21/09/2014 Sunday Politics South

Good morning from Manchester, where the Labour Party are gathering

for their annual conference as British politics adjusts to what

the rest of the UK. in Scotland might mean for

Scotland's decision to vote 'no means more powers heading north

But what about Home Rule for England?

Independence for Scotland has been his life's work. Alex Salmond tells

us why he is stepping down after losing Thursday's vote. And we've

In the South: people who want to

Everyone's talking about devolution to England now

Will it just be more power to the northern cities or will we get

powers and more freedom to spend. But what is the next devolution step

for the capital? With me, the best and brightest political panel in the

business, at least that is what they pay me to say every week. Nick Watt,

Helen Lewis and, this week, we have done some devolution ourselves to

other areas, and we have Sam Coates from the times. The union survived,

but only at the cost of more powers for the Scottish parliament and

enshrining the formula that gives Scotland a privileged position when

it comes to public spending, which has MPs on both sides of the Commons

of in arms. The Scottish question has been answered for now. Suddenly,

the English question takes centre stage, doesn't it? Absolutely. It

has a grubby feel, when that vow was put to the Scottish people, that

they hoped would swing the vote there was nothing about English only

votes. It was unconditional? The Tory proposal did talk very core

justly about looking at the proposals by a former clerk of the

House of Commons that looked at this issue. That was very cautious. -

cautiously. These proposals will not get through Westminster unless David

Cameron addresses the English-only issue. You look at people like Chris

Grayling in the Sunday Telegraph. Alistair Darling on the Andrew Marr

Show said you could not have a link between what you are giving Holyrood

and English-only MPs. Back on says, is welshing on the deal. -- comic he

They were furious that he gave away these tax powers and inscribed the

Barnett formula. They said they weren't going to vote for it. It is

a shameless piece of opportunism. Now they can say that Labour are the

ones that don't trust you and don't want to give you more powers. He

knows it is going to be a tight timetable. The idea of getting a

draft of this out by Burns Night, most people would say, given they

had six years to set up Scottish parliament, the idea we will solve

these huge constitutional questions in four months is absurd. But they

don't care about the constitutional questions, the one they care about

is English votes? There is a simple reason they won that. If you look at

the MPs in England alone, the Tories have a majority of 59, an

overwhelming bias, and if you strip out Wales Scotland and Northern

Ireland, so this has become a partisan issue. The question is

whether David Cameron can follow through on the promise. He said he

would link the two Scottish powers, but it's not clear you will get

either before the general election. It's not but the purpose is to cause

Labour Party discomfort, and it is. You can see with date -- Ed Miliband

this morning, they find it very hard to answer the question, why

shouldn't there be English votes for English laws? Ed Miliband this

morning was saying how London MPs get to vote on London transport and

English MPs don't outside of London and it is confusing, but Labour is

in a difficult position. They were before the Prime Minister made his

announcement. The yes side triumphed in Glasgow, the largest city in

Scotland, a Labour heartland, and the Prime Minister is saying that if

Labour don't agree to this by the time of the general election, he is

handing a gift to the SNP, that that would be the party that the natural

Labour voters would vote for to see off the plan. It's not just Tory

backbenchers. There are Labour backbenchers saying there should be

in which bodes for English laws Even people in the Shadow Cabinet

think it is right. The cases unarguable. If you say her chewing a

partisan way, you can't sell it to the country. Ed Miliband is on

course to have a majority of about 20, and you take the 40 English MPs,

and he hasn't got it. This is a coalition government where the

Conservatives haven't got really to be in charge, they have put in

sweeping laws. Labour should probably take the bullet on this

one. Let's leave it for the moment. But don't go away. As they struggle

to keep the United Kingdom in one piece, David Cameron, Ed Miliband

and Nick Clegg promised to keep something called the Barnett

Formula. It wasn't invented in Barnet,

but by man called Joel Barnett. And it's how

the UK government decides how much public money to spend in Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland. It's controversial,

because it's led to public spending being typically 20% higher

in Scotland than in England. Well, some English MPs

aren't happy about that. I'm joined now by the

Tory MP Dominic Raab. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. How

can the Prime Minister scrap the Barnett Formula when he has just

about to keep it on the front page of a major Scottish newspaper? If we

are going to see financial devolution to Scotland, more powers

of tax and spend, it's impossible not to look at the impact on the

wider union, and there have been promises made to the Scottish and we

should do our best to deliver them, but there have been promises made to

the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If you look at the Barnett

Formula which allocates revenue across the UK, it is massively

prejudicial to those other parts. We have double the number of ambulance

staff and nurses compared to England. The regional breakdown is

more stark with double the amount spent on social housing in Scotland

than in Yorkshire and the North West and the Midlands. The Welsh do very

poorly on social services for the elderly. What are we saying? That

they need our children, patients and the elderly are worth less than the

Scots? That's not the way to have a sustainable solution. I understand

the distribution impact of the Barnett Formula, but Westminster

politicians are already held in contempt by a lot of people and to

rat on such a public pledge would confirm their worst fears. Your

leader would have secured the union on a false prospectus. First of

all, it's clear from the Ashcroft poll that the offer made in the

Scottish newspaper had zero effect and if anything was

counter-productive to the overall result because two thirds of swing

voters in the last few days voted for independence. But we can't keep

proceeding without looking at the promises made to the English. We

said in the referendum that we would have English laws -- English votes

on English issues. The Liberal Democrats, in their manifesto,

pledged to scrap the Barnett Formula. We have to reconcile all of

the promises to all parts of the UK, and Alex Salmond talks about a

Westminster stitch up, but what he's trying to do is, with gross double

standards, is in French stitch up in rapid time, which would be grossly

unfair to the rest of the rest of UK -- is contrive stitch up. What is

unfair about the current spending formula? The extra money Scotland

gets from Barnet, is covered by the oil revenues it sends to London

Scotland is only getting back on spending what it pays in tax. There

is no analysis out there that suggests it is the same amount.

Having voted to stay in the UK. Let me give you the figures. Last year

revenues were 4.5 billion, and the Barnett Formula was worth 4.5

billion to Scotland. It is awash. A huge amount of British taxpayer

investment has gone into extracting North Sea oil, and if we move to a

more federal system, we would need to look at things like the

allocation of resources, but the Barnett Formula has been lambasted

as a national embarrassment and grossly unfair by its Labour Party

architect, Lord Barnett. So what we need is to change this mechanism so

it is based on need. The irony is, when the Scots allocate Avenue to

the -- revenue to their local authorities, it's done on a needs

basis, and what is good for Scotland must be good for the rest of

Britain. One final question. The Prime Minister is now making his

promise of more home rule for Scotland conditional on English

votes for English laws. Why didn't he spell out the condition when he

made his bow to the Scottish people? Why has this condition been tacked

on by the Prime Minister? In the heat of the referendum debate lots

of things were said, but the truth is that Parliament must also look at

this and make its views known, and English MPs as well. You will find

that conservative as well as a lot of Labour MPs would say, we cannot

just rush through a deal that is unsustainable. It has to be good for

all parts of Britain. Yes, we should deliver on our promises for more

devolution to Scotland, but let s deliver on promises to be English,

and Northern Irish. Why are they locked out of the debate? Let's

leave it there. Thank you for joining us.

The man responsible for taking Scottish nationalism from

the political fringes to within touching distance of victory, Alex

Salmond, has a flair for dramatic announcements, and he gave us

another on Friday when he revealed he's to stand

Friends and foes have paid tribute to his extraordinary career.

In a moment I'll be speaking to Alex Salmond,

but first here's Adam Fleming with the story of the vote that broke

The BBC's HQ on the Clyde, the whole place converted into a studio for

Scotland's big night. You know what you need for big events, big

screens, and there are loads of them here. That one is three stories

high, and this is the one Jeremy Vine uses for his graphics. The

other thing that is massive is the turnout in the referendum, it is

enormous. It was around 85% of the electorate, that is 4 million ballot

papers. First to declare Clackmannanshire. No, 19,000. 1 ,000

and 36. The first Noel of the night, and there were plenty more. -- the

first no vote. The better together campaigners were over the moon, like

Jim Murphy, who had campaigned in 100 different towns. I don't want to

sound schmaltzy, but it makes you think more of Scotland. It makes you

small tree. Yes, 194,779. Around five a.m., the Yes campaign

applauded as they won Scotland's biggest city, Glasgow. Dundee went

their way as well, but just for areas out of 32 opted for

independence. How many copies have you had? This is my second cup of

tea on the morning -- how many copies. He was enjoying the

refreshments on offer, but the yes campaigners were not in a happy

place. We are in the bowels of one of the parts of the British

establishment that, I've got to say, has probably done its job in this

referendum, because I think the BBC has been critical in shoring up the

establishment and have supported the no campaign as best as they could.

But there was no arguing with the numbers, and by sunrise, the BBC

called it. Scotland has voted no in this referendum on independence The

result, in Fife, has taken the no campaign over the line and the

official result of this referendum is a no. There we go, on a screen

three stories high, Scotland has said no to independence. As soon as

the newsprint was driving north of the border, the focus shifted south

as the Prime Minister pledged more devolution for Scotland but only if

it happened everywhere else as well. Just as Scotland will vote

separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax,

spending on welfare, so to England, as well as Wales and Northern

Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues, and all this must take

place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement for Scotland.

It began to dawn on us all that we might end up doing this again. See

you for an English referendum soon? Northern Ireland. There could be

another one in Scotland. But not next weekend? Give me a break. There

was no break for Nick, because Alex Salmond came up with one last twist,

his resignation was as leader, my time is nearly over. But the

Scotland, the campaign continues, and the dream shall never die. So,

the referendum settled, the Constitution in flux, and a leader

gone. All in a night work. Alex Salmond is to stand down as

First Minister of Scotland. He shows no signs of going quietly. Last

night, I spoke to the SNP leader in Aberdeen and began by asking him if

it was always his intention to resign if he lost the referendum. I

certainly have thought about it Andrew. But for most of the

referendum campaign I thought we were going to win. So, I was...

Yeah, maybe a few months back I considered it. But I only finally

made up my mind on Friday lunch time. Did you agonise over the

decision to stand down? I'm not really an agonising person. When you

get beaten in a referendum, you have to consider standing down as a real

possibility. Taking responsibility and politics has gone out of fashion

but there is an aspect, if you need a campaign, and I was the leader of

the Yes Campaign, and you don't win, you have to contemplate if you are

the best person to lead future political campaigns. In my

judgement, it was time for the SNP and the broader yes movement, the

National movement of Scotland, they would benefit from new leadership.

In your heart of hearts, through the campaign, as referendum on day

approached, you did think you were going to win? Yes, I did. I thought

for most of the last month of the campaign, we were in with a real

chance. In the last week I thought we had pulled ahead. I thought the

decisive aspect wasn't so much the fear mongering, the scaremongering,

the kitchen sink being thrown at Scotland by orchestration from

Downing Street, I thought the real thing was the pledge, the vow, the

offer of something else. A lot of people that had been moving across

to independence saw within that a reason to say, well, we can get

something anyway without the perceived risks that were being

festooned upon them. You were only five points away from your dream.

You won Scotland's largest city There is now the prospect of more

power. Why not stay and be an enhanced First Minister? Well, it is

a good phrase. I'm not going away, though. I'm still going to be part

of the political process. In Scotland, if people in Aberdeenshire

wish to keep electing me, that is what I will do. But I don't have to

be First Minister of Scotland, leader of the Yes Campaign, to see

that achieved. The SNP is a strong and powerful leadership team. There

are a number of people that would do a fantastic job as leader of the

party and First Minister. I've been leader of the party for the last 24

years, I think it is time to give somebody else a shot. There are many

able-bodied people that will do that well. -- many able people that will

do that well. I'm still part of the national movement, arguing to take

this forward. I think you are right, the question, one of the irony is

developing so quickly after the referendum, it might be those that

lost on Thursday end up as the political winners and those that won

end up as the losers. When we met just for the vote, a couple of days

before the vote, you said to me that there was very little you would

change about the campaign strategy. Is that still your view? Yes. There

are one or two things, like any campaign, there is no such thing as

a pitcher campaign. I would refer not to dwell on such things. I will

leave of my book, which will be called 100 Days, coming out before

Christmas. Once you read that, I will probably reveal the things I

would have changed. Basically, broadly, this was an extraordinary

campaign. Not just a political campaign, but a campaign involving

the grassroots of Scotland in an energising, empowering way, the like

of which in on of us have witnessed. It was an extraordinary phenomenon

of grassroots campaigning, which carried the Yes Campaign so far

almost to victory. If Rupert Murdoch put his Scottish Sun behind you

would have that made the difference? If ifs and ands were pots and

pans... Why did he not? I would not say that, you have form with him

that I do not have. I'm not sure about that. I was very encouraged.

The coverage, not in the other papers, The Times, which was

extremely hostile to Scottish independence, but the coverage in

the Scottish Sun was fair, balanced and we certainly got a very fair

kick of the ball. In newspapers I would settle for no editorial line

and just balanced coverage. We certainly got that from the Scottish

Sun and that was an encouragement. I think you saw from his tweets,

certainly in his heart he would have liked to have seen a move forward in

Scotland and I like that. He said if you lost, that was it, referendum

wise, for a generation, which he defined as about 20 years. Is that

still your view? Yes, it is. It has always been my view. It's a personal

view. There are always things that can change in politics. If the UK

moved out of the European Union for example, that would be the sort of

circumstance. Some people would argue with Westminster parties, and

I'm actually not surprised that they are reneging on commitments, I am

just surprised by the speed they are doing it. They seem to be totally

shameless in these matters. You don't think they will meet the vow?

You don't think there will keep to their vow? They are not, for that

essential reason you saw developing on Friday. The Prime Minister wants

to link change in Scotland to change in England. He wants to do that

because he has difficulty in carrying his backbenchers on this

and they are under pressure from UKIP. The Labour leadership are

frightened of any changes in England which leave them without a majority

in the House of Commons on English matters. I would not call it an

irresistible force and immovable object, one is resistible and one is

movable. They are at loggerheads. The vow, I think, was something

cooked up in desperation for the last few days of the campaign. I

think everybody in Scotland now engines that. -- recognises that. It

was the people that were persuaded to vote no that word tricked,

effectively. They are the ones that are really angry. Ed Miliband and

David Cameron, if they are watching this, I would be more worried about

the anger of the no voters than the opinion of the Yes Vote on that

matter. If independence is on the back burner for now, what would you

advise your successor's strategy for the SNP to be? I would advise him or

her not to listen to advice from their predecessor. A new leader

brings forward a new strategy. I think this is, for the SNP, a very

favourable political time. There have been 5000 new members joined

since Thursday. That is about a 25% increase in the party membership in

the space of a few days. More than that, I think this is an opportunity

for the SNP. But my goal is the opportunity for Scotland. I would

repeat I am not retiring from politics. I'm standing down as First

Minister of Scotland. On Friday coming back to the north-east of

Scotland, I passed through Dundee, which voted yes by a stud --

substantial margin. There was a line of a song I couldn't get out of my

head, and old Jacobite song, rewritten by Robert Burns, the last

line is, so, tremble falls wakes, in the midst of your glee, you've not

seen the last of my bonnets and me. So you are staying a member of the

Scottish Parliament, shall we see you again in the House of Commons?

What does the future hold for you? Membership of Scottish Parliament is

dependent on the good folk of Aberdeenshire east. If they choose

to elect me, I will be delighted to serve. I've always loved being a

constituency member of Parliament, I have known some front line

politicians that regarded that as a chore. I'm not saying they didn t do

it properly, I am sure they did But I love it. You get distilled wisdom

from being a constituency member of Parliament that helps you keep your

feet on the ground and have a good observation as to what matters to

people. I have no difficulty with being a constituent member of

Parliament. Can you promise me it will never be Lord Salmond? Yes

Thanks for joining us. Great pleasure, thank you. Now, the

independence referendum is over the next big electoral test is a general

election. It is just over seven months away. In a moment I will be

talking to Chuka Umunna, but what are the political views of the men

and women fighting to win seats for the Labour Party? The Sunday

Politics has commissioned an exclusive survey of the

Parliamentary candidates. Six out of seven Labour candidates

say that the level of public spending during their last period of

office was about right. 40% of them want a Labour government to raise

taxes to reduce the budget deficit. 18% favour cutting spending. On

immigration, just 15% think that the number coming to Britain is too

high. Only 7% say we generous to immigrants. Three in ten candidates

believe the party relationship with trade unions is not close enough.

Not that we spoke to think it is too close. Or than half of the

candidates say want to scrap the nuclear deterrent, Trident. Four in

five want to nationalise the railways. If they are after a change

of leader, Yvette Cooper was their preferred choice. Chuka Umunna came

in fourth. And he joins me now for the Sunday interview.

Why is Labour choosing so many left-wing candidates? I don't think

I accept the characterisation of candidates being left wing. I don't

think your viewers see politics in terms of what is left and right I

think they see it in terms of what is right and wrong. Obviously, many

of the things we have been talking about, how we ensure that the next

generation can do better than the last, how we raise the wages of your

viewers, who are currently working very hard but not making a wage they

can live off, that is what they are talking about and that is what the

public will judge them on. But they want to raise taxes, they don't want

to cut public spending, they want to re-nationalise the railways, they

don't think there is too much immigration, they want to scrap

Trident. These are all positions clearly to the left of current party

policy. But that is your characterisation. If you look at our

policy to increase the top rate of tax to 50% for people earning over

?150,000, that is a central position. It is something that

enjoys the support of the majority of the public. Trident? If you talk

to the British public about immigration, yes, there are concerns

about the numbers coming in and out, yes people want to see integration,

yes, people want to see people putting a contribution before they

take out, the people recognise, if you look at our multicultural

nation, we have derived a lot of benefits from immigration. I don't

think your characterisation of those positions, that is your view... It's

not, it is their view. They are saying... You describe it... You

described those positions as left wing positions. I am saying to you

that I actually think a lot of those positions are centrist positions

that would enjoy the support of the majority of your viewers. I don t

think your viewers think the idea of the broadest shoulders bearing the

heaviest burden in forms of tax are going to see it as a way out,

radical principle. They want to scrap Trident, not party policy It

isn't. I think that 73... Well, we will

have 400 Parliamentary candidates at the time of the next general

election, not including current MPs. This is 73 out of over 400 of them.

I think we also need to treat the survey with a bit of caution. They

are not representative? You are basically quoting the results of a

small percentage of our Parliamentary candidates. It's

pretty safe to say when you look at their views, they might be right or

wrong, that's not my point, it's fairly safe to say that new Labour

is dead? Again, I don't think people see things in terms of gold -- old

or new Labour. We are standing at a Labour Party. We are a great

country, but we have big challenges. We want to make sure that people can

achieve their dreams and aspirations in this country. Too many people are

not in that position. Too many people worry about the prospects of

their children. Too many people do not earn a wage they can live off.

Too many people are worried about the change. We have to make sure we

are giving people a stake in the future. That is a Labour thing, you

want to call it old or new come I don't care. It's a choice between

Labour and the Conservatives in terms of who runs the next

government. That one of your candidate we spoke to things that

the party's relationship with the unions is to close. 30% of them

think it should be closer. You have spoken to 73 out of 400 candidates.

Why should the others be any different? It's a fairly

representative Sample. Many people working on this set are the member

of the union, the National union of journalists. People that came here

to this Conference would have been brought here by trade union members.

Do you think the relationship should be closer? I think it is where it

should be. It should not be closer? I think that trade unions help

create wealth in our country. If you look at some other success stories

we are in the north-west, GM Vauxhall is there because you have

trade unions working in partnership with government and local employees

to make sure we kept producing cars. I'm not asking if unions are good or

bad, I'm asking if Labour should be closer. You are presupposing, by the

tone of your question, that our relationship is a problem. Let's

turn to the English question. Why do you need a constitutional

conversation where you have to discuss whether English people

voting on English matters is unfair? We want to give the regions

and cities in England more voice, but let's get it into perspective,

we have had a situation where the Scottish people, as desired buying

rich people, have to remain part of the UK -- by English people. What is

the answer to the question? I don't want to get to a situation where

people have voted for solidarity where you have a prime ministers

talking about dividing up the UK Parliament. Let me put this point

you. Most Scottish voters think it is unfair that Scottish MPs get to

vote on English matters. That comes out in Scottish polls. Why don't you

see it as unfair? If the Scots see it as unfair, why don't you? This is

an age-old conundrum that has been around for 100 years and it's not so

simple. You're talking about making a fundamental change to the British

constitution on a whim. It's not just an issue, in respect of

Scottish MPs. As a London MP, I can vote on matters relating to the

transport of England and transport is a devolved matter in London. In

Wales, there are a number of competencies that Welsh MPs can vote

on and they've been devolved to them. So with all of these different

votes, you will exclude different MPs? I think the solution is not

necessarily to obsess about what is happening between MPs in

Westminster. That turns people politics. We need to devolve more. I

think we should be giving the cities and regions of England more autonomy

in the way that we are doing in Scotland, but I've got to say,

Andrew, it's dishonourable and in bad faith for the Prime Minister to

now seek to link what he agreed before the referendum to this issue

of English votes for English MPs. That is totally dishonourable and in

bad faith. You have promised to devolve more tax powers to Scotland.

What would they be? This is being decided at the moment. I cannot give

you the exact detail of what the tax powers would be. Could you give us a

rough idea? There is a White Paper being produced before November and

there will be draft legislation put forward in January. Your leader has

vowed that this will happen. And you haven't got a policy? You can't tell

us what the tax powers will be? I can't tell you on this programme

right now. But we have accepted the principle on further devolution on

tax, spending on welfare and we will have further details in due course.

Your leader promised to maintain the Barnett Formula for the foreseeable

future. Why is that fair when it enshrines more per capita spending

for Scotland than it does for Wales, which is poorer, and more than many

of the poorer regions in England get? Why is that fair? We have said

that in terms of looking at go - local government spending playing

out in this Parliament, we have looked at what the government has

done which is having already deprived communities having money

taken away from them and wealthier communities are getting more. We

accept that the Barnett Formula has worked well. How has it works well?

There is a cross parliamentary consensus as they don't know what to

do about it. Why has it works well, when Wales, clearly loses out? I'm

not sure by I accept that when you look at overall underspend --

government spending. It is per capita spending in Scotland, which

is way ahead of per capita spending in Wales, but per capita incomes in

Scotland are way ahead of Wales Why is that fair Labour politician? We

have said we want to have more equitable distribution. You haven't,

you have said you will keep the Barnett Formula. I'm not sure

necessarily punishing Scotland is the way to go. The way that this

debate is going, what message does it send to the Scottish people? I

want to be clear, I am delighted with the result we have got. The

unity and solidarity where maintaining across the nations of

the United Kingdom. All of this separatist talk, setting up

different nations of the UK against each other goes completely against

what we've all been campaigning for over the last two years, and we

shouldn't have any truck with it. Coming onto the announcement on the

minimum wage, you would increase it by ?1 50 to take it to ?8, which

would be over five years. That is all you are going to do over five

years. Have you worked out how much of this increase will be clawed back

in taxation and fewer benefits? Work has been done on it. How much? I

can't give you an exact figure. The policy pays for itself. The way we

have looked at this, we looked at the government figures, and if

people are earning more, they would therefore be paying more in income

tax and they will be receiving less in benefit and will pay out less in

tax credits, so we are confident that this will pay for itself. I'm

not asking about the pavement, I'm asking what it means for low paid

workers will stop they will get an extra 30p per hour -- about the

payment. How much of the 30p to they get to keep? In terms of what they

get in the first instance, somebody on the minimum wage now, with our

proposal, would get in the region of ?3000 a year more than they are at

the moment. That is before tax and benefits. How much do they keep I

cannot give you an exact figure Why don't you give me an exact figure if

you've done the modelling? We are talking about some of the lowest

paid people in the country, and I would suggest to you that going down

this route, they would face a marginal rate of tax of 50 or 6 %

and they will not keep most of this increase you are talking about. I

don't accept your figures. But you haven't got any of your own. I just

don't have any in my head I can give you right now. Don't you think out

policies before you announce them? Of course we think our policies

before we announce them but we are confident people have more in their

pocket and will be better off with the changes proposed, and we are

also seeking to incentivise employers to pay a living wage as

well. At the end of the day, as I said, the economy is recovering

great, but we know, at the moment, it's still not delivering for a huge

number of your viewers and we're determined to do something about it.

The status quo is not an option And even joining me. Twice in three

days. You can't have too much of a good thing. I am mad. He said that,

not me. It's just gone 11.35, you're

watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland

who leave us now for Coming up here in twenty minutes,

we'll be joined by John Prescott to talk about the challenge facing

Labour as their conference starts My name's Alex Forsyth.

the Sunday Politics where you are. On today's show, could we h`ve some

of what the Scots are having please? Since Friday's referendum rdsult

we've had increased calls The big cities,

some kind of regional assembly, or perhaps the counties shotld be

getting more power. First let's meet

the two politicians who'll be with Peter Lamb is the Labour le`der

of Crawley Borough Council, and Vikki Slade is the Liberal

Democrat parliamentary candhdate As we saw with Andrew,

it's the start of the Labour So we thought we'd get a sense

of how the voters are feeling We went out onto the streets

of Reading to ask people, "If Labour were an animal,

what animal would it be?" They try and blend themselvds

into what people want A lion, ruthless,

but gets the job done. Because it is a big lumbering

beast at the moment. An elephant, because they are big

and friendly and they don't attack Lion.

Cos I don't like lions. Maybe a dog.

Loyal and a friend. A very conservative animal,

something like a labrador. What animal do you think Labour is?

I would go for elephant, we don t forget things, either. Never forget.

Never forget the handling of the economy. I think we come out of the

best side of history there. We can obsess about animals, it is a

typical focus group question. We are trying to reconnect with people Not

very complimentary, lumbering, stuck in the mud. You can't be popular

with everyone, we want to focus on policies that help people. H cannot

give you a free hit, so what about the Liberal Democrats? I wotld like

to think a kangaroo as we bounce back. Or hop all over the place May

be, but we have to represent what the people are saying. `` m`y be. We

are local politicians that `spire to do much greater things. We bounce

back. We get written off and we come back time and again, becausd people

understand that we're trying to do the right thing for the that we

represent. So, the Labour tribe is gathering in

Manchester and our political editor He's been assessing the mood

of southern delegates. Scotland is reverberating

around this conference alre`dy. It may go away, of course,

but here you can tell who wdnt Something about people's

enthusiasm for politics. I think when you talk to people

and say, "Would you "Over your local city,

where you live, your town, All are areas that are big

problems in the South East." A lot of people would say, "I would

like to have more control." Alex Salmond is a consummatd

politician, he has turned it around. There is

an ideal that that has flowdd down All the party leaders, even Ed,

are talking about a new way A couple of weeks ago,

I said to Ed Miliband, "If xou're "thinking of doing a photo

opportunity eating a bacon sandwich, He said, "Looks

like you done enough practice." The huge challenge to face hs to

attract all the people out there who ardn't

voting, and haven't for years. When I did my surgery,

we have people turning up and They know that the stakes are

really high at this election. There is a huge choice for Dngland

now about People have

a clear choice next year to carry on with David Cameron in Downing

Street or do you want changd? David Cameron and George Osborne cut

taxes only for the richest people earning over ?150,000, whild most

people are still worse off. We have a plan to make things better

not just for a few, Isn't the change that is wanted not

just politicians attacking other What people really want is something

that will affect their lives. That is why we say reform the banks,

increase the bank levy and give working parents 25 hours

of free childcare. We say repeat the tax

on bank bonuses and then get all our young people back to work

as unemployment is bad. We say don't cut corporation tax

for big companies, let's give more help to small

businesses by cutting busindss rates These are real tangible

policies that add up. In Scotland there was

a clear choice, yes or no. Something that mattered not just

for the term of a parliament, Can people in the South of Dngland

get confused about politics When there aren't such clear

choices and maybe not so much Peter there. Peter saying that a lot

of people saying the Scottish referendum was a celebration of

democracy. Such a high turnout. We have not seen that engagement

anywhere house up to that point How do you think you can get th`t

replicated? I find it worryhng to move away from politics. Wh`t

when devolution 1st failed hn Scotland in the 1970s, the community

came together. It was members of civil society and they came up with

a new plan. That provided the blueprint. I think it is tile that

the English are given the s`me opportunity. The opportunitx to have

a conversation. A national Government. 1 advice real

representation. `` 1 that provides. You have some work cut out for you

to make inroads you need. You haven't really got that

representation on the ground. You need to winning seats in thd south.

What I going to do about th`t? We will win seats in the South. We go

out and make sure that we pdrsuade people we are the party of choice.

We increased our majority in Hastings. It is tiny. If yot look at

the South, Labour are not anywhere near where you were in 1997. The

reality is the south`east is tend to be a Conservative stronghold, but

there are lots of areas where people recognise the difference th`t the

Labour Party makes. We are seeing the swing. You can see it in the

opinion polls. Labour doesn't have a huge lead. It is southern m`rshals

that make the difference. L`bour is ahead. The Liberal Democrats have a

similar problem. You have lost a lot of support. You have a tough battle

ahead as you have being Govdrnment for four years and where yot are

strong on the ground and thd grassroots is where the support has

fallen away. I don't think ht has fallen away as much as you would

suggest. What has fallen a way other people that look at us as a process

party. `` protest. But a lot of people see our position in the

middle ground is a good poshtion. They do not like you're right, they

do not like the Conservativd tough, but careless and not actually caring

about the people. They don't trust the Labour politician to buhld. .

How can they trust you when you have made promises that were broken? And

those they were made a lot of broken promises. We have one real problem

with tuition fees and we accept that and it has apologise. There was an

error of judgement. But we have delivered through all of thd four

things that were on the front of our manifesto. Increasing the ldvel that

you pay tax to ?10,000, triple lock mansion and a vote on the w`y that

we vote. We promise things `nd they were delivered. Are you getting

these policies through? You say there is disillusionment with

Westminster politics, how'd you get the message out to people when you

talk in terms of triple lock pensions and you are alreadx

criticising the other partids. The areas that have a Liberal Ddmocrat

MP, most of those MPs are so strong in their local area, they are very

good constituency MPs. They have often been, as I am, a local

Government, from the ground, we live in our communities, we have lived

there for a long time and h`ve done local things. We truly understand

communities. The people that have got those MPs really value them and

I think that is what we havd to do. The Scottish referendum showed us

about the people of Scotland want to be ruled closer. That is whx the SNP

got such support. In the European elections, we saw UKIP banghng the

drum about everything going to Brussels. We want to bring the

decision`making home. Actually, by bringing MPs that come from the

communities, we can do that and rebuild trust in their local MP to

put their local area first. Briefly, you both face the UKIP thre`ts. They

have made inroads. Are you worried? No. I don't see it locally. By a

large... They appealed to L`bour voters. They're done very wdll

across some parts. They cannot dismiss them. It is a process

party. No one ever thought the Liberal Democrats would get into

Government. Look how long it took. It's took 25 years and we h`ve

achieved some great things. And I hope you `` I'm sure you want to do

it again. Thank you both. Now you might have missed there

was a referendum this week. No, not that one, it was ond

in Burford in Oxfordshire. Maybe not quite such a largd

electorate as in Scotland, but The result was No by an even

larger margin than the other one. It was born of a sense that England

wanted to get involved in the issue as well and had

a real interest in the outcome. And it wasn't long after we knew

that outcome that politicians started falling over one another to

say that here in England we'll One of the big mistakes of the 980s

was that we took away from County Councils and other unitary

authorities much of the powdr that determined whether they werd

effective in local Government. We took away much of their fundraising

ability. I think there is a strong argument that says once we have

started out the structure of the United Kingdom, maybe there is an

argument for more devolution. I think we should now work with the

kind of building blocks that people recognise, counties and cithes, but

also make sure that those areas have got more powers to decide things for

themselves, including raising more money than they presently c`n for

themselves. I have long belheved that a crucial part missing from

this national discussion is England. It is also important that wd have

wider civic engagement about how to improve governance throughott our

United Kingdom, including how to empower our great cities. The views

of some of the party leaders there. Joining the hour is the leader of

Hampshire county council. You hear the talk about decentralising

power, but a lot of that talk is on the northern cities. There hs a risk

if we had this talk of the cities, but you always hear me saying that

people in the south, the grdat shires of England, is where the

wealth creators are, and whdre we really want to exercise and

demonstrate that we can use powers well, effectively and econolically

and efficiently. I think yot will hear the voice of the shires. The

voice of the northern cities tends to dominate this debate. Whdn you

hear national politicians t`lking about decentralisation, there are

further Liverpool and Manchdster. We had newspapers there asking for a

foul in the North. Up to now, we have been concerned, it was a good

news. It has to be a decision of Scotland. That is now past. We want

more power into the localithes of England. I would bang the drum for

the counties of England, certainly in the south`east, our GPA hs

greater than London, and we are one of the only three regions in England

that pay more in tax than they receive in benefits. The sotth`east

is one and the East and the London, but the biggest is south`east. And

the spend per head. The spend per head that Hampshire county council

receives is ?116, that comp`res with other regions and other counties

that get well over ?200. We are even lower than Essex and Kent. ?75 per

head less in Kent. Far too luch control, far too much minutd detail

being controlled in Westminster It has to come down to the counties.

Talking to some of our guests. Eater, Labour made some attdmpt to

devolve power. `` Peter. But they turned out to be talking shops. The

problem with a regional assdmblies was that they were talking shops. If

they had been offering people a real model. I remember discussion at the

time, people saying they don't want more politicians who do nothing

Every talk about real devolttion of the sort that Wales has, to control

your health care, to control all your systems, that is different

compared to controlling the regional development agencies. Give ` real

opportunity. We should be s`ying we have the solutions. `` here are the

solutions. We spend enough time saying we represent people, let let

people have a direct say. B`ck and take an enormous amount of time How

do you know people will eng`ge? That could take. Why would they want to

get involved in some sort of technical constitutional convention?

It was two years in the refdrendum. It's took two years on the back of

decades. And during those ddcades... We haven't had that convers`tion. We

are talking about decades. Ht is worth getting it right. The reason

people don't get involved is that they interpret them as pointless

conversation. I have to agrde. I don't think it has to take decades,

but what happened in Scotland has energised the rest of the UK. ``

energised. So many people in England were begging the Scots not to go.

The fact they have had that and the factors people are much mord aware

of the issues like the West Lothian question, although that may not be

the answer, it would take this opportunity, we can grasp that

chance. What we have to do hs be honourable to what was promhsed to

Scotland now and then we nedd to not renege on that timetable. Then we

need to have a twin track approach could do a similar thing for

England, but it will be different answers in different places. You

could have a citystate in Manchester. But that would not work

in Dorset. The Prime Ministdr has said the two things should go

hand`in`hand. It seems unre`listic to suggest that you can answer this

by January. Labour politici`ns are saying they want is to kick it into

the long grass. They are afraid of the West Lothian question how they

know they would lose MPs from Scotland voting on affairs that

affect England. I don't think we should allow Labour to kick it into

the long grass. Is that what you were doing? There is only one

election in history where the majority... I am not all th`t

worried about that. I think we will get a majority in England. But when

it comes down to getting a Government that works for the

country, it is all well and good people saying they know what is

best, but really to let in. When Cameron's expert was taking apart

Cameron's proposal, because it is... What lack consensus that solething

needs to change, but not how we achieve it. `` there is consensus.

No gushing compliments for two of the region's water companies.

Southern water and South East water get double the industry average

number of complaints. Buckinghamshire county council has

not got enough care is willhng to foster more than one child from the

same family. Siblings are bding split up being cared for outside

County. Children's services in Southampton

got could do better verdict from Ofsted after the council apologised

earlier for failing a number of vulnerable children.

We are required to formulatd an action plan that will demonstrate

how we will get two good. Btild more homes on green belt land saxs a new

report. Farmers should be sdlling land to help pay for roads, railways

and schools. Thames Valley Police is strtggling

with the struggle `` with a shortage of community support officers.

This idea that foster children are being spit up from their siblings

because of shortage of carers, what can be done? We need more pdople to

take on foster children and hopefully take on multiple `t once.

What cannot do allow safegu`rds to fall. Tough job. Foster carhng is

tough. There's not a lot of money to pay for foster caring. The

difference between children in residential care foster card is

absolutely vast. We may need to look seriously at how much we ard paying

foster carers, as they're doing such an important job and the impact they

have could be enormous. We have to be fair to the people that take that

huge step of looking after other people's children. Very difficult to

attract people to do such a tough job. How do you do it? It whll not

be easy. It is not a simple answer. We have to protect children. But a

part of it may be taken to fact that it is a lot cheaper, they'd wish

take money from permanent accommodation and shift tow`rds

foster caring. Not a simple question.

That's the Sunday Politics in the South, thanks to my guests

Next week we'll be taking a look at the Conservative conference in

Birmingham and finding out what kind of animal people think sums them up.

There'll be more from Peter Henley up in Manchester during the week

on South Today, but for now it's back to Andrew

the Conservative mayor's policy No more time I'm afraid. Andrew, back

to you. Welcome back the to Labour

conference, where we're joined by the latest hot new stand-up

comedian on the Manchester circuit. I speak of course of former Deputy

Prime Minister John Prescott. In between giving tub-thumping

speeches to rally the party faithful this week,

he's appearing at the Comedy Store. He was also of course the man

behind the last attempt to solve Our political panel is with me as

well. John, we have got Scottish votes for Scottish laws, and more

Scottish votes for Scottish laws, why not English votes for English

laws? That's an English parliament in a major constitutional change and

that is what has started. I certainly don't agree with that I

campaign for powers to be given to the regions. When I first tested it

in the Northeast, I lost. Why? Because they said they were not the

same powers you are giving to Scotland. So, basically, we must do

that, decentralised, not just with a Westminster Parliament. As you know,

in 32 years I produce the alternative. You've kept that for 32

years? I took it off my shelf and everybody was talking about it now,

but they weren't in 1982. This was my five plan. 200 meetings all

around the country -- five-year plan. You wrote this morning, not 35

years ago, that this was a plot to turn Westminster into a Tory

dominated English parliament. But if that is how England had voted, it's

not a plot, it's democracy. You can get reform in a more federal

structure, and even English parliament does fit into the federal

structure and that is what the Liberals say, but you need a fairer

representation. It might be quite radical, and we could get rid of the

Lord's, and have representation in the region there. It can't be done

in two weeks. Alex Salmond, he's assuming he has been sold out, and

it was less than a week ago they remain the announcement. We have to

get it carried out will stop but don't connect it to the English

parliament that fixes it in their favour. It may be pretty low

politics from David Cameron to come up with something that was not in

the vowel -- a bow on the front page of the daily record, but if they do

not agree with what he said at the time of the general election, he

will say two in which voters, if you want real protection in England

vote Conservative, and if you want Scottish MPs deciding on your level

of taxation, vote Labour. He is scared to death of UKIP may have

been saying it for a while. In the constitutional changes have to see

what is fair and equitable, the same with the Barnett fallen -- formula.

But what you have to do is get a fair system. It takes time to

discuss it. I was doing a 32 years ago and nobody wanted to know. We

had better start a debate, and don't mixed up the constitutional type of

English parliament with what we are promising in Scotland. It is about

trust and politics. So the turnout of the north-east regional assembly

and they voted against it. The turnout that the police and crime

commissioners was low. How'd you get people interested in the process and

it doesn't feel like a conversation in smoky rooms and you go back to

British people and tell them what you decided? If you look at the

turnout in Scotland whether they were interested in, now it is

phenomenally interesting. It is about real power, having real

influence. What they said to me in the north-east, they said we know

you have an idea for devolution and you will give us assemblies but it

doesn't have the power of Scotland, but now we are talking about

equity, similar distribution of power and similar resources. The

English people are entitled to that. They have been robbed of it for too

long. Labour has long struggled with what it should do over devolving

power to the regions and you came up with regional assemblies. Ed

Miliband has a different idea of city regions. Aren't they the same

idea of yours but without a democratic accountability? Can we

really trust the greater region of Manchester or Birmingham to deliver

if there is not the same kind of democratic link with the people I

live in whole, and it stops on the boundary of the Pennines -- the city

of Hull. We have city regions from Labour because I failed in the

north-east to get the assemblies in, and now we have to look at those

options. Do you work through city regions? Mainly in the north, I

might say. Even the federal structure they talk about my be in

the North or Midlands with Birmingham, but there are a number

of options and that is where I believe that what the White Paper

should do is to put those options in. Instead of having to put them

together, state what you want to do in the English regions. Leave it to

the legislation, which is what will happen with the Scottish, and once

you've agreed it, you do it after. You have to start the radical debate

about giving the English regions, not centralised in London, but

decentralised. Do you need to have a separate English parliament?

Wouldn't it just satisfy the English if you simply said to MPs, when it's

in English matter in the House of Commons, stop interfering? I would

disagree with that. I would say put the option in the White Paper. The

White Paper seems to be talking about Scotland. If you don't put the

commitments to what you want to do with the English regions, people

might say I'm not supporting that. Put the framework in the White

Paper, but a different timetable. Devolution in this country has been

to a different timetable, whether it's Wales, Northern Ireland. Start

looking fundamentally at it and the Labour Party should be leading the

debate. Let's come the no campaign lost Glasgow. The cradle of British

socialism. -- let's come to something that happened with the

referendum as the no campaign lost Glasgow. Is it a sign that the

Labour Party are finding it hard to what -- hold on to their traditional

working class vote question mark its different in Manchester. They would

say it is a message about decentralisation. If we change the

message a bit maybe. We have been thinking that now it is that either

the Labour Party to recognise it is not the old message and old areas

that will win it. I remember covering the 1997 referendum in

Scotland and you gave a tub thumping speech in a big hall in Hamilton and

you really connected. Obviously it was a different referendum because

that was about a parliament, not independence and Alex Salmond was on

your side, but you, and Ingush MP, an English minister, connected to

the core Labour voters in a way that Ed Miliband is failing to do -- an

English MP. You make a fair point. In the big rally, I had to point out

I was Welsh. Enough of this. Get on with it. What I was saying there was

that I supported you, as I did for 30 odd years when Labour MPs were

against any thinker Scotland. I support you, but I expect you to

come in with your Scottish MPs and make sure the English get their

share of the powers and resources and that is what that speech was

about, and by God, it's as relevant today as it was then. I haven't got

any Scottish MPs, I live in Knightsbridge. Did you get the vote?

No. What would you have done? I can't tell you. You would have voted

yes, come on. I'm interested. What do you want to hear from the speech

by Ed Miliband? People are wondering about where Labour stands. There are

many issues we have flown around, and we've done the discussion just

now. What he has got to do where he started off on the minimum wage You

are trying to deal with those left behind. Those are the bottom. That

is the Labour message. The National Health Service is our creation and

we have to say it will be saved If you can save all of these bankers

with all the money and say you haven't got the money for the NHS,

say where we stand. That will be the priority. The third one, housing. I

have had a revolutionary idea that you can buy a house without a

deposit and without the interest or paying the stamp duty, and you buy

it by rent. The government gives ?150 billion guaranteed housing for

up to 600,000. Get down to ordinary people who can use their rent to buy

the house. It's happening in the north-east. Why are they not

listening to you? You have said more to connect with ordinary people in

three minutes than we will probably hear in an hour. I've been telling

them, made, and we have a commission coming out. People don't want

commissions, they want action. I say, I know what we do, housing

health, the people. That is our language. That is why we are Labour.

That a lot of people run away. I think in Glasgow, they wondered

about that. If you turn up on the same three platforms, and I know

it's a critical thing to say, they think in Scotland it is a coalition.

I don't like coalitions. It looks like a coalition, didn't it? Maybe

it was saved because Rupert Murdoch started the The Times about the

polls and he couldn't even get the sun to say that they wanted. We

haven't got time. I wondered how long it would take is to get to

repot Murdoch. You beat the record. -- to Rupert Murdoch. Labour is

quite behind on the economy, and people are looking at Labour, trying

to work out if they can trust you to the stewards of the economy given

2010. Under Labour 's plans there is 20 billion of cuts to make in the

next Parliament. Will we hear anything about that? It is about the

proportion of debt to GDP. I know it sounds historic, but our debt when

we came in in 1997 was a proportion of GDP, and you must know this, and

that was less than Thatcher's. Why did we get done on debt? You guys

run around saying a lot about it, but the fact is it was worse under

Thatcher. Thatcher is now seen as a hero. If you look at the debt, it is

still a problem. Gordon Brown did an awful lot to solve those problems,

but they were still left with us. What we have to have is a sensible

discussion like we had on devolution and now we are talking about

finances. Let's look at the public sector debt and the price we pay. We

need to be putting the record straight. The problem is they tell

me, John, we have to look to the future not the past. We are getting

screwed on the past and we have to change it and perhaps Gordon Brown

coming in could do something. Finishing on the future, when we did

a poll of the Labour candidates you were watching on the big screen

when it came up that their favourite to succeed Ed Miliband was Yvette

Cooper, why did you shout no! That is alive. -- alive. -- that is not

true. I know resistance is not strong. What did that mean?

You can't get away with anything at a Conference, John. I was dropping

comments them to pick up everywhere, I do not wear -- nowhere they got

that one from. Good to have you back. Round of applause for former

Deputy Prime Minister. That's it for today. Don't applaud them, they are

useless. my guests. I'll be back here at

Labour conference for the Daily 11:30am tomorrow when we'll bring

you live coverage of the speech by We're here all week, and next Sunday

you can find us in Birmingham for Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.