01/12/2013 Sunday Politics South East

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne

announces a ?50 cut to annual household energy bills. We'll talk

to Lib Dem president Tim Farron ahead of the Chancellor's mini

budget this week. Net immigration is up for the first

time in two years. Labour and the Tories say they want to bring it

down, but how? Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper joins us for the

Sunday Interview. The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will

be for some cornflakes to get to the top. The Mayor of London says

inequality and greed are essential to spur economic activity. The

speech won him plenty And in the south`east, one in my age

are more likely to die as result of domestic islands than any other

cause so capital is now a crisis. Another

week, another strategy? Can this one deliver?

And with me throughout today's programme, well, we've shaken the

packet and look who's risen to the top. Or did we open it at the

bottom? Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates. All three will be

tweeting throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp. So, after

weeks in which Ed Miliband's promise to freeze energy prices has set the

Westminster agenda, the Coalition Government is finally coming up with

its answer. This morning the Chancellor George Osborne explained

how he plans to cut household energy bills by an average of fifty quid.

What we're going to do is roll back the levees that are placed by

government on people's electricity bills. This will mean that for the

average bill payer, they will have ?50 of those electricity and gas

bills. That will help families. We are doing it in the way that

government can do it. We are controlling the cost that families

incurred because of government policies. We are doing it in a way

that will not damage the environment or reduce our commitment to dealing

with climate change. We will not produce commit men to helping

low-income families with the cost of living. Janan, we are finally seeing

the coalition begin to play its hand in response to the Ed Miliband

freeze? They have been trying to respond for almost ten weeks and

older responses have been quite fiddly. We are going to take a bit

of tax year, put it onto general taxation, have a conversation with

the energy companies, engineered a rebate of some kind, this is not

very vivid. The advantage of the idea that they have announced

overnight is that it is clear and it has a nice round figure attached to

it, ?50. The chief of staff of President Obama, he said, if you are

explaining, you're losing. The genius of this idea is that it does

not require explanation. He would not drawn this morning on what

agreement he had with the energy companies, and whether this would

fall through to the bottom of the bill, but the way he spoke, saying,

I am not going to pre-empt what the energy companies say, that suggests

he has something up his sleeve. Yes, I thought so. The energy companies

have made this so badly for so long. It would be awful if he announced

this and the energy companies said, we are going to keep this money for

ourselves. I do not think he is that stupid. The energy companies have an

incentive to go along with this don't they? My worry is that I am

not sure how much it will be within the opinion polls. I think people

might expect this now, it is not a new thing, it is not an exciting

thing. Say in the markets, they may have priced the ten already. If by

Thursday of this week, he is able to say, I have a ?50 cut coming to your

bill. The energy companies have guaranteed that this will fall

through onto your energy bill, and they have indicated to me that they

themselves will not put up energy prices through 2014, has he shot the

Ed Miliband Fox? I think he has a couple of challenges. It is still

very hard. This is an answer for the next 12 months but did is no chance

announced that Labour will stop saying they are going to freeze

prices in the next Parliament. He will say, I have not just frozen

them, I have done that as well and I have cut them. When people look at

their energy bills, they are going up by more than ?50. This is a

reduction in the amount that they are going up overall. Year on 0

will be for George Osborne. He will have to come up with something this

time next year. The detail in the Sunday papers reveals that George

Osborne is trying to get the energy companies to put on bills that 50

has been knocked off your bill because of a reduction by the

government. He is trying to get the energy companies to do his political

bidding for him. It will be interesting to see if they go along

with that, because then we will know how cross the arm with Ed Miliband.

Let's get another perspective. Joining me now from Kendal in the

Lake District is the president of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Good morning. Let me ask you this, the

coalition is rowing back on green taxes, I do comfortable with that or

is it something else you will rebel against? I am very comfortable with

the fact we are protecting for the money is going. I am open to where

the money comes from. The notion that we should stop insulating the

homes of elderly people or stop investing in British manufacturing

in terms of green industry, that is something that I resolutely oppose,

but I am pleased that the funding will be made available for all that.

You cannot ignore the fact that for a whole range of reasons, mostly

down to the actions of the energy companies, you have prices that are

shooting up and affecting lots of people, making life hard. You cannot

ignore that. If we fund the installation of homes for older

people and others, if we protect British manufacturing jobs, and

raise the money through general taxation, I am comfortable with

that. It is not clear that is going to happen. It looks like the

eco-scheme, whereby the energy companies pay for the installation

of those on below-average incomes, they will spin that out over four

years, not two years, and one estimate is that that will cost

10,000 jobs. You're always boasting about your commitment to green jobs,

how do square that? I do not believe that. The roll-out will be longer.

The number of houses reached will be greater and that is a good thing. My

take is that it will not affect the number of jobs. People talk about

green levies. There has been disparaging language about that sort

of thing. There are 2 million people in this country in the lowest income

families and they get ?230 off their energy bills because of what isn't

-- because of what is disparaging the refer to as green stuff, shall

we call it. There will be more properties covered. We both know

that your party is being pushed into this by the Tories. You would not be

doing this off your own bad. You are in coalition with people who have

jettisoned their green Prudential is? -- credentials. You have made my

point quite well. David Cameron s panicked response to this over the

last few months was to ditch all the green stuff. It has been a job to

make sure that we hold him to his pledges and the green cord of this

government. That is why we are not scrapping the investment, we are

making sure it is funded from general taxation. I am talking to

you from Kendal. Lots of people struggle to pay their energy bills.

But all these things pale into insignificance compared to the

threat of climate change and we must hold the Prime Minister to account

on this issue. Argue reconciled to the idea that as long as you're in

coalition with the Tories you will never get a mansion tax? I am not

reconciled to it. We are trying to give off other tax cut to the lowest

income people. What about the mansion tax? That would be

potentially paid for by another view source of finance. That would be

that the wealthy... We know that is what you want, but you're not going

to get that? We will keep fighting for it. It is extremely important.

We can show where we will get the money from. I know that is the

adamant. That is not what I asked you. Ed Balls and Labour run in

favour of a mansion tax, have you talked to them about it? The honest

answer is I have not. It is interesting that they have come

round to supporting our policy having rejected it in power. So if

Labour was the largest party in parliament but not in power, you

would have no problem agreeing with a mansion tax as part of the deal?

If the arithmetic falls in that way and that is the will of the British

people, fear taxes on those who are wealthiest, stuff that is fear,

which includes wealth taxes, in order to fund more reductions for

those people on lowest incomes, that is the sort of thing that we might

reach agreement on. You voted with Labour on the spare room subsidy.

Again, that would be job done in any future coalition talks with Labour,

correct? I take the view that the spare room subsidy, whilst entirely

fail in principle, in practice it has caused immense hardship. I want

to see that changed. There are many people in government to share my

view on that. So does Labour. The problem was largely caused Labour

because they oversaw an increase in housing costs both 3.5 times while

they were in power. The government was forced into a position to tidy

up an appalling mess that Labour left. You voted with Labour against

it, and also, you want... No, I voted with the party conference

Let's not dance on the head of the ten. Maybe they voted with me. - on

the head of a pin. You are also in favour of a 50% top rate of income

tax, so you and Labour are that one there as well? No, I take the view

that the top rate of income tax is a fluid thing. All taxation levels are

temporary. Nick Clegg said that when the 50p rate came down to 45, that

was a rather foolish price tag George Osborne asked for in return

for as increasing the threshold and letting several million people out

of paying income tax at the bottom. So you agree with Labour? In favour

of rising the tax to 50p. I take the view that we should keep our minds

open on that. It is not the income tax level that bothers me, it is

whether the wealthy pay their fresh air. If that can be done through

other taxes, then that is something that I am happy with. -- their fair

share. Given your position on the top rate of tax, on the spare room

subsidy, how does the prospect of another five years of coalition with

the Tories strike you? The answer is, you react with whatever you have

about you to what the electorate hand you. Whatever happens after the

next election, you have got to respect the will of the people. Yes,

but how do you feel about it? We know about this, I am asking for

your feeling. Does your heart left or does your heart fall at the

prospect of another five years with the Tories? My heart would always

follow the prospect of anything other than a majority of Liberal

Democrat government. Your heart must be permanently in your shoes then.

Something like that, but when all is said and done, we accept the will of

the electorate. When you stand for election, you have got to put up

with what the electorate say. I have not found coalition as difficult as

you might suggest. It is about people who have to disagree and

agree to differ. You work with people in your daily life that you

disagree with. It is what grown ups do. A lot of people in your party

think that your positioning yourself to be the left-wing candidate in a

post-Nick Clegg leadership contest. They think it is blatant

manoeuvring. One senior figure says, this is about you. Which bit of the

sanctimonious, treacherous little man is there not to like? What can I

see in response to that. My job is to promote the Liberal Democrats. I

have to do my best to consider what I'd defend to be right. By and

large, my position as an MP in the Lake District, but also as the

president of the party, is to reflect the will of people outside

the Westminster village. That is the important thing to do. Thank you for

joining us. David Cameron has said he wants to get it down to the tens

of thousands, Ed Miliband has admitted New Labour "got it wrong",

and Nick Clegg wants to be "zero-tolerant towards abuse". Yes,

immigration is back on the political agenda, with figures released

earlier this week showing that net migration is on the rise for the

first time in two years. And that's not the only reason politicians are

talking about it again. The issue of immigration has come

into sharp focus because of concerns about the number of remaining ins

and Bulgarians that can come to the UK next year. EU citizenship grants

the right to free movement within the EU. But when Bulgaria and

Romania joined in 2007, the government took up its right to

apply temporary restrictions on movement. They must be lifted

apply temporary restrictions on end of this year. According to the

2011 census, about one eyed 1 million of the population in England

and Wales is made up of people from countries who joined the EU in 004.

The government has played down expectations that the skill of

migration could be repeated. This week David Cameron announced new

restrictions on the ability of EU migrants to claim benefits. That was

two, send a message. That prompted criticism is that the UK risks being

seen as a nasty country. Yvette Cooper joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Welcome to the Sunday Politics, Yvette Cooper. You

criticised the coalition for not acting sooner on immigration from

Romania and Bulgaria but the timetable for the unrestricted

arrival in January was agreed under Labour many years ago, and given the

battle that you had with the Polish and the Hungarians, what

preparations did you make in power? We think that we should learn from

some of the things that happened with migration. It would have been

better to have transitional controls in place and look at the impact of

what happened. But what preparations did you make in power? We set out a

series of measures that the Government still had time to bring

in. It is important that this should be a calm and measured debate. There

was time to bring in measures around benefit restrictions, for example,

and looking at the impact on the labour market, to make sure you do

not have exploitation of cheap migrant Labour which is bad for

everyone. I know that but I have asked you before and I am asking

again, what did you do? We got things wrong in Government. I

understand that I am not arguing. You are criticising them not

preparing, a legitimate criticism, but what did you do in power? Well,

I did think we did enough. Did you do anything? We signed the agency

workers directive but too slowly. We needed measures like that. We did

support things like the social chapter and the minimum wage, but I

have said before that we did not do enough and that is why we

recommended the measures in March. I understand that is what you did in

opposition and I take that. I put the general point to you that given

your failure to introduce controls on the countries that joined in

2004, alone among the major EU economies we did that, should we not

keep an embarrassed silence on these matters? You have no credibility. I

think you have got to talk about immigration. One of the things we

did not do in Government was discussed immigration and the

concerns people have and the long-term benefits that we know have

come from people who have come to Britain over many generations

contributing to Britain and having a big impact. I think we recognise

that there are things that we did wrong, but it would be irresponsible

for us not to join the debate and suggest sensible, practical measures

that you can introduce now to address the concerns that people

have, but also make sure that the system is fair and managed.

Immigration is important to Britain but it does have to be controlled

and managed in the right way. Let's remind ourselves of your record on

immigration. The chart you did not consult when in power. This is total

net migration per year under Labour. 2.2 million of net rise in

migration, more than the population of Birmingham, you proud of that? --

twice the population. Are you proud of that or apologising for it? We

set the pace of immigration was too fat and the level was too high and

it is right to bring migration down. So you think that was wrong?

Overruled have been huge benefits from people that have come to

Britain and built our biggest businesses. -- overall. They have

become Olympic medal winners. But because the pace was too fast, that

has had an impact. That was because of the lack of transitional controls

from Eastern Europe and it is why we should learn from that and have

sensible measures in place now, as part of what has got to be a calm

debate. These are net migration figures. They don't often show the

full figure. These are the immigration figures coming in. What

that chart shows is that in terms of the gross number coming into this

country, from the year 2000, it was half a million a year under Labour.

Rising to 600,000 by the time you were out of power. A lot of people

coming into these crowded islands, particularly since most of them come

to London and the South East. Was that intentional? Was that out of

control? Is that what you are now apologising for? What we said was

that the Government got the figures wrong on the migration from Eastern

Europe. If you remember particularly there was the issue of what happened

with not having transitional controls in place. The Government

didn't expect the number of people coming to the country to be the way

it was. And so obviously mistakes were made. We have recognised that.

We have also got to recognise that this is something that has happened

in countries all over the world We travel and trade far more than ever.

We have an increasingly globalised economy. Other European countries

have been affected in the same way, and America, and other developing

countries affected in the same way by the scale of migration. I am

trying to work out whether the numbers were intentional or if you

lost control. The key thing that we have said many times and I have

already said it to you many times, Andrew, that we should have a

transitional controls in place on Eastern Europe. I think that would

have had an impact on them level of migration. We also should have

brought in the points -based system earlier. We did bring that in

towards the end and it did restrict the level of low skilled migration

because there are different kinds of migration. University students

coming to Britain brings in billions of pounds of investment. On the

other hand, low skilled migration can have a serious impact on the

jobs market, pay levels and so on at the low skilled end of the labour

market. We have to distinguish between different kinds of

migration. You keep trying to excuse the figures by talking about the

lack of transitional controls. Can we skip the chart I was going to go

to? The next one. Under Labour, this is the source of where migrants came

from. The main source was not the accession countries or the remainder

of Europe. Overwhelmingly they were from the African Commonwealth, and

the Indian subcontinent. Overwhelmingly, these numbers are

nothing to do with transitional controls. You can control that

immigration entirely because they are not part of the EU. Was that a

mistake? First of all, the big increase was in the accession

groups. Not according to the chart. In terms of the increase, the

changes that happened. Secondly in answer to the question that you just

asked me, we should also have introduced the points -based system

at an earlier stage. Thirdly there has been a big increase in the

number of university students coming to Britain and they have brought

billions of pounds of investment. At the moment the Government is not

distinguishing, it is just using the figure of net migration. And that is

starting to go up again, as you said in the introduction, but the problem

is that it treats all kinds of migration is aimed. It does not

address illegal immigration, which is a problem, but it treats

university graduates coming to Britain in the same way as low

skilled workers. If Labour get back into power, is it your ambition to

bring down immigration? We have already said it is too high and we

would support measures to bring it down. You would bring it down? There

is something called student visas, which is not included in the

figures, and it does not include university graduates, and it is a

figure that has increased substantially in recent years. They

come for short-term study but they do not even have to prove that they

come for a college course. They do not even have to have a place to

come. Those visas should be restricted to prevent abuse of the

system and that is in line with a recommendation from the Inspectorate

and that is the kind of practical thing that we could do. Can you give

us a ballpark figure of how much immigration would fall? You have

seen the mess that Theresa May has got into with her figures. She made

a target that it is clear to me that she will not meet. I think that is

right. She will not meet it. Can you give as a ballpark figure by which

we can judge you? If she had been more sensible and taken more time to

listen to experts and decide what measures should be targeted, then

she would not be in this mess. You cannot give me a figure? She has

chosen net migration. She has set a target, without ifs and buts. I

think it is important not to have a massive gap between the rhetoric and

reality. Not to make promises on numbers which are not responsible.

OK, you won't give me a figure. Fine. Moving on to crime. 10,00

front line police jobs have gone since 2010 but crime continues to

fall. 7% down last year alone. When you told the Labour conference that

you do not cut crime by cutting the police, you were wrong. I think the

Government is being very complacent about what is happening to crime.

Crime patterns are changing. There has been an exponential increase,

and that is in the words of the police, in online crime. We have

also seen, for example, domestic violence going up, but prosecutions

dropping dramatically. There is a serious impact as a result of not

having 10,000 police in place. You have talked about the exponential

increase in online and economic crime. If those are the big growth

areas, why have bobbies on the beat? That would make no difference. It is

about an approach to policing that has been incredibly successful over

many years, which Labour introduced, which is neighbourhood policing in

the community is working hard with communities to prevent crime. People

like to see bobbies on the beat but have you got any evidence that it

leads to a reduction in crime? Interestingly, the Lords Stevens

commission that we set up, they have reported this week and it has been

the equivalent of a Royal commission, looking at the number of

people involved in it. Their strong recommendation was that this is

about preventing crime but also respectful law and order, working

with communities, and so they strongly took the view with all of

their expertise and the 30 different universities that they have involved

with it, that on the basis of all that analysis, the right thing was

to keep bobbies on the beat and not push them cars. Instinctively you

would think it was true. More visible policing, less crime. But in

all the criminology work, I cannot find the evidence. There is

competing work about why there has been a 20 year drop in overall crime

and everybody has different opinions on why that has happened. The point

about neighbourhood policing is that it is broader than crime-fighting.

It is about prevention and community safety. Improving the well-being of

communities as well. Will you keep the elected Police Commissioners?

Big sigh! What the report said was that the system is flawed. We raised

concern about this at the beginning. You will remember at the elections,

Theresa May's flagship policy, at the elections they cost ?100 million

and there was 15% turnout. You have to have a system of accountability

at the police. Three options were presented, all of which are forms.

So you have to have reform. It is not whether to have reformed, it is

which of those options is the best way to do it. The commission set out

a series of options, and I thought that the preferable approach would

be collaboration and voluntary mergers. We know they won't

volunteer. There have been some collaboration is taking place. I

think the issues with police and crime commissioners have fragmented

things and made it harder to get collaboration between police

forces. Everybody is asking this question, just before you go. What

is it like living with a nightmare? Who does all the cooking, so I can't

complain! Says Miliband people are wrong, he is a dream cook? He is!

In a speech this week, Boris Johnson praised greed and envy as essential

for economic progress, and that has got tongues wagging. What is the

Mayor of London up to? What is his game plan? Does he even have a game

plan and does he know if he has one? Flash photography coming up. Boris.

In many ways I can leave it there. You'd know who I meant. And if you

didn't, the unruly mop of blonde hair would tell you, the language.

Ping-pong was invented on the dining tables of England. Somehow pulling

off the ridiculous to the sublime. It is going to go zoink off the

scale! But often having to speed away from the whiff-whaff of

scandal. Boris, are you going to save your manage?

There's always been a question about him and his as role as mayor and

another prized position, as hinted to the Tory faithful this year at

conference, discussing former French Prime Minister Alan Juppe. -- Alain

Juppe. He told me he was going to be the mayor of Bordeaux. I think he

may have been mayor well he was Prime Minister, it is the kind of

thing they do in funds -- AvD in France. It is a good idea, if you

ask me. But is it a joke? He is much more ambitious. Boris wants to be

Prime Minister more than anything else. Perhaps more than he wants to

be made of London. The ball came loose from the back of the scrum. Of

course it would give great thing to have a crack at, but it is not going

to happen. He might be right. First, the Conservatives have a leader

another Old Etonian, Oxford, Bullingdon chap and he has the job

Boris might like a crack at. What do you do with a problem like Boris? It

is one of the great paradoxes of Tory politics that for Boris Johnson

to succeed, David Cameron must feel. Boris needs David Cameron to lose so

that he can stand a chance of becoming loser. -- becoming leader.

And disloyalty is punished by Conservatives. Boris knows the man

who brought down Margaret Thatcher. Michael Heseltine, who Boris

replaced as MP for Henley, never got her job. In 1986, she took on the

member for Henley, always a risky venture. And why might he make such

a jibe, because he's won two more elections than the PM. Conservatives

like a winner. Boris, against Robert expectations, has won the Mayor of

London job twice. -- public. He might've built a following with the

grassroots but he's on shakier ground with many Tory MPs, who see

him as a selfish clown, unfit for high office. And besides, he's not

the only one with king-sized ambition, and Boris and George are

not close, however much they may profess unity. There is probably

some Chinese expression for a complete and perfect harmony. Ying

and yang. But in plain black and white, if Boris has a plan, it's one

he can't instigate, and if David Cameron is PM in 2016, it may not be

implementable. He'd need a seat and it wouldn't be plain sailing if he

did make a leadership bid. My leadership chances, I think I may

have told you before, or about as good as my chances of ying

reincarnated as a baked bean. Which is probably quite high. So if the

job you want with Brown-esque desire is potentially never to be yours

what do you do? He is, of course, an American citizen by birth. He was

born in New York public hospital, and so he is qualified to be

President of the United States. And you don't need an IQ over 16 to find

that the tiniest bit scary. Giles Dilnot reporting. Helen Lewis,

Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates are here. Is there a plan for Boris and

if so, what is it? I think the plan is for him to say what he thinks the

Tory activist base wants to hear just now. He knows that in 18 months

time they can disown it. I think he is wrong, the way the speech has

played has a limited number of people. He has cross-party appeal.

He has now reconfirmed to people that the Tories are the nasty party

and they have been pretending to be modernised. Is it not the truth that

he needs David Cameron to lose the 2015 election to become leader in

this decade? It is very interesting watching his fortunes wax and wane.

It always seems to happen in inverse proportion to how well David Cameron

is doing in front of his own party. There is no small element of

strategy about what we are doing here. The problem with Boris is that

he's popular with the country, but not with the party's MPs and its

hard-core supporters. This was an appeal to the grassroots this week.

He is not the only potential candidate. If we were in some kind

of circumstance where Boris was a runner to replace Mr Cameron, who

with the other front the? I think it will skip a generation. The recent

intake was ideological assertive. I do not buy the idea that it will be

Jeremy Hunt against Michael Gove. I then, that generation will be

tainted by being in government. It is interesting, what is he trying to

pull? He is ideological. He does not believe in many things, but he

believes in a few things quite deeply, and one is the idea of

competition, both in business and academic selection. He has never

been squeamish about expressing that. We do make mistakes sometimes,

assuming he is entirely political. Look at all the Northern voters who

will not vote for the Tories even though they are socially or economic

the Conservatives. I do not think he helps. Who in the Tories would

help? That is a tough question. To reason me has also been speaking to

the hard right. -- Theresa May. I have been out with him at night. It

is like dining with a film star. People are queueing up to speak to

him. Educational selection is one of the few areas that he can offer. He

has gone liberal on immigration, as are made of London would have to.

Coming up later, should we be allowed to walk the whole length of

the south coast? Some landowners are impressed with lands for footpaths

on their land next to the C. `` next to the seaside.

My second guest was recently selected at an American`style

primary. They are out to launch their Westminster career is just as

another south`east MP and it is house is nearly over. Laura Sands

will not be contesting the next election. She has been a popular MP.

He was what happened when she stood up to ask a question of the Prime

Minister. I think they were cheering, not

booing, but it is hard to tell the difference in Westminster. UK are

having a field day, saying that she is running scared `` the UK

Independence Party. She says the only thing that would have kept her

there was the UKIP challenge. Everyone speaking about her has said

that she is one hell of a fighter. I do not believe the UKIP line. What

she has done is really change a constituency and work hard for the

people. She has delivered amazing results and made herself incredibly

popular. What is significant for both of you

is that I is that is that there is clearly admission

that politics is really tough. Do you think you are prepared for what

might be coming your way if you are elected?

I hope I am prepared. I have certainly done enough work to

prepare myself, talking to other MPs and Lords to get a sense of what

their life is about. I topped the decision through with my family.

Would you be prepared to put politics before your family?

20 years ago I decided I wouldn't but 20 years later it is the right

time. You have a new baby so how will you

feel about walking away from it? That's right but I have a military

background and an used to being away in service of my country. Part of

the service and duty ethos that I've been brought up with our those

things that will allow me to be away for what is only a few days in the

week, not six to nine months at a time.

Among women of my age domestic violence is the biggest killer.

There are many more women than men who never speak out about the abuse.

But the money being spent on services for vulnerable woman has

been capped. `` cuts. The abuse usually takes place behind

closed doors. Domestic violence may be heading but it is widespread.

Support services are under threat and the south`east has been

particularly badly hit. James survived domestic violence both as a

child and as an adult when her ex husband turned controlling, abusive

and eventually violent `` Jane. He pushed me into a road, he tried to

rape me. He leapt on me in the middle of the night. He was a big

guy. I left and got divorced and bought my own house and that was

only through sheer determination that I didn't want to be in that

situation anymore. I had the back`up of my friends and family and they

kept me strong and encouraged me to keep going. Without them I couldn't

have done it. Jane is rebuilding her life but

charities say that there has been a loss of specialist services,

services run by staff who have experience of working specifically

with the mystic violence victims. Here in the south`east, seven

specialist services were lost in the last three years, more than anywhere

else in the country. There were replaced by big general services.

Campaigners say that these black services to support women at risk ``

lack the services. This domestic abuse service in Thanet helps woman

escape abusive relationships and support those who want to remain in

the family home. Staff have to concentrate on face helping women at

the highest risk due to cut budgets. Sometimes we ask ourselves if we are

putting a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. We are at the sharp

end of the work, people who have to flee to refuge because they are

unsafe. By that point people get to that, there is so much that could

have been done before. This is one of the bedrooms in the

refuge. There is space for mum and two children. There have been cut to

these kinds of safe houses. There has been a cut of 15% since 2010.

One reason why there is a looming crisis is a 30% cut in funding. The

ring`fencing budgets for a specialist domestic violence

services was lifted in 2009 and the current coalition government has

reinforced its commitment to letting local councils decide how to spend

the funding. But campaigners argue that small specialist charities are

unable to compete in the tendering process run by councils when they

decide who should provide the mystic violence services.

They are not looking at the pattern of violence. One person had to look

after another residence children while she was trying to throw

herself out of the window. On average, two women every week are

killed by their current or former partners. Jane fears for others who

don't get the help she received. People lose their lives because of

this. If they cut the services, more people will die.

I'm joins by Amber Rudd, the Conservative MP for Hastings and

drive. Councils are spending less on vulnerable people, including women

and children at risk of domestic abuse. We are going backwards and

not for words I don't think so but I take very seriously what I have

heard. Councils have an obligation to

provide refugees and there are many ways of doing that. The other thing

I picked up was the comment about a sticking plaster. We have to make

sure that we constantly get the message out about domestic

violence, that it is unacceptable. We have to start in schools. It

should not be hidden away. I was pleased that Clare's Law was brought

in that allows women to find out about the violent past of potential

partners. We take domestic violence very seriously.

You may take it seriously but do you trust local authorities to spend an

appropriate amount of money? You rightly said that Labour got bit of

the ring`fencing of this budget but you haven't put it back. They just

get their general pot of cash and have to decide what to do with it.

You cannot stop the council spending money meant for domestic violence on

fixing potholes. Shouldn't the government be taking more control?

No, local councils are the best to know what to do with the money. They

will not fix potholes over saving lives.

So why has the money being spent on vulnerable people gone down by 30%

in the last five years? They may have bind other ways ``

found other ways. The Home Office has put in an additional ?40 million

that goes direct to refuges. This government for the first time this

putting rape crisis centres on a level funding. We put in another 3.5

million. We are doing as much as we can and are pushing forward. Nobody

underestimates the importance of it so we are putting pressure on local

councils. Thank you for joining us. This is a

field of expertise for you. You've done a Ph.D. On women's resistance

to domestic violence. But it was the Labour Party who took the

ring`fencing away. They allow councils to spend that money on

anything they like. So that was a mistake? Well let's see what the

results are. There is a politics here we need to think about. The

impact is that vulnerable women are not being served, if so we need to

protect and enhance the nature of specialist services.

Those figures we looked at with those seven services being cut. That

is your biggest concern, that we are losing the expertise of helping

women and indeed men in these situations?

What is really important is that specialist services, people who know

what it is really like to deal with the trauma, the fear, the

disruption, the scaling issues `` schooling issues. The task is to

offer continued support and understanding and counselling and a

whole range of services. You have to understand what women are going

through and the range of services they need and that has to be

protected. Let's look at who makes the decision

about the funding. Your party is all for local democracy and local

authorities making the decision on where they spend money but they are

spending less money on victims of domestic abuse. Do you trust them?

I trust people to elect who they want at every level of government. I

hope they will trust me to be the representative in Westminster. This

is about people deciding who they want to represent them and how did

this bend `` how they spend that money. What we're looking at is a

government that is trying to get its hands on a budget that was

completely out of control and in order to do so it has had to rein in

some of the funding from some of the more egregious areas of spending.

Some are acknowledging that Labour have made a mistake here.

The idea that everything should be done by Westminster is wrong. What

about the responsibility of government to protect the most

vulnerable individuals? The government does have that

responsibility and that is why to raise me `` Theresa May has been

introducing measures. There has been 100 cases where police have

intervened. Clare's Law must help someone in but

it alone with the backdrop of services being cut does not address

the issue. You cannot get more local than domestic violence. You have to

prioritise the experience that women have in their own home.

This isn't only about women. It affects one in six men in their

lives. Another question for you to think

about. Should you have the right to walk anywhere you like along the

south coast? Plans are in place to run a foot path along the whole of

the coastline. Not everybody was keen on the idea. Landowners are

seeing now to people walking on their lands, that's all a bit

predictable, isn't it? You could say that Bartz the

government has `` you could say that but we have tried to follow the

Welsh model of using the highways act to bridge those gaps. So you're

looking for a bit of the compensation, a bit of a pay`out for

the landowners. Yes, it is private property. If you

have your own private property, why shouldn't you be compensated for

people using it? What would you be compensated for?

What are the downsides of people walking on it?

You are potentially losing value on the land because you cannot use it

exclusively for your own use. If the cliff falls into the sea, we

get a bit more of your lands to walk on?

Correct. Do you have sympathy for the

landowners? I do that I'll so have `` I also

have sympathy for the walkers. We are walking around some of the most

beautiful coastlines in the world and it is a fantastic opportunity

for people to get out and exercise. There is a landowner issue and I

understand what the gentleman was saying about getting the rights

appropriately balanced I think there is a I is a

is a bit of work to do on this. Someone from the Ramblers

Association described this as a bed victory for everyone who walks on

our island. Do we all have the right to walk on someone else's land?

If it is someone else's land, there is an issue, but this is about

making it public land. That is an important right that was enshrined

by the last government. We live in the most beautiful part of the

country and people should be able to enjoy that for free. We have a

problem with obesity in this country and this is a fantastic proposal to

get everybody out with rights of access and fresh air to enjoy the

wonderful countryside. You don't need every part of the

countryside joined up to encourage people to go out for a walk though.

You used to be able to rely on the countryside for core support. But it

seems the Conservative Party have annoyed some people in the

countryside. I think you will find that David

Cameron is the Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom and not

a special lobbyist for the countryside.

But you need everybody to get out of coalition.

Yes and I think you will find we will reach that in the next

election. You are right that we needs to keep our links with the

countryside and I am fortunate enough to be living in the

countryside. Farmers will know where to come next

spring then. Time for a round`up of the week.

12 children centres are to close in Kent as part of a cost`cutting

drive. 11 others which were earmarked for closure will now be

speared, costing an extra ?5000 in two years. Council bosses claim they

have made sure the most vulnerable don't lose out.

Earlier this week, I was tested for HIV.

Brighton Kemptown MP Simon Kirby used Prime Minister's Questions to

raise annual World AIDS Day. Brighton and Hove has the highest

prevalence of people with HIV outside London and the rate is

rising. Around one in five don't know they have virus.

It is a brave man who bets against the All Blacks when it comes to

rugby but David Cameron did just that when he promised the New

Zealand PM he would wear a pair of Kiwi cuff links designed by a

jeweller in Brighton if he lost. I did so last week but fortunately

nobody noticed. And days after the PM got into

trouble for suggesting an opposition MP may have taken mind`altering

drugs, a Labour MP asked the MP for Lewes Norman Baker if he had had

mind`altering surgery before becoming the Drugs Minister.

Had I had a lobotomy, I wouldn't be able to answer that question.

You have both just done your first television interviews as prospective

parliamentary candidates. I was at? It should have been longer. It was

great fun. That's all we've got time for this

week. Goodbye. touching on eugenics and things like

that. That is all we have time for. Thank you.

that. That is all we have time for. Thank you. What rabbit has George

Osborne got up his sleeve? And what's David Cameron up to in China?

All questions for The Week Ahead. To help the panel led, we are joined by

Kwasi Kwarteng, Tory MP. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Why has the

government been unable to move the agenda and to the broad economic

recovery, and allowed the agenda to stay on Labour's ground of energy

prices and living standards? Energy has been a big issue over the last

few months but the autumn state and will be a wonderful opportunity to

readdress where we are fighting the ground, the good economic news that

we delivered. If you look at where Labour were earlier this year,

people were saying they would they 5 million people unemployed. They were

saying that there should be a plan B. He is not in the Labour Party?

Elements of the left were suggesting it. Peter Hain told me it would be

up to 3 million people. Danny Blanchflower said it would be 5

million people. So we have got to get the economy back to the centre

of the debate? Yes, the game we were playing was about the economy. That

was the central fighting ground of the political debate. We were

winning that battle. Labour have cleverly shifted it onto the cost of

living. It is essential that the government, that George, talks about

the economy. That has been its great success. I do not think this has

been a week of admitting that Labour was right, plain cigarettes

packaging, other issues. If you look at the big picture, where we are

with the economy, we have the fastest growing economy in the G-7.

Despite Labour's predictions, none of this has happened, none of the

triple dip has happened. The British economy is on a good fitting. That

is a good story for the government to bat on. You say that people have

stopped talking about the economic recovery, but it is worse than that,

people have stopped talking about the deficit? As long as people were

talking about the deficit, the Tories were trusted. But people have

forgotten about it. This country still spends ?100 billion more than

it raises. Yes, I am of the view that the deficit, the national

debt, is the biggest question facing this generation of politicians. You

are right to suggest that the Conservative Party was strong on

this. That head, not deficit, is not going to come down in the

foreseeable future? It is rising. This is a test that George Osborne

is not going to pass. We know what is coming in the Autumn Statement,

it is lots of giveaways, paying for free school meals, paying for fuel

duty subsidies. We are still talking about the cost of living, not

changing it actively wider economy. There might be extra money for

growth but it is not clear what will happen to that. If it is time for

giveaways, let's speak about Labour. I have never been a fan of

giveaways. Fiscal prudence is what our watchword should be. Look at the

headlines. Each time, the deficit figures, the debt figures, were

always worse than predicted. This year it will be significantly

better. I think that is significant. Any kind of recovery is probably

better than no recovery at all. When you look at this recovery, it is

basically a consumer spending boom. Consumer spending is up, business

investment is way down compared with 2008, and exports, despite a 20

devaluation, our flat. Let's get one thing straight, it is a recovery.

Any recovery is better than no recovery. Now we can have a debate

about, technical debate about the elements of the recovery. It is not

technical, it is a fact. There is evidence that there is optimism in

terms of what are thinking... Optimism? If I am optimistic about

the economy, I am more likely to spend money and invest in business.

So far you have not managed that? Exports have not done well either?

Exports are not a big section of the British economy. But of course, they

are important. But given where we were at the end of last year, no

economist was saying that we would be in this robust position today.

That is true, in terms of the overall recovery. Now the PM loves

to "bang the drum abroad for British business" and he's off to China this

evening with a plane-load of British business leaders. And it's not the

first time. Take a look at this Well, you might not think exports

unimportant, but clearly the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do. They

are important, but they are not what is driving the growth at the moment.

We used to talk about the need for export led recovery is, that is why

the Prime Minister is going to China. Absolutely, and he's doing

the right thing. Do we have any evidence that these tend of trips

produce business? The main example so far is the right to trade the

Chinese currency offshore. London has a kind of global primacy. London

will be the offshore centre. Is that a good thing? I have no problem at

all with this sort of policy. I do not think that Britain has been

doing this enough compared with France and Germany in recent years.

I am optimistic in the long term about this dish -- about British

exports to China. China need machine tools and manufacturing products. In

20 years time, China will be buying professional groups, educational

services, the things we excel at. All we need to do is consolidate our

strengths, stand still and we will move forward. The worst thing we can

do is reengineer the economy towards those services and away from

something else. We have a lot of ground to make up, Helen? At one

stage, it is no longer true, but at one stage you could say that we

exported more to Ireland, a country of 4 million people, than we did to

Russia, China, India, Brazil, all combined. I believe we form 1% of

Chinese imports now. The problem is what you have to give up in exchange

for that. It is a big problem for David Cameron's credibility that he

has had to row back on his meeting with the Dalai llama. This trip we

have been in the deep freeze with China for a couple of years. This

trip has come at a high cost. We have had to open up the City of

London to Chinese banks without much scrutiny, we have had to move the

date of the Autumn Statement, and there is no mention of human rights.

It is awkward to deal with that all in the name of getting up to where

we were a few years ago. A month after strong anchor -- one month

after Sri Lanka, where he apologised three human rights abuses, this is

difficult to take. Do we have any idea what the Prime Minister hopes

to do in China this time? I am not sure there is anything specific but

when you go to these countries, certainly in the Middle East China,

they complain, why has the Prime Minister not come to see us? That is

very important. High-level delegations from other countries go

to these places because the addict -- because they are important export

markets. You might look at the Prime Minister playing cricket over there,

and wonder, what is that for? I do not mind the Prime Minister Rajoy

cricket. This is a high visibility mission, chose that politicians in

Britain care. You are part of the free enterprise group. It had all

sorts of things on it like tax cuts for those on middle incomes or above

the 40% bracket, tax cuts worth 16 billion. You will get none of that

on Thursday, we are agreed? No. But he does have two budgets between now

and the election and if the fiscal position is using a little bit, he

may have more leeway than it looked like a couple of months ago. Yes,

from a free enter prise point of view, we have looked at the tax cuts

that should be looked at. The 4 p rate comes in at quite a low level

for people who, in the south-east, do not feel particularly wealthy.

They are spending a lot of money on commuting, energy bills. The

Chancellor has been very open about championing this. He says that the

40p rate will kick in at a slightly higher rate. Labour had a bad summer

and the opinion polls seem to be narrowing. Then they had a good

hearty conference season. The best. Has the Labour lead solidified or

increased the little, maybe up to eight points? If it is a good Autumn

Statement, or the Tories start to narrow that lead by the end of the

year? If they go into 2014 trailing by single digits, they cannot

complain too much. That gives them 18 months to chip away at Labour's

lead. But do they do that chipping away by eight bidding Labour or do

they let time take its course and let the economic recovery continue,

maybe business investment joins consumer spending as a source of

that recovery, and a year from now, household disposable income begins

to rise? That is a better hope than engaging in a bidding war. Be

assured, they will be highly political budgets. That's all for

today. The Daily Politics is on BBC Two at midday all this week, except

on Thursday when we'll start at 10:45 to bring you live coverage and

analysis of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement in a Daily Politics

special for BBC Two and the BBC News Channel. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.