On Sunday 20 September Andrew Marr interviewed Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg MP. Please note 'The Andrew Marr Show' must be credited if any part of this transcript is used. Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg MP says that their will be no alliance with the Conservatives and responds to Labour's education spending plans. ANDREW MARR: Now back to the mean streets of Bournemouth where I'm joined by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg, welcome and thank you for coming in. NICK CLEGG: It's good to be here. ANDREW MARR: Let's talk about a party that's in favour of radical decentralisation, that's in favour of greening the economy against the third runway, stood out against ID cards, and wants to cut the number of MPs. And you know where this is going because I'm talking about the Conservative Party. When David Cameron says that "you couldn't put a cigarette paper between the two parties" not on all of the agenda but on a lot of the agenda, he's absolutely right, isn't he? NICK CLEGG: (laughs) Well I mean I can see why he wants to sort of airbrush out differences in British politics, but I actually think it's really important as we run up to a General Election to give people choices and not to make gratuitous sort of differences between parties but there are some fundamental choices to be made. I for instance believe passionately that we need to lower taxes for people on low and middle incomes. He wants … ANDREW MARR: (over) I think he would say the same. NICK CLEGG: Well, no, their only policy actually is an inheritance tax cut for the very rich. I believe you need to stand tall in Europe, be fully engaged in Europe precisely to deal with the environmental issues. He talks about the environment and then jumps into an alliance in the European Parliament with someone who denies the existence of climate change. I believe we need to completely change the way we do politics in Westminster - party funding, electoral reform and so on. He won't even tell us … ANDREW MARR: And you … NICK CLEGG: Can I just finish this point? It's really important. He won't even tell us how, whether one of his major donors pays full British taxes in this country. So it's all very well, the rhetoric; but if you're going to ask people to vote for change, that change has got to be real change, not the kind of fake, synthetic change of Cameron. And I'm not … ANDREW MARR: But surely … NICK CLEGG: … I'm not going to apologise, I'm not going to apologise for saying we've got some really difficult choices to make as a country, really difficult choices - on the environment, on public finances, on our children, on the state of our democracy and on our place in the world - and it's just not good enough to play constant games and somehow pretend there aren't difficult decisions to make. There are difficult decisions to make and that's got to be led by conviction, not by a kind of general sense of entitlement that somehow it's your turn, which is what I think David Cameron and George Osborne feel. ANDREW MARR: Well you called him a "con man". I do want to come onto the other issues in detail. NICK CLEGG: (over) Sure. ANDREW MARR: But just on all of that, it is nonetheless true that you're both committed to pretty radical cuts, serious cuts in public spending; you're both by nature decentralisers; you both fought alongside each other on everything from ID cards to Afghanistan to the Ghurkhas and so on. And so aren't you guilty of making a false and overly aggressive distinction between the two parties on all of those issues? NICK CLEGG: Well, look, I don't want to go through all of them because it would take too … ANDREW MARR: No, no. NICK CLEGG: … but let me just pick a couple of issues. You mention civil liberties, ID cards. Some people choose to forget that the Conservative Party wants to scrap the Human Rights Act, the founding bit of legislation which protects your rights, my rights and the rights of every single person in this country. So there is a profound hypocrisy to say oh we're all liberal now on civil liberties when you then actually want to destroy one of the keystones, the cornerstones which protect British liberties in the Human Rights Act. Political reform, decentralisation. It's all very well to say, it's very easy to say the Whitehall state is too over centralised. The question is are you going to put your money where your mouth is? We are the only party in British politics, the only party saying that if you want to give real freedom and autonomy to local communities - and this is the way they do it in Europe and North America - you've got to give them some greater fiscal freedom as well. Some greater freedom … ANDREW MARR: (over) Local income tax you're talking about. NICK CLEGG: (over) … how they raise money, phasing out council tax over time, devolving, localising business rates. The Conservatives talk the talk again of decentralisation, but won't put any substance or in this case any money behind it. So of course my point is look scratch behind the rhetoric and ask yourself where's the real change, where's the fake change? ANDREW MARR: You mentioned political reform just now. Is it true that you want to cut the number of MPs to 500? NICK CLEGG: We want to reform the House of Commons with a new electoral system. And with a new electoral system, you could have bigger, slightly bigger constituencies, which we think could bring the number of MPs down to 500 - yes. ANDREW MARR: Can I turn to tax and spending? When you were talking at the rally to your party yesterday, I was sort of sitting amongst Lib-Dem activists and you talked very, very passionately about the importance of scrapping tuition fees and they all got very excited and began to applaud. And then you said, in effect, but we can't because we can't afford it. So, first of all, tuition fees. If you were in power, would they go or would they not go? NICK CLEGG: My position is this. I believe tuition fees are pernicious. I think they saddle young people … ANDREW MARR: (over) You could make a choice to get rid of them then? NICK CLEGG: Well no, hang on. How you want the world to be and how the world is is different, and one of the things that I'm very keen to do in this very difficult debate about public spending is treat people like grown-ups. Not pretend the world is as it was in an age of plenty. It is not. And so on a policy, tuition fee policy, scrapping tuition fees would cost around two and a half billion pounds a year. I think it is just incredible for me to pretend to anybody, however much I am personally committed - I taught at Sheffield University, I represent many students in my constituency, I am adamant … ANDREW MARR: (over) So it's not going to happen? NICK CLEGG: No. Can I just be clear, Andrew? I don't think any politician can look you in the eye or look the British people in the eye and say there is no longer an issue about the affordability of very big ticket public spending commitments. That is just a fact. It's not an opinion. It's a fact that we need to treat people like grown-ups and accept that the whole debate is shifting. ANDREW MARR: (over) Fine. If you're going to treat people like grown-ups … NICK CLEGG: Yuh. ANDREW MARR: … lots of grown-ups watching. Can't you just say to them, "I'm terribly sorry, we are not going to scrap tuition fees"? NICK CLEGG: No. I'll tell you why. Because what we're doing, which all parties are doing - and I think we're far, far in advance of the other parties in the process of trying to grapple with the enormity of the structural fiscal deficit that any British government will have to deal with - what we're doing is we're now producing a lot of ideas (Vince Cable produced a pamphlet of ideas last week) setting out where we think we can make big savings. So, for instance, no longer replacing Trident like for like - that saves a lot of money; and looking at some of the benefits in the tax credit area, saying maybe we shouldn't be paying tax credits to people above average income families. And once … ANDREW MARR: (over) Can I just ask, can I just follow you specifically on the tax issue … NICK CLEGG: (over) … and only once you've done all of that can you decide what money is spare in order to fill the structural deficit and what money is spare to spend on other public spending priorities. ANDREW MARR: Can I put it to you that what you've said so far on taxation is not going to go nearly far enough to plug the gap? NICK CLEGG: On taxation, I mean precisely the reason why we are speaking in fairly candid, some people would say very forthright terms about the need to find big savings in public spending is precisely to avoid the burden of clearing up the mess of this recession falling on the shoulders of ordinary taxpayers. And that's why we say the first port of call, the first line if you like of filling in this great black hole in our public finances has to be through reductions, cuts, savings in public spending; not immediately reaching for the kind of, you know to the taxman and saying that taxes should go up on ordinary incomes. And in fact … ANDREW MARR: (over) Do you think … Sorry, you talked about "ordinary incomes" two or three times there. Do you think that however you define them, as it were the rich should be paying more compared to even the plans that have been laid out so far? NICK CLEGG: Yes. Unambiguously yes. ANDREW MARR: And how are you going to achieve that? NICK CLEGG: I'll tell you exactly how we're going to do it. What we believe is now necessary is a big tax switch where you close the huge loopholes that very wealthy individuals and large corporations can presently exploit in effectively escaping the reach of the taxman altogether… ANDREW MARR: On what sort of things? NICK CLEGG: Well let me give you an example. The Labour government has produced a huge loophole between the rate of tax on capital gains and the upper rate of income tax, so that if you're a captain of the universe in the City of London, you pay yourself in effect income but you do it in capital and you pay 18% rather than 45 or 50%. We want to go back to actually the days of Nigel Lawson where you tax capital and income in the same way. Equally I think it is … ANDREW MARR: (over) So at the same rate? NICK CLEGG: Yes. Equally, I think it is morally wrong that taxpayers on ordinary incomes are subsidising - that's what they're doing - subsidising the wealthy, highest earners when they make their pension contributions. If you're a higher rate earner, you receive twice as much tax relief on your pension contributions, subsidised by all other taxpayers, than anybody else. By all means have tax … ANDREW MARR: (over) Well that's a big thing you've just said there. NICK CLEGG: These are very big things. And what you then do with that money … Here's the key thing. I think what you do with that money now - because we can do this right now - is recycle it penny for penny, pound for pound for lower taxes for the vast majority of people on low and middle incomes. What do I mean by that? I mean by raising the threshold, the starting threshold for income tax to £10,000. That means that no-one would pay a penny of income tax on their first £10,000. ANDREW MARR: So that's a big redistributive change? NICK CLEGG: It's very big. ANDREW MARR: Okay. NICK CLEGG: And I'll tell you why I think it's necessary. In other words, I think on tax it's more important to make it fair first and then decide in the years to come whether we need to revisit the issue of taxation in order to also help fill the structural deficit. ANDREW MARR: Great, okay, that's very interesting. Let's turn to education spending generally. Because you've said that it should be ring fenced in effect, and yet we read this morning for instance that Ed Balls intends to take £2 billion out of the education budget. Are you saying that you simply wouldn't take that money out of the education budget? NICK CLEGG: Well, as it happens, on Ed Balls' idea (as much as I understand it) I think it's a very, very silly idea at this point to start in effect, which is what it would mean in practice, removing head teachers from primary schools. I mean I have children at primary school. I just find it extraordinary that he thinks that that's a sensible saving. Can I just be clear? ANDREW MARR: (over) But I mean he is being very clear and candid that he is going to slash the education budget, which you're not saying. NICK CLEGG: By the way, I haven't said we'll ring fence this or that Whitehall departmental budget. I've avoided that language for the very simple reason … ANDREW MARR: (over) Schools and education, you have said you'd … NICK CLEGG: (over) No. What I've said is that I think it would be madness, absolute madness as a society to blight the life chances of the young as the economy comes out of recession. The one … The people who are least to blame for what's happened are the very young, and if we want to make sure that the shadow of this recession doesn't hang over young people for generations to come - long-term unemployment, social divisions - then we need to deal with that. ANDREW MARR: Sorry, I'm still confused. The education budget is something that you would look at for cutting if you were in power? NICK CLEGG: The education budget, as far as it relates to the life chances particularly of young children, not only will we want to protect it. In some cases, we might even want to extend it. Let me give you an example. ANDREW MARR: (over) Sorry, so the education budget is not going to be cut? NICK CLEGG: The departmental budget … I mean this is where the argument goes wrong. People think in departments when politicians and journalists talk to each other. Ordinary people don't. What I'm talking about is a social objective driven by a value which I hold passionately, which is that if you want to live in a fair society you've got to put resources towards the children from the most difficult and deprived backgrounds … ANDREW MARR: (over) Which must mean you won't cut the schools budget? NICK CLEGG: Which means that, for instance, we do not believe it is right to spend half a billion pounds on a Child Trust Fund, which is what the government's doing - £250 to 18 year olds - because you could use that money more effectively to reduce class sizes in infant schools. Why … ANDREW MARR: (over) Okay, one more … The total education budget, is it going to be … would it be cut if you were in power? Yes or no? NICK CLEGG: The education budget for young children will not be cut. In certain important respects, it actually will be increased because we've got to create fairness through the education system through thick or thin, through recession or boom times. ANDREW MARR: So no? In effect no? NICK CLEGG: But you're asking me about a departmental budget, which is a totally different thing. ANDREW MARR: Okay, alright. Okay, let's finish with big picture politics. NICK CLEGG: Yuh. ANDREW MARR: You barely bothered to talk about the Labour Party at your rally yesterday. Do you consider that they are in some sense heading towards falling apart? Do you think that ancient Liberal and Liberal Democratic dream of coming ahead of them in the popular vote is now within your grasp? NICK CLEGG: I look at this from the point of view of many people who voted for New Labour in 1997. I've got many friends who voted for Tony Blair in 1997 filled with this amazing sense of hope that things could be different, that we could have fairness, we could enshrine not trash civil liberties, different politics, Britain would stand tall in the world once again. There was this great feeling of things could be very different, you could have a new beginning - a bit actually like the early 80s when at the time of the Alliance there was this feeling that things could be very different. I think those people - and there are millions of them - feel so let down now, so let down after 12 years. We have a less socially mobile society. And what I'm saying to people like that is that the reason it's gone wrong is not just because Blair took some decisions which I staunchly disagree with, like invading Iraq alongside George Bush - something that David Cameron incidentally supported - but because they're ideologically in the wrong place. They ideologically believe that everything can be done through the centre, everything can be done by ministers pulling the levers at Whitehall. ANDREW MARR: (over) And that's why … Sorry to come in, but that's why you are positioning yourself as the opposition to the Conservatives above all? NICK CLEGG: I am a progressive politician, a progressive liberal politician, and I think many of the people who feel let down by Labour, abandoned by Labour, betrayed by Labour now ca… ANDREW MARR: (over) So you can't … The reason I'm asking this: you can't both be saying we are the main opposition to David Cameron and the Conservatives, our instincts are completely different - he is con-Cameron, he's a Conservative, and at the same time under any circumstances expect to go into government with him if there is a hung parliament? NICK CLEGG: The hung parliament question I think is sort of futile speculation on outcomes which we can't … I'm certainly not going to waste my time speculating on what might happen before the British people have had their say. And it's a serious understatement of my ambition to think that I spend much time thinking about how I could play second fiddle to another party, but it's perfectly consistent to say we are totally different to the Conservatives, we stand for the hope, the progressive hopes that I think have been betrayed over the last ten years, and we can replace Labour over time. ANDREW MARR: Alright. Thank you very much indeed, Nick Clegg. INTERVIEW ENDS
Please note "The Andrew Marr Show" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.
NB: This transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script. Because of the possibility of mis-hearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy
Your comments
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
| 
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Bookmark with:
What are these?