27/10/2013 Sunday Politics East Midlands

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

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

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

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

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

and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.

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

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

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

Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our

railways. Does it matter who And in the East Midlands, we hear

from the jobless youngsters who say they've disappeared from the

unemployment figures. And up for sale again ` what's the future for

the East as many daily journeys made by bus

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

pace? And with me, three journalists

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

itself for massive storm winds, tweeting their political forecasts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

surprisingly, where there right areas on which we disagree over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ministers, proudly defend the record of unqualified teachers working in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

election that the manifesto curriculum in free schools should be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that the teachers there are qualified. Someone who send their

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clegg complained that the Prime Minister gave him only 30 minutes

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

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

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

levies were under discussion in the ministerial group before Wednesday,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clear that different parts of the government are running round waking

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

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

of the Prime Minister making up policy literally at the dispatch

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

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

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

about acknowledging there is something wrong with the way the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

government estimates, apparently doubled the amount the government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

technologies yet to be developed. We should protect ourselves against

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

set the agenda. The coalition are squabbling among themselves,

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

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

Miliband has made the weather on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Airports Authority, is owned by a Spanish company.

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

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

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

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

first nuclear power plant in a generation, backed by Chinese

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

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

by the British government was effectively re-nationalised by the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

relationship between foreign ownership and consumer prices. That

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

businesses represented the future, businesses we are good at

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

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

businesses here -- Monotise. Like so many businesses creating

products and services and creating the shareholders. Should we allow

hour essential services to be in foreign ownership? It was

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

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

politicians in Scotland have no say, they were consultants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be returned to public ownership. Nestor. It has

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

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

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

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

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

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

energy company in France is reducing its nuclear capability in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

make decisions. Not just Grangemouth, businesses are making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mineworkers because they dared to stand up for people in their

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

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

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

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

case, Julie Meyer, for entrepreneurs to come to this

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

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

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

principle than just energy. Something like broadband services,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the business about phone-tapping and investigate the Prime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

summit. David Cameron's advises tummy it is

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

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

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

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

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

commissioner is appointed later next year. I think the detailed

negotiations will start to happen bubbly after the UK general

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

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

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

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

renegotiate our membership. Everyone here says his relationship with the

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

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

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

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

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

Former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine. We are nine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

works, which would be a significant argument within the referendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks for joining us.

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

In the East Midlands: No work, no training and no benefits ` the young

people who say they're disappearing off the jobless figures too. We are

not on any kind of database. And a survey of voters in the East

Midlands says protect services for the elderly but services for the

young can go. Council cuts, council cuts. Cuts

from services for the young or the elderly, any opinions?

Hello, I'm Marie Ashby. Here to add their expert insight, my guests this

week are the Loughborough MP and newly`promoted Treasury Minister

Nicky Morgan and Labour's Lilian Greenwood, the Nottingham South MP

and Labour's spokesman for rail. Let us start with rail and something

which concerns both of you. The Government is beginning the process

of re`privatising the East Coast Mainline which runs through Newark

and Grantham. It was taken over by the Government

when National Express handed back the franchise because it could no

longer afford it. Since then passenger numbers are up and it's

paying back ?200 million this year to the Government. But there've also

been problems with delays caused by bad weather and engineering work

over`running. So, Nicky, with your new role in the

Treasury, is this a bit of an embarrassment, the fact that it's

running better as a state`owned operation than as a private one? I

think it is encouraging that it is running well but be the government

feels the private sector brings more expertise to running the railway

lines. This is for the private sector to do. We are starting the

process of looking for the right person to run it. If it is not

broken? It is fine at the moment but the government is not there to run

railway lines. There are many other railway lines being very well run by

the private sector and East Coast mainline, we want them to join it.

Surely, Lilian, this is a good time to privatise it? It is the wrong

time. East Coast was taken over in 2009. Since then, it has had its

best ever punctuality, its best ever customer satisfaction, it is paying

more back to the Treasury. By the time it is re`franchise, it will

have paid back almost ?1 billion and all of the profits, ?48 million,

have been invested in the service. It is ideological. Really

disappointing. I work with Nicky on getting improvements to rail lines,

why don't they just do the same `` the sensible thing and concentrate

on other franchises that have been delayed? Lilian makes some good

points. We are delighted the service is being run so well. We think it it

could be run even better in private hands. It is a question of what

passengers want. They wanted to be well`run and on time and working for

them. Passengers are at the heart of this. Would you renationalise the

whole of the sector? We have said the East Coast should state in the

public sector where it is doing a good job. It has had problems will

stop there are problems with infrastructure. The money is going

to go in to improve the rolling stock but the money is coming from

the taxpayers `` it has had problems. Two people walked away

from the franchise at huge cost to the government. It does not make

sense to put it back out to the private sector while there are

others to fix. Well, from earning money to saving

it. As we've reported on this programme before, several of our

councils have begun consulting with you to find out where they can make

millions of pounds worth of cuts. And, the first to report back is

Leicestershire County Council which carried out a survey of council tax

payers in the county and there were some surprise results.

According to the survey, the top candidates for cutting our street

lighting, community grants, funding for agencies, travel to schools and

grass cutting. The services people most wanted to see preserved work

gritting, community services for older people, roads and paths,

mental health services and help for physical and learning disabilities.

Good news for the council perhaps was that 69% of people were prepared

to see a rise in council tax but the bad news was that the areas

identified for savings only account for ?32 0

identified for savings only account for ?32 million of the Council's

spending. Some interesting results there,

including, it seems, permission to raise council tax. What does the

council make of it? It is always very difficult to ask people to make

decisions or to help make a decision over the substantial cuts because as

you know we have got to make ?110 million savings over the next four

years. What helps is not necessarily what you want to cut but what you

want to protect. There are always going to be surprises but the real

surprise to us was the respondents who said, over 60% of them, who said

that they favoured a council tax increase.

As a Leicestershire MP, you must take a close interest in this. Are

surveys like this useful? Very useful . This has been the largest

consultation. People are interested and prepared to share their views.

It is a difficult time. We are asking councils to save money. It is

right we should listen to the people who will benefit from the services

and rely on them. The county council should listen. People are prepared

to make some cuts but not necessarily to front line services.

The choice people are being asked to make is impossible in the same way

the choice councillors are being asked to make is impossible. These

are government cuts that are being forced on us. What 0

are government cuts that are being forced on us. What people don't see

is the choice is the government is making and in lots of cases it is

places like Nottingham which have got a very high level of deprivation

who are having much larger cut than the better off parts of the country.

That is not fair. The reason we're making these choices is because the

last government carried on spending much more than it was earning four

years. But you have been in power long enough now. This is systemic.

The last government spent more than it earned for many years. You cannot

do that at the county council level. This is about the choices you

are making. That is why we are asking people what you think. 69% of

people say they would rather pay more council tax than see services

cut. They are trying to tell you something. It is very interesting.

The Conservative group went into the last election and were elected again

in May on the basis that they would put up council tax. We would much

rather see people keep their own money and decide how to spend it.

People are saying, we would be prepared to pay a bit more in order

to save these particular services. They have also said... Grass

cutting, obviously some people feel that as a service they could do

without in order to protect things with mental health. But it will not

save a lot of money. The other thing you have not covered is the way that

people are saying, services could be run differently. We are going to see

a lot more in Leicester City partnership working. We need to see

health and social services system is working better together. Huge

opportunities for doing things differently. That was picked up in

the survey. We are all for things being run efficiently. Many councils

have already pursued some of the `` lots of the opportunities for

efficiency savings. Some councils are worried whether they can carry

on with the statutory services, the things they are required by law to

do. In my experience, people do one the grass cut but they are left with

a choice of whether we look after older people or children in care or

get our grass cut. Where do you think we are going to get the money

from? Ed Balls wants to carry on borrowing. As we saw on Friday, we

have growth returning to the economy which is a good thing and it means

if we have more successful private sector businesses paying more taxes,

there will be more money. We have had a lot of contraction. Where

would you get the money 0 had a lot of contraction. Where

would you get the money from? Where is the money going? The cuts are

disproportionately falling on those places that can least afford to take

the cuts. The question back to Nicky is not is the situation going to be

difficult? Of course it is. It is the choice about where you put the

money. Why are rich areas getting more money and be poor areas are

getting hit? The point is that under the last government the shire

counties lost out in terms of funding. This government is trying

to rebalance that as well as protecting services.

Just going back to that survey and the more eagle`eyed among you may

have noticed a large vote for keeping services for older people,

but a willingness to see services for young people cut. Not surprising

perhaps when you hear that the over 55s accounted for 65% of respondents

and people under 35 made up just 7.5%. So Des Coleman's been to

Loughborough to find out what the young people of Leicestershire

think. Council cuts. Cuts from services for the young or the

elderly? Any opinions? Being epileptic, I need travel to school

otherwise I cannot get him to school. I feel it is very unfair to

cancel that sort of service. It is not fair because kids need a lot to

learn so the future leaders... A lot of people like us, we are not

earning but we have a lot of expenses now. Everything is being

cut for us like University and stuff. Prices are going up. We are

being affected by it all. I do not think they should cut children

support services or free travel to school because the children have not

done anything. They are going on about young families who cannot

afford anything, why take stuff away from them? They need the support.

Fair distribution between all of us. I think it is unfair how they are

trying to cut hours when we are the future generation `` cut ours. They

have not had to work to get their education.

Quite a lot of the younger people there feeling hard done by,

particularly when it comes to education. They feel they're being

penalised. No decisions have been taken. This was a consultation. The

youth Council and the youth panel have been involved in this. There

were lots of other stakeholders as well. The Cabinet will make a

decision. This is not the end. There will be an opportunity for young

people if they feel they have not had a voice so far, they will have

their voice. The county councils will be aware. If you talk to older

residents in Loughborough, I am sure you would have got a different

picture. Middle`aged people would young children, a different picture

again. Everyone is very focused on what they know best. Use a prized?

No, I was not. `` were you surprised? The economy growing is

welcome but what you see in that film is that people are finding it

difficult to get by. A real crisis in cost of living. Inevitably, they

are feeling sore when people talk about taking with services that they

rely on or asking them to pay more. Is it the fault of the young people

for not getting more involved in politics? Are they to blame? There

is a responsible itty on politicians to find ways to consult and engage

with young people `` responsibility. We are going out and

talking to communities and talking to people about what matters. You

cannot expect people to come to you. Engaging young people is a big

issue. This is their future. I think that two weeks ago I was at the

youth Council in Loughborough and we had a good discussion there. It is

up to politicians to engage. I think the county council will be very

aware they need to have a cross`section. The other people you

have not spoken about are the staff at the county council who also had

input. Staying with the plight of young

people, unemployment nationally is falling, but youth unemployment

remains stubbornly high. It's a particular problem in the East

Midlands where the number of NEETS, that's young people not in

education, employment or training, is above the national average. Our

political editor John Hess has been to see a pioneering scheme in

Nottingham aiming to give young people hope. In this part of

Nottingham, youth unemployment is a real problem. The number of people

on jobseeker's allowance is double the national average. Even though

statistics mask the reality. This is the reality for a group of NEETs.

They volunteer to smarten up the pathways and gardens around

Nottingham's estate. It keeps them off the streets. I have known a few

of them since they will it also it has made it big difference for them.

It is part of a community initiative with Nottingham City Council. This

is about them building self worth in the community, giving them

experience, working with professionals and it makes them want

to go out and get work. Volunteering for this work has cost some of these

lads their jobseeker's allowance because of tough new eligibility

rules introduced a year ago on claiming the jobseeker's allowance.

It is worth ?56 80 a week. When Jacob missed a Jobcentre interview

because of a college appointment, he was sanctioned, lost his dole money

and disappeared off the register. Does not fair. We are not even on

the unemployed register. `` it is not fair. If you are not with the

Jobcentre or if you have been sanctioned, you are not on the list.

This man's jobseeker's allowance was withdrawn. How much do you rely on

getting the jobseeker's allowance to keep going? I pay my mum some money

and feed myself and travel to go and find a job. In the East Midlands,

there are 96,000 NEETs. 18% of the region 16 to 24`year`olds are

classified as NEET. The average for England is 15.5%. If finding work

for young people on estates like this is tough, it is about to get

tougher. Claiming jobseeker's allowance will mean more stick and

carrots. We have brought renewed contract which gives us extra money

to give more people below the age of 24 a real chance at apprenticeships.

`` we have brought the youth contract. They cannot see the

point. They do not think the Jobcentre does anything for them.

That is the message going to Iain Duncan Smith next week and whether

the sanctions policy is massaging the reality about rising youth

unemployment. Taking that last point first. A lot of people feel they

have dropped off the list. They do not appear in the official

unemployment figures. Is that right? You only get sanctioned if

you have turned down three reasonable job offers in a year.

What opportunities had they been given? One wrist and a permit

because of college. The whole point of jobseeker's allowance is that you

are ready and willing to work. Many hard`working people in my

constituency do not get a choice about whether they get up and go to

work. They might not enjoy their job but they need the money. That is why

you get jobseeker's allowance. Who is keeping track of the people who

have dropped off the list? They are being scooped up. The government has

given millions... Who does know? I do not think people fall off the

list. The Department for Work and Pensions tells us they do not keep a

record of how many people are sanctioned. No one does know how

many people have fallen off the unemployment list. The figures for

youth unemployment could be worse than we are told. At the general

election, what I'm twice as many young people now. How do we know if

no one is keeping track of this? We have set up this scheme to help

people back into something so that not working and not being in

education or training, it is not an option. We need them to make sure

they have got proper of June to use, whether... They want to work? I

think they do. People will say, they missed their appointment is, why

should we feel sorry for them? Nicky's response was out of touch. I

have met many people who tell me about their experience of trying to

claim and being sanctioned for ridiculous things, very similar to

the young man in the story. Someone had to go to college appointment

which clashed with the Jobcentre appointment. They told them, I

cannot go to the college appointment and they said, get an appointment

card from the college and they did not accept it. A lot of people do

not want to turn up. No doubt there are people who do not play the

system properly but there are lots of people being sanctioned who are

trying to do the right thing. That young man really wanted to get a

job. We need proper action to get these young people into work. Do you

have any sympathy for these young people? I have sympathy for the fact

that they want to work. The real sympathy I have is that often they

have been let down by the education system over many years. There was a

scheme in Loughborough but a lot of the young people do not have basic

skills like English and maths and employability skills. The counsellor

in the clip talked about giving people skills. That is where the

system has let them down. They need help. This week the government's own

advisory body Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has said

that your youth contract is not working. I think it has taken time

and I think solving youth unemployment is not easy. Anyone who

thinks it is easy... It is not just a question of finding a job, it is

about building confidence, helping them to be good at interviews, basic

things like turning up for work on time. Things that the rest of us

take for granted but often people do not have those skills. Youth

unemployment started rising under labour. It has gone up under this

comment but they have not taken action. There are things that can be

done `` under this government. The contracts are offered to big firms

who put young people into a job for a short period of time and then they

lose the job so the firms who are taking them on can do it over again

and get the subsidy again. We should be looking at schemes like the one

in the film and saying, what can we learn from that? The social mobility

on child poverty commission suggested bringing in something like

labour's work guarantee scheme. The point is about sustainable

employment. The last government got people into work for a month or so

and then they did not 0 people into work for a month or so

and then they did not last in jobs. There is no point giving people an

sustainable jobs. That is where the youth contract is having success.

This is going on for a long time. No one is tracking whether they are

permanent jobs. The clip was right about smaller schemes that are

effective. They also have an important role to play in the

system. We will have to leave it there.

Time for a round`up of some of the other political stories in the East

Midlands this week. Here's John with 60 Seconds.

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have celebrated a 10% drop in crime

in the East Midlands. Labour's and the told a Westminster debate that

cuts mean fewer people are arrested `` labour MP. The police cannot

arrest because they have nowhere to put the drunks and the fighters on a

Friday and Saturday night. A warning to motorists with new figures

showing we have some of the most dangerous roads in the country.

According to the road safety foundation, three of the top ten

deadliest roads are in the Peak District. The A605 in

Nottinghamshire is that number four. Going underground without leaving

home, they scan of Nottingham's caves is under way. The project is

funded by local authorities and the University of Nottingham. The

remarkable images are online. Who would have thought all of that is

underground in Nottingham? That's the Sunday Politics in the

East Midlands. Thanks to Nicky Morgan and Lilian Greenwood for

being our guests. free school area for into that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

there was a difference between cancelling something that already

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the

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

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

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

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

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

debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately

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

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

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

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

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

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

That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living

standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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