27/10/2013 Sunday Politics South

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed

the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's

11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down

the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with

bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,

and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.

EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron

getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We

were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!

Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our

railways. Does it matter In the South: How much say do you

have if someone wants to build a power station at the end of your

street? Will localism triumph? Is power with

the people or the developers? as many daily journeys made by bus

than by tube, so why is the planned investment in buses not keeping

pace? And with me, three journalists

who've bravely agreed to hunker down in the studio while Britain braces

itself for massive storm winds, tweeting their political forecasts

with all the accuracy of Michael Fish on hurricane watch. Helen

Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt. Now, sometimes coalition splits are

over-egged, or dare we say even occasionally stage-managed. But this

week, we've seen what looks like the genuine article. It turns out Nick

Clegg has his doubts about the coalition's flagship free schools

policy. David Cameron doesn't much like the green levies on our energy

bills championed by the Lib Dems. Neither of them seems to have

bothered to tell the other that they had their doubts. Who better to

discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins

me now. Welcome. Good morning. The Lib Dems spent three years of

sticking up for the coalition when times were grim. Explain to me the

logic of splitting from them when times look better. We will stick

with it for five years. It is working arrangement, but not

surprisingly, where there right areas on which we disagree over

where to go next, we will stand up. It is going to be hard enough for

the Lib Dems to get any credit for the recovery, what ever it is. It

will be even harder if you seem to be semidetached and picky. The

coalition has led on economic policy, some of which were entirely

from our stable. The one you have heard about most often, a Lib Dem

initiative, was to take people on blowing comes out of tax. The

recovery would not have happened, there would not have been confidence

in Britain, had there not been a coalition government with us in it,

making sure the same policies produced fair outcomes. We are not

going to leave the credit for any growth - and there has been very

good news this week. We have played a part in that, and without us, it

would not have happened. Does it not underline the trust problem you

have? You promised to abolish tuition fees. You oppose nuclear

power, now you are cheerleading the first multi-billion pounds

investment in nuclear generation. You are dying out on your enthusiasm

on green levies, and now they are up for renegotiation. Why should we

trust a word you say? In relation to green levies, as you well know, just

under 10% is to do with helping energy and helping people. Unless

there is continuing investment in renewables, we will not have the

British produced energy at cheaper cost to keep those bills down in the

future. At cheaper cost? Explain that to me. Off-shore energy is

twice the market rate. The costs of renewables will increasingly come

down. We have fantastic capacity to produce the energy and deliver lots

of jobs in the process. The parts of the energy bill that may be up for

renegotiation seems to be the part where we subsidise to help either

poor people pay less, or where we do other things. Too insulated the

homes? Are you up to putting that to general taxation? Wouldn't that be

progressive? I would. It would be progressive. I would like to do for

energy bills what the Chancellor has done for road traffic users,

drivers, which is too fuelled motor fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That

would mean there would be an immediate relief this year, not

waiting for the election. So there is a deal to be done there? Yes We

understand we have to take the burden off the consumer, and also

deal with the energy companies, who look as if they are not paying all

the tax they should be, and the regulator, which doesn't regulate

quickly enough to deal with the issues coming down the track. We can

toughen the regulator, and I hope that the Chancellor, in the Autumn

statement, was signalled that energy companies will not be allowed to get

away with not paying the taxes they should. And this deal will allow

energy prices to come down? Yes How could David Laws, one of your

ministers, proudly defend the record of unqualified teachers working in

free schools, and then stand side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he

says he is against them? David Laws was not proudly defending the fact

that it is unqualified teachers He said that some of the new,

unqualified teachers in free schools are doing a superb job. But you want

to get rid of them? We want to make sure that everybody coming into a

free school ends up being qualified. Ends up? Goes through a process that

means they have qualifications. Just as we said very clearly at the last

election that the manifesto curriculum in free schools should be

the same as other schools. It looks like Mr Clegg is picking a fight

just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg was taught by people who didn't have

teaching qualifications in one of the greatest schools in the land, if

not the world. It didn't seem to do him any harm. What is the problem?

If you pay to go to a school, you know what you're getting. But that

is what a free school is. No, you don't pay fees. A free school is

parents taking the decisions, not you, the politicians. We believe

they would expect to guarantee is, firstly that the minimum curriculum

taught across the country is taught in the free schools, and secondly,

that the teachers there are qualified. Someone who send their

kids to private schools took a decision to take -- to send their

children there, even if the teachers were unqualified, because they are

experts in their field. Someone who send their kids to free schools is

because -- is their decision, not yours. Because some of the free

schools are new, and have never been there before, parents need a

guarantee that there are some basics in place, whatever sort of school.

So they need you to hold their hand? It is not about holding hands, it is

about having a minimum guarantee. Our party made clear at our

conference that this is a priority for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view

of the party, and I believe it is an entirely rational thing to do. Nick

Clegg complained that the Prime Minister gave him only 30 minutes

notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's U-turn on green levies. That is

almost as little time as Nick Clegg gave the Prime Minister on his

U-turn on free schools. Aren't you supposed to be partners? Green

levies were under discussion in the ministerial group before Wednesday,

because we identified this as an issue. We do that in a practical

way. Sometimes there is only half an hour's notice. We had even less than

half an hour this morning! Simon Hughes, thank you.

So the price of energy is the big battle ground in politics at the

moment. 72% of people say that high bills will influence the way they

vote at the next election. Ed Miliband has promised a price freeze

after the next election, but will the coalition turned the tables on

Labour, with its proposal to roll back green levies. Caroline Flint

joins us from Sheffield. It looks like the coalition will be able to

take ?50 of energy bills, by removing green levies. It is quite

clear that different parts of the government are running round waking

up to the fact that the public feel that this government has not done

enough to listen to their concerns. Last week, there was a classic case

of the Prime Minister making up policy literally at the dispatch

box. Let's see what they say in the autumn statement. The truth is,

whatever the debate around green levies, and I have always said we

should look at value for money at those green levies. Our argument is

about acknowledging there is something wrong with the way the

market works, and the way those companies are regulated. Behind our

freeze for 20 months is a package of proposals to reform this market I

understand that, but you cannot tell as the details about that. I can.

You cannot give us the details about reforming the market. We are going

to do three things, and I think I said this last time I was on the

programme. First, we are going to separate out the generation side

from the supply side within the big six. Secondly, we will have a energy

pool, or power exchange, where all energy will have to be traded in

that pool. Thirdly, we will establish a tougher regulator,

because Ofgem is increasingly being seen as not doing the job right I

notice that you didn't mention any reform of the current green and

social taxes on the energy bill Is it Labour's policy to maintain the

existing green levies? In 2011, the government chose to get rid of warm

front, which was the publicly funded through tracks a scheme to support

new installation. When they got rid of that, it was the first time we

had a government since the 70s that didn't have such a policy. What is

your policy? We voted against that because we believe it is wrong. We

believe that the eco-scheme, a government intervention which is ?47

of the ?112 on our bills each year, is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't

going to the fuel poor. I am up for a debate on these issues. I am up

for a discussion on what the government should do and what these

energy companies should do. We cannot let Cameron all the energy

companies off the hook from the way in which they organise their

businesses, and expect us to pay ever increasing rises in our bills.

There is ?112 of green levies on our bills at the moment. Did you vote

against any of them? We didn't, but what I would say ease these were

government imposed levies. When they got rid of the government funded

programme, Warm Front, they introduced the eco-scheme. The

eco-project is one of the ones where the energy companies are saying

it's too bureaucratic, and it is proving more expensive than

government estimates, apparently doubled the amount the government

thought. These things are all worth looking at, but don't go to the

heart of the issue. According to official figures, on current plans,

which you support, which you voted for, households will be paying 1%

more per unit of electricity by 2030. It puts your temporary freeze

as just a blip. You support a 4 % rise in our bills. I support making

sure we secure for the future access to energy that we can grow here in

the UK, whether it is through nuclear, wind or solar, or other

technologies yet to be developed. We should protect ourselves against

energy costs we cannot control. The truth is, it is every fair for you

to put that point across, and I accept that, but we need to hear the

other side about the cost for bill payers if we didn't invest in new,

indigenous sources of energy supply for the future, which, in the long

run, will be cheaper and more secure, and create the jobs we

need. I think it is important to have a debate about these issues,

but they have to be seen in the right context. If we stay stuck in

the past, we will pay more and we will not create jobs. How can you

criticise the coalition's plans for a new nuclear station, when jeering

13 years of a Labour government you did not invest in a single nuclear

plant? You sold off all our nuclear technology to foreign companies

Energy provision was put out to private hands and there has been no

obstacle in British law against ownership outside the UK. Part of

this is looking ahead. Because your previous track record is so bad

What we did decide under the previous government, we came to the

view, and there were discussions in our party about this, that we did

need to support a nuclear future. At the time of that, David Cameron

was one of those saying that nuclear power should be a last

resort. And as you said, the Liberals did not support it. We

stood up for that. We set in train the green light of 10 sites,

including Hinkley Point, for nuclear development. I am glad to

see that is making progress and we should make more progress over the

years ahead. We took a tough decision when other governments had

not done. You did not build a new nuclear station. When you get back

into power, will you build HS2? That has not had a blank cheque

from the Labour Party. I am in favour of good infrastructure. Are

you in favour of?, answer the question? I have answered the

question. It does not have a blank cheque. If the prices are too high,

we will review the decision when we come back to vote on it. We will be

looking at it closely. We have to look for value for money and how it

benefits the country. Have you stocked up on jumpers this winter?

I am perfectly all right with my clothing. What is important, it is

ridiculous for the Government to suggest that the answer to the loss

of trust in the energy companies is to put on another jumper.

The coalition has taken a long time to come up with anything that can

trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing energy prices, vote for us. Are

they on the brink of doing so? I do not think so. They have had a

problem that has dominated the debate, talking about GDP, the

figures came out on Friday and said, well, and went back to talking

about energy. My problem with what David Cameron proposes is he agrees

with the analysis that the Big Six make too many profits. He wants to

move the green levies into general taxation, so that he looks like he

is protecting the profits of the energy companies. If the coalition

can say they will take money off the bills, does that change the

game? I do not think the Liberal Democrats are an obstacle to

unwinding the green levies. I think Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal,

but the real obstacle is the carbon reduction targets that we signed up

to during the boom years. They were ambitious I thought at the time

From that we have the taxes and clocking up of the supply-side of

the economy. Unless he will revise that, and build from first

principles a new strategy, he cannot do more than put a dent into

green levies. He might say as I have got to ?50 now and if you

voters in in an overall majority, I will look up what we have done in

the better times and give you more. I am sure he will do that. It might

be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be ?50 on your general taxation bill,

which would be more progressive They will find it. We will never

see it in general taxation. The problem for the Coalition on what

Ed Miliband has done is that it is five weeks since he made that

speech and it is all we are talking about. David Cameron spent those

five weeks trying to work out whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or

whether he is connected to Middle Britain. That is why Ed Miliband

set the agenda. The coalition are squabbling among themselves,

looking petulant, on energy, and on schools. Nobody is taking notice of

the fact the economy is under way, the recovery is under way. Ed

Miliband has made the weather on this.

It UK has a relaxed attitude about selling off assets based -- to

companies based abroad. But this week we have seen the Swiss owner

of one of Scotland's largest industrial sites, Grangemouth, come

within a whisker of closing part of it down. So should we care whether

British assets have foreign owners? Britain might be a nation of

homeowners, but we appear to have lost our taste for owning some of

our biggest businesses. These are among the crown jewels sold off in

the past three decades to companies based abroad. Roughly half of

Britain's essential services have overseas owners. The airport owner,

British Airports Authority, is owned by a Spanish company.

Britain's largest water company Thames, is owned by a consortium

led by an Australian bank. Four out of six of Britain's biggest energy

companies are owned by overseas giants, and one of these, EDF

Energy, which is owned by the French state, is building Britain's

first nuclear power plant in a generation, backed by Chinese

investors. It's a similar story for train operator Arriva, bought by a

company owned by the German state. So part of the railways privatised

by the British government was effectively re-nationalised by the

German government. But does it matter who owns these companies as

long as the lights stay on, the trains run on time, and we can

still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk? We are joined by the general

secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and by venture capitalist Julie Meyer.

They go head to head. Have we seen the consequences of

relying for essential services to be foreign-owned? Four of the Big

Six energy companies, Grangemouth, owned by a tax exile in Switzerland.

It is not good. I do not think there is a cause and effect

relationship between foreign ownership and consumer prices. That

is not the right comparison. We need to be concerned about

businesses represented the future, businesses we are good at

innovating for example in financial services and the UK has a history

of building businesses, such as Monotypes. If we were not creating

businesses here -- Monotise. Like so many businesses creating

products and services and creating the shareholders. Should we allow

hour essential services to be in foreign ownership? It was

demonstrated this week at Grangemouth. If you do not own the

industry, you do not own it. The MPs of this country and the

politicians in Scotland have no say, they were consultants.

Multinationals decide whether to shut a company down. If that had

been Unite union, they are the ones who saved the jobs. They

capitulated. They will come back, like they have for the past 150

years, and capture again what they lost. If it had closed, they would

have lost their jobs for ever. If the union had called the members up

without a ballot for strike action, there would have been uproar. This

person in Switzerland can decide to shut the entire industry down. The

coalition, the Labour Party, as well, when Labour was in government,

they played a role of allowing industries to go abroad, and it

should be returned to public ownership. Nestor. It has

demonstrated that the Net comes from new businesses. We must not

be... When Daly motion was stopped by the French government to be sold,

it was an arrow to the heart of French entrepreneurs. We must not

create that culture in the UK. Every train running in France is

built in France. 90% of the trains running in Germany are built in

Germany. In Japan, it has to be built in that country, and now an

energy company in France is reducing its nuclear capability in

its own country and wants to make profits out of the British industry

to put back into it state industry. That happened with the railway

industry. They want to make money at the expense of their own state

companies. We sold off energy production. How did we end up in a

position where our nuclear capacity will be built by a company owned by

a socialist date, France, and funded by a communist one, China,

for vital infrastructure? I am not suggesting that is in the national

interest. I am saying we can pick any one example and say it is a

shame. The simple matter of the fact is the owners are having to

make decisions. Not just Grangemouth, businesses are making

decisions about what is the common good. Not just in the shareholders'

interest. For employees, customers. What is in the common good when

prices go up by 10% and the reason is that 20 years ago they shut

every coal pit down in this country, the Germans kept theirs open and

subsidised it and now we have the Germans doing away with nuclear

power and they have coal. Under the Labour government, in 2008, the

climate change Act was passed. Well before that, and you know yourself,

they shut down the coal mines to smash the National Union of

Mineworkers because they dared to stand up for people in their

community. Even if we wanted to reopen the coalmines, it would be

pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we are not meant to burn more coal

The can, as if you spent some of the profits, you could have carbon

catch up. That does not exist on a massive scale. You are arguing the

case, Julie Meyer, for entrepreneurs to come to this

country. Even Bob Crow is not against that. We are trying to

argue, should essential services be in foreign hands? Not those in

Silicon round about doing start ups. I am trying to draw a broader

principle than just energy. Something like broadband services,

also important to the functioning of the economy. I believe in the

UK's ability to innovate. When we have businesses that play off

broadband companies to get the best prices for consumers. These new

businesses and business models are the best way. Not to control, but

to influence. It will be a disaster. Prices will go up and up as a

result. Nissan in Sunderland, a Japanese factory, some of the best

cars and productivity. You want that to be nationalised and bring

it down to the standard of British Leyland? It is not bring it down to

the standard. The car manufacturing base in this country has been

wrecked. We make more cars now for 20 years -- than in 20 years.

Ford's Dagenham produced some of the best cars in the world. Did you

buy one? I cannot drive. They moved their plants to other countries

where it was cheaper labour. Would you nationalise Nissan? There

should be one car industry that produces cars for people. This week

the EU summit was about Angela Merkel's mobile phone being tapped,

they call it a handy. We sent Adam to Brussels and told him to ignore

the business about phone-tapping and investigate the Prime

Minister's policy on Europe instead. I have come to my first EU summit to

see how David Cameron is getting on with his strategy to claim power was

back from Brussels. Got any powers back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly,

his fellow leaders were not as forthcoming. Chancellor, are you

going to give any powers back to Britain? Has David Cameron asked you

for any powers back? The president of the commission just laughed, and

listen to the Lithuanian President. How is David Cameron's renegotiation

strategy going? What's that? He wants powers back for Britain. No

one knows what powers David Cameron actually wants. Even our usual

allies, like Sweden, are bit baffled. We actually don't know yet

what is going through the UK membership. We will await the

finalisation of that first. You should ask him, and then tell us!

Here is someone who must know, the Dutch Prime Minister, he is doing

what we are doing, carrying out a review of the EU powers, known as

competencies in the jargon, before negotiating to get some back. Have

you had any negotiations with David Cameron over what powers you can

bring back from Brussels? That is not on the agenda of this summit.

Have you talked to him about it This is not on the schedule for this

summit. David Cameron's advises tummy it is

because he is playing the long game. -- David Cameron's advisers tell me.

At this summit, there was a task force discussing how to cut EU red

tape. Just how long this game is was explained to me outside the summit,

by the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament. I think

the behind-the-scenes negotiations will start happening when the new

commissioner is appointed later next year. I think the detailed

negotiations will start to happen bubbly after the UK general

election. That is when we will start getting all of the detail of the

horse trading, and real, Lake night negotiations. Angela Merkel seems

keen to rewrite the EU's main treaties to deal with changes in the

Eurozone, and that is the mechanism David Cameron would use to

renegotiate our membership. Everyone here says his relationship with the

German Chancellor is strong. So after days in this building, here is

how it looks. David Cameron has a mountain to climb. It is climbable,

but he isn't even in the foothills yet. Has he even started packing his

bags for the trip? Joining us now, a man who knows a

thing or two about the difficulties Prime Minister 's face in Europe.

Former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine. We are nine

months from David Cameron's defining speech on EU renegotiation. Can you

think of one area of progress? I don't know. And you don't know. And

that's a good thing. Why is it a good thing? Because the real

progress goes on behind closed doors. And only the most naive,

because the real progress goes on behind closed doors. Because, in

this weary world, you and I, Andrew, know full well that the moment you

say, I making progress, people say, where? And the machine goes to work

to show that the progress isn't enough. So you are much better off

making progress as best you can in the privacy of private diplomacy. It

is a long journey ahead. In this long journey, do you have a clear

sense of the destination? Do you have a clear sense of what powers Mr

Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a clear sense of the destination,

which is a victory for the campaign that he will win to stay inside the

European community. That is the agenda, and I have total support for

that. I understand that, but if he is incapable of getting any tangible

sign of renegotiation, if he is able only to do what Wilson did in 1975,

which was to get a couple of token changes to our membership status, he

goes into that referendum without much to argue for. He has everything

to argue for. He's got Britain's vital role as a major contributor to

the community. He's got Britain's self interest as a major

beneficiary, and Britain's vital role in the City of London. He's got

everything to argue for. He could argue for that now. He could have a

referendum now. He doesn't want one now. I haven't any doubt that he

will come back with something to talk about. But it may be slightly

different to what his critics, the UK isolationist party people, want.

He may, for example, have found that allies within the community want

change as well, and he may secure changes in the way the community

works, which would be a significant argument within the referendum

campaign. Let me give you an example. I think it is a scandal

that the European Commission don't secure the auditing of some of the

accounts. Perhaps that could be on the agenda. He might find a lot of

contributing countries, like Germany, like Colin and, would be

very keen. -- like Holland. David vetoed the increase in the European

budgets the other day, and he had a lot of allies. So working within

Europe on the things that people paying the European bills want is

fertile ground. Is John Major right to call for a windfall tax on the

energy companies? John is a very cautious fellow. He doesn't say

things without thinking them out. So I was surprised that he went for a

windfall tax. First of all, it is retrospective, and secondly, it is

difficult to predict what the consequences will be. I am, myself,

more interested in the other part of his speech, which was talking about

the need for the Conservative Party to seek a wider horizon, to

recognise what is happening to the Conservative Party in the way in

which its membership is shrinking into a southeastern enclave. Are you

in favour of a windfall tax? I am not in favour of increasing any

taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan Smith's point of view on welfare

reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is right. It is extremely difficult to

do, but he is right to try. I think public opinion is behind him, but it

isn't easy, because on the fringe of these issues there are genuine hard

luck stories, and they are the ones that become the focus of attention

the moment you introduce change. It requires a lot of political skill to

negotiate your way through that. But isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to

invoke the beverage principle, that you should be expected to make a

contribution for the welfare you depend on? Yes, he is. I will let

you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks for joining us.

Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be looking

Welcome to Sunday Politics South. My name's Peter Henley. On today's

show: How would you like one of these at the end of your street?

If you didn't fancy it, is there anything you could do about it? Just

how much power do local people and local councils have?

More on that shortly. First let me introduce the two politicians who'll

be with me for the next 20 minutes. Jo Lovelock is the Labour leader of

Reading Borough Council and Steve Brine is the Conservative MP for

Winchester. They have one thing in common ` they each have their own TV

channel. Here's a little bit of both of them. First, SteveBrineTV, then

Reading Council's round up of local news. I am here as a member but also

as an MP. I'm giving the keynote speech tonight. Let's get inside.

There were special events at the Civic Centre and the Phoenix day

centre. The events showcase the contribution older people have made

and continue to make to Reading's communities. They are good! In this

errant tonic age, you reach more people with that than with a

newsletter? `` LX Ronnie. Absolutely. You have been doing it

since you started. People think I have got a TV crew. Far from it.

Often it is made on the iPhone, edited in a well`known product for

free and it is meant to look rough, to be YouTube style clips. York one

is not so rough. `` yours is not so rough. We have an in`house guy who

is good at putting this together. It is quite cheap. We think that longer

term there will be more of it. I have an apt as well. The can watch

it through the up. People want to watch content, not read it. They

want to interact, not just have it fed to them. All addicts has to

adapt to that. You spoke in the BBC future debate. You were standing up

for local radio. It is going local in some ways. A couple of years ago,

there was a possibility of changes and cutbacks to local radio. MPs

have never seen a response like it. That was listeners. When there is a

crisis in the community, where there's your instinct take you? BBC

local radio. And everybody in Reading cares what happens in

Reading. If it is about the planning application and the bottom of your

road, you will get interested. Half of all car parking in the UK is

run by local authorities, and it's a nice little earner ` ?601 million

last year from parking charges and fines for outstaying your welcome.

This week the Transport Select Committee took a robust approach to

the revenues generated. Parking is essential but many people

believe they are being used as a cash cow. There must be more

transparency. Local authorities should publish what charges they are

raising and how they are playing them.

By law, councils can't use the profits from parking on

non`transport`related spending. But that still means that money they

would have spent on transport programmes can be used elsewhere.

The RAC Foundation produced a report in the summer showing that councils

have a net surplus of nearly half a billion from parking and fines. Jo

Abbott is from the RAC and joins us now from our Westminster studio.

More transparency about what is being raised and how the charges are

being applied. Do you think transparency is the answer?

Absolutely. What Jo said underpins where we should be going in

explaining to local residents how money is being spent. She said the

income now had gone in excess of ?601 million. In fact, the figure is

predicted to be even higher next year. Can you imagine any public

business where shareholders put money in, see profits raised, but

didn't see any paperwork at all to underpin the transactions? Annual

parking reports would be a good way forward to eliminate what is going

on in the parking account business. Do you think the councils are

anti`car in the way they are operating? Perhaps. One of the

things we have to perhaps think about is the number of miles that

all of us use in cars. We cover most of our transport needs in the car.

Over 90% of the travel we do is on the roads. Only 9% is on rail.

Outside the big cities, there isn't a great coverage by bus, even. In a

big conurbation, maybe you have a good service but in a rural

community, you don't have that. You will depend on the car. Every time

you take a car out, it needs to be parked. In our area, we have got

some wonderful historic town centres. Winchester is one,

obviously. Oxford did another. Both of those towns are distinct because

they have excellent facilities. `` distinguished. That is this is a

more way of accommodating people who want to visit those cities. ``

sensible way. We know that some people are anti`car, but as the car

gets arena, they may change their minds. Yes, good park and ride

schemes. Have we got to move away, Jo, from trying to get people out of

their cars? It is about using the right way to get somewhere for a

purpose. If you are going into a crowded town centre which has got

the historic patterns, such as even in Reading, there is simply not

enough street space to allow every car. So it is not so much about

climate change? It is both. It is recognising that at the moment, cars

contribute to pollution. Hopefully, in the future, we will get more

environmentally friendly cars. It is about managing it for everybody. In

particular, if you get a lot of people living near the town centre,

we owe it to them to ensure they can park near their homes. We have

residents' parking schemes, so that people, if they park in that place,

they get fined. It is managing it as well as we can. Do you think some

councils are using this situation? Possibly. It is different in

Winchester. I represent an urban centre. What Winchester has is a

triple ring. On the outer ring, there is cheaper parking, longer

term, park and ride parking. Closer, they have more expensive, a

bit less length. In the centre, short`term parking that costs more.

That works for us. It is currently consulted on with local businesses.

The council has taken on free Sunday parking. It has been popular. If you

want to pop in, that is popular with businesses. It is about getting

balance. You want good, clean air quality in a historic place like

Winchester but you want growth. Are things moving in the right

direction, Jo? In places like Winchester, where they are forward

thinking, things are moving forward. Not every town is like Winchester.

The other areas have to rebuild trust with the local residents to

ensure that they're not just being used as another form of income or an

unfair income for the local councils. All of which, we know, are

short of money. It is important that we see the car as a support for the

economy, particularly at the moment. We do a lot of passenger miles. The

majority are to support businesses. Localism is supposed to be the new

buzzword in planning, the idea being that local communities know best

what's suitable for their area rather than the minister up in

London. But what if a development isn't wanted by the community or the

local council? Does that mean it's a dead duck? As our Hampshire

political reporter Paul Greer reports, that ain't necessarily so.

Ever since this land was reclaimed from the sea, it has been the

gateway to Southampton. It is storage for cars, scrap metal and

even mountains of salt. All of this only yards from residential homes.

Locals have got used to living close to industry. They have recently lost

a fight to prevent a sulphur plant being built nearby. Now I proposal

for a week biomass power station has angered residents. They say enough

is enough. The let's be honest, there is a bit of a Conservative in

us all. Who would want a power station plant from close to where we

live. Just an artist's impression of what this plant might look like.

Nobody is denying it will be big... Really big. Take Southampton's

clocktower. That is about half the height of the proposed biomass

plant. It will change the city's skyline. It is already changing the

politics. There is something you don't see often in Southampton.

Four`year is, Labour and Conservatives have been feuding

over, though, everything. As you'll granny would say, they have been ``

as your granny would say, they have been arguing over anything. Some

issues have to serve the wider interests of the country. A decision

of this major shouldn't sit with a minister in Whitehall. This doesn't

serve anyone's interests. It is too close to people's homes. No one

wants it. It is a frustration shared by those who live close to the

proposed power station. They know when the time comes that their fate

will be decided by national, not local, politicians. We can't make

them listen. They don't go away, we don't go away, we get ready for the

fight. It will be decided nationally, so we have got to make

sure our voices are heard. The local message is we don't want it. We have

got to make sure it is reflected nationally. What can we say? In the

end, it is down to the government. What can we do? We have been to

meetings. We have been to this and that over the years. I don't know

what we can do. You feel powerless? Yeah, very much so. It is

frightening. The irony is, if the proposed power station was small and

had less impact on residents, the final decision would rest with

councillors. Because it is so big, ministers in London will decide what

is best for the country and not just those who have to live near and with

any new power station. Steve, it is frightening for people

at the sharp end if they filmed nowhere to go. I understand. We have

had experience in Winchester of the `` decisions being taken over our

head, and we said no, no, no. In the end, it went to the Inspectorate.

Deep pockets won the day and it was granted over our heads. I have been

on record as saying localism is not true local isn't. It should be. I

argue strongly that we should have abolished the planning Inspectorate.

You cannot have localism that is referred somewhere else. That didn't

localism. That defeats people's belief in their ability to shape

their communities. On the issue, I have got a big wind farm proposed in

my constituency. Ultimately, I don't think it is for me, Peter, to say

they can or can't have that. If the company comes along and makes a good

deal with those residents and it stacks of them locally, should be

able to accept it. Jo, you were nodding. Yet some things have to go

through the national government. If you have got everybody locally

making some very good arguments about white something shouldn't be

on a particular site, and clearly it looks as though it is close to some

dense residential area, there must be somewhere else that something

like this can be built that wasn't quite so in everybody's faces. So

politicians have to try harder. But MPs, their link, I expect they will

be hearing from those residents. Should the government be worrying

about your wallet or your wellbeing? Is improving the economy more

important than improving people's happiness? We had the regional

breakdown of the latest happiness index this week. People all over the

country were asked to rate on a scale of zero to ten how happy they

were feeling. The national average was a score of 7.28. But locally we

went from a happier`than`average Hart in Hampshire with a score of

8.04 to a not`so`optimistic Oxford on Saamah Abdallah works at the

Wellbeing Centre of the New Economics Foundation and joins us

from London. GDP has doubled since the 1970s and

satisfaction has hardly trained `` changed. When measuring the right

thing? We need to know what the economy is doing, to know how we are

faring in terms of production. That is important. But it is only part of

what is important to people's lives. We know there are other

things, health, social relationships, time, the cities they

live in. There is a risk when we focus on GP that we figured other

things. Measuring well`being, we know we are capturing a comic

impacts. People who have low incomes will have low well`being. Well

capturing the hard things that we know are important. But we also

capturing other things like social relationships and environmental

conditions, which also affect well`being. We started doing this a

while ago. Have we seen any signs of things improving as the economy has

changed? For the UK, we have only got two years of data. It is still

early to start making comparisons are talking about changes over time.

Well`being is something that takes time to develop and takes time to be

understandable. And for politicians, would you think they should do in

response? Where can they legislate to improve happiness? The starting

point at the moment is to start looking at what is important to

well`being at the moment. You can do analyses and work`out which people

have high and low well`being. We can look and see which people have

suffering in particular. Which groups. We saw last year that when

you analyse the data across the UK, and you control for things like

income, you still found that ethnic minorities had lower well`being. Why

are people from ethnic minorities with lower well`being? Is it

cultural or something else in society? Let's ask our politicians

about that. The average score for the South is 7.35. Reading is

slightly above. Winchester is quite a lot above, 7.73. Is it

demographics as well, Jo? Some of this is, I would suggest, not rocket

science. With poor health, low income and insecurity where you

live, you are going to be less happy than somebody who has got security,

wealth and all the rest. Is it just about relative wealth? But it is

about what people do with this information. Government policy will

need to change for those who are suffering. Maybe they worry about

how much tax they are paying. Maybe, but it is more worrying if you can't

pay your electricity bill at the end of the week. Even in affluent

Reading, people are choosing between eating and heating. The increase in

foodbanks in the 21st`century, even with a recession, we shouldn't have

people making those choices. And we should be looking at which part of

the population is getting happier. The strongest quarter of it, growth

may make people happier. It will make George Osborne happier. If I

asked a dry cleaner, saying the government was measuring happiness,

I would love to report what he said, but I think you would cut me off. I

think I know what people think of this. I know where the Prime

Minister is coming on this. This is part of his agenda. We all know

this. My parents used to say, money doesn't make you happy. If I had a

choice between health and money, I would choose health. But a bit of

money helps some people? It impacts on your health as well. If you can't

heat to a home, it is going to affect your health. You can't

separate these things out. Now our regular round up of the

political week in the South in 60 Seconds.

Volunteers will no longer deliver meals on wheels in Sussex. The RDS

have contracted out the service to a large catering company and offered

help is other duties. Prior to transfer 200 jobs from the Royal

Surrey Hospital to the private sector have caused a storm. ``

plans. The hospital say the money they will save all in and take on

new nurses and open a new unit. Parents in Dorset are struggling to

find day nurseries for 250 children after the county council decided to

close centres in Blandford and Shaftesbury. It is unusual for

councillors directly to operate nurseries for children. A year after

the company that built born with's surf reef went bust. Contractors are

still trying to trace the owner to recover ?250 `` ?250,000

compensation. And new European rules could help people with food

allergies. Restaurant is now have to display a range of potentially

dangerous ingredients on their menus.

Lots in the public sector being moved to the private sector. Does

that worry you, Jo? Yes. Some things are better delivered by the private

sector. When we have taken things into the private sector, sometimes

we have to bring them back. We should leave no stone unturned. The

austerity we have had to push through from Whitehall, the deficit

is coming down, but it creates tough decisions for government and local

government. They have to decide how the commission services, where they

get the best bang for their buck. It is horses for courses. There is

evidence that a lot of things are delivered more efficiently when you

don't have complicated contracts in the way. Other things, you do need

to find and elsewhere. Thank you for joining us. I will push people

towards your TV channels! That's the Sunday Politics in the

South. Thanks to my guests, Jo Lovelock and Steve Brine. Remember,

you can keep up to date with Southern politics by reading my

blog. There's free school area for into that

Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.

Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the

party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the

these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.

So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP

too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.

too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the minute's silence for HS2? It will

not be quite as crude as that. They will not stand up and say, we

not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it

would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it

that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will

be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will

create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some

point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It

isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see

what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government

when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument

that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won

too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of

alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being

trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the

high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they

didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why

would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For

David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot

proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty

wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by

proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases

tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public

services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because

there was a difference between cancelling something that already

exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does

not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something

here and now. Can Labour do this? I know that the line will be, we are

not going to build this railway because we are going to build

200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think

there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have

changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we

cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot

go ahead with it, but Labour has ruined your chance of prosperity, or

they can tie themselves to it, and then Labour cannot attack it on

great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right

now. They can say, if we were in charge, the financial management

would be much better. This raises some really important questions for

the government. They have utterly failed to make the case for HS2

There is a real case to make. Between London and Birmingham it is

about capacity not speed. North of Birmingham, it is about

connectivity. It is a simple case to make, but it is only in the last

month that they have been making that case. It shows really terrible

complacency in the coalition that they haven't done that. We'll HS2

happen or not? I think it will. For the reasons that Nick outlined,

there is not of a constituency for it amongst Northern areas. -- there

is enough of a constituency for it. There is private investment as well.

It isn't like Heathrow. I say no, because I think Labour will drop

their support for it. Caroline Flint said she was in favour of the

concept of trains generally, but will it go further than that? It is

difficult to see how it will go ahead if Labour will not support it

after setting five tests that it clearly will not meet. Some will

breathe a sigh of relief. Some will say, even in the 20th century, we

cannot build a proper rail network. The economy was another big story of

the week. We had those GDP figures. There is a video the Tories are

releasing. The world premiere is going to be here. Where's the red

carpet? It gives an indication of how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband

and labour in the run-up to the election. Let's have a look at it.

These graphics are even worse than the ones we use on our show! How on

earth would you expect that to go viral? It did have a strange feel

about it. It doesn't understand the Internet at all. Who is going to

read those little screens between it? Put a dog in it! However,

putting that aside, I have no idea that that is going to go viral. The

Tories are now operating - and I say Tories rather than the coalition -

on the assumption that the economy is improving and will continue to

improve, and that that will become more obvious as 2014 goes on. We

just saw their how they will fight the campaign. Yes, and at the

crucial moment, you will reach the point where wages. To rise at a

faster pace than inflation, and then people will start to, in the words

of Harold Macmillan, feel that they have never had it so good. That is

the key moment. If the economy is growing, there is a rule of thumb

that the government should get a benefit. But it doesn't always work

like that. The fundamental point here is that Ed Miliband has had a

great month. He has totally set the agenda. He has set the agenda with

something - freezing energy prices - that may not work. That video shows

that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the

fundamentals. That this is a party that told us for three years that

this coalition was telling us to -- was taking us to hell on a handcart.

That doesn't seem to have happened. The energy price was a very clever

thing, at the party conference season, which now seems years ago.

They saw that the recovery was going to happen, so they changed the

debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately

expecting growth to be 3% next year, which was inconceivable for five

months ago. If growth is 3% next year, living standards will start to

rise again. Where does Labour go then? I would go further, and say

that even though Ed Miliband has made a small political victory on

living standards, it hasn't registered in the polls. Those polls

have been contracted since April -- have been contracting since April.

That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living

standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds

everybody. No one was predicting, not the Treasury, not the media not

the IMF, not the academics, and the only people I can think of... I fit

-- I thought they knew everything! The only people I know who did are

one adviser who is very close to George Osborne, and the clever hedge

fund is who were buying British equities back in January. Because

the Treasury's record is so appalling, no one believe them, but

they were saying around February, March this year, that by the end of

the summer, the recovery would be gathering momentum. For once, they

turned out to be right! They said that the economy would be going gang

bust is! Where did the new Tory voters come from? I agree, if the

economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But

where will they get new voters from? For people who sign up to help to

buy, they will be locked into nice mortgages at a low interest rate,

and just as you go into a general election, if you are getting 3%

growth and unemployment is down the Bank of England will have to review

their interest rates. People who are getting nice interest rates now may

find that it is not like that in a few months time. The point John

Major was making implicitly was that Mrs Thatcher could speak to people

on low incomes. John Major could not speak to them -- John Major could

speak to them. But this coalition cannot speak to them. This idea

about the reshuffle was that David Cameron wanted more Northern voices,

more women, to make it look like it was not a party of seven men. When

David Cameron became leader, John Major said, I do not speak very

often, but when I do, I will help you, because I think you are good

thing and I do not want to be like Margaret Thatcher. But that speech

was clearly a lament for the party he believed that David Cameron was

going to lead and create, but that isn't happening. And energy prices

continue into this coming week. We have the companies going before a

select committee. My information is they are sending along the secondary

division, not the boss. How can they get along -- get away with that I

got the letter through from British Gas this week explaining why my

bills are going up, and at no point since this became a story have any

of the big companies handled it well. I will have to leave it there.

Make sure you pay your bill! That's it for today. The Daily Politics is

back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be back here on BBC One next Sunday.

Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics.