08/12/2013 Sunday Politics East

The morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. First, some Sunday

morning cheer, if you are an MP, that is. You are set to get an 11%

pay rise. The Chancellor has gone from zero to hero for some, who

credit him for turning the economy around. We will be taking a fine

tooth comb to his Autumn Statement. Should this man get a pay rise?

Complete denial about the central facts... And 11% pay rise for Ed

Balls? He was certainly working hard to be heard last Thursday. We will

be reviewing his performance. What about this man? We will be joined by

With me, three scruffy eternal students. They would celebrate if

they achieved a C+. But they are all we could afford and there will be no

pay rise for them. They will be glued to an electronic device

throughout the programme and if we are lucky they might stop there

internet shopping and tweet something intelligent. But don't

hold your breath. Janan Ganesh, Helen Lewis and Nick Watt. Last

week, storms were battering Britain, the East Coast was hit by the worst

tidal surge in more than a century, thousands of people had to be

evacuated and Nelson Mandela died. The downed the news agenda was the

small matter of George Osborne's Autumn Statement. His giveaways, his

takeaways and his first opportunity to announce some economic cheer.

It might be winter outside, but in the studios it is awesome. Autumn

Statement time. -- autumn. This is a moment of TV history. Normally when

the Chancellor delivers these statements, he has to say the

economy is actually a lot worse than everyone predicted. This time, he

can stand up and say the economy is better than everybody predicted. A

lot better. Britain is currently growing faster

than any other major advanced economy. Faster than France, which

is contracting, faster than Germany, faster even than America. At this

Autumn Statement last year, there were repeated predictions that

borrowing would go up. Instead, borrowing is down, and down

significantly more than forecast. But George Osborne said the good

numbers still mean more tough decisions. We will not give up in

giving in our country's debts. We will not spend the money from lower

borrowing. We will not squander the harder and games of the British

people. -- hard earned gains. In other news, further cuts to

government departments. The state pension age will increase in the

2040s, affecting people in their 40s now. There were some goodies, like

discounted business rates for small businesses, free school meals for

infants, favoured by the Lib Dems, and those marriage tax breaks below

that by the Tories. But, as with all big fiscal events, it takes a while

for the details to sink in. The marriage tax allowance is a

long-standing commitment that he could not abandon. It does help

those families were only one goes out to work. It does not go to

higher rate taxpayers, I don't think. Perhaps it does, I can't

remember. It makes me feel guilty, I am taking them very seriously,

but... Shall I give you them? There is the Autumn Statement. Have that,

a free gift from the Sunday Politics. Is there no limit to the

generosity of the BBC? In the meantime, Twitter was awash

with unflattering pictures of a red-faced Ed Balls giving his

response. Some pictures were more than flattering than others. Is Ed

Balls OK? Should we be worrying about him? He looks very stressed.

There is nothing to worry about in terms of Ed balls and his analysis.

He and Ed Miliband have been setting the pace in terms of the focus on

the living standards crisis. It was very telling that there was not a

mention of living standards last time, we got 12 mentions this time.

Never mind what he was saying, by now everybody has a copy of the

all-important paperwork. Time to hand over to number cruncher

extraordinaire Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Of

course it means that things are significantly better this year and

next than we thought they would be just nine months ago. That has got

to be good news. But it is also worth looking at the growth figures

a few years out. They have been revised down a little bit. The

reason is, the view of the office of budget response ability is that the

long run has not really changed very much. We are getting a bit more

growth now, but their view is that it is at the cost of a little bit of

the growth we will expect in the years after the next general

election. As the day draws to a close, the one place there has

definitely been no growth is the graphics budget of my colleague,

Robert Preston. It's as good as it gets these days, I don't think the

viewers will mind. It's very Sunday Politics, if I might say. That is

very worrying. Was this a watershed for George

Osborne? Was it a watershed for Ed Balls? We can all make the case that

it is the wrong sort of recovery, a consumer led recovery. People are

spending money they don't have. At the end of the day, it for George

Osborne, it is growth, the first time he has been able to talk about

growth. It allows him to control the baseline, the fiscal debate for the

next generation. For Ed Balls, nearly not a good performance. But

don't write this man off. Judging by Twitter, Iain Dale, no friend of it

all is, said he did a good interview this morning on a rival TV channel.

I feel the fact that the Tories hate Ed Balls so passionately is probably

a good reason that they should hang onto him, in that Labour sends his

effectiveness. May be the Tories hope that they hold on to him as

well? A lot of people shouting at someone and mocking their speech

impediment, that is politics that doesn't make me want to engage. The

takeaway will be lots of people thinking that none of these people

are people they like. Who is the main heckler on the Labour front

bench West remarked I suppose he can't cast any stones. It would be

easier to sympathise with him, if it were not that David Cameron went

through a similar situation and John Bercow did not step in to stop the

wall of noise. It was guaranteed a good happen to a Labour politician.

It's painful to remove him because he had a Parliamentary following and

he will kick up a fuss. I think he's much more pragmatic on issues like

business than Ed Miliband. I'm told he wasn't keen on the energy price

freeze. The problem with Ed Balls, to have the first words that you

say, the Chancellor is in denial, after he is presiding over growth,

it means nobody is listening to you. Who would replace him? Certainly not

Alistair Darling, the side of the referendum and even afterwards. Ed

Balls did get a roasting in the press and on Twitter. He seemed to

disappear from public view following the Autumn Statement. But a little

bird tells me he managed one interview this morning before he

went off to an all-important piano recital this afternoon. Watch out,

Jools Holland, he could be after your job. How bad was his

performance on Thursday? Here is the Shadow Chancellor in action. The

Chancellor is incomplete denial about the central facts that are

defining this government in office. He used to say he would balance the

books in 2015. Now he wants us to congratulate him for saying he will

do it in 2019, Mr Speaker. With this government, it is clearly not just

the badgers that move the goalposts. No mention of the universal credit

in the statement. IDS, in deep shambles, Mr Speaker. Chris Leslie

is the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He is Ed Balls's deputy,

in other words. Why do more and more of your Labour colleagues think that

your boss is below the water line? I'm not sure I accept the premise of

your suggestion. I don't think my colleagues believe that George

Osborne has a superior argument. I think Ed Balls will certainly trying

his best, loud and clear, to make the case there is a cost of living

crisis in this country and the Chancellor doesn't understand this.

That was essentially the heat of the debate on the Autumn Statement day.

One leading Labour MPs said to me that Ed Balls is always looking

back, fixated with the rear-view mirror, that was the exact quote. A

Labour MP told Sky News, Labour has a strong argument to make,

unfortunately it was not made well in the chamber today. Quoting the

Daily Mail, this is two poor performances. A quote that I can't

use because it uses too many four letter words. Baroness Armstrong,

speaking at Progress, a former Labour Cabinet minister, we are not

sufficiently concerned about public spending, how we would pay for what

we are talking about. Quite a battering? There were two sets of

quotes you were giving. The couple were about the strategy for tackling

public expenditure. I think it's fair that we talk about that. The

rest were pretty unattributed, nameless sources. You have never

given and of the record briefing? We have conversations off camera, but I

don't think you have a wealth of evidence to say that somehow Ed

Balls's arguments were wrong. He was making the point that, ultimately,

it is a government that does not have its finger on the pulse about

what most of your viewers are concerned about, that wages are

being squeezed and prices are getting higher and higher. You have

had time to study the Autumn Statement. What part of it does

Labour disagree with? It is a very big question. I think the overall

strategy the Autumn Statement is setting out does not deal with the

fundamental problems in the economy. What measures do you disagree with?

A lot of it is the absence of measures we would have put in if we

were doing the Autumn Statement. If you are going to deal with the cost

of living crisis, you have got to get productivity levels up in our

society. One of the best ways of doing that is on infrastructure. We

believe in bringing forward 's investment and housing, getting some

of the fundamentals right in our economy. By planting, the business

lending we have to do. We have seen a lamentable failing. There are big

structural reforms that we need. Ultimately, the public are concerned

about the cost of living crisis. That has got to be childcare help, a

10p starting rate of tax. Above all, and energy price freeze, which

still this government are refusing to do. On Friday, you told me you

supported the principle of a welfare cap. But you change bling claim the

Chancellor's cap included pensions. You have now seen the figures, and

it does not include pensions, correct? We do want a welfare cap.

The government have said they are going to put more detail on this in

the March budget. But it does not include pensions? We think they have

a short term approach to the welfare cap. They put in some pension

benefits. The state pension is not in the short-term plan because, as

we believe, a triple lock is a good idea. In the longer term, if you are

talking about structural welfare issues, you do have to think about

pensions because they have to be sustainable if we are living

longer. I think that is about the careful management. Let me show you

what Ed Balls said on this programme at the start of the summer. As for

pensioners, I think this is a real question. George Osborne is going to

announce his cap in two weeks time. I don't know if he will exclude

pension spending or including. Our plan is to include it. Pension

spending would be included in the welfare cap? That is our plan,

exactly what I just said. Over the long-term, if you have a serious

welfare cap structural welfare issues, over 20, 30, 40 year

period, you can't say that we will not work and pensions as part of

that. Pensions would be part of the Labour cap? In the longer term. What

is the longer term? If you win 2015? We want to stick with the triple

lock on the pension, that is the Government approach to their

short-term welfare cap. In the longer term, for example, on the

winter fuel allowance, we should not necessarily be... There are lots of

benefits... I understand that, I am talking about the basic state

pension, is that part of your welfare cap or not? In a 20, 30, 40

year frame... Even you will not be around in government, then. You are

writing me off already. You have to focus on welfare changes, pensions

have to be affordable as part of that. It's dangerous to say, well,

if you are going to have a serious welfare cap, we should not look at

pensions cost. It would be irresponsible. Will pensions be part

of the cap from 2015 until 2020 if Labour is in power? In our long-term

cap we have to make sure... I'm talking about 2015-16. We haven't

seen the proposition the Government has put before us.

You claim people of ?1600 worse off under the coalition. That is true

when you compare to pay and prices. Can you confirm that calculation

does not include the ?700 tax cut from raising the income tax

threshold, huge savings on mortgages because of low interest or the

freezing of council tax? It doesn't include the tax and benefit

changes. If you do want to look at those, last year, the ISS said they

could be making people worse off. It might not include those factors. The

VAT increase, tax credit cuts, child benefit cuts, they all add up. My

understanding is that the ISS figures have said people are ?891

worse off if you look at the tax and benefit changes since 2010. You have

to look at wages and prices. The ISS confirmed our approach was broadly

the right way of assessing what is happening. The Chancellor was

saying, real household disposable incomes are rising. He is completely

out of touch. Can you sum up the macro economic policy for Labour?

Invest in the future, make sure we have the right approach for the

long-term politicking. Tackle the cost of living crisis people are

facing. Now, let's talk to the Financial

Secretary to the Treasury, Sajid Javid.

Discovery, underpinned by rising house prices, increasing personal

debt, do you accept that is unsustainable?

I accept the OBE are also said the reason why this country is facing

more these challenges -- OBR. That is because we went through a

Labour recession, the worst we have seen in 100 years. But do you accept

that a recovery underpinned by these things I have just read out isn't

sustainable? We set out a long-term plan for recovery, and again this

week. We have shown with the tough decisions we have made already, the

country can enjoy a recovery. There are still a lot of difficult

decisions. The biggest risk are Labour's plans. The March

projections work at for those -- for both business investment and

exports. Suddenly it is expected to rise 5% next year, a 10% turnaround

in investment. How is it credible? I have been in business before

politics. Any business person listening will know, when you have

gone through a recession, the deepest in 100 years, it will hit

investment, profits, you can't make plans again until you have

confidence in the economy. That is what this country is seeing now

under this government. This is an assumption made independently. The

fall in business investment is because of the recession. The

forecast increases, 5% next year, and so on, it is based on the

independent forecast. Based on fact. If you look at the investment plans

of companies, this week, the Chancellor went to JCB, Jaguar Land

Rover has plans to create more jobs, these investment plans are

coming through now because of the confidence generated by this

government, such as the cut in corporation tax which Labour would

increase. Are the export forecasts more credible? The 15 years, our

share of world trade decline. Suddenly starting next year, it

stops falling. That's not credible. I worked in finance the 20 years. I

have yet to find any forecast which is fully right. Under Labour, we

would have forecasts made by Gordon Brown who would announce he would

hit all his targets. Now we have an independent system.

Do you accept, if exports or business investment do not pick up,

then a purely consumer led recovery is not sustainable? We need more

than a consumer led recovery. We need consumer investment to go up.

On Xbox, it is noticeable that experts are primarily down because

the markets we trade with, the eurozone markets, are depressed.

Many have just come out of recession. Or they are still in

recession. If you look at exports to non-EU countries, they are up 30%.

120% to China. 100% to Russia. Will you keep the triple lock for

the state pension beyond 2015? Yes, long term. That's why it is not part

of our welfare cap. Chris Leslie cannot answer that question. It is

straightforward. House prices are now rising ten

times faster than average earnings. That's not good. House prices are

rising, partly reflecting recovery. Ten times faster than average

earnings, how can people afford to buy homes if it carries on? What you

would hope, this is the evidence, if you look at the plans of the month

companies, they are planning new homes which will mean that, as this

demand spurs that investment, more homes will come about. We need to

give people the means to buy those homes. We have introduced the help

to buy scheme. I accept the OBR says it will start rising again but as

household debt rises again Petr Cech reduces, -- as household debt

reduces, we need to make sure there are checks in place. Wages have not

been rising in real terms for quite some time. Over the next five years,

even as the economy grows, by about 15% according the OBR to the OBR --

but people will not benefit. These hard-working families will not share

in the recovery. What is the best way to help those families? The

government doesn't set wages. What we can do is influence the overall

economy. We don't have a magic lever. Wages have been stagnating

for five years. When will people get a proper salary? The best way for

wage growth is a growing economy, more jobs. We have more people

employed in Britain today than at any time in our history. The biggest

risk to recovery is if we let Labour into the Treasury with more spending

and more debt. Which got us into this trouble. By whatever measure

you care to choose, would people be better off come the 20 15th election

than they were in 2010? Yes, they will be. Look at jobs. Already more

people employed than at any other time in history. Will they be better

off? The best way for anyone to raise their living standards is

access to a growing job market. But will they be better off? I believe

people will be. Compared to 2010. Yes. In terms of take-home pay. This

is a credible measure. Now, what do you think the Education

Secretary, Michael Gove, was like at school? Hard-working? Hand always

up? Top of the class? Well, if he wasn't passionate about education

then, he is now. In fact, since he took office, it seems he hasn't

stopped working very hard indeed. When the coalition came to power,

Michael Gove evoked Mao, saying they were on a long march to reform

education. Just like Mao, they faced a baby boom, so pledged ?5 billion

for new school places. They extended Labour's academy programme. There's

now about 3,000 in England. But then, they marched even further,

creating free schools run by parents, funded by taxpayers. 174

have opened so far. The schools admission code was changed, to give

parents more choice. And a pupil premium was introduced,

currently, an extra ?900 funding for each disadvantaged child.

An overhaul of the national curriculum provoked criticism.

Chairman Gove mocked detractors as "bad academia". But exam reforms

didn't quite go to plan. Although GCSEs got harder, plans to replace

A-levels had to be abandoned. Ultimately, the true test of these

reforms will be what happens in the classroom. The person in charge of

making sure those classrooms are up to scratch in England is the Chief

Inspector Of Schools, head of Ofsted, Michael Wilshaw, who joins

me now. Over the past 15 years, we have

doubled spending on schools even allowing for inflation. By

international standards, we are stagnating, why? I said last year

that mediocrity had settled into the system. Too many children were

coasting in schools, which is why we changed the grading structure, we

removed that awful word, satisfactory. Saying that good is

now the only acceptable standard and schools had a limited time in which

to get to that. We are seeing gradually, it is difficult to say

this in the week we have had the OECD report. Things have gradually

improved. I will come onto that in a minute. Explain this. International

comparisons show us flat-lining or even falling in some subjects,

including science. For 20 years, our domestic exam results just got

better and better. Was this a piece of fiction fed to us by the

educational establishment, was there a cover-up? There is no question

there has grade inflation. I speak as an ex-headteacher who saw that in

examinations. Perceptual state is actually doing something about that.

Most good heads will say that is about time. We have to be credible.

Do politicians and educationalists conspire in this grade inflation? It

might suit politicians to say things are going up every year. As a head,

I knew a lot of the exams youngsters were sitting were not up to scratch.

The latest OECD study places us 36th for maths, 23rd reading, slipping

down to 21st in science. Yet, Ofsted, your organisation,

designates 80% of schools as good or outstanding. That's another fiction.

This year, we have. If we see this level of progress, it has been a

remarkable progress over the last years since we changed our grading

structure, then... In a year, absolutely. We have better teachers

coming into our school system. Better leaders. Better schools. The

big challenge for our country is making sure that progress is

maintained which will eventually translate into better outcomes.

These figures are pretty much up-to-date. Are you saying within a

year 80% of the schools are good enough? All of the schools we

upgraded have had better grades in GCSE and grade 2. We have to make

sure that is maintained. The Government has based its reforms on

similar reforms in Sweden. In opposition they were endlessly going

to Stockholm to find out how it was done. Swedish schools are doing even

worse than ours in the tables. Why are we copying failure? The

secretary of state believes, and I actually believe, as somebody who

has come from an academy model, that if you hand power and resources, you

hand autonomy to the people on the ground, to the people in the

classroom, in the corridors, in the playgrounds, things work. If you

allow the great monoliths that used to have responsibility for education

in the past to take control again, you will see a reverse in standards.

You have got to actually empower those people that make the

difference. That is why autonomy and freedom is important. We spent a lot

of money moving what were local authority schools to become

academies and new free school czar being set up as well. When the

academies are pretty much the same level of autonomy, the free school

is maybe a little bit more, the evidence we have had so far is that

they don't really perform any better than local authority schools?

Indeed, Encore GCSE subjects, they might even be doing worse? These are

early days. We will say more about this on weapons they when we produce

the annual report. The sponsored academies that took over the worst

schools in the country, in the most difficult circumstances, in the most

disadvantaged communities, are doing much better now. What about GCSE?

They are doing GCSE equivalents, the lass academic subjects question my

cull OK, but they are doing better than previous schools. If you look

at the top performing nations in the world, they focus on the quality of

teaching. The best graduates coming to education. They professionally

develop them. They make sure they spot the brightest talents and get

them into positions as soon as possible. We have got to do the same

if we are going to catch up with those jurisdictions. This isn't just

a British problem. It seems to be a European problem. The East Asian

countries now dominate the top of the tables. What's the most

important lesson we should learn from East Asia? Attitudes to work.

We need to make sure that we invest in good teachers, good leaders. We

have to make sure that students have the right attitudes to work. It's no

good getting good people into the classroom and then seeing them part

of teaching by bad behaviour, disaffected youngsters and poor

leadership. We see young teachers doing well for a time and then being

put off teaching and leaving from that sort of culture in our schools.

Are you a cheerleader for government education policy rather than

independent inspectors? I am independent, Ofsted is independent.

I believe we are saying the right things on standards. The Association

of teachers and lecturers say you are an arm of government. The NUT

has called for your resignation. Another wants to abolish or

Inspectorate. Have you become a pariah amongst teaching unions? If

we are challenging schools to become better, that is our job, we will

carry on doing that. I am not going to preside over the status quo. We

will challenge the system to do better, we will challenge schools

and colleges to do better. We will also challenge government when we

think they are going wrong. Many people in the education

establishment think your primary purpose is to do the Government's

bidding by shepherding schools into becoming academies. Not true at all.

You are a big supporter of academies? Yes, I believe the people

that do the business in schools are the people that are free to do what

is necessary to raise standards. I am a big supporter of autonomy in

the school system. But where we see academies Vale, where we see free

schools fail, we will say so. The study does not find much evidence

that competition and choice raise standards, but it does go with you

and say that strong school leadership, coupled with autonomy,

can make a difference. Can somebody with no experience in education be

in charge of a school? A lot of hot air has been expounded on the issue

of whether teachers should be qualified or not. If qualified

teacher status was the gold standard, why is it that one in

three teachers, one in three lessons that will observe are not good

enough. Taught by qualified teachers. I've not yet met a

headteacher that has not appointed by qualified staff when they cannot

get qualified teachers. Their job is to make sure they get accredited as

soon as possible and come up to scratch in the classroom. Do you

support the use of unqualified teachers? I do. I have done it. If I

could not get a maths, physics or modern languages teacher and I

thought somebody straight from university, without qualified

teachers start this, that they could communicate well with youngsters, I

would get that person into the classroom and get them accredited if

they delivered the goods. If we are going to allow schools to have more

autonomy and not be accountable to local authorities, free schools

academies, don't you have to do... New entrants will be coming into the

market, the educational marketplace. Do you not have to act more quickly

when it is clear, and there has been examined recently, where it is

clearly going badly wrong and children's education at risk?

Absolutely. I made a point to the secretary of state and it is

something I will talk more about over the coming year. We need to be

in school is much more often. If a school fails at the moment, or

underperforms, goes into this new category, Her Majesty 's inspectors

stay with that institution until it improves. Sometimes we don't see a

school for five or seven years. That is wrong. My argument is that Ofsted

should pay a much greater part in monitoring the performance of

schools between those inspections. Are you enjoying it? It is a tough

job. Are you enjoying it? This is a tough job, but I enjoy it.

Sometimes. You are watching Sunday Politics.

Coming up in just over 20 minutes, Diane Abbott will be joining us. And

we will Hello and welcome to the part of

Sunday Politics that's just for us. Here in the East. I'm Etholle

George. Coming up: The government investigation into the running of a

chain of academy schools. And want to choose the candidate to

stand as your MP? If so, open primaries are the way to go. And

we've had two this weekend. It is important that we all have a

say. It's very helpful, I hope. But first, let's meet this week's

guests. Therese Coffey is the Conservative MP for Suffolk Coastal.

And Stuart Agnew, from the UK Independence Party, is one of the

Members of the European Parliament for the East of England. Welcome to

you both. Let's talk first about one of our biggest political stories

this week. The government's decision to scrap

tolling on the new A14 scheme in Cambridgeshire. It was widely

attacked as a tax on the county of Suffolk, because drivers would have

had no choice but to use the toll road to get in and out of the

county. Therese Coffey, you led the campaign

to stop the holes. You must feel vindicated? `` de tolls.

I am really pleased. I think, together, we did a very good job. We

put across the argument that this would be bad for our county.

Why did it take so long for the government to realise there would be

no alternative to the toll? I have been working on this for some

time, trying to put across a case. But the consultation helped us to

get the voice of many groups about why this would be the wrong thing to

do. Stuart Agnew, it sounds a bit

European, this idea of tolls. Would this have been right?

Our group in our counsel put forward a motion that this was the wrong

thing to do, but we were last at. I am pleased that we have been shown

to be right. Many people would have just gone on an alternative route to

avoid the tolls, which would lead to queues in other areas. But there are

other interests than the A14. We are planning to ills a town of 20,000

people somewhere near Cambridge `` built a town. They have said that it

is not currently the right infrastructure to build a town. And

it forms part of nine high`speed routes in Europe. We saw HS2 facing

some barriers. There will be perhaps be NHS three and a number four, as

well. Have we not had three wasted years?

I did not think there was much money left when the last Labour government

said that. What is different is the extra widening of the roads to

support the new town. But I think it is critical to say that we need to

press on with it and make sure that everything is done as quickly as

possible so that the diggers can start in 20 16.

If you follow politics in America, you'll have heard of primaries, the

local elections where the parties choose their presidential

candidates. The day many of them are held is known as Super Tuesday. And

you could say that here we've just had Super Saturday. The

Conservatives held so`called open primaries yesterday in both South

East Cambridgeshire and Northampton South.

They're open because anyone from the constituency can turn up and vote,

whether or not they're Tories. The party was once very keen on the idea

but very few open primaries have actually taken place.

You know how it is. You wait ages for an open primaries to occur, and

then to happen at once. This was Northampton South, where memory ``

many of the people who are voting were not party members.

I think it is good that we all take part.

I think it is democratic. The process was not entirely open,

there was a short list. But it was up to the four candidates to win

over the rumour. Open primaries was the big idea

after the expenses scandal. The Conservatives say that this is

democracy in action, a chance to connect with the public.

Deciding who should be your next MP should be up to the ordinary public

instead of just Parliament. If we let ordinary people decide to what

the next candidates, we will have a proper new mass party organisation

and real ideas of who should be the MPs on safe seats.

It also gives the chance to elect a local candidates.

People like to have a local candidates. How do you do that if

there are hardly any party members to do that? The temptation is for

the national parties to bring someone in from the outside, who do

not have local routes. When the first one of the open

primaries was held in this region for the mayoral election, more than

20,000 people attended. The party chairman was delighted.

I think that the days where the party choose the candidates behind

closed doors are long gone. The electorate should decide.

However, despite his enthusiasm, the idea has not really taken off. The

party are wary of candidates who are chosen by the public.

Boris Johnson was the first one to be chosen by the public. Both of

these people are outspoken and tend to be their own brand. That is what

the party hierarchy does not like. And the region's other primary,

Cambridgeshire, they picked one of the youngest barristers in the

country as the local Conservative candidates.

She comes from the local area. I have been selected in a local

primary, where people are from different parties. I will be putting

forward my constituents when I hopefully represent the area.

Back in Southampton, David McIntosh celebrated his primary win. Neither

candidate had a very large turnout, but they were chosen by more than

just the Conservative Party. Will that make a difference?

After that, let's hear from the winner, David McIntosh. Thank you

for joining us. What was it like to be chosen in an

open primary? I think it was very brave of the

local party to take this decision, and we need to allow them to take

their party democracy, because, when you do have candidates being chosen

behind closed doors, people feel left out of the process. When we see

people wanting to see the decisions taken by people who understand local

communities, it is right that the local people have a decision in who

the people are. Does it matter that only 165 people

voted? It is not exactly mass participation?

I think it would have been a smaller number if it was only open to party

members. It is stimulated debate. People really got involved in it.

People turned up, and the majority of people voted for me.

Half of those who did turn up will not party members. Does that concern

you? No, I think it is great. People look

to local politicians to make decisions. They want to see local

politicians who reflect them. I was born and grew up in Northampton. I

am very proud to serve that leader of the council. I hope that people

will elect me to Westminster in two years time.

This is a marginal seat. You have won the battle, but not the war? The

Labour Party have selected someone from London, who cannot understand

the issues of Northampton in the same way as someone who has lived

here. The former councillor and I have

worked very closely. I am looking forward to working with Ryan to

convince the people that they need a local man.

Therese Coffey, you have had experience in one of these open

primaries in Surrey three years ago. Do you think it makes a difference

to the kind of candidate you get? How was the experience for you?

I think it is a way that you can welcome the candidates. Many places

have now been selected by open primary is in our party. It is good

to open up that selection. I was speaking to a Labour candidate, and

they were intrigued about the idea of allowing people who were not

members of the party to select. We hope that they will vote for us in

the general election. Anyone could turn up. People could

fill the room with those who are trying to ruin the Conservatives

chances? That is always the downside. People

worry that they will fill the room with people voting against them.

However, you are selecting from a series of pretty good people. One

has to remember that. There can be a cynical element, where the Tory high

command says that here is a short list of six people that they have

decided, aren't you so lucky to have a choice?

But that is not what happens. Any of the four people in Northampton would

make a good MP. Has this been dropped as a promising

smack `` a policy? I do think that the idea of having

all postal open primaries has been possibly dropped, because they are

expensive. Perhaps they decided it is not the best use of money at the

moment. What is the point of joining a party

if one of the best things about membership is getting a vote in

these events? You are more likely to become a

person in Westminster if you join a large party, which gives you a

privileged position. I think it is only right that you should put

yourself open to everyone in your constituency, not just the small

committee of that party. Does this threaten a party

politics? Does this threaten the membership that funds the party?

No, I don't think it does. I was selected by a members only meeting,

because we had a membership of 800 people. But the reason that people

join parties is because they want to support that party to get into

government. By contributing through a membership fee, they do their bit,

rather than state funding. A group which runs several academy

schools and colleges in Bedfordshire is under investigation by both the

Department for Education and the Skills Funding Agency. Allegations

against the Barnfield Federation include grade manipulation and

bullying, all of which they strongly refute. Labour says it highlights

the lack of accountability in the academy and free school system. The

findings of the investigation should be published before the end of the

year. It's a set of schools that's been

held up as a shining example by the Education Secretary. But the

Barnfield Federation, which comprises more than half a dozen

schools and academies, is now the subject of an official inquiry.

Barnfield staff are made to sign confidentiality agreements. These

former teachers want to remain anonymous.

It was demanded of them to spoon`feed students to get the

grades. They would be continually be rewriting pieces of coursework.

They'd take the students off timetable, for core subjects in

particular, and then spend a week making sure they rewrote it, rewrote

it until they achieved those grades. The young people with special needs

felt extremely stressed by Barnfield. It caused a lot of

emotional trauma for them. Some students in particular would cry. We

had autistic boys who would rock a lot in the classroom because their

targets were unrealistic. A lot of their mentoring was cut.

There are five campuses already in Luton where 20% of the town's

children are taught. Three other academies in Bedfordshire are on

hold and it wants to expand even further. There are plans for free

schools in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire.

By these gates is St George's Lower School in Leighton Buzzard. It's

next on the list to be converted into the family of Barnfield

academies. However, that's was supposed to be December first, but

it has now been put on hold until the results of the investigation are

known and the same goes for two more in Bedfordshire.

A separate application for another free school in Mid Beds, which

failed at the eleventh hour, prompted the local MP to raise the

matter at Prime Minister's Questions.

Would the Prime Minister please use his good office to ensure that the

application in mid`Bedfordshire is incorporated into this inquiry?

Gavin Shuker, the Labour MP for Luton has written to the Department

for Education, raising his concerns with the Barnfield Federation.

I'm aware that for many people they've tried to raise the the

concerns with the Department for Education directly and were

misdirected into a route where they couldn't do so. That is a really

serious concern. Have you tried to take your concerns

to the Department for Education? I did try to ring and it was very

difficult. The person at the end of the phone said they didn't know who

I needed to speak to I felt I was going round and round in circles, so

I gave up. Ed Miliband, on a recent visit to

Luton, said the investigation highlights the lack of

accountability of the academy model. I think is an illustration of the

wider problem that there is, which is that Michael Gove thinks that you

can run all of Britain's schools, academy schools and free schools

from central government. That's thousands of schools. Actually, what

you need is local accountability as well, because that is really, really

important for holding schools to account.

In a statement, the Department for Education told us: We have received

allegations relating to Barnfield College and the Barnfield

Federation. We are taking these seriously and

are investigating. The investigation is due to be

published in the next month. The women we've spoken to don't feel

this report will go far enough. I know colleagues that, you know,

sort of raised concerns or raised questions and they'd be demanded to

attend a meeting and would be told off. Basically they had no voice.

The Barnfield Federation said they didn't want to talk to us until

after the investigation, but sent us this statement: We do not recognise

the picture being painted by these accusations and strongly refute

these claims. Our students are our lifeblood and

follow a personalised learning programme suited to their individual

needs and aimed at developing rounded young people who will reach

their potential, prepared for the world of work. The current

investigation is not about education standards. It's about operational

issues. And any lessons about how things were done in the past will be

learned, implemented and adhered to. Last week, the Education Secretary

Michael Gove visited this region and we asked him about the Barnfield

investigation. Was the system of reporting problems to his department

really working? I think our system is working. At

the moment, we are investigating some allegations that have been made

about a variety of things that happened at Barnfield. Until that

investigation concludes, I don't think I can comment on it. It

wouldn't be fair to any of the people involved. One of the things

that we have found, though, is that when other complaints have been made

about things that have been going wrong in other schools, that the

department and its agencies have been as quick to investigate them,

if not quicker, than other the local authorities. But obviously, if there

are people who feel that their attempts to blow the whistle or

register complaints haven't been handled properly, then I am

concerned about it and I want to make sure that they get a proper

answer. We are making sure that we put new

systems in place in order to ensure that academies and free schools are

more accountable than ever before. But they're already more accountable

than local authority schools. It's not just me they're accountable to,

there's an organisation called the Education Funding Agency that

scrutinises their accounts line by line. There's also the case that

because all academies are charities ,that the Charities Commission is

there to make sure that if there is any jiggery`pokery that people face

the music. Therese Coffey, since we spoke to

Michael Gove, people are saying that they tried to contact the Department

for Education, using the relevant e`mail address, but they have not

had a reply. That does sound frustrating and

concerning. I would be happy to try and direct any e`mails that come to

me directly to the appropriate people who are in charge of the

area. If this system is not working, that

is a serious issue, isn't it? I understand that. I am trying to

offer another route, that will be able to identify why the system is

not working as well. We will get the issues recorded and work out the

process of why it has gone wrong. I understand why people want to report

certain schools. That is the right thing to do. I have been working

with other MPs from across the region about another chain of

academies. We have taken our ideas to Lord Nash, and we have been

getting some response from that. Do you feel that the local authority

has a role to play? We background in schools. This is

what we want for social mobility. `` grammar schools. I am disappointed

that there has been trouble in Luton. It originally looked so good

with the original Barnfield college. But there is an ongoing

investigation. I haven't had any representational

letters at all about this. At the start of this academy

programme, we have exonerated it. But how come Michael Gove has so

much information on his desk, thousands of schools. He cannot know

what is going on? The main way that schools are

accountable is to their parents. I think that the Department for

Education is building up extra teams. I think it is disingenuous

for the Labour Party to be asking for accountability when they removed

that accountability. Are you opening up the schools to

more... There has to be a good set of

inspectors. In one year, a school can change dramatically. You can

never rest, because there is a high turnover of pupils and staff. You

must have reporting and inspections. Time for some of the other political

stories in the news this week. From immigration to dancing, it's our 60

second round`up. In less than a month, migrants from

Bulgaria and Romania can come to work here without restrictions. In

Luton, there's already a Roma community of 500. But Peterborough,

says its MP Stuart Jackson, is already bursting at the seams.

Frankly, Peter Brett is full, and we cannot take any more immigration.

That is the message that I have been giving ministers. `` Peter borough.

In the Commons, a plea from MP Philip Hollobone for a new Kettering

junction on the A14 to help congestion and business. But did he

expect these responses? I do not want to see the town going

to a halt. We want to be able to get to the places of work.

The continuing presence of the gentleman on a daily basis is

important. And we know Therese Coffey's

delighted the new A14 in Cambridgeshire will not be tolled.

She tweeted ` I'm so happy I could do a conga down the A14 to

celebrate! And if you do do the conga down the

A14, Therese, please could you let us know. So we can film it! Thank

you for joining us. Thanks very much to both of you.

Therese Coffey and Stuart Agnew. And that's our final Sunday Politics of

2013. We'll be back in the New Year, on January

work... That's all we've got time for. It's back now to Andrew.

Tomorrow, the House of Commons will pay its tributes to Nelson Mandela.

Our nation has lost its greatest son. Our people have lost a father.

The first thing I ever did that involved an issue or policy, or

politics, was protest against apartheid.

I think his greatest legacy, to South Africa and to the world, is

the emphasis which he has always put on the need for a conciliation, on

the importance of human rights. He also made us understand that we can

change the world. We can change the world by changing attitudes, by

changing perceptions. For this reason, I would like to pay him

tribute as a great human being, who raised the standard of humanity.

Thank you for the gift of Madiba. Thank you for what he has enabled us

to know we can become. We are joined now by the Labour MP

Diane Abbott. You met Mr Mandela not one after he was released from

prison in 1990. He went as an election observer for the first one

person, one-vote in South Africa. I would guess, of all the people you

met in your life, you must have been the most impressive and biggest

influence? He was extraordinary. He had just come out of prison, 28

years in reason. He had seen a lot of his colleagues tortured, blown up

and killed. He was entirely without bitterness. That is what came

across. That was key to his achievement, to achieve a peaceful

transition. Everybody thought that if you have black majority rule, you

might have a bloodbath. It's down to Nelson Mandela but didn't happen. I

remember FW de Klerk saying that Mandela was the key to getting a

peaceful transition. Absolutely the key, an amazing man. London was one

of the centres, people talked about it as being the other centre of the

anti-apartheid struggle. That anti-apartheid struggle in London,

it had an effect on black politics in Britain? Oh, yes. If you were

black and politically active at the time, the apartheid struggle, the

struggle against white supremacy in South Africa, was very important.

Whatever your colour, the anti-apartheid struggle, for our

generation, was the political campaign. We have the 50th

anniversary of Kennedy's assassination. Mr Mandela's death.

We are kind of running out of people that inspired us? I will never

forget where I was when I saw him come out of prison, hand-in-hand

with the women, I might add. If you have spent your whole teenage years

and 20 is boycotting, marching, picketing, to see him actually come

out was amazing. Do you think it was more exciting to meet you or the

Spice Girls? I think the Spice Girls. What did the Labour

backbenchers think about Ed Balls's performance after the Autumn

Statement? Luck, Ed Balls is a brilliant man, but I think even he

would say that it was not his best performance. But if you look at the

polls, the public liked the points he made. The backbenchers were

quiet, there was something wrong? I noticed that. It was like a wall of

sound, deliberately. They know that under pressure his stamina might

come back and it is difficult for him. That is what they were trying

to incite. I have had experience first hand, a look at all of these

anonymous and sometimes not anonymous quotes in the media. The

spinning has begun against him? This is the party of brotherly love, no

matter what the Tories say, we can say worse about each other. How

could it be that two former aides to Gordon Brown do not like each other?

Far be it from me to say. If he wanted to do it, and I'm not saying

he does, is Mr Miliband ruthless enough to get rid of Ed Balls? I

mean, he got rid of you, he got rid of his brother? One thing you should

not do is under estimate Ed Miliband's capacity for

ruthlessness. If he feels it is the right thing to do, he will do it.

It's not just a matter of... Ed Balls is a big, powerful

personality. He's great to interview because he is across his subject,

you can have a really good argument with him, a man that knows his

brief, his facts. But it's not just about the personality. There is a

kind of sense that Labour needs to look forwards more on economic

policy. Of course, the standard of living has been hugely successful

for Labour. But it needs more than that on economic policy? I think he

has been one of the most effective member 's Shadow Cabinet, and he's

always associated with the Brown years, where there is always an

element about, you were the guys that got it wrong. I think Ed

Miliband will be very tempted to replace him with Alistair Darling.

The scenario goes like this, Alistair Darling saves the union and

then in September he saves the Labour Party. Ultimately, I don't

think he would do it. Talk about shifting tectonic plates, it would,

wouldn't it? But it is a step too far. Ed Balls would not be too

happy. It is not something you would want to do lightly. That sounds a

bit of a threat. Not from you. I can't see Ed Balls magnanimously

retreating and say, go on, Alistair Darling, take the job I have been

after all career. Where do you put him? Do you make him a middle

ranking business or welfare secretary? He wouldn't do that. If

you sack him, he would retreat to the backbenchers. He might take up

knitting and practices piano scales, or he might have a blood feud with

Ed Miliband. I don't know which could be. You look back to when he

was schools Secretary, you could feel he was constantly fuming. I

think he is better inside the tent, looking out, than the other way

around. The thing one Labour strategist said to me was that he is

too much looking into the rear-view mirror, when it comes to economic

policy. He needs to look ahead through the windscreen. That had

some resonance? He was at the centre of Labour's economic policy-making

from the mid-90s. So it's hard for him but he has to look forward.

There is an interesting comparison with 2009. Gordon Brown got in

trouble when he said the choice is between Labour investment and Tory

cuts. Everybody knew it was between Labour cuts and Tory cuts. In other

words, he was not acknowledging reality. With Ed Balls, OK, we can

say it is the wrong sort of recovery, but there is a recovery.

Does he not need to absorb that punch and say there is a recovery,

then people will listen to him? Possibly. We know that the

macroeconomics are looking better. We also know people are not

experiencing it as a recovery in living standards. No one, not even

Tories, really believe that David Cameron knows what it is like for

middle-income people to live normal lives. Living standards is

particularly powerful because of the composition of the government? Don't

go away. This time last year we ambushed our political panel with a

quiz. They didn't come out of it smelling of roses, but they did come

out rather smelly. Will the coalition still be in place

a year from now? Yes. Definitely. I say definitely as well. From now,

one year, will we know the date of the European referendum? Yes. No. I

say no as well. How much growth will there be? Less than 1%. Father

Christmas is less qualified than me, but I will go for one. I will go for

a quarter of that. 0.4%. Sorry, a third of that. I am with you, and

1%. We didn't do too badly. What will growth be next year? I will

remind you, the OBR has upgraded to 2.4%. Better stick with the OBR, got

it wrong last year. Well, they went down in March and then went back in

December. I'm going to go under and claim credit where it's higher. I'm

going to say 1%. Deliberately get it wrong. Given our record, if we say

there is going to be spectacular growth, does it mean we're going to

go into recession? There is incentive to be cautious. 2%. 2.4%,

because the housing market in London is rocketing. It would be closer to

3% and 2.4, mark my words. We'll Ed Balls be Shadow Chancellor by this

time next year? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, I value my life. Will UKIP mean the

European elections, by which I mean have the highest percentage of the

vote? Yes. Second behind Labour. Second behind Labour. Will Alex

Salmond win the independence referendum? No, but it will be

closer than we think. No, unless they do something catastrophic like

let Cameron debate him. Too close to call. Controversial. How many

Romanians and Bulgarians will come to Britain in 2014? Far fewer than

anyone thinks. The entire population of Romania and Bulgaria, like Nigel

Farage thanks. I'll go with that, I'm confident. A change of tone for

your magazine. Not many will come, but a lot here already will

normalise and be counted into figures. Too many for most

right-wing commentators. I think quite a few will come, but not the

kind of numbers that made such a huge difference. This time,

everybody is open. They do like to speak English, that is the reason

they want to come. We'll all three of you still be here by this time

next year? Yes. Would you recommend that? Yes, keep them. And he has

lovely boots. Shiny red boots. If you can keep affording me, I will be

here. I hope so, it sounds like you have a firing squad outside. I hope

so, maybe you will find some true talent. Very pragmatic, aren't they?

Let me put this to you, I think you will agree. The coalition will not

break now, this side of the election next year? There will not be... They

will not go their own ways by this time next year? Of next year, maybe

just after. Early 2015. This side of the election? What is the UKIP view?

I don't think there is an advantage to either of them. If the Lib Dems

pulled out, they would look like there were a lodger in the Tory

house of government. I think it would suit the Lib Dems to break

just before the election. I think that is what Vince Cable wants to

do. I don't think it is what Nick Clegg would like to do. The Tories

would love it. They would have all of the toys to themselves. Yellow

marker they would look like the grown-ups. The problem for Vince

Cable is that he's not the force that used to be after his temper

tantrum at the Conference. I will be back with the Daily

Politics next week. If Santer gives you a diary in your stocking, pencil

in Sunday the 20th of January, the first Sunday Politics of 2014.

Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics. Unless it is

Christmas. And New Year.