02/02/2014 Sunday Politics South East

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The unions helped

him beat his brother to the top Now Ed Miliband wants to change Labour's

relationship with them. Who will come out on top? We will be asking

one union baron what he thinks. Cracks in the coalition after

Education Secretary Michael Gove sacks the chairwoman of Ofsted. His

Lib Dem deputy is said to be hopping mad. We will be talking to the new

deputy leader of the Lib Dems, Malcolm Bruce.

Caught a bout of the EU blues? David Cameron has been drowning his

sorrows with the President of France. Who better? We will be

asking if the EU referendum bill is dead in the water.

And bad weather getting you down? Getting from A to B a bit of a

nightmare? Fear not! The leader of the Greens will be here with her

In the South East, who lost a vote traffic and travel report. Dutch

In the South East, who lost a vote of no`confidence but he says he will

stay. We will reassurance people want?

Yes, all that and more in today s action-packed Sunday Politics. And

blowing more hot air than I have had hot dinners, Helen Lewis, Nick Watt

and Iain Martin. After the row about candidate

selection in Falkirk, Ed Miliband said he wanted to reshape the

relationship between Labour and the unions. The biggest changes involve

union membership of the party, which in turn will affect future Labour

leadership elections. Some claim this is Ed's Clause 4 moment. But

the unions will continue to be powerful at conference and on the

party's ruling committees, and they will still be able to bankroll the

election campaign. Here is Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman,

speaking earlier. What he is proposing for the March the 1st

conference is a huge change in financing, in the election of the

leader, in what goes on at local level. In due course, it might have

implications for the NEC elections and conference. But this is already

a big issue to take forward. Joining me now is Paul Kenny,

general secretary of the GMB union and chair of the Trade Union and

Labour Party Liaison Organisation. Is this Ed Miliband's Clause 4

moment? I don't know about that It is certainly a bold move,

particularly to have an electoral college, which as you said was the

system which elected him in the first place. Everybody admits that

has needed reforming for some time. Moving to a one member, one vote

situation seems to me to be sensible. I know some people are

upset, mostly MPs, who will lose their golden share. But it is

nonsense that one MP should have the same vote as 1000 party members So

the MPs have lost out. Have the unions lost out? Well, the system is

currently that union members get a ballot paper, but they have to

declare that they are a Labour supporter and they have to sign to

that effect in order to participate. Then their vote is counted. At the

last election, about 200,000 trade union members gave that indication,

and they participated in that way. That will not change. The way it is

organised will be different. The big change in the electoral college is

that the logical weight given to MPs will disappear. I wonder if you have

really lost anything. At the moment, there are about 3 million people

automatically affiliated from the unions to the Labour Party. If only

10% of them opt in, that will still mean twice as many union individual

members, 300,000, versus about 180,000 Labour Party members. So

union members and maybe even the unions will have as big an influence

on the leadership elections as you do now, maybe bigger? Well, they are

individual votes. Different unions support different candidates. It is

lost in the media myth of barons and block votes, but there is an

individual vote. Different unions recommend different candidates, and

union members vote accordingly. Ed Miliband won more individual votes

by a country mile than David, but it got messed up in the process of this

electoral college. As I have understood the proposals so far

they are not a done deal. There is a lot of discussion. But it seems

there are three hurdles. Firstly, union members themselves will have

to agree whether they want to affiliate to the Labour Party. If

they don't, the rest of it falls. If they decide they do my they will ask

union members to support that an individual basis the next five

years, which will have financial implications. Then there will be a

third position, which is that people who may want to agree with the

union's position and affiliate with the Labour Party may want to go

further and become active supporters of the Labour Party, participating

in leadership elections. They will have to give their sanction to that

at a third stage. So the implications in terms of

constituency parties and so on are a lot less than the idea that the 3

million who are currently affiliated will change. At the moment, the

unions, because of the automatic affiliation, hand over a affiliation

fees of about ?8 million a year to Labour. You will now get to keep

that money, because the individuals will have to put up the money

themselves. You can keep that money and determine if you give it to

Labour to fight the election campaign, correct? Incorrect.

Firstly, the affiliation fees are paid from what is called the

political fund, which most unions have to set up in order to

participate. The union will continue to pay the ?3 a affiliation fee for

those members who want the union to be affiliated. But you get to keep a

lot more money. In reality, we will see a transitional period of a few

years. Less people will probably say yes, depending on how popular Labour

are, about whether they want the union to give money to the Labour

Party. The GMB has already done this. By the way, don't call me

kneel. It is Andrew or Mr Neil. The unions will have a bigger chunk of

money because the unions will not be handing over all of the money at one

time. But you could still play a major part in funding the Labour

election campaign. We'll how much you give the dependent on what the

Labour Party puts in its manifesto? Of course it will. It will have to

justify our support to Labour for the members who provide money to the

political fund. If we did not argue for the cert is social justice

campaigns and laws we want to see, we would be failing in our job. I

don't intend to hide that from anybody. The unions are there to

fight for their members. That is our job. So you will still be a major

part of the bankroll of the Labour campaign. You will still have 5 % of

the votes at a Labour conference, and you will still have a major part

in the Labour National executive committee and the policy committee.

It is right to say the unions are still at the heart of Labour, are

they not? Well, if you sick to break the affiliated link between trade

unions and the Labour Party, the whole thing collapses. That is what

anchors the Labour Party as far as we are concerned. Many of our

members think that when they want to look for ferrochrome and rights

social justice, housing and the health service, Labour are better it

quipped to deliver that for working people than the current parties

That is why we have traditionally supported them. But not at all of

our members support Labour, which is why we don't affiliate all of them

to Labour. There are over 30 million people in the British labour force

now. Union membership is only 6 5 million out of that 30. A 6.5% of

that do not vote Labour, they vote Tory or liberal or nationalist in

Scotland. So you are a relatively small pressure group. Why should

Labour be in thrall to you? We are the biggest voluntary organisation

in this country. Sorry about that, but that is the fact. People make

conscious choices. My own union the GMB, has been growing for eight

years. So this dying picture you are trying to paint... In terms of

accounting for the fact that some do not support Labour, that is why

unions do not affiliate all of their members to the Labour Party. We have

adjusted to that. If you don't like being called Neil, I don't like

being called a barren either. What about Mr Baron? I don't like that

either. We are representatives of working organisations. It may be

inconvenient for politicians to have to listen to working people, but we

will continue to press. Lord Baron, thank you very much.

So, is this a Clause 4 moment for Ed Miliband? Not really, but to his

credit, he is going ahead with this. There was a point at which it looked

as though Ed Miliband would back away from reform. To his credit he

is trying to create a mass membership party again. But when it

comes to the crucial business of funding a general election campaign,

these reforms will make Labour more reliant on large donations from

trade unions. They could have more power now, because they get to hold

back this money, whereas beforehand, they had to hand it over

automatically. As Mr Kenny just said, how much they handover will be

dependent on good behaviour. Yes, but these are pragmatic reforms The

fact that Ed Miliband has a lot of capital in not being seen as a

Blairite has helped him get these through . The response has been

muted, which suggests good party management on his behalf. That may

be because they will still have 50% of the votes at a party conference.

Mr Kenny was clear that that could be deal-breaker if they tried to

take that away. They have more places at the NEC than anyone else,

and party members, if only 10% of them signed up, they will outweigh

individual members in the constituencies. It was interesting,

how relaxed Paul Kenny was. He was taking thousands of pounds from the

Labour Party a few months ago because he was annoyed about these

reforms, and now he is relaxed because they still have 50% of the

vote at Labour Party conference and Labour Party Parliamentary

candidates are still selected in the same way. But there is a simple

point here. Yes, you can pick apart what Ed Miliband said and said the

unions have too much influence, but the only way he could have gone all

the way was to break the link with the trade unions, and he was not

going to do that. It was not the Labour Party that founded the

unions, it was the unions that founded the Labour Party. Even Tony

Blair did not break the link. In that context, Ed Miliband has gone

incredibly far. For the last 50 years, this opting into the union,

you have to turn to page 50 of your union terms and conditions to say,

do you want to opt out of the political levy 's that is going to

go, which will mean that when the next Labour leader is elected from

the union votes, they will get their ballot from the Labour Party and you

will append the fast where ballots went out from Unison macro and GMB

with a picture of Ed Miliband on the front of the ballot paper saying,

vote for aid. They were Stasi and Saddam Hussein ways of trade union

members electing the Labour leader, which will go. I am sorry his

Lordship is not still here to answer that question.

HMS Coalition is not a happy ship. The lovey-dovey days in the rose

garden are long gone. It is not a loveless marriage, perhaps even an

open one. The latest split is over the decision by Education Secretary

Michael Gove to replace Labour peer Sally Morgan as head of the schools

inspectorate, Ofsted. Mr Gove's deputy, Lib Dem David Laws, is said

to be spitting blood about her removal, although only through

surrogates. He has not said a word on the record. Here was the

Education Secretary a little earlier. If there is another

opportunity for Sally to serve in a different role at a different time,

then I would be delighted to support her in the role which she thinks it

is appropriate to do. There is nothing wrong with Sally but there

is a principle across government that there should be no automatic

reappointment, and that after three or four years, it is appropriate to

bring in a fresh pair of eyes. That is good corporate practice in order

to ensure that you refresh boards, bring a new perspective, and have

tough questions asked. We're joined now by the newly elected deputy

leader of the Liberal Democrats Malcolm Bruce. He's in Aberdeen

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. David Laws is said to be furious

with Michael Gove, is he? I think he is because Sally Morgan has been

doing a good job and that has been generally agreed across the whole

spectrum. I think Ofsted is an impartial body that inspects all

schools and it shouldn't be subject to some kind of political direction.

That is the concern, that she is being removed when she was doing a

good job and most people thought she should be reappointed. It is

strongly rumoured her successor will be a high-ranking Tory backer. Why

hasn't David Laws said this himself, have you spoken to him? I have, and

I know he is not very pleased about it but he will want to speak to

Michael Gove himself when he gets to see him on Monday. The question you

have to take on board is that David Laws is the schools minister,

effectively the one who has engagement with Ofsted, and he is

seeing it being undermined by the Secretary of State. There is a

question that if Michael Gove is so pleased with Sally Morgan why is he

replacing her, and who will he be replacing her with, and on what

basis? Maybe parliament should have a confirmation hearing so that we

can be assured that whoever is put in charge is there because they are

good at it. Why has he licensed his surrogates to save this rather than

saying it himself? He didn't, he knew I was on the programme this

morning so I am giving you the answers as best I can. David is

perfectly capable of speaking for himself. He hasn't so far. You asked

me to come on this programme and David was anxious for me to know he

wasn't happy about it, and I can certainly tell you that. I can also

give you my own opinion which is that Ofsted is not the Department

for Education, it is an independent body. The question you have to ask

is will Michael Gove but someone in charge of Ofsted who will have a

political agenda? If so, that is not what Ofsted should be used for.

Let's move on to your own position. You are 69, white male,

middle-class, what is your answer to the party with diversity problems? I

don't think that is what they voted on. They felt I had a wealth of

experience that would be vulnerable to the party from the period now

until the election, not least because the central issues that will

concern voters are the economy, and I have a track record of promoting

the party's economic policy over many years. But you are not even

standing at the next election. No, but we need to get to the next

election and my colleagues have confidence that I can do a useful

job for the party in that situation. We have developed and delivered

policies that I have helped to shape and I want to persuade people to

understand the Liberal Democrats have made a fundamental difference

to the economic recovery. But you know what has been happening with

the Liberal Democrats and their problems with women. Wasn't this a

chance to select a woman in a major part? You only have seven female MPs

out of 57, not a single Lib Dem woman in the Parliament. Again, why

you rather than making a break and bringing someone in onto major

positions? My colleagues have concluded that the role I am best

qualified to do it, that is why they voted for me. We do only have seven

women and that is an issue we need to address. Two of those women are

ministers, one is a government whip. We seem to have lost our line to

Aberdeen, just as Malcolm Bruce was in full flight defending his

position. I'm not sure if we can get the line back, just bear with me for

a few seconds to see if we can get it. It looks as if we have lost

Malcolm Bruce, I do apologise to Malcolm Bruce and the viewers that

we were not able to continue that interview.

Fierce winds, torrential rain and a tidal surge have brought more misery

to thousands. Official records show that southern England has seen the

wettest January since records began in 1767. I remember it well. The

Somerset Levels have been hit by weeks of flooding, with little

respite from relentless rain. And, the residents of one village on the

Levels, Muchelney, has been cut off for almost a month. We sent our Adam

out with his wellies and a properly filled out risk assessment form The

very wet road to Muchelney. This village of about 100 residents has

been cut off for about four weeks, and like the weather vane, it feels

a little bit spooky. It came up to here and your front door was there.

Anita is just relieved the water stopped here, practically on her

doorstep. Now it is the practicalities that are the problem.

Driving around for food is quite a hassle. You are foraging. It's not

as bad as that but we do have a few bits in the vegetable garden still,

and we had some nice apples until the rats ate them but we are not

doing too badly on that score. It sounds like the medieval! That's

what it feels like. Talking of retro, who knew Somerset still had a

Coleman, this is Brian's first delivery since Christmas. Everything

has gone old-fashioned. We are now talking to neighbours we might never

have seen before or spoken to so we are getting to know more people in

the village. She's right, there has been an outbreak of Dunkirk spirit,

quite literally. The council and the Fire Brigade have put on this boat

service to get people to work and school. The church has become an

unofficial flood HQ. This is where people pick up their mail, and this

is where the people who run the boat stopped for their tea breaks. It all

seems quite jolly, if a bit boring, but it is no fun for the homes and

businesses that have been inundated, or for the farmers whose land is

underwater, an area the size of Bristol, or for the villages which

are less isolated but where the flooding is worse. People like the

parish chairman are starting to get angry with how the Government has

responded. It was all a bit late. We knew what was going to happen with

the amount of rain on the fields and the Government was so slow to

react. The county council got the boat going quickly but it was

another four weeks nearly before the button was pressed for the major

incident. Right on cue, the cavalry arrived in the shape of emergency

crews from other parts of the UK. The rumour is that they will bring

in a hovercraft but the bad news is that the weather is becoming more

grim this weekend. There has been a surge in bookings at the campsite

where people have seen the Somerset Levels on holiday and would like to

come on holiday, if it ever stops raining. I'm delighted to say we

have got the line back to Aberdeen, somebody has put a shilling in the

meter. We can go back to Malcolm Bruce. We were talking about the Lib

Dem women and your election, I suppose the point some people are

making is that your party has as many knights in Parliament as it has

women and you are one of them. The good news is that for the five MPs

who are standing down, who have had candidates elected in their

constituencies so far, all five candidates that have been selected

are women. We need to fight hard to get behind those women and get them

elected so that we have a much better balanced parliament in the

future, but given that we have few women, you really have to pick

people appropriate for the job and we have appointed the women as I

have said but we need our image to be balanced. How many women

candidates will there be come the next election? At the moment, 1 ,

five more than we have now, and we haven't finished selection. Where

there are men sitting and standing again, that is not likely to change,

but where they are standing down we are overwhelmingly choosing women,

and in my view good and very able women. What I would want to say to

people is that if you want to see the Lib Dems have more women, go to

those seats and help us hold them. We are told that only 20% of the 57

seats have female candidates and in the unlikely event that you were

able to hold onto them all, it still wouldn't be a sea change to have

20%. The point is you have to build them up. We are supporting female

candidates. These are really good candidates who will make first-class

MPs and I certainly believe you will gradually see the Liberal Democrats

taking them on. We don't have 3 0 seats that we currently hold like

other parties, but what I can tell you is that increasing --

increasingly we will have female candidates. One newspaper has said

that you will deal with the Chris Rennard fallout quickly and

privately, what does that mean? It means I will not be telling you

because these things are not helped by comments on the airwaves. I hope

it will be possible to have a resolution without people going to

court but I don't think it helps anybody for me to comment on any

aspect of how this will be done and I'm not prepared to do so. If you

are not in full possession of the facts, why did you say you will deal

with this privately? I have come into this halfway through, I don't

have full possession of the facts, I doubt you do, and we have a process

that needs to be followed through. Any comments in public do not help.

Isn't it hypocrisy of a high order to hear from a party that is

constantly calling for transparency in other institutions but when it

comes to your own, you say, I am not going to talk about it. There are

all sorts of disputes that happen in the world and often people don't

talk about them because talking about them aggravates the

situation. I believe you have to deal with them privately and I don't

think trial by media in this context is helpful and I don't believe that

those who choose to make those comments are making it easier to

solve them. There are problems in other walks of life and the Liberal

Democrats are not the only ones with these problems. We are trying to

change that culture and I think we will do it effectively in our own

way. We have a pastoral care officer now and I think that is the right

way to do it. Thank you for that. Let's now go back to the story of

the flooding in Somerset. We are joined by the leader of the Green

party, Natalie Bennett in Millbank. Natalie Bennett, don't the Green

party bears some responsibility for these floods? You have sided with

the Environment Agency in the decision not to dredge rivers and

that is one of the reason why these places have been flooded. Firstly I

want to give my sympathy to everyone dealing with these floods. The

homeowners, the farmers seeing sodden fields for weeks and weeks.

We get that, we all have huge sympathy, particularly because so

little seems to be done to help them. What is the answer to my

question? I think there is strong evidence that dredging is not the

answer. If you think about the flow of the river, where the pinch points

are is things like bridges, weirs and towns. If you dredge the river

in between those barriers, you just make the water faster to those

points. The experts are saying that dredging is not the answer, it may

be in particular cases, but you have to look at each river system on its

own merits and very often the best way of dealing with this is working

out ways to slow the watered down and make sure that people don't

suffer unduly while you are doing that. The west of England

agricultural Society, which I would venture knows more about the

Somerset Levels than either of us, has said that without dredging, this

was a disaster waiting to happen. The local drainage boards have been

calling for years for dredging to be resumed. The National Farmers' Union

has called for it, and the chairman of the West Sussex flood defences

has called for more drainage, and he is a drainage engineer by

profession. So I don't know where your experts are, but the experts on

the ground am not the urban ones in London, seem to think this has not

been caused, but made worse by the failure of the Environment Agency to

continue to dredge. If you look at the example of the planning and

climate change coalition, which is led by the town and country planning

Association, who you would not describe as a group of radical

greens, these people have said we have to look at how we deal with

flooding in the future. But not in Somerset. These are the people

currently being flooded, not somebody sitting in a quango office

in London. They have asked for this to happen and it hasn't, and they

are now flooded in definitely. We have to look at what is happening on

a case-by-case basis. If you look at Germany, there are many cases there

were, to deal with flooding, many farmers are paid to hold water on

their land. Maybe we need to introduce those systems, because we

have to protect farmland, but we also have to protect urban areas for

safety. We saw a horrible flood in Wales were lines were endangered --

where lives were endangered. That is the priority, to protect lives,

property and farmland. Lives are endangered at the moment,

particularly as this stagnant water turns toxic. And yet we are in a

situation, again encouraged by the Greens and the lobbying Environment

Agency, it says it does not want to dredge because dredging is

expensive, yet it spends millions on a bird sanctuary. That is getting

everything totally wrong. The government is getting everything one

by cutting on flood defences. It has not cut on a bird sanctuaries. I

don't know the details of that. But looking at the broader issue, we

have to prepare for climate change. The government has slashed funding

to the Environment Agency and has cut back on the number of staff

available to deal with it and has removed the requirement on local

councils to plan for climate change. These are all gambling the future of

our lives and property and the future of our environment. Hasn t

the high watermark of greenery now gone well past? You don't come out

of the Somerset Levels with any great reputation. The UK government

is now going to start fracking as quickly as it can. Brussels is

loosening the CO2 obligations for 2030. The President of America is

about to give the go-ahead to the keystone pipeline, a totemic issue

for American greens, and your party is in a state of civil war in

Brighton. It is over, isn't it? Absolutely not. We are seeing large

amounts of extreme weather around the world. Any one event is whether,

but we are seeing a lot of it and people are recognising that climate

change is happening. If we are going to quote international experts, I

can quote to you Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, not known as a

radical green, and he said after the IPCC report came out that the heat

is on and we must act. If you go to Christine Lagarde, head of the

International Monetary Fund, again not a radical green, she was asked

what kept her awake at night, and she said, we are not doing enough

about climate change. So actually, people around the world are looking

at what is happening around them are both people on the ground and people

in high positions are saying we have to act on climate change. And in the

case of Britain, that should absolutely not mean fracking. Sorry

to interrupt, but I have evidence that you are planning a little

career change. Don't go away. This is what happens when you let Nigel

Farage present the weather. One thing leads to another and low and

behold, the Sunday Politics now has a new traffic and travel reporter.

Let's go back to Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett. Thanks, Andrew It

is easy out that, so let's start with our airports. I am pleased to

say that Heathrow's third runway, Boris Island and all short-haul

flights are, just like our arguments, well grounded. We suggest

making or alternative arrangements, like a re-nationalised rail

network, although it would be a glaring omission if we did not admit

that that plan is currently being delayed by Labour Party foot

dragging. Speaking of trains, we are hearing that high-speed two may well

be derailing, or at least getting bogged down in political fog. One

viewer, Ed Balls, has texted in to say he is completely lost. Thanks

for the update, Ed. You are not alone among political commuters

Meanwhile, dumped UKIP manifestoes are causing major tailbacks across

the South, apparently stretching all the way to Brussels. This does make

driving road tricky, but UKIP's MEPs can, of course, just hop on their

gravy train. The tree had a roundabout is blocked after reports

of a political earthquake. It seems that a green unwound his beard to

block a dodgy gas extractor. A motorist who turned out to be the

environment minister object into the delay and was told to frack off as

furious badgers demanded that he stopped moving the goalposts.

Unregulated traffic in the city of London continues unchecked.

Pedestrians should try to block bankers with sacks of loot rushing

for the payments. But do beware the Lib Dem Exodus that is clogging up

the motorways. Although they are in a jam, or is it a fudge, we are

happy to make way for them, as, like all refugees, we say they are

welcome here in muesli green. That is the travel. Back to you, Andrew.

Natalie, I think you make my point. You are now preparing a new career

in traffic and travel. Well, I do believe in lifelong education and

that was an example of it. We know you have had a tough time today to

get to our studio. Thank you for the effort.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20

minutes, we will have more hello, this is the Sunday Politics

in the South East. Coming up later, patients and local politici`ns say

it is bad news for care but the NHS say it will offer better spdcialist

services so who is right about the closure of a mental health tnit at

Medway's Maritime Hospital? Joining me to discuss that, Laura S`ndys,

the Conservative MP for South Thanet, and Paul Richards, the

commentator who lives in Sussex It is the first opportunity we have had

to talk to Laura about her announcement that she will be

standing down at the next election. You explained when you made that

decision in November that you were doing it for personal reasons. Was

it a difficult decision? Anx big decision is never 100% right, it is

always very difficult. Prob`bly for the first time, I am putting family

issues at the forefront. For me it will be really sad to not bd

representing Thanet which I think is one of the most exciting and diverse

and challenging but important parts of this country. I am going to miss

it. You have made it clear ht is for personal reasons. Your opponents

have also made much of the fact they believe you are running scared of

UKIP and Nigel Farage who mhght stand against you. What was

fascinating was when Nigel Farage said he might stand against me, I

ended up with inundation of Liberal Democrats and Labour activists

saying we will deliver leaflets for you, etc. I don't think Nigdl Farage

is the problem at all. I felt reasonably confident that wd would

retain the seat and I hope very much that the new candidate will do that.

And I will work very hard to make sure that happens. It will be a

tough fight, whoever fights it. I think the next election will be a

tough fight altogether. I bdlieve that Thanet has been tradithonally a

Conservative seat and I feel strongly that a good candid`te, with

help from me and other people, we will retain it as a Conserv`tive

constituency. Paul, a lot of people stood up in the Commons and said

what a loss Laura would be to Parliament. It must focus a lot of

minds, choosing to fight an election in such a tough year. Yes, we will

miss Laura, it raises the whder issue of why so many MPs who came in

recently are now leaving. They come in with great expectations but

Parliament doesn't seem to work for some of these newer MPs and there is

a question there, I think. Hs that something you would go along with?

Parliament is a very unique environment. I have describdd it

once or twice as an open prhson It has its personality. I think there

are wider issues that we nedd to look at about X and about some of

the expectations `` about politics. You are breaking out, anywax. It was

meant to be the beginning of a new style of politics, the election of

the first green administrathon in the country to run a local

authority. Two years on, thhngs don't seem quite as positivd. On

Thursday, the two main opposition Tim Brighton and, Labour and the

Conservatives, joined forces to support a vote of no`confiddnce in

Jason Kitcat. `` opposition parties in Brighton. How big a crishs is

this for the party? We our joined by Jason Kitcat himself was th`t you

said you are going to stay hn your position, are you going to tell it

that things are going well? Obviously I would rather not have

faced this motion but it was knowingly and intentionally an empty

gesture that had no force. The opposition parties could work

together to do a real motion, so choosing a new leader, but they

haven't because they are sc`red to do that. The fact of the matter is

we are delivering positive policies in the city with cross`partx

agreement, as we did right `fter the motion was passed on Thursd`y night.

I mentioned it was purely sxmbolic, albeit remarkable to have those

parties working together. There are lot of accusations about yot and the

main one seems to be incompdtence, that you can't balance the books,

you can't come up with a decent budget, that is why you're having to

raise council tax by so much. It is simply untrue. All of the fhgures

show we are doing incrediblx well. We are adding private`sector jobs at

a faster rate than London. We are outperforming the region in terms of

our economy, our visitor nulbers are going up and we have balancdd the

budget every year of our administration. No one else has had

to raise council tax by quite that much. Other local authoritids are

coming in below the 2% amount which would trigger a referendum. Why

can't you go up by 2%? Labotr and the Tories worked together hn the

first year of administration to reject the 3.5% proposal and to go

for a freeze. If they hadn't have done that, we would probablx have

enough resources now to not need more than 2%. He took the short`term

choice then and they are re`ping what they have sown `` they took. I

have the responsibility to put forward the budget I think hs right.

People aren't credibly worrhed about social care. Scope, age UK, lots of

people saying that social c`re in the coming years is in crishs. A lot

of people are worried about the poorest people in society as well,

the bills they have to pay. You say this will cost households an average

of ?5 a month, that is quitd a lot to some who are already strtggling.

This is another accusation, that you are not standing up for the most

vulnerable in society. We brought in last year and we are keeping one of

the most generous schemes of council tax support available, it is capped

that no one will pay more than 3 a week, we are keeping the levels of

support despite government funding reducing. People have said to us

that they think the elderly, disabled and vulnerable do depend on

social services from the cotncil and they want to support that. We think

people should choose, at thhs critical juncture... Labour and

Tories are saying they're going to cut funding for councils down to

zero x 2020. `` by 2020. Yot have had quite a few bad weeks and the

general narrative is that the green party are not actually very good at

it. We are making those dechsions, proposing balanced budget and

delivering. We are reducing our carbon foot went and increasing

income from other sources. Ht fits the narrative that the two lajor

parties, the idea of a new dntrant in the market of politics is

threatening to them. We havd had bad politics but every administration

has events that don't go thd way they would like. Fact we ard

delivering three quarters of manifesto commitments halfw`y

through is a strong record. One of his Labour's predecessors f`ced

several votes of no confidence. All councils struggle, don't thdy? This

reminds me of when militant tendency to go over Liverpool Council in the

80s and drove it to the point of despair. Brighton is a once great

city, now strewn with rubbish, residents are up in arms. It was

under Labour, to be fair. Sdveral times over the last decade. Now the

financial crisis is biting they are going to put the rates up and punish

the poor. If Jason had any decency he would consider his posithon, not

talking about how great he thinks things are in Brighton. He thinks he

is standing up for the vulndrable in society. I think it is a unhque

situation, when you unite both major parties. Not in a party polhtical

way but because they are reflecting the frustration of the residents.

The residents are frustrated by the situation and then they are faced

not only with incompetence, but also a tax hike. You can't have ht both

ways. If they are going to be competent with this money, which

they haven't shown any example of doing so, there might be a reason.

But we have a problem. A dotble whammy. Someone called it political

twerking. They did work togdther but the divisions are very deep. One

wants a council tax freeze, how are they going to run it togethdr? We

are united on the basis of the frustration of the residents who

cannot see a future with a council that doesn't know how to spdnd the

money, isn't competent delivering and wants to put a price hike on

every resident in Brighton. It has been a shambles and reduced Brighton

to a national laughing stock. Anyone outside of the city thinks ht is a

joke city, because of the Greens. Last word to Jason Kitcat. Ht is not

the case, that is why numbers of visitors has gone up. If thdse

policies are so bad, why ard both parties voting for them? Nothing

would happen without the support of the other parties and they `re

supporting it. This is emptx posturing and it is talking down our

great city. Jason Kitcat, thank you very much for joining us.

This week an envelope will land on the desk of the Health Secrdtary

Jeremy Hunt. It is a letter is signed by the Chief Executive of

Medway Council, with the full support of every elected melber It

sets out there objection to the closure of a mental health tnit in

Medway. Bipolar and hospitalised whdn her

youngest child, Zach, was jtst five, Kent resident Lynn Hodges knows only

too well the importance of being treated close to home. I have been

in a mental hospital three times in my life. I was diagnosed with

bipolar in 2004. What is kex to recovery is having family and

friends nearby to help you recover. Also, the fact is you don't want to

be travelling to far from your loved ones. I was very lucky that I had

family who brought my familx up to see me every single day. Thhs didn't

only help me, the service user, it helped my children understand the

illness. But many people went now be treated close to family as the

mental health ward at Medwax Maritime Hospital in Gillingham is

closing. There are 35 beds hn the mental health ward here but the

decision has been made to close it and move patients further afield to

Dartford, Maidstone and Canterbury. Female patients have alreadx been

moved but the men are still here. I had a chat with one pensiondr whose

daughter was recently moved and he had to travel 600 miles in one week

to visit her. Closing the w`rd leaves Medway with no acute mental

health provision. This is the largest conurbation in the South

East outside London and we will have no acute bed facilities, no recovery

house facilities. We know that mental health services in Mddway are

not good enough at any level, taking away these beds is aimed to `` is a

retrograde step. The decision was made by the Kent and Medway social

partnership trust which runs the mental health wards, along with the

NHS Commissioning Board. Thdy say the ward is outdated and thd plan is

to create so`called centres of excellence at the remaining

locations, with more beds available. The decision was then approved by

the Health Secretary. Medwax Council has just written to Jeremy Hunt

asking him to rethink. Centres of excellence are a very good phrase

for covering all manner of hssues, but if this was about somebody

wanting a heart operation, or other specialist surgical requirelents,

the centre of excellence dods in fact make sense. But with mdntal

health, this is not about somebody having an operation. This is about a

state of mind. This is about a state of well`being. Mental health issues

affect a number of large people in the area. In Kent and Medwax there

are between 163 and 190,000 people with common mental health problems

such as anxiety and depresshon. 60,000 people with severe mdntal

illness like severe depresshon or post`traumatic. And 12,000 people

with severe and injuring mental illness, like schizophrenia and

bipolar disorder. It is these illnesses that are most likdly to

lead to hospital treatment. People are more vulnerable to common mental

health problems if in debt, on low incomes or unemployed, factors that

are an issue in the Medway towns. It is a hugely populated area with huge

areas of deprivation and economic issues. And they need that hospital

for the I know they say it hs not fit for purpose and they nedd to

look at it again. I really do think they need to reconsider the options

and look at ways of keeping a mental health wing at Medway Hospital. For

mental health issues, peopld like Lynn Hodges say proximity to family

in familiar areas play a huge part in getting better. There will soon

be fewer but upgraded mental health wards. But is this really stited to

the people it is intended to look after?

Early I put some of those points to the chief officer of the NHS West

Kent clinical commissioning group, which made the decision to close the

unit along with the Kent and Medway NHS and social care trust. H asked

him whether the changes will be good for patients in Medway. The aim of

those changes is to improve the quality, the outcomes for p`tients,

the improved chances of recovery. Most of what we are doing is all

about increasing the range of services in the community. Someone

having a crisis can be supported to stay at home, close to their

family, with all the support they need, in a sense, brought around

them at that point in time. If you need a bed, and it is a verx small

proportion of the total number with severe mental problems or nded a

bed, all the evidence says xou need to be in a place where you can have

the best medical treatment, and that means what we are calling a centres

of expertise. Surgeons use ht all the time for physical treatlent at

hospitals, but where is the evidence that that will actually help mental

health patients? This is not just our view, we tested the moddl we are

looking at with the National clinical advisory team, a group of

national experts around mental health services. We showed them the

model and said, is this right? They said yes and question if we should

be moving to two in Kent, not three overtime. We feel that thred is what

is needed for Kent. Medway Council brought in mental health strategies

to look at the changes and ` recommended to Medway Counchl they

accept these changes. `` thdy recommended. You are increasing the

number of acute beds and investing in services so people can bd treated

in their own homes. But interestingly, both of thosd things

were forced on you as a restlt of public consultation and a condition

of the changes. The underlyhng suspicion is that your orighnal

motive was not to increase bed numbers. I will accept that in terms

of the bed numbers, the consultation raised concerns, we took those

concerns seriously and said, you are right, we need to increase the

numbers. We were always going to increase investment. We are treating

people who are in severe crhsis Major acute mental health problems,

and we are putting them in bays of three or four patients with no

privacy, no way you can sit or talk to a doctor without a nurse or the

rest of the patients listenhng post up if you want to go to the

recreation area you have to be escorted across a public corridor

which does nothing for your independence or self`esteem. If you

want to have a cigarette yot go into a courtyard and the smoke drifts

upwards into the cancer wards. I accept there are problems whth the

hospital and it has been naled as one of the top ten mental hospitals

for the number of deaths th`t happened there. But why not make

changes question what we he`rd about the debt, it is the highest

conurbation in the South East outside London. There is a desperate

need for mental health servhces a need that will probably grow over

the next few years. Why not improve what you have got and keep the

services in Medway? We are developing a new personalitx

disorder service in Medway, proposals around recovery houses, we

are putting a huge amount of time and energy, with the council coming

to enhancing the services in the community for the people of Medway.

There will always be some who have a longer journey, some for whom the

new arrangements are closer. The council is asking Jeremy Hunt to

reverse your decision, any chance? You would have to ask Jeremx Hunt.

Would you reconsider? I wouldn't, I think it is the right decishon, have

spent a long time thinking `bout it, I have talked to people and experts

and I think it is the right thing. Do you think they are doing the

right thing? I think they are doing the right thing in terms of the

hospital themselves. I am going to judge them on whether they will be

truly be delivering this clhnical support in the community, at home, a

wraparound service. We really are facing certain crises when ht comes

to mental health provision. I think it will be very important that we

are really impressed by what they do out there in the community hn Medway

but also Thanet. Would you feel the same if they were closing a unit in

your constituency? We need very good services and the beds themsdlves, I

believe in setting conditions that we need centres of excellence.

Wherever those are located, they will never be more than 40 linutes

from anybody. We need the bdst treatment, not necessarily treatment

in every location. Paul, yot are familiar with the situation in a

Sussex, you rarely get a politician saying that closing beds in a local

hospital is a good thing. The best way to make a local service popular

is to threaten to close it. The issue is that the National health is

was not designed to cope with mental health conditions `` the National

Health Service was not designed I have simply with campaigners who

feel they are losing local services. I would actually see better local

services for mental health patients rather than these centres of

excellence. It also sounds `s if Medway in particular could benefit

from a centre of excellence... I don't disagree, I think the whole

area of mental health needs to be recast. I see we are investhng a lot

more money. I suffer from epilepsy, I feel that this sort of chronic

conditions are not getting dnough attention and I am pushing hard to

ensure that they do. Do you think the council are doing the rhght

thing? The Labour Party council are saying to reverse the decishon, is

it sensible? They are close to it and their residents care about it. I

think they will be judged bx services on the ground with remedial

centres and support given to individuals. And if the govdrnment

had not wasted the money on reorganising the health services,

the money would be there. I knew you would get that in. It was all going

so well! Before we go, a rotnd`up of other political events you light

have missed this week. We have a choice to make between

protecting some of the most vulnerable in society and fhlling

potholes. East Sussex Countx Council say 150 jobs should be cut `nd

council tax should rise by 0.5% At Surrey, the plan is a 1.99% rise but

there is a freeze at West Stssex, 2% is the threshold at which a

referendum, such as in Brighton is triggered. In sandwich on the old

site of a pharmaceutical firm, discovery Park will get ?6 lillion

of government funding. I am sacking him as my constituent. In rdsponse

to what he says was a string of abuse, Tim Lawton sent the sacked

constituent a transcript of a speech which said the MP would end all

Association. Mr Lawton was protected by Parliamentary privilege. Although

they said they had made a mhstake, the police were unrepentant. Did you

apologise to Mr Lawton? No. The issue of council tax brhngs us

back to where we started. Does it feel as though even the conservative

authorities are putting up two fingers to Eric Pickles? Thdy are

trying to deliver services with less money. In a time of austerity there

is more demand and they are all under the same squeeze. The issue

is, why should the poorest people pay the price of the bankers crisis.

Sounds like you are agreeing with Jason Kitcat there. I think 2% is

reasonable. It is the situation may have been placed in by central

government. Laura Sandys, h`ve you ever been tempted to sack a

constituent? 73,000 wonderftl constituents, some of them seem to

take up a lot more time than others. You know who you are! Thank you to

both of my guests. More polhtical debate next week.

Not a complete denial! Hopefully a Conservative mayor again.

Not a good week for David Cameron on the tricky European front last week.

President Hollande said he was not interested in major treaty reform

for 2017. That is when Mr Cameron hopes to hold his in-out referendum.

And the private member's bill to put that referendum on the statute bill

was killed by Labour and Lib Dem peers in the Lords. James Wharton

was the Tory MP behind the bill and he joins me now. What happens now?

It is out of my hands what happens now, because Labour and the Liberal

Democrats conspired in the Lords to kill off my bill. One of the options

is for another private member to bring a bill forward when they have

the next private member's bill at, and we can try again. The prime

minister has indicated that he will support that. But whatever happens,

it will be in the Conservative manifesto at the next election. Do

you accept that cost this is Tory policy and not government policy

that the government policy elite macro cannot bring forward a bill?

That is the problem. The Liberal Democrats, despite having promised a

referendum in their manifesto at the last election, now will not allow

government time for a bill to enshrine that in law. That was why I

brought it forward as a private member's bill. David Cameron and the

Conservative Party through everything behind that. To many

people's surprise, we got it through all the House of Commons stages

Sadly, to their discredit, Labour and Liberal Democrat peers, doing

the bidding of their masters in the Commons, is conspired to kill it. Do

you accept that it is Conservative policy, but not government policy,

that you could not use the Parliament act to get this through

the Lords? That is not the case The Parliament act is clear that if a

public bill passes through the House of Commons twice in one

Parliamentary period, there is a certain amount of time that has to

be between both bills being presented. There are some procedural

steps to be overcome, but there is no legal reason why the Parliament

act could not come into effect. I was talking about you not having a

majority in this case. That remains to be seen. We saw previously that

Labour and the Liberal Democrats sent enough people to frustrate its

progress to make it as difficult as possible, but not huge numbers to

vote against it. On a Friday, huge numbers of MPs do not attend

normally. Getting that number might prove difficult. The Parliament act,

which is a bit of an atomic bomb in constitutional terms, if that was

used, they would turn up to vote against you. Is it not the case that

after the countryside Alliance tried to involve the courts in the hunting

ban that it was made clear that the Parliament act was not to be used

for constitutional issues? I don't think we know how many would turn up

and we don't know how they would vote. One of the things that has

been revealed as I have gone through the process of getting this bill to

get a referendum through the Commons is that there are big splits in the

Labour Party. One of the reasons we did not see them turning up in large

numbers to stop this bill from happening was that Ed Miliband knew

that if he tried to lead his own MPs through the lobbies to block a

bill, the only purpose of which is to let Britain decides to give

people a say on membership of the union, a lot of his MPs may not have

followed him. It is all fantasy politics anyway. The French

president has made clear that he has no interest in treaty change this

side of 2017. He would need a referendum as well . And he needs

that like a hole and had. Merkel is not keen, as she is in coalition

with the social Democrats. Without the French or the Germans, it will

not happen, end of story. The policy is that we will try to negotiate on

getting a better deal. I hear what you are saying, but I don't

recognise it as reality. We have a strong bargaining position. But

whatever the result of that negotiation, it will be put in an

in-out vote to the Britain people. It is time people were allowed to

decide. It has been over a generation since we last had a say.

David Cameron has committed to delivering that referendum. The

Conservative Party will have it in our next manifesto for the election.

Whatever happens to my bill or any other of the bill that comes

forward. If people want a referendum, the only party that can

deliver that in British politics is the Conservatives. Let me bring the

panel in. Nick, where is this going? It is clear to me and anyone who

follows European politics that there is no appetite for major treaty

change in the short run, particularly for the kind of major

changes that Vista Cameron says he is going to get, and yet the Tories

are talking about Europe again when they should be talking about the

economy. And Francois Hollande is looking at 2017, the year we are

meant to have this referendum. There will be a French presidential

election going on, and Nicolas Sarkozy will be back in play by

then. But James has an interesting point, which is that it is down to

Angela Merkel. She would be more receptive to David Cameron's ideas

of reform than people assume. She has looked over the edge at a Europe

without the UK and said, that is not acceptable, and I am willing to pay

a price, not any price, but a price to keep the UK in the European

Union. And the French, because the UK and France are the only serious

military powers in Europe, will eventually come to that position. So

there is more support for David Cameron than people assume. The

French are also not a strong position in terms of the euro and

French economy. The Foreign Office seem a bit more optimistic about

it. Of course they are. Douglas Hurd once told me, we are winning the

arguments on the single currency. Of course anything from the Foreign

Office comes with a health warning, but if David Cameron had won a

majority and was determined to renegotiate, he is in a strong

position with Merkel. There is a possibility that the French could

eventually be talked around. So it is not entirely bleak on that front

for Cameron. When do the Tory party managers say, look, stop banging on

about Europe again? The economy is going away. We still have an

electoral mountain to climb. Let's just talk about that and not be

divided. They should have done that some time ago. It is already too

late. The Tories need a seven point lead in the polls to get image are

tea. The way things are, that would require a huge change from where we

are now . It is very unlikely to happen. So all this is happening in

some bizarre imaginary space with wonderful rainbows and sunshine But

we can detect the beginnings of a shift in the last couple of weeks.

If you talk to Tory backbenchers, Douglas Carswell is now saying in

public that it is time to stop the fighting. If they are to get even

close to winning the election, they can't do it if they are all against

each other. I don't think it is an imaginary space. It is likely that

David Cameron will have the largest party in the election. If it is a

hung parliament and it is the Liberal Democrats and the

Conservative Party, David Cameron will save to Nick Clegg we gave you

an AV referendum, I am having this referendum. And it will be difficult

for Nick to say no. Let me go back to Mr Wharton. You are going to get

a referendum in the manifesto. Other than Ken Clarke, everybody wants it.

So why don't you just banked that and get behind the leadership

Institute causing endless problems and coming across as a Europe

accessed, divided party? I am absolutely behind the leadership.

David Cameron announced the policy I am trying to bring forward in this

bill. It is in line with the speech he gave this time last year. But

getting that commitment into law will help to kick-start the

negotiation process and mean everyone will know where we stand.

But whatever happens, the Conservatives are committed to

delivering a referendum. And to address the point that we talk about

Europe too much, that is not the case. We have a good message on the

economy, on tackling immigration and reforming welfare. There is more to

do, but this is also an important part of policy. But at a time when

the economic news seems to be turning in your direction, you are

talking about the European referendum. Your backbench

colleagues are trying to change the Immigration Bill every which way.

Dominic Rather is putting in an amendment is and Mr Nigel Mills has

been on this programme, putting in amendments that are clearly illegal.

How is that helpful? The fact is that we are in a coalition, so there

are areas of policy where Conservatives might want to go

further and we are not able to do that. In other areas, we are

delivering good reforms. But this is not a matter of going further. The

mill 's amendment was clearly a contravention of the Treaty of Rome.

That is where you get the headlines from. Some of your colleagues have a

death wish? Would they rather have a Miliband government if the choice is

an impure Cameron one instead? I don't think anyone in their right

mind would rather have a Miliband government. Then why are they

behaving that way? We have had some disagreements into the leak and

debate within the party, but it was talked about on the panel just now.

The Conservative Party is behind David Cameron and focused on winning

the next election. Europe is one part of that. We have policies in a

range of areas, but we are getting back on the right track. Thank you

for being patient with us. Is this ghost story going to go

somewhere? Mr Laws is talking through surrogates at the moment,

but there is a strategy by the Lib Dems make these differential points

now. I think it is fantastic coalition sports and entertaining,

but in terms of out there, it has almost no traction whatsoever. I

don't think any voters know who Baroness Morgan is and it sounds

like one but politicians shouting at another bunch of politicians about

their ability to give each other jobs. There is a larger point about

the way Michael Gove runs his government. He is notoriously a very

polite man surrounded by Rottweiler is, his advisers. He has made

enemies of a lot of people in the media, and some of that will come

back on him in the next 18 months. We shall see if Mr Laws himself

sticks his head above the parapet. That is it for this week. The Daily

Politics is on throughout the week at midday on BBC Two, except on

Wednesdays, when we are on at 11:30am. I will be back next week at

the same time. Remember, if it is Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.