:00:00. > :00:00.First Minister's questions. That is the cause of questions. Time
:00:00. > :00:00.for me to say goodbye. I will hand over to David.
:00:07. > :00:12.mistake for the Conservatives to do this. They are trying to allege
:00:13. > :00:22.improper knowledge on our part of some influence in terms of the
:00:23. > :00:27.Reverend Flowers. Secondly, by getting into a political dogfight,
:00:28. > :00:31.they are going to focus attention of our relationship with the Co-op in
:00:32. > :00:37.recent years, terms of encouraging men to take over Lloyds bank. The
:00:38. > :00:46.latest revelation about leaning on the European Union. This was started
:00:47. > :00:54.in the last three days by the Prime Minister. I think it has been an
:00:55. > :00:59.error of judgement. We are going to welcome you in Scotland. Why did the
:01:00. > :01:04.Chancellor have 30 meetings with the co-operative bank, head of the
:01:05. > :01:09.failed bid for a takeover of the Lloyds branches? These stories are
:01:10. > :01:17.related. They are both about the co-operative bank. They are not the
:01:18. > :01:22.same issue at all. There are questions to be asked. Questions
:01:23. > :01:26.about how he could have been licensed to be in this position and
:01:27. > :01:36.what they knew about the general health of the bank at a later stage.
:01:37. > :01:40.They are not the same thing at all. No, but it should be looked at.
:01:41. > :01:48.Relationships between George Osborne and the Treasurer were also close.
:01:49. > :01:53.He has been shown to know nothing about the bank. Why did they have
:01:54. > :01:59.all those meetings? Why is he so involved in the failed bid for a
:02:00. > :03:13.takeover? What is the due diligence? There will be multiple enquiries.
:03:14. > :03:20.Lots of things will I said did the Treasury on the Lloyds deal to be
:03:21. > :03:26.done or with the Co-op? My view was they wanted it to be done with the
:03:27. > :03:32.Co-op. So did Labour. By trying to get into this fight, I thought this
:03:33. > :03:42.could be a short-term tactic which backfired very badly. In the end it
:03:43. > :03:48.is not -- mudslinging on both sides. Now it is in a very sticky situation
:03:49. > :03:56.for both sides. Yes, I think that is true. The Lloyds merger with HBOS
:03:57. > :04:01.during the financial crisis and one of the reasons they were able to
:04:02. > :04:06.take it over was it was agreed with some branches and there had to be a
:04:07. > :04:09.home found for them. What they were trying to do was provide more
:04:10. > :04:19.diversity and in the end we ended up with TSB. What do you think of
:04:20. > :04:24.Reverend Flowers? The question of how he got to the position of
:04:25. > :04:28.chairman of the Co-op tank, how did that happen? I don't know. It is
:04:29. > :04:34.bizarre. It is different from a commercial situation. You would
:04:35. > :04:37.normally have a head hunter. Because it is the co-operative movement, he
:04:38. > :04:42.seems to have come through the trustee route. It seems that he was
:04:43. > :04:48.not questioned more. Was questioned but only once. Is it your
:04:49. > :04:52.understanding that it was your belief that no one in Labour Party
:04:53. > :05:00.headquarters are in the leader's office knew the real reason why no
:05:01. > :05:10.one -- that no one knew the real reason why Mr Flowers stepped down
:05:11. > :05:16.from Radford city council? If Ed Miliband had known... The point Jo
:05:17. > :05:21.was asking was about the pornography on the computer and inappropriate
:05:22. > :05:26.e-mails being sent. It is your view that no one in the Labour Party
:05:27. > :05:32.headquarters in London or in the leader's office knew why he had
:05:33. > :05:38.resigned? That covers a few hundred people. It would only take one to be
:05:39. > :05:42.enough. It is difficult for me to speak to all of them but I do not
:05:43. > :05:46.think anyone senior in the Labour Party knew about this guy. The thing
:05:47. > :05:51.that is getting lost which I think is a shame, the Co-op made a series
:05:52. > :05:57.of bad mistakes, ultimately resulting in bad appointment,
:05:58. > :06:02.including Reverend Flowers, that resulted in a 1.6 million black
:06:03. > :06:09.hole. In the middle of all this mudslinging is whether there is a
:06:10. > :06:12.question of a role for something different in banking, whether there
:06:13. > :06:18.is a role for me to listen or credit unions. I think it is getting
:06:19. > :06:22.completely lost because of the colourful life of Reverend Flowers.
:06:23. > :06:27.We will have to leave it there. Councils in England say they are
:06:28. > :06:30.losing ?4.1 billion to Scotland and Wales because the formula for
:06:31. > :06:36.allocating money across the UK has not been updated since the 1970s. In
:06:37. > :06:40.a moment, we will speak to the Local Government Association but first we
:06:41. > :06:44.are joined by our political correspondent Vicki Young in
:06:45. > :06:48.Westminster and Jamie McIvor in Scotland. We have long heard
:06:49. > :06:51.complaints about the so-called Barnett formula. How much money
:06:52. > :06:56.would Scotland and Wales lose and how much would England game? It is
:06:57. > :07:00.nothing new. There are already complaints about how the fauna
:07:01. > :07:06.works. There are new figures today saying that England is out of pocket
:07:07. > :07:09.by ?4.1 billion. They say the Barnett formula is a historic relic
:07:10. > :07:13.from the 1970s and their main complaint is it is not based on
:07:14. > :07:18.need, it is based on population. What they are saying is we need now
:07:19. > :07:22.in England, when it comes to adult social care is very great and they
:07:23. > :07:28.think it is a matter of when that formula is going to change, not if.
:07:29. > :07:31.The LGA themselves are coming up with alternative methods of funding.
:07:32. > :07:35.I do not think we should expect any changes ahead of the Scottish
:07:36. > :07:38.referendum but they are saying if you're going to look at changing the
:07:39. > :07:42.powers of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, that formula has
:07:43. > :07:54.to change and England must not lose out any longer. No doubt that the
:07:55. > :07:59.action in Scotland will be one that is very critical. The point many
:08:00. > :08:04.will make here, about the argument expressed by the local government
:08:05. > :08:09.Association, is really that it is comparing apples with pairs when it
:08:10. > :08:13.comes to cancel funding. It does not pay for councils in Scotland
:08:14. > :08:17.directly. It gives the Scottish Government it's blocked Grant. It
:08:18. > :08:22.gives roughly a third of that money to councils. If they wanted, they
:08:23. > :08:28.could give councils far more or buy cancels a bag of sweets and give
:08:29. > :08:44.them twopence Hateley with a bit left over. This is outdated. It was
:08:45. > :08:52.set up in the late 1970s. Surely, it is not applicable now? It has been a
:08:53. > :08:57.feature of public life in Scotland since Andrew was an economist. I
:08:58. > :09:08.would have been seven at the time of the referendum. It does go back to
:09:09. > :09:12.the crux of the debate about Scottish independence. Nationalists
:09:13. > :09:16.would argue the formula is outdated and Scotland puts more into the UK
:09:17. > :09:19.Treasury than it gets back. That is why they want complete fiscal
:09:20. > :09:25.autonomy for Scotland. Many within the Unionist ham are open to the
:09:26. > :09:29.argument of whether or not Scotland deserves a greater degree of fiscal
:09:30. > :09:39.autonomy and that the block grant should be cut as a result of that.
:09:40. > :09:44.We are joined by Merrick, chairman of the local government
:09:45. > :09:50.Association. Welcome. What do you say to our young friends in
:09:51. > :09:53.Scotland? You get your money from the London government. Scottish
:09:54. > :09:57.local authorities get their money from the Scottish Government. So,
:09:58. > :10:00.the amount they get is up to the Scottish Government. The amount you
:10:01. > :10:08.get is up to the London government. Why are you comparing it. It is the
:10:09. > :10:12.formula with which it is done. We were still in a period when you
:10:13. > :10:19.could take ?50 away for your summer holiday. This is 1979. It was
:10:20. > :10:25.created to deal with the upcoming 79 referendum, which we know the result
:10:26. > :10:29.of that it was a different time, before Scotland had tax-raising
:10:30. > :10:32.powers. Now Wales is being offered a referendum for tax-raising powers.
:10:33. > :10:40.It was simply block grant between various parts of the UK. It is not
:10:41. > :10:43.the formula that determines how much the local councils get in Scotland,
:10:44. > :10:47.it is the Scottish Government that determines that. Just as it is the
:10:48. > :10:51.London government that determines how much you get. If you want more
:10:52. > :10:57.money, surely it is the London government you should be lobbying.
:10:58. > :11:01.There was not a Scottish government when the formula was created. The
:11:02. > :11:06.formula was running. They must decide how the money is divvied up
:11:07. > :11:12.in Scotland. What is wrong with that? The formula was a temporary
:11:13. > :11:16.measure. We need a different way of funding public services. Scotland
:11:17. > :11:20.will decide. Our point is that England, the cities of England, the
:11:21. > :11:24.regions of England, also should be funded in a different way. We're not
:11:25. > :11:27.trying to take money from Scotland or Northern Ireland Wales. We are
:11:28. > :11:36.trying to say there should be equity. From 1979 until 2010,
:11:37. > :11:39.actually most of that time public expenditure was going up into local
:11:40. > :11:43.communities. We are in a different world. There is less money for us
:11:44. > :11:48.all. We need equity in the wake it is spent. This is a bizarre time to
:11:49. > :11:57.raise this. If Scotland votes for independence, it becomes irrelevant.
:11:58. > :12:00.If they get independence, everything is over. If it votes to stay in,
:12:01. > :12:06.there will need to be discussion on the terms with which Scotland stays
:12:07. > :12:12.in. It would be relevant to raise this in the formula. We're making a
:12:13. > :12:20.long-term case with actually the next government about how funding is
:12:21. > :12:27.done. No one will listen to you. They will not listen to you. Someone
:12:28. > :12:32.is listening to us. Others are listening in to your programmes and
:12:33. > :12:36.other programmes. These are important matters. It is to do with
:12:37. > :12:39.the way English regions and cities are funded. It is to be equitable
:12:40. > :12:42.with the rest of the union. There has not been much debate about
:12:43. > :12:54.Scotland and the referendum happening. I agree with that. I must
:12:55. > :12:58.try to put that right at stage. The LGA is not without political
:12:59. > :13:03.sophistication. The mainstream party that wants to save the union, and
:13:04. > :13:08.that is Labour, Conservative Lib Dems, is going to come up with a
:13:09. > :13:11.formula this side of the referendum that clearly means the Scottish
:13:12. > :13:18.Government will get less money. Maybe they should. Maybe they should
:13:19. > :13:28.not. It not happen. Ella Awe are talking about after the next
:13:29. > :13:34.election. If that is the debate... The debate has already shifted by
:13:35. > :13:37.the move in Wales. We are saying that parts of England, the cities
:13:38. > :13:44.and regions of England, should be treated in the same way. A lot of
:13:45. > :13:52.people get this wrong. One of the people who knew Joel Barnett, it is
:13:53. > :13:57.not based on need, is it? It is based on the population and
:13:58. > :14:08.expenditure pre-1979. That is still being retained all the way through
:14:09. > :14:15.till today. I would never turn against the new formula. Every
:14:16. > :14:21.councillors facing budget cuts. Liverpool has had to save ?156
:14:22. > :14:27.billion next few years. It is said to figure to say. With every model
:14:28. > :14:33.is likely to be affected. Everyone should have a try themselves at
:14:34. > :14:37.balancing the books. We report on how an app, which lets people have a
:14:38. > :14:45.go at setting their own council budgets, is catching on. Elaine is a
:14:46. > :14:54.tour guide. Matthew has just opened a salad bar. You know what you have
:14:55. > :14:57.two do. Balance the books. They can access every government department
:14:58. > :15:03.and make cuts. It shows what the cuts will do. In terms of service is
:15:04. > :15:09.lost and the bottom line. I have started by trying to be fair. I have
:15:10. > :15:18.put 10% of every service. We are still over budget. Where did you
:15:19. > :15:26.make the cuts? The library. Libraries can go? Libraries do not
:15:27. > :15:35.cost lives. Why are you shaking your head? I know the impact tourism has
:15:36. > :15:44.on the city. I believe in privatisation, if that is a
:15:45. > :15:51.possibility. Does it make a big impact on the bottom line? Name. For
:15:52. > :15:58.the team, it is a game. For this man, it is a reality. Do you think
:15:59. > :16:04.Joan has been soft in any areas? Could he be more tough? I totally
:16:05. > :16:10.agree with foul. I have tried really hard to come in on budget. I could
:16:11. > :16:18.not do it. It is so difficult. How much does it cost? Probably ?5,000.
:16:19. > :16:24.The reality is people of our city actually understand why we are doing
:16:25. > :16:31.things and get away from the dependency that the council can do
:16:32. > :16:42.things. Everything could disappear altogether. We aren't joined by the
:16:43. > :16:46.Mayor and Mary from the local government Association. You are
:16:47. > :16:54.directly elected, I think I am right in saying. What have people come up
:16:55. > :17:00.with from this app? Other than agreeing with you about how
:17:01. > :17:03.difficult the job is. It is a serious app. It is a serious
:17:04. > :17:07.approach to try to engage with people and and indicate the
:17:08. > :17:14.seriousness of the problem and the financial indications they face.
:17:15. > :17:18.Around 4800 people participated in trying to use the simulator. There
:17:19. > :17:22.are probably about 1200 people who have managed to see it through to
:17:23. > :17:27.the end. A lot of people have given up. It is a serious issue for us to
:17:28. > :17:31.try to engage with the public and see if we can talk to them about the
:17:32. > :17:36.challenges that we face and work with them to look at what services
:17:37. > :17:39.we should provide. We know, with funding cuts, that local
:17:40. > :17:48.authorities, certainly Liverpool, will not be able to do things we
:17:49. > :17:55.would like to do. Has anything come out of this process that you had not
:17:56. > :17:58.thought of? We have not looked in detail at the suggestions. Matthew
:17:59. > :18:03.looked at the private sector. We are looking at working with the private
:18:04. > :18:07.sector, for instance. One of our golf courses is being subsidised by
:18:08. > :18:12.the taxpayers. We have put that into the private sector and we will end
:18:13. > :18:15.up saving or making around ?60,000. We are working with the private
:18:16. > :18:20.sector, we are going to have to become more of a Commissioner of
:18:21. > :18:24.services rather than a provider of services. There will be a situation
:18:25. > :18:31.where there will be huge reduction in our library services. That is the
:18:32. > :18:36.point about what Merrick was talking about the Barnett formula. It is
:18:37. > :18:41.linked to our local authority funding. My argument is the
:18:42. > :18:47.politicians on both sides should be honest about addressing the Barnett
:18:48. > :18:50.formula and looking at the way is distributed. I also think the UK
:18:51. > :18:55.government should look at how the funding that we do have is also
:18:56. > :19:00.funded. Liverpool is not a deficit denier. We accept that there has to
:19:01. > :19:05.be things changed. What we are saying is why is it for instance
:19:06. > :19:10.that Liverpool is worse off than southern cities? I was in London
:19:11. > :19:13.yesterday at Downing Street promoting the International Festival
:19:14. > :19:17.of business which is taking place in Liverpool. Believe you me, in
:19:18. > :19:21.comparison with Liverpool and other northern cities, there is no
:19:22. > :19:26.recession in London. Thank you. We should keep in touch with you, this
:19:27. > :19:29.is an interesting experiment you are involved in and clearly being forced
:19:30. > :19:32.to make these cuts will change the nature of local government in
:19:33. > :19:41.Liverpool. We do not get out and about enough soap leaves keep in
:19:42. > :19:49.touch. OK, Andrew. I'm supposed to be a cross-party chairman of the
:19:50. > :19:53.LGA. How was that working? Not bad. Kensington and Chelsea would come at
:19:54. > :20:00.one with Liverpool in this matter? The same pressures are across the
:20:01. > :20:05.country. When you are directly elected mayor you speak for yourself
:20:06. > :20:12.and not just for the party who got you elected. Thank you.
:20:13. > :20:16.Grotesque monsters looking to suck the life out of humanity and insane
:20:17. > :20:22.warmongers trying to take over the world. We are not talking about
:20:23. > :20:27.Andrew or the House of Commons but that iconic series Doctor Who, which
:20:28. > :20:31.is celebrating its 50th anniversary which you might have noticed. This
:20:32. > :20:36.is one Downing Street briefing which went wrong. There is flash
:20:37. > :20:52.photography. You may want to hide behind the sofa.
:20:53. > :21:31.Very attractive. You can come out now. Joining us from Nottingham is
:21:32. > :21:38.another doctor, Doctor Mike mash -- Doctor Matthew Ashton. Matthew
:21:39. > :21:43.Ashton, tell us about the political elements of Doctor Who. I think it
:21:44. > :21:48.has always been political. Like every good science fiction book of
:21:49. > :21:54.film it reflects contemporary issues. Firstly there is a level for
:21:55. > :22:03.kids to understand with monsters and adventures but then more jokes and
:22:04. > :22:15.satire for the grown-ups. There were stories about the miners strike,
:22:16. > :22:21.feminism and other issues. It has never been party political but it
:22:22. > :22:27.has always explored politics. In the 1970s there were two episodes which
:22:28. > :22:31.explored entering the EEC and another one explored the miners
:22:32. > :22:37.strike. Recently there have been aliens in Downing Street so there is
:22:38. > :22:43.something for political anoraks. I clearly have not watched it closely
:22:44. > :22:47.enough. You mentioned that monster. He does not look scary. This was
:22:48. > :22:53.dealing with a small planet being taken into a federation at the time
:22:54. > :22:57.of the UK joining the EEC. Do you think there was a parallel? There
:22:58. > :23:04.clearly was. The producers thought they would inject some of this into
:23:05. > :23:09.Doctor Who and make it relevant. Matthew, what about the Dalek
:23:10. > :23:15.invasion of Earth. That is a familiar shot, not the Daleks but
:23:16. > :23:21.the house of parliament. That was a contemporary science fiction idea
:23:22. > :23:29.about what if the war. Often the Daleks have been used as metaphors
:23:30. > :23:41.for Nazis. They are always talking about ethical purity. What about the
:23:42. > :23:48.Green Death? That was an episode going back a little bit. It is an
:23:49. > :23:53.iconic episode, partly because of those maggots which were made out of
:23:54. > :23:57.condom is. They were extremely scary. They were not always about
:23:58. > :24:03.environmental issues, it was the time that a corporate company became
:24:04. > :24:08.the big baddie. It was about how corporations manipulate communities.
:24:09. > :24:14.What do you think it says about society, Doctor Who? I think it
:24:15. > :24:18.reflects issues in society. In the 1970s questions were asked in
:24:19. > :24:23.Parliament about whether it was too violent or scary to stop then in the
:24:24. > :24:29.80s Doctor Who did episodes about that, what if people watched violent
:24:30. > :24:34.TV, would it lead to revolution. I have watched it with my children and
:24:35. > :24:40.it is quite dark. Nicola, were you a fan of it? I have not watched it for
:24:41. > :24:44.25 years. When I was younger I did not pick up on the political stuff
:24:45. > :24:49.behind-the-scenes. That is because Matthew said it works both those
:24:50. > :24:53.levels. Do you think it will sustain in the future? It will because it
:24:54. > :25:00.talks about issues which people are interested in. Your favourite Doctor
:25:01. > :25:07.Who? Map Smith, actually. Thank you very much, Matthew Ashton in
:25:08. > :25:11.Nottingham. I saw the first episode of Doctor Who and it didn't have a
:25:12. > :25:16.negative affect on me, didn't have a negative effect on me, didn't have a
:25:17. > :25:23.negative affect my cred before we go, what worthy cuff links that
:25:24. > :25:27.David Cameron wore? They were Kiwi cuff links because he made a bet
:25:28. > :25:28.with the New Zealand Prime Minister and the all Blacks beat them in
:25:29. > :25:35.rugby. That is and the all Blacks beat them in
:25:36. > :25:40.rugby. That is it for today. The BBC News is starting on BBC One. I will
:25:41. > :25:47.be back tonight and we will have Delia Smith on baking, Jon Snow on
:25:48. > :25:48.cycling, Kevin Maguire, and somebody called Portillo. I cannot