ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Now as the last full year of this parliament kicks off, the coalition parties are faced with a bit of a dilemma – how do they fight an election campaign while still working together as closely as they can in government? Well the former Lib Dem leader, Sir Ming Campbell, joins me now from Edinburgh. A very good morning to you Sir Ming, of course your last parliament as well. We’re hearing an awful lot about increased in-fighting within the coalition, about Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg having to intervene on an almost daily basis.

MING CAMPBELL: Well no one said coalition was going to be easy and it is inevitable as we get closer to a general election, as you pointed out, that parties will begin to set out their manifestos. One of the things I’ve been arguing for, although so far not with much success, is that what we need to ensure is that the division which has to come eventually, as the general election is very imminent, at that point there ought to be clear guidelines as to how that division is going to take place and that’s why I have said three men and women from each side of the common sense, should be sent into a room and told don’t come out until you have created a scheme that will allow us to bring an end to the coalition without acrimony or intimidation or anything of that kind.

DM: So in a way what you are saying it has to be, without the public nature of it, the Rose Garden repeated again but the detachment has to be organised and co-ordinated?

MING CAMPBELL: I certainly think it has to be organised and co-ordinated but you know the heady days of the Rose Garden are far behind us. This was a coalition of necessity, its principal purpose was to restore stability to the economy, to try and create conditions of which growth would occur yet again and slowly but surely that’s what we’re doing. But in 2015 it is two separate parties with two separate manifestos – and one shouldn’t be surprised therefore that what’s now happening is something called differentiation. When Nick Clegg began that there was quite a lot of criticism from the Conservatives but actually both parties are now engaged in that and we should not be surprised by it.

DM: But you are saying both parties are engaged in that, some are going further than others on both sides, it should be organised, it should be decided how far you go and I’m thinking here of the Business Secretary, Vince Cable – we seem to be going back to Enoch Powell again but likening some of the things he’d heard from the Conservative side on immigration to Enoch Powell and Rivers of Blood.

MING CAMPBELL: Well I think you have to be careful about language. I heard the debate a moment or two ago on the programme between the people that had been looking at the papers and I rather agreed with Michael Portillo that there has been a problem in this country because no one has really been willing to address the issue of immigration and to address it in terms that take full account of the factual position and avoid the kind of prejudice on either side of the argument which has so far characterised it.

DM: But the point is, Sir Ming, I mean do you feel that some, as I say, on both sides are going too far or perhaps are going freelance, that it’s not being thought out?

MING CAMPBELL: Well it’s a very emotive issue, immigration. Just as for example the question which you were discussing a little earlier about the triple lock on pensions, I mean these are very emotive issues and it is perhaps hardly surprising that people feel passionately about them but those parties which are in government it seems to me have got a special responsibility to be very careful about the language they use, particularly in a circumstance where there has been a coalition created. Remember this, the governance of the country will have to take place right up until the first or second week of May in 2015, that’s essential but of course we have to make proper allowance for the fact that before then, long before then in fact, the manifestos of these two different parties will be the subject of discussion and eventually publication.

DM: It is interesting to hear what you say but what we hear is what I put to you in the first question about both leaders spending a disproportionate amount of their time trying to knock heads together in different departments, various ones being mentioned. If they don’t heed what you’re saying and sort it all out, do you think the coalition could fall apart before its time, that it just kind of melts away in this welter of in-fighting?

MING CAMPBELL: No, I don’t think that and I don’t agree with Vince Cable who made that suggestion. Look, there are two very important reasons for making sure that the end of the coalition is handled properly. The first is that it will be deeply damaging for the reputations of both parties if it were to break up in acrimony and the second of course, which has yet more substance because again of that discussion you had earlier when the three people had been looking at the newspapers, the second is this, that the likelihood of a further coalition of some kind cannot be discounted but if you have a coalition that breaks up in acrimony, bad temper and counter-accusation then of course the whole notion of coalition will be very deeply damaged.

DM: It depends who the coalition is with, I mean the Lib Dems want to stay in the game don’t they? If they are to the be the partners and make themselves palatable to Labour potentially as well.

MING CAMPBELL: Well what Nick Clegg has said is that if you look at both the Labour party and the Conservative party, the Labour party first – we cannot be confident that they would continue the necessary economic reforms in order to restore finally stability in the economy. On the other side of the argument we cannot be certain that the Conservatives understand the need to use fairness as far as is possible in taking these decisions to restore stability and what he says, quite rightly, is evidenced by the last three and a half years is that the Liberal Democrats are capable of ensuring that the gap in either of these two cases is filled by a party which is economically responsible but understands the whole concept of fairness.

DM: So here we are, Sir Ming, and as you step aside is part of you saddened by the regard in which all politicians are now held by the public after the efforts that we know so many of you make in the House?

MING CAMPBELL: Well it’s a very different parliament and a very different perception than it was in 1987 when I was first elected but that is generally the case because one of the consequences of the information revolution, the fact that so much more is available publicly as ever was the case before, is that there is a much higher degree of accountability and I think that politicians in the 21st century have got to accept that they are more likely to be held accountable than perhaps ever before. The other point I would make is this, that although collectively when you ask people about MPs you get some pretty disparaging answers, nonetheless if you ask people about an individual MP you often get a much more favourable response because of course a lot of what Members of Parliament now do – and this is a very substantial change from when I first entered Parliament – is concern about ensuring people’s rights are properly protected. Often Members of Parliament are advocates on behalf of the interests of individual constituents whose rights are not being properly recognised and when you do that then inevitably perhaps you engender, you create a sense of confidence of what the Member of Parliament does. The words a good constituency MP now mean rather more than they did when I was first elected in 1987.

DM: Well we know what your constituents response would be. Sir Ming, thank you very much indeed, always great to talk to you. Sir Ming Campbell there.