³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

I told you so says George/Ed.

I said there'd be no double dip/recovery.

I predicted/warned you, despite what the doubters said.

I've got the world's leading economic organisations/economists on my side.

Obama agrees with me/me.

I am right and you are wrong.

Today's growth figures do not and cannot prove whether George Osborne or Ed Balls was right.

What they will do is ensure that the political debate will not just be about how to tackle the deficit, but how to get the economy growing faster again.

For years politicians on all sides have told us that they want to see the British economy re-balanced - to become less dependent on financial services and the South East. A period of low growth, spending cuts and rising taxes may make those words sound rather less attractive than they once did.

I confess that I am a tad sceptical about the hyperbolic and choreographed displays of anger within the coalition about the alternative vote (AV). Usually in my job the language and the sentiment you hear in private from politicians is much more colourful than that uttered in public. Indeed, this difference is one of the reasons I have a job at all. At the moment, though, I am struck by the fact that at the top of the government it is the other way round.

Having praised the Grand Old Man as "obviously a brilliant man who did some extraordinary things for his country", the prime minister went on something of a contemporary riff telling me:

"The only problem with Gladstone" was that "there is something a bit sanctimonious, you know - I was going to say Paddy Ashdown with whiskers", before adding hurriedly "that's a bit unfair on Paddy Ashdown".

The interview was recorded not long after Paddy's all guns blazing amphibious assault on David Cameron for allowing the No campaign to target Nick Clegg personally. Ashdown, you may recall, was once the boss of David Cameron's Chief of Staff Ed Llewelyn - the two worked together in Bosnia - and still calls from time to time to pass on his views. Now that is one private conversation which, I suspect, did live up to the public rhetoric.

A day after his friend, mentor and former leader Paddy Ashdown turned his guns on David Cameron, Nick Clegg has called on all taking part in the Alternative Vote referendum campaign to "treat people like adults". When I spoke to him on the campaign trail he refused to comment on suggestions that the prime minister had broken his promise to keep a low profile in the campaign about changing Britain's voting system.

NR: Did David Cameron promise you that he would keep a low profile in this campaign?

NC: Look I don't want to go into conversations we have day in day out.

NR: You did - and I sense that he did- he's changed his mind.

NC: Look you're going to have to ask the Conservatives how they want to participate in the No campaign.

NR: To be fair, you see him every day and I don't - did he say to you.

NC: You ask the Conservatives, you ask David Cameron about that side of the story- as far as I am concerned, what I am not just me by the way- Ed Miliband, the leader of the Greens, the leader of the UK Independence Party - lots of people outside politics are all saying let's do something better - on the other side of the debate you have got the Conservatives, the BNP and the Communists - that speaks volumes about who is on either side of the debate.

I spoke to him after filming an extraordinary meeting in Abingdon near Oxford where the deputy prime minister spoke to local Lib Dems fighting to hold on to the council against a Tory challenge. One party activist expressed her concern that "I'm concerned, of course, like a lot of people about the public perception that you and David Cameron are coming closer and closer together and people can't see the difference between you." Another, a local Lib Dem councillor, told him that he was becoming "the butt of comedy" before asking him to widespread applause "Can you not have a slight argument with Mr Cameron?"

After the meeting I asked him whether there was a "phase two coming" for the coalition "where you think you can just take your jacket off and flex your muscles?" Yes, he told me, as the government carried on as "the manner of working together you know develops into a habit" then "of course people will start accentuating their differences just as much as you also need to decide on common policies for the national good".

NR: You said at the outset that it was responsible to work together and have your rows in private. Is there a phase two coming though where you think you can just take your jacket off and flex your muscles?

NC: Yes, I think inevitably as the government carries on, and sort of, the manner of working together you know develops into a habit if you like, clearly as you approach election times, and we're now in an election campaign period, people of course will start accentuating their differences just as much as you also need to decide on common policies for the national good.

Here are other extracts of what else he had to say:

Transcript extracts on AV:

NR: Paddy Ashdown has said to David Cameron - call the attack dogs off, do you agree?

NC: I think what we should do, what everyone should do on the Yes campaign and on the No campaign is at least treat people like adults. They don't want a mud slinging debate what they want to know is what is wrong with the present system - its deeply unfair, millions of people whose vote doesn't count and I think there is a strong case for AV particularly after the expenses scandal so politicians work harder for your vote - that is the simple decision to be made. Put it really simply if you want more MPs paying for duck houses then vote No, if you want a better politics vote Yes. That's my opinion and that's what I am going to be saying for the next few weeks.

NR: Your friend Paddy Ashdown, your friend, former leader says this is in danger of poisoning the mood in the coalition.

NC: I don't think for the remaining stages of this campaign it does anyone any good to replace simple, logical arguments about whether we actually improve the way we elect MPs so that MPs work harder for your vote with personal vitriol and mud slinging -I frankly don't think it will impress many people either. It is treating people like fools, people know they have to answer the simple question do you want the current system that produced the expenses scandal and all the rest of it, or do you want something better that's the question and frankly however much mud is slung that will remain the question until 5 May.

Transcript extracts on relations with Cameron and the Conservatives:

NR: Nick Clegg - there was one theme wasn't there (reference to filmed meeting) - they want you to have a row with David Cameron - these are your supporters...

NC: Yes well I think at election time it's inevitable isn't it. People want to get more tribal, they want to duff up the other side. It's a balance you need to strike in a coalition government, because clearly we are different parties, different leaders, different values. Always have been always will be, but you also need to work together in the national interest to thrash things out. So quite a lot of the differences and indeed arguments you have are necessarily arguments you have behind closed doors. But you know all my political life I've always believed you can have sincere differences with people, but still thrash out those differences in a civilized respectful manner rather than sort of mud slinging or hurling abuse at each other and that's kind of politics I am always going to try and stick to.

NR: Shouldn't you be a bit more like Vince Cable? I mean people know where he disagrees with David Cameron and they don't know where you do?

NC: I think they do actually. I think they do. You just need, you just have to look at the things I say week in week out where we clearly differ.

NR: Such as?

NC: If you look at things the Liberal Democrats have brought to this government, it wouldn't have happened without Liberal Democrats that we've now given a great tax break to 23 million base rate tax payers, that pensioners wouldn't have got a better deal that their pensions are now going up as of two weeks ago without Liberal Democrats. These are big big differences and we're not just making within the government but much more importantly we are making to people's everyday lives. But look, this is the first year in a five year Parliament. Where we are doing as a government really really difficulty things. Controversial things. Some downright unpopular things. If we don't do them, if we don't sort things out now we won't have a brighter better tomorrow that's why we're doing all this and I think it's right that in the coalition government we show, yes our differences, but that we remain capable of sorting out the country so it's better for future generations.

Ed Miliband has told me that his party "got it wrong in a number of respects" over immigration and identified the issue as one reason the party "lost trust particularly in the south of England". However, he insisted that his friend and former speechwriter Lord Glasman was wrong to say that Labour had lied about the extent of immigration.

I travelled to Dover and Gravesend yesterday with Labour's leader - both places where Labour's vote collapsed by the end of its time in government. Asked why that had happened Mr Miliband said:

"I think the problem is that we lost trust and we lost touch particularly in the south of England. I think living standards is a big part of it, immigration is a big part too. I think maybe a combination of those two issues - most importantly."

I also asked him to respond to the comments of Maurice Glasman who he recently ennobled and who wrote in Progress magazine that "Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration and the extent of illegal immigration and there's been a massive rupture of trust."

He said:

"I don't think we lied but I do think we got it wrong in a number of respects. I think that first of all we clearly underestimated the number of people coming in from Poland and that had more of an effect therefore than we would otherwise have thought. And secondly, I think there's this really important issue about people coming into the country and the pressures on people's wages. People aren't prejudiced but people say to me look I'm worried about the pressure on my wages of people coming into this country, I'm worried about what it does to housing supply - all those issues. Now some of that is real and some of it isn't but I think you have to address not just tough immigration policy but underlying issues as well."

When I put to him Lord Glasman's suggestion that Labour had been "hostile to the English working classes" he paused and then changed the subject. My sense is that he may well share that analysis.

This is not the first occasion Ed Miliband has spoken of Labour mistakes on immigration. In his leadership campaign he spoke about the drop in people's wages due to the interaction of migration with flexible labour markets. But the timing of these comments - in the midst of an election campaign and just days after David Cameron's own pitch to limit immigration from outside the EU to the "tens of thousands" - and his unwillingness to challenge Maurice Glasman's critique makes them especially interesting.

The question is whether his promises of more training, apprenticeships and a living wage will re-connect Labour with the working class supporters who have abandoned it.

---

Here is the transcript of my interview with Ed Miliband:

NR: Southern seats seen massive drops in Labour support in recent years - what's the problem?

EM: I think the problem is that we lost trust and we lost touch particularly in the south of England. I think living standards is a big part of it, immigration is a big part too. I think maybe a combination of those two issues - most importantly. So that people were seeing people coming into the country, worrying about their own standards of living which weren't going up as they had been in the first part of the decade and holding us responsible for it.

NR: You mentioned immigration. A friend of yours, former speechwriter, Maurice Glasman said Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration?

EM: I don't think we lied but I do think we got it wrong in a number of respects. I think that first of all we clearly underestimated the number of people coming in from Poland and that had more of an effect therefore than we would otherwise would have thought. And secondly, I think there's this really important issue about people coming into the country and the pressures on people's wages. People aren't prejudiced but people say to me look I'm worried about the pressure on my wages of people coming into this country, I'm worried about what it does to housing supply - all those issues. Now some of that is real and some of it isn't but I think you have to address not just tough immigration policy but underlying issues as well.

NR: But as he said - and you know him well - as he said to you let's be honest about this Ed you lied about it?

EM: Well, err, the first time I saw it was when he said it - I don't think we did lie. I don't think that's the right thing to say.

NR: But did you mis-lead - if not deliberately. (EM interjects: no, no) Did people get the impression immigration was much lower than it turned out to be?

EM: Well no, I think people actually thought it was the opposite. I think what happened was that we thought there would be a certain number of people coming into the country from Poland - it turned out to be much larger - it did have an affect. And it's something I said very much during my leadership campaign. And look it's part of my leadership Nick - I'm not going to go round saying everything the last Labour government did was right - I think it was a good government, I think it made our country stronger and fairer in a number of respects but I think we got some things wrong as well.

NR: But his analysis and he used to write speeches for you - Labour were "hostile" to the English working classes - that you treated that anxiety about immigration as if sometimes it was racism or bigotry or ignorance and I sense you share a bit of that concern?

EM: Well, look I would say we, we, we did realise the scale of the problem. We talked about the points based system for immigration - we made that one of our key priorities. I think it's this mix of immigration and the impact on living standards. I think that's what.... we were still saying let's have flexible labour markets, maximum flexibility at work and that was, that was causing problems for people and that's why we need to re-think.

NR: But if your message to people is not look we don't want anybody to come to this country but we can help you in other ways what are you driving at with people? If they're saying to you we can't get jobs, I stopped a builder you passed there - we can't get jobs he said to me - I've been unemployed but I'm skilled. What is Labour saying to them if it's not saying we'll stop the immigration?

EM: Well let me give you a practical example, we said before the budget have a bankers' bonus tax and put the young unemployed back to work, get the housing industry moving, help support enterprise - practical differences, practical things that we could have done. I think the thing this government is getting wrong on immigration is that they've got big promises which I don't think are going to be matched by reality but they're not dealing with those underlying economic issues which I think caused a lot of the concern that people had.

My post yesterday on the No campaign's focus on the man who wasn't there has provoked a sharp reaction from the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown.

"The personalisation of the No campaign is disgusting politics", he tells me before going on to condemn what he calls a combination of "Conservative Party money and the dinosaurs of Labour who are attacking the man holding the coalition together".

This follows the Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne's warning on Newsnight last night that "gutter politics" and "downright lies" are damaging the coalition. He went on to say that "I am frankly shocked that coalition partners can stoop to a level of campaign that we have not seen in this country before". He was referring not to coded and not so coded attacks on Nick Clegg but the No campaign's claim that voting under AV would cost millions and that it would promote extremism.

Both men will have seen the latest poll - - showing a dramatic 16% lead for the No campaign. It is just a poll and just one poll and, more than in most elections, turnout is the key to this contest. However, the trend in all polls has been no-wards.

If that is the result it will be one more reason for some Lib Dems to ask 'What are we getting for staying in the coalition?'

PS One or two of you have complained that I am focussing on the horse race rather than the substance of the referendum. Point taken.

More on this to come but, for now, I've been studying of whether AV would make much of a difference. Having projected general election results since 1983 under AV his cautious answer is that it would make hung parliaments "a little more likely" and give a "modest boost" to the Liberal Democrats.

At the last election, for example, Curtice estimates that the Lib Dems would have got 80 seats not 57, the Tories would have got 20 fewer seats and Labour three fewer. This would still have led David Cameron to conclude that a Tory/Lib Dem Coalition was the only stable option. However, the alternative Lab/Lib Dem Coalition would have had an overall majority - 335 seats against the 315 they did get - which might have convinced some that a "progressive alternative" could have worked.

The one recent election outcome which could have been dramatically different and could have changed the country's political history was 1997 when Tony Blair would have got - at least if these calculations are right - a bigger landslide and, more importantly, the Lib Dems would have replaced the Conservatives as the second biggest party - getting 115 seats as against the Tories 70.

Update 12:10: Thanks to those who pointed out my schoolboy error. Curtice's study suggests that the Tories would have got 20 fewer seats under AV, not 20 extra seats as I originally said.

Update 13:08: Lord Ashdown has just gone much further. Whilst campaigning for a Yes vote in Bristol he challenged David Cameron to disassociate himself from what he called a "deeply and appalling personalised campaign":

"There are three questions for Mr Cameron. Will he now disassociate himself from a deeply personalised campaign of the sort no British prime minister of whatever party should be associated with? Secondly will he explain to us why the Conservative Party is now funding a campaign whose primary theme is to attack his main coalition partner? And thirdly if he wants to take a high-profile lead in this campaign let him do so in favour of a campaign on the basis of honesty and decency. I'd like to hear him make a commitment on that."

And here's the response from a No 10 spokesman:

(1) Will he now disassociate himself from a deeply personalised campaign of the sort no British prime minister of whatever party should be associated with?

The PM yesterday said: "I don't run the No campaign, I run the Conservative No campaign... I certainly don't condone any personal attacks on anyone in this campaign."

(2) Will he explain to us why the Conservative Party is now funding a campaign whose primary theme is to attack his main coalition partner?

As the PM made clear yesterday the Conservative Party is running its own NO to AV Campaign. This is focused on highlighting how unfair and unpopular the AV system is and why people should vote No; it is a system that is obscure, unfair and expensive and could mean that people who come third in elections end up winning. It is not attacking Nick Clegg.

(3) If he wants to take a high profile lead in this campaign let him do so in favour of a campaign on the basis of honesty and decency. I'd like to hear him make a commitment on that.

The prime minister is focused on making the argument against AV - it is a system that is obscure, unfair and expensive and could mean that people who come third in elections end up winning.

He wasn't there this morning. Not at the Yes or No event. Yet the shadow of Nick Clegg could be felt at today's battle of the political odd couples.

AV, the prime minister claimed, would make coalitions more likely and that would mean politicians would make manifesto pledges they knew they couldn't deliver. Who and what could he have been thinking of? His friend Nick and those tuition fee rises perchance?

David's new friend John Reid - the basis of a new Blairite alliance perhaps - suggested that any change in the voting system should be in the public interest and not the "narrow self interest" of "losing parties" which hope "to turn losers into winners" as if by magic. Who could Dr Reid have had in mind? He didn't say. He didn't need to.

Over at the Yes event the name Clegg could not be avoided so easily. Ed Miliband insisted that this was not and should not be a referendum on Nick Clegg - the man he refuses to share a platform with. Vince Cable - Clegg's AV understudy today - insisted that his leader was not a liability in this campaign.

The No campaign beg to differ - and plan to milk this liability for all it's worth. So damaging, they believe, is the spectre of Clegg to the Yes campaign that they don't even need to name him in order to ensure that the man who wasn't there today is the man very much there in voters minds when - if - they vote in the referendum.

My first we have to thank for the fiver in your pocket and for income tax - all meant to pay off our national debt.

My second fell in love with a Duchess and shared her passion for political reform. Yet he's only remembered for the nation's favourite smelly tea.

My third toured Soho in search of prostitutes and is now the inspiration for the politics of the coalition.

In a new series of The Prime Ministers I'll be taking a modern look at eight of the men who led this country.

The first programme can be heard online or ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Radio 4 on Tuesday morning at 09:30 BST. Incidentally, the first series of The Prime Ministers can still be heard online.

PS I'll be back blogging and on news after a week's break

The prime minister went to a hospital to win over NHS staff. He asked his audience:

"If you were health secretary for the day and had a magic wand and could change one thing what would it be?"

That was exactly a year ago. Funnily enough it was not a question he repeated on today's visit.

He might not have liked the answers.

Speaking to today's audience after the event some would undoubtedly have suggested that he drop his proposed NHS reforms altogether. Some welcome the idea of putting doctors in charge of buying and planning health care but others were concerned that the plans would fragment the NHS leading to competition instead of co-operation.

Today we heard little about what changes ministers will make to its reforms. We heard a lot of protestations of love for the health service and promises to listen.

With over a million people working in the NHS - many of who are admired and trusted members of their local communities - David Cameron has clearly concluded that he has no chance of winning over the public if he can't win over the staff.

His choice of Professor Steve Field - the former head of the Royal College of GPs - as listener in chief is revealing. Field broadly backs these reforms. His job is to do what the health secretary has so far failed to do - make them palatable to NHS staff. In doing so he will be ignoring the views of his successor at the College who opposes the government's plans.

Where does it hurt? How long have you been feeling this way? Is there anything else I can do to help?

Ìý

This afternoon Doctor Lansley is going to reveal his prescription for curing his ailing NHS reforms. The health secretary is, in short, going to promise to listen. That's right. Not - despite what you may have read - delay or amend or scrap or U-turn - just listen.

The question, though, is what will he and the government do if - when? - they hear that their reforms lack any friends? It's easy to find supporters for individual elements of - after all, , Labour encouraged and expanded the role of private health companies within the NHS, and called for primary care trusts to to lose their role in commissioning care for local people. However, taken as a whole the reforms have few if any cheerleaders.

In the long term, that poses a massive political risk for David Cameron, whose modernisation of his party was rooted in his declaration of love for the NHS. In the short term, it poses a challenge when the legislation reaches the House of Lords in the summer - to be confronted by a coalition of Labour peers who want to re-contaminate the Tory brand, Lib Dems who want to an opportunity to reassert their party's independence, and anger from those like Dr David Owen, whose hearts beat for the NHS.

All the signs are that the prime minister has lost faith in his health secretary's capacity to sell this package and was becoming increasingly nervous that his coalition allies were on manoeuvres over health reform (despite having backed it all the way until a few weeks ago). That's why the coalition's Dynamic Duo Cameron and Clegg were due to launch the NHS listening exercise later this week.

Today, though, it looks as if Dr Lansley has decided that he will be the one who will declare: "The Doctor will see you now. I'm listening."

PS - I've only just caught up with joining their campaign against Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms. That's right - Tebbit in the Labour-supporting Mirror backing the NHS against the man who he helped recruit into the Conservative Party. Andrew Lansley had been a civil servant in Lord Tebbit's department. The health secretary is badly in need of some friends.