29/04/2012 Sunday Politics East Midlands

David Cameron puts his Culture The proposals to move homeless

families from London to two of our cities amount to human trafficking

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1671 seconds

and our Olympic organisers running Hello, I'm Marie Ashby, and my

guests in the East Midlands this week are Andrew Bridgen, the

Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, and Paul Holmes,

the former Lib Dem MP for Chesterfield. Coming up:

Next week, voters in Nottingham will decide whether they want an

elected mayor. Two campaigners with strong links to Labour nail their

colours to the mast. One is very much in favour of the idea. We need

to move on from a Victorian system whereby the leader of the council

is chosen by just a few politicians from one political party in a

secret meeting. And the other is very much against it. Without an

increase in powers, without more resources or and it -- a

geographical expansion of the city, it is a pig in a poke.

Plus, the shopkeepers who've been told to take down their Olympic

rings. Are the organisers being a rotten sport?

First, the issue that has dominated the headlines in two of our cities.

The proposal to move hundreds of homeless families from London to

Derby and Nottingham. It comes from the Smart Housing Group which

advises several London councils. The agency says it would relieve

housing pressures in the capital. But would it increase pressure

here? Antrim, the leader of the Labour

group says it would be akin to human trafficking. I think he has

got a hint of truth in that. It is completely unnecessary. There are

plenty of houses available in London within the benefits Cup and

these councils have a regal -- a legal requirement to look at the

location to find accommodation for homeless people. Politicking is

going on with people's lives just before the mayoral election in

London. Not all of these councils are Labour. Some of them are Tory

councils. I am only aware that Westminster might have made an

inquiry. Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea as well.

is mostly Labour councils playing politics. So that will give Ken

Livingstone a slide advantage. don't think they would agree with

that. I think Grant Shapps has come out and said this shouldn't be

happening. There are plenty of houses even around the centre of

London and their houses available for under the �400 a week rent cap.

Even �400 a week to people in the North, that is a huge amount of

money. What do you think, Paul Holmes? The cap is a good idea but

it is going up to �28 billion, but the fact that some councils by

using this capital at election time, the Tory councils in Westminster,

they have decanted council tenants 20 years ago. They are making use

of that. Wet at the bottom of this is that nobody builds council

houses anymore. If you have got a cap housing benefits, somebody

cannot -- not everybody can go into private housing. They are busy

thinking seriously about this. There is even maps showing us where

Derby and Nottingham are so they can plan their route on a train,

find their way here. These councils have a legal requirement to look at

the location of where their house homeless people within their

borough and that is not going to be the Midlands from London.

Especially if they have got family down there. And there is no need

for it at all. There are hundreds and hundreds of houses within the

�400 a week capfuls stock what are your main concerns if people did

come here? So that it will not happen? Can you foresee of social

problems arising if it were to happen? You could see a situation

where somebody who found themselves in London homeless because they had

moved from the Midlands, that for me would be legitimate if the

council said they had to go back to the Midlands. But for a family to

be based in London to be homeless through economic circumstances and

then to be moved 100 miles away from where their friends and family

are, that is no way to treat people and the Housing Minister has made

it clear he is not going to allow that to happen. Already, Nottingham

primary schools are running out of places. Who will play for these

people's benefits? All that has pressure on what we can provide.

you move large numbers of homeless unemployed people from the South of

England to Nottingham, Derby it's a trick, it throws huge problems on

those areas who have their own unemployment rates, they have not

got the services the etc, so you cannot decant the prop him.

that is what it feels like. We have heard about the problem, and Ilott

pushed at someone else and hope it goes up way. They shouldn't be

doing that. Back on housing, there are some houses in Newham

theoretically in the bracket, but they will not take a lot of people

on housing benefit. They will not allow those people. The housing cap

is having an effect. It is suppressing the rise in rents.

Previously, housing benefit, the amount doubled in 10 years which

was driving rents up, whereas now where the housing benefit cap is in

place, it is suppressing rent rises and rents are more affordable.

is certainly causing a lot of debate.

Next, on Thursday, Nottingham holds its referendum on whether the city

should have an elected mayor. Leicester's already got one. So

should Nottingham have one, too? We invited two people with close links

to Labour to pitch for the votes of the undecided. One is very much in

favour of the idea, the other vehemently opposed. First up, the

former Head of Communications for the city council, Stephen Barker,

with the case for an elected mayor. I think modern cities are run by

mayors. They deal with other mayors. Both the previous government and

the current Government hope very much that UK cities will choose to

be governed by mayors and many ambitious cities are choosing to go

for it now. There was a prevailing wind of change in favour of mayors

and in Nottingham, which has achieved a lot in recent years, but

not as much as other cities, needs not to fall further behind. Times

change, we move on, we modernise, and we need to move on from a

Victorian system whereby the leader of the council is chosen by just a

few politicians from one political party in a secret meeting. We need

the lever of the city to be tested at the ballot box across the city,

not just in one ward. That is the fundamental democratic principle at

the heart of this referendum. We all need to choose the person that

leads the city. The elephant in the room in this debate is Nottingham

City Council's title administrative boundary. At Trent Bridge, very

example. Standing two miles first from the square, I am not in

Nottingham. Nottingham Forest Football Club is not actually in

Nottingham. Trent Bridge cricket ground is not in Nottingham. If one

thing has come from the referendum debate already, it is at least the

boundary issue is further up the agenda. But I believe that only a

mayor would have the means and motivation to actually do something

about it. Now we are stuck with people that matter thinking that

Nottingham is a city only half the size that it truly is and with half

the population unable to take part in a referendum on Thursday. The

decision for now is whether or not Nottingham once a mayor at all. Of

course, consideration of what candidates might be available in

November will be for Labour but we can be sure that Nottingham these

bold and determined leadership from somebody that wants to put the city

on the map. Come rain on a truck -- come rain or trying on Thursday,

vote for a mayor in Nottingham. Convinced? Well, the former Labour

Leader of the city council, John Taylor, insists you should think

again. The idea of a directly elected

mayor from Nottingham is unwanted and unnecessary, and more probably

just a diversionary stunt from Clegg and Cameron. We are told that

only a directed -- directly elected mayor can bring about long-term

investment and stable leadership which a city like Nottingham needs

but without an increase in powers, without more resources or a

geographical expansion of the city boundaries, none of that is on

offer. We are being asked to vote for a pig in a poke. Supporters of

the mayor say it is needed for brave long-term planning and

accessing resources but I can tell you that over the last 25 years,

Nottingham has enjoyed that brave, consistent and long-term future in

planning big projects. The refurbishment of the old market

square built with private sector money and the building of the

Nottingham Contemporary are the envy of other cities, all done

without a mayor. And that same, highly pragmatic approach has been

applied by council leaders to the city's services. There has been

dramatic improvement in education, crime has been reduced and

Nottingham is now the cleanest of all the major cities. That costs

money. Be directly elected mayor will not have any more cash. They

will be faced with making millions of pounds worth of cuts. I believe

in the importance of a city driving the regional economy and I

understand how that should work. Or should have some one or somebody in

charge of infrastructure, land use planning, highways, transport, big

investment decisions but the mayor, whoever that is, their authority

would stop at Trent Bridge. And boots, it is in Broxtowe. We used

to have somebody who did that. They have been scrapped. As for getting

local kids, their chance to share in the city's prosperity,

programmes have been cut. The mayor is irrelevant. For all these

reasons, I will be urging everyone in Nottingham to simply vote of no.

So, who gets our MPs' vote? A pig in a poke. That's what John Taylor

says people in Nottingham will get if they vote for a mayor.

I would disagree. More than half the people in the country and half

of the jobs are based in our cities. They need to be areas of

regeneration and growth and you need a strong figure to lead at

that. And mayors have been successful across the world and in

London of focusing that energy and drive. Not always. You are talking

about Stoke and Doncaster? They were dysfunctional before the mayor

came along. They need a major disorganisation and the mayor was

not strong enough to deliver it. We need more transparency as well.

Nottingham City Council is the only one that is not its closed --

disclosing expenses over �500. They -- the people want transparency. It

is clear that it is a group of councillors in a darkened room who

decide the leader of the city council is, not the people of

Nottingham. Steven Barker is saying that. He insists it is time that

the people of Nottingham have their say. That is a nonsense. You have

city-wide elections. You might as well say, let's scrap the MPs in

Parliament and elect David Cameron as President to do what they like,

and that demagoguery approach is appalling and mayors a rare example

of that. Looking to America, I have been unstudied city governments in

two cities in America and believe me it is not an example we want to

follow. The rife corruption and incompetence that goes on because

of this system is one of the worst examples that Cameron could quote.

Is the danger we give too much power to that 1%? It is people not

systems that are corrupt. The mayor would be a person. He will have a

lot of power, but also be accountable to the people. We can

vote him out we like we do with an M P. There is also going to be a

male role covenant of these mares that will go down and lobby on

behalf of their cities to the Prime Minister. So they are going to have

real power. They must have power because there are plenty of ex-

Labour ministers that want to be mayors. Of course, it is

interesting that the Conservatives on Nottinghamshire County Council

have planned to abandon their current system and go back to a

committee style system. If they go for the mayor, it is going to

change that. They will go back to the Cabinet system. They have got

plans to abandon it and go to committee style where more people

have a say. Well, everyone in Nottingham will have a say...

said that one person will have a say. It will be one person driving

the vision, but he will have to have a mandate, what his aims are.

And the people will vote. It is for the people in Nottingham to decide

if what they won. You have to be in it to win it, so if they don't do

it, could they lose out? Of the leader of any council can go and

lobby in London and Europe and do effectively. They have done from

Sheffield, Nottingham and smaller towns like Chesterfield. I was an

MP for nine years and my colleague had far more power to influence

than I did and he led the normal Council where he had the support of

half the councillors. The mayor, he only needs the support of a third

of the councillors and he can do what he wants. He can bulldoze

anything through. As we have seen in Doncaster and Stoke and lots of

American cities, it is a disaster. Isn't at the very positive in this?

Doesn't it engage people in politics? The X Factor is then --

The X Factor is not a good example of how to run a country. Boris

Johnson and Ken Livingstone, it is about who you least dislike. It is

ludicrous and demeans politics. It is anti-democratic and it is the

very day interest. There is nothing democratic about a few councillors

with a small majority and the council deciding between themselves

whose turn it is to beat the leader. We are talking on principle. We are

driving forward a city in difficult times and being a coalescing force

for the city, that is a mayor. And having a mandate from the people.

The Lib Dems are not as democratic as they would suggest. We believe

in democracy where you have to have half the people on a council

supporting what you were doing. You cannot railroad things through with

less than a third. You would give them well-paid positions so they

will go along with anything you say, which is what happened in Doncaster.

Doncaster are elected a mayor because they had a corrupt Labour

council and they are having a referendum to get rid of the mayor!

Which way will it go? I don't know. I hope it will go yes for an

election for mayor. Well, I don't know, that is down for the voters

in Nottingham and the other cities, but a lot of them, as is happening

with the 12th mayor paula mac, they will have a referendum to get rid

of them. Thank you both. Time for our regular Sixty Seconds

slot. Here's our political editor, The GMB members say they will take

industrial action from tomorrow over Nottingham's workplace parking

levy. The company can afford to cover the �300 it will cost each

worker, they say. Imperial Tobacco say they are prepared to pay most

of it. UKIP member Derek Clarke has repaid �31,000 after an

investigation by his anti-fraud watchdog. He used the money to pay

for two assistance. He says at no stage did he gain personally.

Next, a novel way to decide the outcome of an election. By Labour

group on air wash Council tossed a coin to resolve a split over who

should be the new leader. Alex Phillips won by a head.

Finally, the Olympics is running rings around businesses. Two

shopkeepers have been told to remove the rings from their

premises. They say the organisers are running away with themselves.

Paul Holmes, do you think the Olympic organisers are taking their

commercial rules way too seriously? I do. The Olympics has become

demeaned over the last 20 years just by becoming a shop front

window for large multinational companies. They pour vast amounts

of money into the advertising that comes from it and they want to get

their profit back. It is undermining the spirit of the

Olympic sport stop do you agree? can see why the organisers want to

protect their brand image. There will be a lot of foreign visitors

and a lot of counterfeit goods. When you see the Olympic Cafe in

London, which has been called for 20 years and it has been told to

take it signed a, it is unreasonable. It is taking it far

too far. It does seem sad that people are being penalised for

trying to enter the spirit of the games. Isn't it sad? No business in

Derbyshire is going to undermine the profit of the Olympics in

London. On the face of it, this crackdown seems over-the-top, but

organisers will say that if they give way to one shopkeeper, they

would have to do it to all. There is a danger to the brand, they say.

One of my colleagues wanted to send a letter out and he couldn't put

the logo on their because it was protected at that level. Really?

Yes. It had to be blanked out the. Have you got any tickets? I did put

in for some but I didn't get any. Did you? No. I will watch a bit of

it on television. Get into the spirit of it! Like the shopkeeper

that was going to hand knit the rings false stop all the money was

being diverted from places like Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire for