01:43.policy on the best scientific evidence. Ben Goldacre is looking
:01:43. > :01:47.for proof. Politicians use scientific evidence when it suits
:01:47. > :01:53.them. They ignore it when they don't like the answers. I would
:01:53. > :02:03.like to see evidence of change. Batten down the hatches. It could
:02:03. > :02:11.
:02:11. > :02:14.Evening all. Welcome to This Week, the show where unemployable expers
:02:14. > :02:20.are paid absurd amounts of money to state the bleeding obvious. Think
:02:20. > :02:27.of us, if you will, as the Pippa Middleton, of political punditry.
:02:27. > :02:34.After all, who's better at giving self-evident advice than darling
:02:34. > :02:38.young Pippa whose new magnum opus of Pippa-tips, Celebrate, tells
:02:38. > :02:45.readers that for a Halloween party, a pointy hat, fake hair and a broom
:02:45. > :02:50.make a witch's outfit. OK yah! As you can see, these four years at
:02:50. > :02:58.Edinburgh university really paid dividends. What she failed to say
:02:58. > :03:04.was that a wig and cigar should be avoided. Even so, it's clear that
:03:04. > :03:11.call me Dave is a big fan of Pippa. Worried about your party looking
:03:11. > :03:19.posh and incompetent? Why not appoint an old Etonian Baronet as
:03:19. > :03:23.your new Chief Whip? He can be counted on to orchestrate a
:03:23. > :03:29.humiliating defeat on the European budget. Concerned that you didn't
:03:29. > :03:36.have a credible growth plan for the 21st century. Then invite Michael
:03:36. > :03:42.Heseltine to give you 89 ways to take you back to the '70s. Need
:03:42. > :03:48.more A-list MPs? Then pick Louise Mensch and watch her up sticks for
:03:48. > :03:58.New York. Triggering an Unwinable mid term by-election. Speaking of
:03:58. > :04:04.those who have useful tips are as useful as the Koran, at a bar mits
:04:04. > :04:11.va, and I'm in joined by the agony aunt and the uncle of Westminster
:04:11. > :04:15.politics, with the accent on the agony, I speak of course of Tessa
:04:15. > :04:18.Jowell and Michael Portillo. Your moment of the week? John Major who
:04:18. > :04:24.may have been Chief Secretary of the Treasury said to an astonished
:04:24. > :04:28.group of MPs at a dinner party that Europe was the wolf coming down the
:04:28. > :04:31.path to gobble up the Conservative Party. We all looked at him
:04:31. > :04:35.mystified. But of course, in the fullness of time, it's proved
:04:35. > :04:40.absolutely to be so. Europe is the curse from which the Conservative
:04:40. > :04:43.Party never escapes. I thought that was one of two lessons that I
:04:43. > :04:49.learnt last night. But the other was that with the Labour Party
:04:49. > :04:58.voting with the Conservative rebels, the whole British political scene
:04:58. > :05:02.is not now euro sceptical, it's euro hostile. You must be a happy
:05:02. > :05:05.man? I don't know that I am entirely happy. There will be a
:05:05. > :05:10.parting of the ways between Europe and Britain. Hold that thought.
:05:10. > :05:17.We'll come a to that. Tessa, your moment of the week? It's not a
:05:17. > :05:22.Parliamentary moment of the week. It was being at the Pride of
:05:22. > :05:29.Britain Awards this week where Doreen Lawrence was honoured, for
:05:29. > :05:39.the second time wrbgs the Lifetime Achievement Award. -- for the
:05:39. > :05:40.
:05:40. > :05:44.second time, the Lifetime Achievement Award. She's changed
:05:44. > :05:52.British law and attitudes to race within the police and in the
:05:52. > :06:00.community more widely. She talked without rancour and she very
:06:00. > :06:06.graciously accepted the award but then said "Of course, I would set
:06:06. > :06:12.all this aside to have my son back" and you realise that 19 years later,
:06:12. > :06:19.the pain of loss has never gone away. Last weekend, the Mizens,
:06:19. > :06:25.Barry and Margaret, the parents of young Jimmy who was murdered joined
:06:25. > :06:30.with Grace odd odd whose son David was murdered for a concert of peace
:06:30. > :06:36.at the 0 2 and there's something remarkable about these mothers who
:06:36. > :06:39.refuse just to let anger and loss stop their constructive
:06:39. > :06:45.contribution. Thank you for that moment. No doubt as we speak call
:06:45. > :06:49.me Dave is busy hitting the Blue Nun hard desperate to dull the pain
:06:49. > :06:54.of last night's scary Halloween rebellion when Labour joined with
:06:55. > :06:58.53 Tory rebels to vote for a real cut in the European budget giving
:06:58. > :07:01.Dave a fright night that will haunt him for some time to come. Are we
:07:01. > :07:06.enter Agnew phase in our relationship with the European
:07:06. > :07:14.Union and is there an opportunity for the pro-Europe opposition
:07:14. > :07:24.Labour to outflank the Euro-Sceptic Tories at the next election? We
:07:24. > :07:34.
:07:34. > :07:37.asked Will Strong for his Take of Jiem a true Spanish football-loving
:07:37. > :07:41.pro-European. I believe that December spite its many flaws,
:07:41. > :07:45.Britain gains immensely from being in the EU. By the time for Britain
:07:46. > :07:48.to be bold on Europe has arrived. No longer can we stand from the
:07:48. > :07:53.sidelines sniping, we have to make some big decisions and lead a
:07:53. > :08:02.reform agenda in Europe and we have to decide whether we want to be in
:08:02. > :08:05.or out. Events this week is v shown that
:08:05. > :08:09.politicians across the political speck tum are reassessing their
:08:09. > :08:12.position on Europe. Ed Miliband was prepared to allie with Tory rebels
:08:12. > :08:16.in order to push for a deeper cut within the EU budget. Labour needs
:08:16. > :08:26.to extend that logic to push for deeper reform in Europe and to
:08:26. > :08:26.
:08:27. > :08:31.resolve the question of Britain's EU membership for a generation.
:08:31. > :08:35.The British public are getting more and more euro skptic. Part of
:08:35. > :08:39.Europe's problem is it's unwilling to listen to people and to reform -
:08:39. > :08:43.- Euro-sceptic. The austerity policies of the eurozone have been
:08:43. > :08:46.self-defeating, the EU budget lavishes money on farmers rather
:08:46. > :08:51.than creating growth or tackling climate change. The European
:08:51. > :08:55.Commission is elitist and unaccountable. Thank you.
:08:55. > :08:59.Politicians don't lick to admit it, but it looks inevitable there'll be
:08:59. > :09:04.a referendum on Europe. On Scotland, David Cameron was clear that the
:09:04. > :09:08.question had to answer whether the union would stay alive. So too of
:09:08. > :09:13.Europe, we can't fudge this. Labour should seize the initiative and
:09:13. > :09:16.push for a straightforward in-out question. As a child of the '80s,
:09:16. > :09:26.me and my generation have never had a say on whether we want to be part
:09:26. > :09:32.
:09:32. > :09:36.But having a referendum on the EU, we can then debate the dire
:09:36. > :09:39.consequences of Britain going it alone. Although it will be hard, I
:09:39. > :09:42.think pro-Europeans can win. Our politicians have got to be bold and
:09:42. > :09:52.take this question head-on, otherwise Britain will end up like
:09:52. > :09:53.
:09:53. > :09:56.me - dining alone. Delaney's cafe. You are not alone
:09:56. > :10:02.any more, you are with us. Thank you very much. Nice to be here.
:10:02. > :10:06.We'll look after you - I think. Is an in-out referendum inevitable,
:10:06. > :10:09.Michael? At the moment, I can't think of a political leader who'll
:10:09. > :10:11.put that question to the British people. I don't think that David
:10:11. > :10:15.Cameron, if he won the next election wrbgs a Conservative
:10:15. > :10:20.majority, would do so. I don't think Labour would do so and I'm
:10:20. > :10:24.sure that a coalition of two parties wouldn't do so. It would be
:10:24. > :10:29.pointless anyway I think because the British people, as I said
:10:29. > :10:34.before, have gone beyond Euro- Sceptic to euro hostile. Even if
:10:34. > :10:35.they could vote to stay in the European Union, all the issues and
:10:35. > :10:39.different vision we have from continental Europeans will continue
:10:39. > :10:43.to haunt us. That won't go away. Will's idea that we are going to
:10:43. > :10:50.lead a reform agenda in Europe I'm afraid is absolute nonsense. They
:10:50. > :10:55.have been saying that since before you were born. What we want and
:10:55. > :10:59.what continental Europeans want are fundamentally different things.
:11:00. > :11:03.They don't buy into our ideas at all. There are some ideas that
:11:03. > :11:08.people in Europe are talking about now, about whether you should have
:11:08. > :11:12.ideas for the commission, that is what we should embrace. At the
:11:12. > :11:17.moment, you have got this train going down the tracks heading
:11:17. > :11:21.towards referendum because of the referendum lock that Cameron's put
:11:21. > :11:24.in place. All the hostile forces that are bubbling up mean that if
:11:25. > :11:28.you have a question that says some repatriation or some change to the
:11:28. > :11:31.treaty but tuzn't answer the fundamental question of whether we
:11:31. > :11:36.should be in or out, people will get more angry. You have got to
:11:36. > :11:38.take this head-on. That would mean all the pro-European forces who
:11:38. > :11:42.haven't had incentives to put the case for Europe for a generation
:11:42. > :11:46.will be forced to do so. I think that would be a positive thing to
:11:46. > :11:52.debate in the UK. Should Mr Miliband take Will's advice and put
:11:52. > :12:00.in an in-out referendum in the next manifesto? I don't think so, no. I
:12:00. > :12:06.think that we should be much more engaged in - I don't agree with
:12:06. > :12:13.Michael - in negotiating reform of the European institutions. I think
:12:14. > :12:18.- I've done a lot of negotiation in Europe as a minister - what is
:12:18. > :12:23.absolutely clear is that you get nowhere if the other European
:12:23. > :12:32.member states think that you are semi detached. What major reform
:12:32. > :12:38.did Labour achieve in 13 years? Well, 2005 when we had enlargement,
:12:38. > :12:45.New Labour was part... But that was Mrs Thatcher's policy? Not in 2005
:12:45. > :12:48.it wasn't. Enlargement was? Yes, but... That's not a reform, that's
:12:48. > :12:56.expansion. What major way after 13 years of negotiating did you change
:12:56. > :13:01.the way Europe operates? Well, I think that we certainly secured
:13:01. > :13:07.change in 2005 in the proportion of the budget that we were responsible
:13:07. > :13:12.for. That was an achievement that was secured in the national
:13:12. > :13:20.interests. You give away half the rebate and the French still get all
:13:20. > :13:23.the money on CAP. Let me come back to the refn dumb. That's not true.
:13:23. > :13:27.-- referendum. If David Cameron wins another election, it's likely
:13:27. > :13:32.he'll give us a referendum on the new deal he's going to negotiate to
:13:32. > :13:37.a more semi detached Britain. is a laughable notion. What's David
:13:37. > :13:40.Cameron going to do? He'll go to Europe and say to the other
:13:40. > :13:42.countries, give us some powers back and they'll shake their head and
:13:42. > :13:48.say, what are you talking about, which powers do you want back, and
:13:48. > :13:51.if you are going to do that... why should they? Yes and this is
:13:51. > :13:54.laughable. If you have a pledge that you are going to do that in
:13:54. > :14:00.referendum and people suggest that David Cameron is going to do that,
:14:00. > :14:04.the Foreign Office is dog the balance of competencys. Yes. Then
:14:04. > :14:11.you come back and raise people's expectations, you are unable to
:14:11. > :14:14.deliver and people get angry. We have done some research at PPPR, we
:14:14. > :14:17.have done public opinion, held focus groups talking to people
:14:17. > :14:21.about their views and they are hostile. There are lots of myths
:14:21. > :14:27.out there because politicians have not had an incentive to talk about
:14:27. > :14:31.yep. -- Europe. Is it recallistic to think - it won't happen this
:14:31. > :14:35.side of the election - let's suppose - it's against the polls at
:14:35. > :14:39.the moment - let's suppose David Cameron wins an election and in his
:14:39. > :14:49.manifesto is I'll go to Europe and negotiate powers back to Britain on
:14:49. > :14:49.
:14:49. > :14:56.my own. Doesn't matter about anyone No, it's risible. Risible. That
:14:56. > :15:04.means laughable. I know. I was repeating it in case viewers didn't
:15:04. > :15:09.catch it, you do mangle your vowel as bit. Should Cameron, should he
:15:10. > :15:15.put an in-out referendum in the Tory manifesto? No. I don't think.
:15:15. > :15:21.So that's not what he believes in. No part of David Cameron believes
:15:21. > :15:31.in risking leaving the European Union. This whole thing is a lot of
:15:31. > :15:31.
:15:32. > :15:37.hiddology. We've got to make the place for Europe. Not even Michael
:15:37. > :15:41.can remember 1975 but I campaigned from a "yes" vote in 1975.
:15:41. > :15:45.nearly everyone was in favour of a "yes" vote in those days.
:15:46. > :15:51.Absolutely not. We started that campaign, those who were pro-Europe
:15:51. > :15:57.started that campaign way behind. You had every newspaper in the
:15:57. > :16:03.country behind you except the morning star and the Daily Express.
:16:03. > :16:10.I think a lot of newspapers and businesses would support it. They
:16:11. > :16:14.were won over. We've got to have that kind of sensible campaign. The
:16:14. > :16:20.polling evidence shows that the public, that people respond
:16:20. > :16:23.depending on how the question is fraimed. If people are asked
:16:23. > :16:28.whether they support European co- operation for the European Arrest
:16:28. > :16:34.Warrant or trafficking or whatever... Let me ask you. This
:16:34. > :16:38.how did you feel last night going into the lobbys with the Euro-
:16:38. > :16:43.sceptics on the Tory side? Consistent with the position that
:16:43. > :16:48.Labour had held back in July. That's it, since July. But when you
:16:48. > :16:54.were in power you allowed the budget to double. But the Labour
:16:54. > :16:57.argument last night for voting as Labour did was different from the
:16:57. > :17:01.Tory argument. Labour voted last night with the Tory Euro-sceptics
:17:01. > :17:04.because they think that's the way public opinion is going. All three
:17:04. > :17:10.parties are running scared of public opinion. Your party would
:17:10. > :17:13.never have voted with the Tory Euro-sceptics if public opinion
:17:13. > :17:17.showed strong support for Britain in Europe. I don't know what the
:17:17. > :17:22.reasons why Labour went into the lobby. What I can tell you is that
:17:22. > :17:28.at IPPR we looked at all the different spending... You are good
:17:28. > :17:33.at plugging your think-tank. They pay my wages. 40% of the budget
:17:33. > :17:37.goes on these farm payments. always has. It used to be more than
:17:37. > :17:41.that. It only makes ul 3% of the European economy. We are not doing
:17:41. > :17:47.enough for growth. We are saying cut the budget by 25%. The way you
:17:47. > :17:53.will get that is to put the British rebate on the table. I've
:17:53. > :17:57.interviewed think tanks since you were in dipers saying cut the CAP.
:17:57. > :18:04.It never happens. The Cypriots at the moment, who are in the chair,
:18:04. > :18:12.have suggested a 5 billion euro cut in the farm policy. On a trillion
:18:12. > :18:20.budget they've suggested 5 billion. Monsieur Holland has said, "Over my
:18:20. > :18:23.dead body. If that happens we'll veto the budget." I think what the
:18:23. > :18:26.think-tank's job is to come up with these ideas. If you go into the
:18:26. > :18:31.European negotiations and say we want to cut and threaten the veto,
:18:31. > :18:35.you will end up with a situation where you roll over the current
:18:35. > :18:43.budget at inflation. We are saying put the British rebate on the table.
:18:43. > :18:52.We only have it because we overpay on CAP. What planet do you live on?
:18:52. > :18:55.The French are going to cut it by 30% iner but on the Blue Nun? The
:18:56. > :19:01.British establishment thinks that if all three national parties
:19:01. > :19:07.combine along with the unions and business to campaign to stay in
:19:07. > :19:11.Europe, as they did in 1975, we will follow our advice. Their
:19:11. > :19:15.advice. Do you think we will? think any referendum has a word
:19:15. > :19:19.Europe in it anywhere will result in a "no" vote. That is why no
:19:19. > :19:23.party will put any referendum to the British people, because no
:19:23. > :19:26.party could put a referendum to the people unless the recommendation of
:19:26. > :19:31.Government is going to be yes. David Cameron, if you believe him,
:19:31. > :19:38.will say I'm going to renegotiate with Europe, I'm going to recommend
:19:38. > :19:44.a "yes" vote. The vote will be no, because the British public is now
:19:44. > :19:48.hostile. Even though the mainly parties are saying yes? There'll
:19:48. > :19:53.not be a referendum of any sort at any time. I want a yes or no on
:19:53. > :19:59.this. Do you think Labour will follow your advice and do a yes-no
:19:59. > :20:04.prompts in their manifesto? I think if... I just want a yes or no. You
:20:04. > :20:09.want them to put yes or no and I want tow say yes or no. Do you
:20:09. > :20:15.think they will? I'm no clairvoyant but I hope they would. Alright. Do
:20:15. > :20:19.you? No. I think you are right. think the answer is no. But if they
:20:19. > :20:29.did promise proms one in the manifesto lit would be another
:20:29. > :20:32.
:20:32. > :20:37.broken promise. -- it would be another broken promise. It is time
:20:37. > :20:42.to wrestle the bottle of Blue Nun out of that bairn's wee hands, and
:20:42. > :20:47.give yourself a top-up. Waiting to blind yourself with science and not
:20:47. > :20:50.realise that you are blind with drink, Ben Goldacre is here to talk
:20:50. > :20:55.about the crazy idea of basing policy on evidence. Will it never
:20:55. > :20:59.catch on. Speaking of crazies, they are still out there following us on
:20:59. > :21:02.the Twitter, the Fleecebook and the good old Interweb. I think some are
:21:02. > :21:05.still doing Teletext as well. Now, it's not often that our ham-
:21:05. > :21:07.fisted visual metaphors actually work, but this week we think we've
:21:07. > :21:12.done ourselves proud. Because, not only was it Hallowe'en, but the
:21:12. > :21:15.corridors of Parliament really did feel ghostly. A spectre from
:21:15. > :21:18.yesteryear - the Tarzan of Westminster who used to swing
:21:18. > :21:22.through the corridors of power when dinosaurs ruled the earth - said
:21:22. > :21:25.the Government needed an industrial policy. And if that wasn't scary
:21:25. > :21:28.enough, David Cameron was also being haunted by the Tories' age-
:21:28. > :21:38.old nightmare - Europe. So, we turned to The Sun's Jane Moore for
:21:38. > :21:52.
:21:52. > :21:59.All Hallows night, a time of wandering dead, stranded spirits
:21:59. > :22:03.and all things creepy. Hmm, I'm feeling quite at home here, and
:22:03. > :22:06.believe me, this graveyard is not as spine tingling as it has been in
:22:06. > :22:16.Westminster this week, where plenty of ghosts from the past have poched
:22:16. > :22:19.
:22:19. > :22:24.-- popped up. OK, so not quite waking the dead
:22:24. > :22:29.but certainly a phantom figure who hasn't been seen round these parts
:22:29. > :22:34.for a very long time. Michael Heseltine appeared, casting a dark
:22:34. > :22:40.shadow over the coalition, but perhaps it was caused by his
:22:40. > :22:44.humongous report, which featured no less than 89 recommendations. It
:22:44. > :22:50.was commissioned by the Chancellor but it urged the Government to do
:22:50. > :22:54.more to stimulate growth. Had Heseltine crossed to the other
:22:54. > :22:58.side? I'm certainly recommending an extext of the growth strategy to
:22:58. > :23:04.cover a wider field and more people. Let's not forget it it was
:23:04. > :23:09.Chancellor who helped set up my inquiry and has been immensely
:23:09. > :23:12.supportive. But Ed Miliband taunted Cameron at Prime Minister's
:23:12. > :23:17.Questions. Lord Heseltine says today the message I keep hearing is
:23:17. > :23:21.that the UK doesn't have a strategy for growth and wealth creation. Who
:23:21. > :23:26.does the Prime Minister blame for that? What Michael Heseltine said
:23:26. > :23:35.is the coalition is fundamentally on the right track. He said I
:23:35. > :23:39.praise its work. Hezza wasn't the only icy blast from the past this
:23:39. > :23:47.week. Europe anyone? By threatening the vote with the Tory rebels
:23:47. > :23:52.Labour turned Wednesday into quite the fright night for the Government.
:23:53. > :23:58.So the whips came out. No, madam, not those kind of whips. And they
:23:58. > :24:02.give a verbal lashing to anyone off message. This Government is taking
:24:02. > :24:07.the toughest line this these budget negotiations of any Government
:24:08. > :24:13.since we joined the European Union. He is weak abroad. He is weak at
:24:13. > :24:19.home. It is John Major all over again. Talking of former Prime
:24:19. > :24:21.Ministers, our very own Blair Witch, or should that be wizard, stirred
:24:21. > :24:28.up the political cauldron by suggesting an elected EU President
:24:28. > :24:33.is the answer The Commons, hearts were racing. Panic had set in.
:24:33. > :24:38.Enough is enough. If we are taking cuts the European Union must take
:24:38. > :24:42.them too. If we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is and
:24:42. > :24:45.say we will not accept this, we will be serving the national
:24:45. > :24:49.interest. Every time they go into a division lobby different to that of
:24:49. > :24:51.the Prime Minister they are weakening the Prime Minister's
:24:51. > :24:57.negotiating hand in Europe. shiver down the spine for the
:24:57. > :25:07.Government when the result was announced. The eyes to the right,
:25:07. > :25:17.
:25:17. > :25:22.The people of the East Coast of America were dealing with a monster
:25:22. > :25:28.dubbed franken storm which visited its shores. Hurricane Sandy swept
:25:28. > :25:36.in and left people dead and 8 million homes and businesses
:25:36. > :25:40.without power. And when people are scared they seek reassurance.
:25:40. > :25:44.Polling day may be less than a week away but all campaigning was
:25:44. > :25:50.suspended in the US election. Leavings President Obama to rise
:25:50. > :25:55.above it all. We are here for you. And we will not forget, we will
:25:55. > :25:59.follow up to make sure that you get all the help that you need until
:25:59. > :26:02.you have rebuilt. Mitt Romney gave reassurances too. We love all of
:26:03. > :26:09.our fellow citizens. We come together at times like this and we
:26:09. > :26:14.want to make sure they have a speedy and quick recovery from
:26:14. > :26:20.their financial and in many cases personal loss. Back to the UK.
:26:20. > :26:25.Issues that however hard you try to bury them, they come back to haunt
:26:25. > :26:30.you. Cameron and Clegg must be thinking about a split in the
:26:30. > :26:34.coalition, particularly over the future of Trident, which has yet to
:26:34. > :26:39.be decided. If the Tories are investing in Trident now, is that a
:26:39. > :26:42.very strong hint as to how they want the renewal decision to go at
:26:42. > :26:47.a later date? Is it a trick or a treat? We are pressing ahead with
:26:47. > :26:53.the work and that is essential if we are going to be in a position to
:26:53. > :26:58.have the first Successor class submarine ready in 2028. I think
:26:58. > :27:03.some people are jumping the gun on this. The final decision on the
:27:03. > :27:07.replacement of Trident will not be taken until 2016. However much
:27:07. > :27:12.other people may not like it that way.
:27:12. > :27:18.It was an ill wind that blew in yet another coalition division. But was
:27:18. > :27:23.this one a bit more panto than horror story? Whichever, it was
:27:23. > :27:28.nightmare for David Cameron, but an absolute dream for Ed Miliband.
:27:28. > :27:31.Energy Minister says he's against wind farms and enough is enough.
:27:31. > :27:37.His Energy Secretary says he's gung-ho for them. Who speaks for
:27:37. > :27:40.the Government? We've got a big pipeline of own shore and offshore
:27:40. > :27:44.projects coming through. We are committed to those. Frankly all
:27:44. > :27:48.parties are going to have to have a debate inside this House and
:27:48. > :27:51.outside about what happens once the targets are met. He ought to
:27:51. > :27:56.understand that if he can bother to look at the substance.
:27:56. > :27:59.It has been a tough week for the trm, in trying to control the
:27:59. > :28:04.troubling spirits of the past and present so they don't haunt his
:28:04. > :28:10.political future. Sometimes he must wish he can just wave a wand and
:28:11. > :28:20.make them all vanish. We are off visiting are we? It's
:28:21. > :28:21.
:28:21. > :28:26.alright, don't be scared. Sleep tight.
:28:26. > :28:30.That was Jane Moore, the West Norwood cemetery and catacombs.
:28:30. > :28:35.What did you make of Hezza's report? The first thing I thought
:28:35. > :28:41.was why on earth did the Government commission it? It was so obvious
:28:41. > :28:47.what he would come up with. There are some bits of it that I
:28:47. > :28:51.understand the Genesis, because I worked in a department with Michael
:28:51. > :28:54.Heseltine. We bundled money together and gave them in a
:28:54. > :28:58.competition, made the business community and the local authority
:28:58. > :29:02.and so on come together. It was City Challenge, so I understand the
:29:02. > :29:07.Genesis of some of what he is talking about. I'm afraid overall
:29:07. > :29:12.some of the stuff was weak. There was a general advocacy that we
:29:12. > :29:17.should have a better education. Some of it was dated. I was struck
:29:17. > :29:21.reading the press this morning that even a left-wing journal like the
:29:21. > :29:26.Guardian thought it was old hat and didn't take us far forward. I think
:29:26. > :29:29.in the end, although Ed Miliband made as much of it as he could, I
:29:29. > :29:39.didn't think hit the impetus from independent opinion that was going
:29:39. > :29:46.
:29:46. > :29:50.to cause the Government much of a Good ideas? I think so, yes. I
:29:50. > :29:57.think the problem it's going to have is the degree of will in
:29:57. > :29:59.Whitehall that would be needed to give effect to what are quite
:29:59. > :30:08.complex proposals to implement in practice.
:30:08. > :30:11.I think that, for instance, the proposal to bring together a number
:30:11. > :30:18.of disparate funds for investment and for regional investment is a
:30:18. > :30:23.very good one, but it will be strongly resisted by sovereign
:30:23. > :30:28.departments. There isn't actually a mechanism for managing, well not at
:30:28. > :30:33.the moment. The Labour politicians I spoke to were really worried that
:30:33. > :30:38.he advocates giving �50 billion I think it is to Local Enterprise
:30:38. > :30:44.Partnerships and their view was that no way are they aquipped to
:30:44. > :30:47.handle that money? Equipped to handle that money? They don't have
:30:47. > :30:52.the capacity of the old regional development so they couldn't do
:30:53. > :30:57.that. If this becomes serious policy for implementation, then all
:30:57. > :31:03.that kind of thing is going to have to be tested, the Public Accounts
:31:03. > :31:07.Committee would have to look at it. What would it do? I think it would
:31:07. > :31:13.do tiny bits. It might have a National Committee of some kind.
:31:13. > :31:17.That doesn't cost any money. To do what? To consider... Remember
:31:17. > :31:20.Neddy? I don't mean like that, but to make the business community feel
:31:20. > :31:24.like they're planning something along with the Government. I think
:31:24. > :31:27.that might put pots of money together, but much smaller than the
:31:27. > :31:32.�58 billion we have been talking about. A footnote - Michael
:31:32. > :31:39.Heseltine's personal performance in interviews was absolutely superb.
:31:39. > :31:43.know that, I interviewed him myself! Superb you too. He was.
:31:43. > :31:48.Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, he is kicking off the
:31:48. > :31:56.debate about renewing Trident. As a former Defence Secretary, what is
:31:56. > :31:59.your view, should it be renewed? Should we have any nuclear
:31:59. > :32:03.deterrent? No, webgtdn't use it without the Americans. -- we
:32:04. > :32:06.couldn't use it without the Americans. We are facing sorts of
:32:07. > :32:12.enemies like the Taliban and Al- Qaeda who cannot be deterred by
:32:13. > :32:19.nuclear weapons. It's a tremendous waste of money, done entirely for
:32:19. > :32:24.reasons of national prestige, it's wasteful and at the Martins, it's
:32:24. > :32:34.proliferatery. The Conservative part of the coalition looks like it
:32:34. > :32:35.
:32:36. > :32:40.will proceed with it. What will Labour's position be on this?
:32:40. > :32:47.time ago when Des Browne was Defence Secretary, the decision
:32:47. > :32:51.about whether to proceed, as Jane's film makes clear, won't be taken
:32:51. > :32:56.until 2016. But you are happy that Philip Hammond is going ahead with
:32:56. > :32:59.the spending the money which allows a decision? Yes, yes. The state of
:32:59. > :33:03.the coalition - if you look at what is going on at the moment - they
:33:03. > :33:08.are at loggerheads over Europe. Mr Clegg not very helpful speech but
:33:08. > :33:13.he's staking out his position as he believes it. They are arguing over
:33:13. > :33:18.windmills now and over Trident. They'll argue over the run-up to
:33:18. > :33:22.the autumn statement, they'll argue over a referendum on Europe. What's
:33:22. > :33:28.happening to the coal snition course, if it were just a
:33:28. > :33:34.Conservative Government, you would probably have the same number of
:33:34. > :33:39.rows -- coalition? It doesn't put the coalition's survival in any
:33:39. > :33:43.jeopardy even though they are at loggerheads. That's probably right.
:33:43. > :33:48.There probably still won't be an election before 2015? And it's
:33:48. > :33:54.quite difficult to break up the coalition, quite apart from all the
:33:54. > :33:59.electoral considerations. They are pretty locked together, certainly
:33:59. > :34:02.until 2014. The question is, the degree of differentiation or
:34:02. > :34:06.further differentiation. I think the big problem is, and I think
:34:06. > :34:13.this goes back to the earlier discussion that we were having
:34:13. > :34:18.about Europe, is the degree to which both the parties in the
:34:18. > :34:22.coalition are having to put party management at a kind of equivalent
:34:22. > :34:25.level with the national interest. That's not a food thing. That will
:34:25. > :34:30.probably get worse rather than better as it goes on. Now, as the
:34:30. > :34:34.saying goes, comments free, but facts are sacred. We are a bunch of
:34:34. > :34:38.scroungers here. Michael's shirt is from the Blue Peter bring and buy
:34:38. > :34:42.sale, as you can tell from the colour, Tessa's pearls of wisdom
:34:42. > :34:44.are rented. So you will find nothing but cheep and cheerful
:34:44. > :34:48.opinion here. What about politicians who wield power? When
:34:48. > :34:52.it comes to maybeing policy, do they always listen to the
:34:52. > :35:02.scientific evidence put before them or only when it suits them? We
:35:02. > :35:08.
:35:08. > :35:11.decided we needed proof so we put The political fallout is
:35:11. > :35:20.unpredictable, but at least scientists warned of the
:35:20. > :35:26.deproductive power of Superstorm Sandy. -- destructive. We look out
:35:26. > :35:29.for one another and we'll bounce back. We don't leave anybody behind.
:35:29. > :35:34.With Italian seismologists jailed nor six years for failing to
:35:34. > :35:40.predict an earthquake, are we in danger of blaming science for not
:35:40. > :35:44.knowing all the answers? Do politicians listen to evidence
:35:44. > :35:49.anyway? Black-and-white answers to the badger cull were hard to come
:35:49. > :35:55.by, resulting in the inevitable only any vor shambles and a policy
:35:55. > :36:00.U-turn. Claims that the Government ignored advice on ash tree
:36:00. > :36:03.Amageddon are now in full bloom. When politicians turn to signs to
:36:03. > :36:07.shape policy, do they really understand the answers they
:36:07. > :36:12.receive? Guideline force breast screening asks women to weigh up
:36:12. > :36:19.the risks of being overdiagnosed with thousands needlessly treated
:36:19. > :36:23.every year. Does the untidy world of evidence
:36:23. > :36:33.cost too much of a -- cause too much of a headache to fit neatly
:36:33. > :36:35.
:36:35. > :36:39.into politician's sound bites? Draw your own conclusions.
:36:39. > :36:42.Welcome to the programme. You write about this a lot, about science and
:36:42. > :36:48.what policies should follow from it. How interested do you think
:36:48. > :36:54.politicians are on evidence-based policy, as opposed to idealogy-
:36:54. > :36:58.based policy? That's a real problem. Politicians have to express a lot
:36:58. > :37:01.of certainty. They flatter themselvess that they lead us. I
:37:01. > :37:05.think the difficulty with that is sometimes people can have excessive
:37:05. > :37:08.certainty and they are not willing to test their ideas. It's important
:37:08. > :37:14.to remember that science can't tell you what's morally right or wrong
:37:14. > :37:18.but they can tell you if your policy is achieving its objectives.
:37:18. > :37:22.It's shocking to me as somebody who worked in evidence-based medicine
:37:22. > :37:26.that, politicians are reluctant to put their great ideas to the test.
:37:26. > :37:29.Would you go so far as to say that they'll pursue a policy when the
:37:29. > :37:33.evidence even contradicts their policy? Yes, I think that's
:37:33. > :37:38.undoubtedly true. Much more disturbing than that is the
:37:38. > :37:41.reluctance to engage with the process of running, for example,
:37:41. > :37:46.randomised trials, head-to-head tests. On drugs? We do them on
:37:46. > :37:51.drugs in medicine but it's easy to do them on policy as well. So in
:37:51. > :37:53.America, for example, there slbb have been lots of randomised trials
:37:53. > :37:58.comparing one education intervention against another. In
:37:58. > :38:03.the ubb we have done some, but not enough. The federal system in the
:38:04. > :38:08.US lends its way to that, one state with try one thing and another can
:38:08. > :38:10.try another? -- in the US? There are lots of different councils
:38:10. > :38:14.where people can implement different things. It's common for
:38:14. > :38:18.things to be rolled out to the country step-wise, progression.
:38:18. > :38:21.People are familiar with the idea of postcode lottery.
:38:21. > :38:25.overwhelming majority of politicians have no scientific
:38:25. > :38:30.background whatsoever. Does that mean they are not really equipped
:38:30. > :38:34.to assess, analyse evidence? That is an issue and it's compounded by
:38:34. > :38:38.a desire to dismiss evidence when it doesn't seethe suit your pre-
:38:38. > :38:43.existing beliefs. What do you think about that? Do
:38:43. > :38:47.politicians listen to the evidence? I didn't hear Ben give examples. I
:38:47. > :38:50.discussed this earlier with the retchers on this programme who
:38:50. > :38:55.asserted that politicians do the opposite of what scientists tell
:38:55. > :38:59.them. The people I talked to couldn't come up with any examples.
:38:59. > :39:04.Do you have an example? Well... It's very rare in the UK to have
:39:04. > :39:07.straightforward head-to-head AB tests of one policy intervention
:39:07. > :39:14.versus another, but I think you can certainly see in the way that
:39:14. > :39:20.people treat people who're offering them evidence that there's a casual
:39:20. > :39:23.dismissal of it and David Nutt, that chap was sacked. From what I
:39:23. > :39:28.remember though, he probably strayed into a political area. In
:39:28. > :39:31.other words, there's as much a danger of politicians, you know,
:39:31. > :39:35.ignoring scientific advice as there is of scientists straying beyond
:39:35. > :39:40.the bounds of science. He did become an advocate for his case
:39:40. > :39:42.though. Exactly. Not sure that's true. Tessa? The science should
:39:43. > :39:47.service the policy or the evidence should serve as the policy.
:39:47. > :39:50.Ultimately, it's the politicians who're accountable for the
:39:51. > :39:55.decisions and judgments that they make, not the scientists. And I
:39:55. > :40:00.think that... Must have known that as a Public Health Minister, you
:40:00. > :40:05.must have known that? Absolutely. We could in a number of areas, I
:40:05. > :40:10.mean when Labour was in Government, been more interventionist and more
:40:10. > :40:14.guided by the evidence, but the judgment across the Government was
:40:14. > :40:20.that to take particular ly in relation to teenage pregnancy for
:40:20. > :40:25.instance where there's very clear evidence about how you prevent
:40:25. > :40:28.pregnancy in teenage girls. The whole controversy about the MMR
:40:28. > :40:33.vaccine. That was difficult because you had parts of the press pushing
:40:33. > :40:37.for different policy, didn't you? That was terrible. The scientific
:40:37. > :40:41.community was clear about it. politicians stuck to the scientific
:40:41. > :40:44.evidence didn't they? They were generally fairly solid but it
:40:44. > :40:48.became a political issue for newspapers. It was a bigger problem
:40:48. > :40:53.for the BBC because they felt that they had to show both sides of the
:40:53. > :40:59.argument even though the weight of one side was greater than the other
:40:59. > :41:04.side. Ministers on MMR were completely solid, but on scientific
:41:05. > :41:10.advice from the Chief Medical Officer and other expert sources.
:41:10. > :41:13.Sometimes the evidence creates political difficulties for
:41:13. > :41:19.politicians, difficulties about the unnecessary procedures in breast
:41:19. > :41:25.screening in week for cancer. The political policy reaction to that
:41:25. > :41:28.is quite difficult to work out what it should be? Well, I think the
:41:28. > :41:33.evidence on breast cancer screening is straightforward, if you can be
:41:33. > :41:37.bothered to spend a minute on it. The problem is, it's paradoxical,
:41:37. > :41:42.so it's hard for people to believe that a screening programme which
:41:42. > :41:45.seems to beneficial could have side effects with unnecessary
:41:45. > :41:50.interventions. It's hard for people to understand at face value that a
:41:50. > :41:55.screening programme that saves more lives than it harms in one age
:41:55. > :42:01.range can do more harm than good if it's broadened out to a wider age
:42:02. > :42:05.range. There is a generic clash. Politicians like to speak with
:42:05. > :42:08.certainty because they're always challenged. If they sound uncertain,
:42:08. > :42:12.they are distrusted. Of course, scientists on the whole are talking
:42:12. > :42:16.about degrees of risk and have to tell you two sides of the story.
:42:16. > :42:21.One side may only be 2%, the other side may be 9%, but the scientists
:42:21. > :42:26.have to tell you both. I think that from a public point of view, that
:42:27. > :42:30.was a dilemma, the breast screening dilemma this week, which was
:42:30. > :42:35.communicated in the most confusing way. If I had been going for a
:42:35. > :42:41.mammogram this week, I would have had no idea. Ben, you have got a
:42:41. > :42:45.book coming out? Yes, it's about drug companies hiding data and
:42:45. > :42:49.harming patients. Bad Farmer. Controversial? I don't think so.
:42:49. > :42:59.Because you have the evidence. Ben, thank you very much. That is your
:42:59. > :43:04.lot. Not for us, because it's bye- bye child benefit night in
:43:04. > :43:12.Annabel's. Letters were sent out telling people that they'll not
:43:12. > :43:18.longer be rewarded for bringing upper grin and Jemima. Drinks will