09/03/2014 Sunday Politics East Midlands

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan

Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.

And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.

Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's

getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with

his Coalition partners. In fact, things are getting a wee bit nasty.

We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.

And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at

once. We'll be examining In the East Midlands, the Ddfence

Minister and an Afghan veteran on whether the war was worth it.

In London, we're focusing on the biggest social housing landlords.

Can Southwark Council really build 11,000 new homes in the next three

decades? And with me, as always, three of the

best and the brightest political panel in the business. At least

that's what it says in the Sunday Politics template. Back from the

Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes,

three camera-shy hacks, who've never taken a selfie in their life. We'll

be coming to that later. They just like to tweet. And they'll be doing

so throughout the programme. Welcome.

Now, first this morning, the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.

I know you speak of nothing else! The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't

made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.

Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib Dem default position. Here's Danny

Alexander speaking yesterday. Repairing the economy on its own

isn't enough. We have to do it fairly.

isn't enough. We have to do it the agenda a decision to cut taxes,

income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -

forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at

every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a

fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we

going to have to suffer 14 months of you and your colleagues desperately

trying to distance yourself from the Tories? It's not about distancing

ourselves. It's about saying, " this is what we as a party have achieved

in government together with the Conservatives". And saying, " this

is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the

fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we

promised in our manifesto in 20 0 but also that we want to go further

in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over a

2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties

to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst

also celebrating what we're achieving jointly in this Coalition,

particularly around the fact that we are, having taken very difficult

decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation

in this country, which is something I'm personally very proud and, as

the Coalition, we have achieved and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for

the decisions of the Liberal Democrats. Lets try and move on

You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now

seem more interested in Rowling with each other than running the country,

don't you? -- rowing with each other. I think we are making sure we

take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy on the

right track. Of course, there are lots of things where the

Conservatives have one view of the future and we have a different view

and it's quite proper that we should set those things out. There are big

differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives

just as there were big differences between the Liberal Democrats and

the Labour Party. I believe we're the only party that can marry that

commitment delivering a strong economy, which Labour can't do, and

that commitment to delivering a fairer society, which the Tories

can't be trusted to do by themselves. You are going out of

your way to pick fights with the Tories at the moment. It's a bit

like American wrestling. It is all show. Nobody is really getting hurt.

I've been compared to many things but an American wrestler is a

first! I don't see it like that It is right for us as a party to set

out what we've achieved and show people that what we promised on 2010

on income tax cuts is what this government is delivering. But nobody

seems convinced by these manufactured rows with the Tories.

You've just come last in a council by-election with 56 votes. You were

even bitten by an Elvis impersonator! Yes, that is true --

beaten. I could equally well quote council by-elections that we've won

recently, beating Conservatives the Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on

that is pretty good. You can always pick one that shows one or other

party in a poor light. Our party is having real traction with the

electric and the places where we have a real chance of winning. If

you're not an American wrestler maybe you should be an Elvis

impersonator! You told your spring forum... You don't want to hear me

sing! You want to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500 in the next

Parliament. Will you refuse to enter into Coalition with any party that

won't agree to that? What I said yesterday is that this will be

something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.

It's something that we will very much seek to achieve if we are

involved... We know that - will it be a red line? If you are a number

in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four

policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something

that is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats to deliver. For

the fifth time, will it be a red line? It will be, as I said, a very

high priority for the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament.

That's my language. We did that in the next election. The number-1

promise on our manifesto with a ?10,000 threshold and we've

delivered that in this Parliament. People can see that when we say

something is a top priority, we deliver it. Is it your claim... Are

you claiming that the Tories would not have raised the starting point

of income tax if it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats? If you

remember back in the leaders' debates in the 2010 election

campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly championing this idea and David

Cameron said it couldn't be afforded. Each step of the way in

the Coalition negotiations within government, we've had to fight for

that. The covert overtures have other priorities. -- the

Conservatives. I don't want to go back into history. I'd like to get

to the present. Have the Conservatives resisted every effort

to raise the starting point of income tax? As I said, we promised

this in 2010, they said it couldn't be done. We've made sure it was

delivered in the Coalition. Have they resisted it? We've argued for

big steps along the way and forced it on to the agenda. They've wanted

to deliver other things are so we've had to fight for our priority.. Did

the Conservatives resist every attempt? It has been resisted,

overall the things I'm talking about, by Conservatives, because

they have wanted to deliver other things and, of course, in a

Coalition you negotiate. Both parties have their priorities. Our

priority has been a very consistent one. Last year, they were arguing

about tax breaks for married couples. They were arguing in 2 10

for tax cuts for millionaires. Our priority in all these discussions

has been a consistent one, which is to say we want cutbacks for working

people. -- we want to cut tax for working people. That has been

delivered by both parties in the Coalition government full top So

what do you think when the Tories take credit for it? I understand why

they want to try to do that. Most people understand what we have just

said. Not if the polls are to be believed... You're under 10%. This

is one of the things, when I talk to people, but I find they know that

the Lib Dems have delivered in government. People know we promised

it in 2010 and we're the ones who forced this idea onto the agenda in

our election manifesto. You've said that five times in this interview

alone. The reality is, this is now a squabbling, loveless marriage. We're

getting bored with all your tests, the voters. Why don't you just

divorced? -- all your arguments I don't accept that. On a lot of

policy areas, the Coalition government has worked very well

together. We're delivering an awful lot of things that matter to this

country. Most importantly, the mess that Labour made of the economy we

are sorting out. We are getting our finances on the right track, making

our economy more competitive, creating jobs up and down this

country, supporting businesses to invest in growth. That is what this

Coalition was set up to do, what it is delivering, and both myself and

George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that

record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is

anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might

drive voter apathy up to record levels. There is a simple answer to

why they don't divorced - it's the agreement that Parliament will last

until 2015. MPs are bouncing around Westminster with very little to do.

They are looking for things to put in the Queen's Speech and we are

going to have rocks basically the 40 months and very little substantial

difference in policies. Do you believe Danny Alexander when he says

there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not

for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the lily. If you look back at papers are

written in 2001 suggesting precisely this policy, written by a Tory peer,

you see there are plenty of Tories which suggest there would have been

this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and

they need to show they've achieved something in government because they

are below 10% in the polls and finding it incredibly difficult to

get any traction at all. The other leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is

now to be explicitly the party of Europe and to be the vanguard of the

fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel

Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib

Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch

different. They are targeting a section of the electorate who are a

bit more amenable to their views than the rest. They wouldn't get 20%

of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do

disproportionately well amongst those and it will payoff and they

will end up with something like 15%. How many seats will the Lib Dems

losing the next election? Ten. 0. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that

on tape and see what actually happens!

The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a man on a mission.

He's undertaken the biggest overhaul in our welfare state since it was

invented way back in the black-and-white days of the late

1940s. A committed Roman Catholic, he's said he has a moral vision to

reverse the previous welfare system, which he believes didn't create

enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are

they fair? As he bitten off more than he can chew? In a moment, we'll

speak to the man himself but first, here's Adam.

Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just

be the most ambitious welfare secretary there's ever been. It s a

journey that started in the wind and rain on a Glasgow council estate 12

years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it

meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he

discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who

was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your

family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper

skill - that's what keeps you of poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants

to redefine the nature of what it means to be poor and how you get

away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate

the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people

on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last year, up

from around 1700 to around 1200 But the picture in his wider changes to

the welfare state is a bit more mixed. A cap on the total amount of

benefits a family can get, of ?26,000 a year, is hugely popular

but there have been howls of protest over cuts to housing benefit,

labelled the bedroom tax by some. Protests, too, about assessments for

people on disability benefits, inherited from the previous

government. Iain Duncan Smith has been accused of being heartless and

the company doing them, Atos, has pulled out. And then the big one -

and universal credit, a plan to roll six benefits into one monthly

payment, in a way designed to ensure that work always pays. Some of the

IT has been written off and the timetable seems to be slipping.

Outside the bubble of the stage-managed ministerial trip, a

local Labour MP reckons he's bitten off more than he can chew. The great

desire is to say, " let's have one simple one size fits all approach" .

And there isn't one size of person or family out there. People need to

change and they can challenge on the turn of a penny almost. One minute

they are doing the right thing, working hard. Next minute, they need

a level of support and if this simple system doesn't deliver that

for them, they're in a difficult position. And that's the flying

visit to the front line finished. He does not like to hang about and just

as well do - his overhaul of the entire benefits system still has

quite a long way to go. And Iain Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I

come onto the interview on welfare reform, is Danny Alexander right

when he claims the Lib Dems had to fight to get the Tories to raise the

income tax threshold? That is not my recollection of what happened. These

debates took place in the Coalition. The Conservatives are in

favour of reducing the overall burden of taxation, so the question

was how best do we do it? The conversation took place, they were

keen on raising the threshold, there were also other ways of doing it but

it is clear from the Conservatives that we always wanted to improve the

quality of life of those at the bottom so raising the threshold fit

within the overall plan. If it was a row, it was the kind of row you have

over a cup of tea round the breakfast table. We have got a lot

to cover. There are two criticisms mainly of what you are doing - will

they work, and will they be fair? Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers,

wants to know why so much has already been written off due to

failures of the universal credit system even though it has been

barely introduced. Relatively it has been a ?2 billion investment

project, in the private sector programmes are written off regularly

at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we are improving as we go along, the

key thing is to keep your eye on the parts that don't work and make sure

they don't create a problem for the programme. 140 million has been

wasted! The 40 million that was written off was just do with

security IT, and I took that decision over a year and a half ago

so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the

standard right down, the aggregation of cost over a period of time. The

computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.

Universal credit is rolling out we are doing the Pathfinders and

learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last

government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even

your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal

credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time

when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I

intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out

and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were

predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this

is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare

benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by

April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we

rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of

someone we brought from outside he said that you are better rolling it

out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for

rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the

timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so

that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works

properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of

claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong

thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything

about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you

do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in

the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written

off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,

so it is worth getting it right William Grant wants to know, when

will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody

who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal

credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because

it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,

but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's

allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of

them are already doing that now there are 200,000 people around the

country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when

everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit

will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.

Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.

The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right

now somebody has to go to work and there is a small job out there. They

won't take that because the way their benefits are withdrawn, it

will mean it is not worth doing it. Under the way we have got it in the

Pathfinders, the change is dramatic. A job-seeker can take a

small part time job while they are looking for work and it means

flexibility for business so it is a big change. Lets see if that is true

because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.

Let me show you a quote Minister in the last

-- in the last Tory conference. It has only come down to 76%. Actually

form own parents, before they get to the tax bracket it is well below

that. That is a decision the Government takes about the

withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your

reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra

pound, will pay a marginal rate of 76%. -- if they earn an extra pound.

The 98% he is talking about is a specific area to do with lone

parents but there are specific compound areas in the process that

mean people are better off staying at home then going to work. They

will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing

to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at

different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal

credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they

are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going

to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are

going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes

billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of

universal credit, I promise you and that level of withdrawal then

becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether

they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra

money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody

crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,

in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them

to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you

could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can

always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made

by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this

system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its

priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will

be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work

faster, doing more job searches and more likely to take work under

universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has

been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not

been a glorious success, has it That is wrong. Right now the work

programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the

order of 500,000 people have gone back into work as a result of the

programme. Around 280,000 people are in a sustained work over six

months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about

the work programme is that it is setup so that we make the private

sector, two things that are important, there is competition in

every area so that people can be sucked out of the programme and

others can move in. The important point here as well is this, that

actually they don't get paid unless they sustain somebody for six months

of employment. Under previous programmes under the last

government, they wasted millions paying companies who took the money

and didn't do enough to get people into work. The best performing

provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed

only 2%. It is young people. That report was on the early first months

of the work programme, it is a two-year point we are now and I can

give you the figures for this. They are above the line, the improvement

has been dramatic and the work programme is better than any other

back to work programme under the last government. So why is long term

unemployment rising? It is falling. We have the largest number of people

back in work, there is more women in work than ever before, more jobs

being created, 1.6 million new jobs being created. The work programme is

working, our back to work programmes are incredibly successful at below

cost so we are doing better than the last government ever did, and it

will continue to improve because this process is very important. The

competition is what drives up performance. We want the best

performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are

practising Catholic, Archbishop Vincent Nichols has attached your

reforms -- attack to your reforms, saying they are becoming more

punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't

agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these

attacks because most are not correct.

For the poorest temper sent in their society, they are now spending, as a

percentage of their income, less than they did before. I'm not quite

sure what he thinks welfare is about. Welfare is about stabilising

people but most of all making sure that households can achieve what

they need through work. The number of workless households under

previous governments arose consistently. It has fallen for the

first time in 30 years by nearly 18%. Something like a quarter of a

million children were growing up in workless households and are now in

households with work and they are three times more likely to grow up

with work than they would have been in workless households. Let me come

into something that he may have had in mind as being punitive - some

other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister

announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt

from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High

Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of

severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,

some may describe it, heartless We were originally going to appeal that

and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking

about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for

this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about

their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But

for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our

decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,

having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.

You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt

them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.

Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing

benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to

?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest

rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into

control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in

housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and

we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the

spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the

reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in

overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million

people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people

sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we

build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and

others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they

actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in

overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of

money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to

go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right

sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank

that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000

job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,

are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not

correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct

and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some

people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to

food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is

referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some

but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where

they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you

don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit

withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly

withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This

is a very small subset. But if you lose your job-seeker benefit

unfairly, you have no cash flow There is an immediate review within

seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is

reviewed. They are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there

is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion setup to help people,

through crisis, hardship funds and in many other ways. We've given more

than ?200 million to authorities to do face-to-face checks. This is not

a nasty, vicious system but a system that says, "look, we ask you to do

certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you

have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing

those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I

think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices

throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is

what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling

in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these

figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also

shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this

Parliament, and your government, and will continue to rise. But never

mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be

400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament

ends. That isn't a projection but the actual figures. But the last

figures show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The

important point is... Can I just finished this point of? Child

poverty is measured against 60% of median income so this is an issue

about how we measure child poverty. You want to change the measure. I

made the decision not to publish our change figures at this point because

we've still got a bit more work to do on them but there is a big

consensus that the way we measure child poverty right now does not

measure exactly what requires to be done. For example, a family with an

individual parent who may be drug addicted and gets what we think is

enough money to be just over the line, their children may be living

in poverty but they won't be measured so we need to get a

measurement that looks at poverty in terms of how people live, not just

in terms of the income levels they have. You can see on that chart -

400,000 rising by the end of this Parliament - you are deciding over

an increase. Speedier I want to change it because under the last

government child poverty rose consistently from 2004 and they

ended up chucking huge sums of money into things like tax credits. In tax

credits, in six years before the last election, the last government

spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty target and they didn't achieve what

they set out to achieve. We don't want to continue down that line

where you simply put money into a welfare system to alter a marginal

income line. It doesn't make any sense. That's why we want to change

it, not because some projection says it might be going up. I will point

out again it isn't a projection up to 2013-14. You want it to make work

pay but more people in poverty are now in working families than in

workless families. For them, workers not paying. Those figures referred

to the last government's time in government. What is interesting

about it is that until 2010, under the last government, those in

working families - poverty in working families rose by half a

million. For the two years up to the end of those figures, it has been

flat, under this government. These are figures at the last

government... You inherited and it hasn't changed. The truth is, even

if you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if they are

in workless families, are three times more likely to be out of work

and to suffer real hardship. So, in other words, moving people up the

scale, into work and then on is important. The problem with the last

government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain

hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you

progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But

those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's

tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left

people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through

all this. A lot more I'd like to talk about. I hope you will come

back. I will definitely come back. Thank you for joining us.

You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.

As our troops pull out of Afghanistan, we will hear from a

Defence Minister and a veteran as to whether it will be `` it has all

been worth it? towns are opdn for business, girls are going to school

and millions of Afghan refugees have come home. No`one doubts thdy are

going to be huge challenges when British troops leave later this

year. Same`sex marriage becomes legal this week, but one advice

centre in the region says epual rights for gay people are still a

long way off. From the 2nd of January, when we opened our doors

after the Christmas break, we have dealt with 11 suicidal individuals

who have attempted to kill themselves. My guests this week the

Conservative MP for Roxburgh and Defence Minister Anna Soubrx and

Labour's MP Margaret Becket and a would`be politician, David Bishop,

who has been in the news thhs week. David Bishop, you stood with your

Bus Pass Elvis Party and yot took a momentous fourth place in a

Nottingham City Council by`dlection. You pushed the Lib Dems into fifth

place. Congratulations. How do you feel? Thank you very much.

Surprised, but I thought I light get somewhere this time. I didn't think

the Lib Dems would do very well In a recent by`election in Manchester,

they lost their deposit, so I thought there may be a chance this

time that I would beat them. I never saw the Liberal Democrat calpaign

team. I didn't see any literature. I don't know where they were

leafleting. I never saw anything. Your success has taken you to

trending on Twitter. Are yot aware of the success? No. You are. I don't

have a computer. Somebody h`s to look at these things for me. I

haven't got a computer, I h`ven t got a TV. I haven't got a mobile

phone. You haven't got a phone? Mobile phone. The Lib Dems have told

us that they knew that they couldn't win the seat, so they didn't

campaign there. Do you belidve that? That is what they have told us. They

didn't stand last time. I know they didn't stand last time. Why this

time? Why did they stand thhs time? They didn't stand last time. I guess

to give people a chance to vote To see the strength of support that

they have. We actually have history. I thought you and I had stood

against each other, but we haven't. How do you feel about it whdn people

like David, fringe candidatds, stand? Brilliant. We had a

by`election in Sherwood, in the city ward, which I have stood in. You had

different name them. You were the Elvis Appreciation Party. Church of

the Militant Elvis. That is it, Church of the Militant Elvis. They

all have Elvis as a theme, don't they? Different campaigns. That was

the more religious one. That was good fun. Obviously, Elvis hs more

popular than the Lib Dems, hn conclusion. How do you feel,

Margaret, about people like David standing? They've got every right to

stand. If they enjoy themselves fine. A bit of a nuisance, really?

No. It adds great fun. I might not be so amused if I lost to somebody!

I lost to a garlic in a student union election. ``

. I lost to one of the Daleks. You're not a Doctor Who fan? You got

67, the Lib Dems got 56. Yot weren't expecting to do as well as xou did.

You doubled what you did last time. I think the Lib Dems probably wish

they had not have stood. I would have been bottom if they had not

have stood. It was an interdsting by`election. To be truthful, I

didn't think we would do as well as we did. We did well. It is ` very

interesting... I know a bit about the area. It is an interesthng seat,

it used to be held by three Tories. Labour won it in 2011. David, where

do you go now? Where do I go now? Yes, general election wise. I was

going to say to the pub! No, I am not sure what I will do. I hope you

might stand in Anne's consthtuency! I heard you might. Is that true

Don't you dare! Not against me. Not with a majority of 389. Go to

Margaret's seat. David, thank you very much. The lighter side of

politics there. But you cannot get much more serious than our next

topic. British troops have begun their withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Among them, hundreds of troops from the East Midlands. Much of ht has

been documented by our correspondent. Now, as the bases are

wound down, he's been back to Afghanistan for a special rdport on

the impact East Midlands soldiers have had. This is Camp Basthon. The

sprawling British base in the middle of the desert that was designed by

engineers from the Chilwell. Thousands of men and women have been

deployed here over the last few years. Some are packing up to head

home. It is already well under wax. They

are dismantling bases, loadhng containers and cleaning thotsands of

vehicles that will be sent back to the UK. When I first came hdre five

years ago, it was very diffdrent. It was all`out war. The soldiers from

Derbyshire saw some of the toughest fighting since World War II. They

have shown extraordinary cotrage and more than 20 men have lost their

lives from the East Midlands. I asked the commander here in Helmand

Province what they have achheved. The role that has been playdd by

regiments such as the Royal Anglian Regiment, their contribution has

been really valuable. You c`n see the changes, you can see thd

progress that has been made. We were originally in Afghanistan bdcause of

the threat that was posed from this part of the world which led to /11

and the summer attacks in London. Since then, there has been `n

operation to assist the Afghans in the rebuilding of their nathon in

order so they can have their own security forces that can prdvent

that threat from emanating from this part of the world again. But there

still remains an underlying political issue here in Afghanistan

which is the source of the insurgency. Some people will say

that the Taliban still has hnfluence in this part of Afghanistan. We are

withdrawing. We haven't won this war. A secure environment in which

they can recruit their army and their police. Would concede that the

activity of the troops and British soldiers as part of that, h`ve

successfully bought the Afghans time. That has allowed a secure

environment. We have been ddlivering training. Can you see the T`liban

back in power in some form hn Helmand Province? I can see no

chance here in Helmand. The people of Helmand overwhelmingly rdject the

Taliban. They can see that the government of Afghanistan h`ve been

able to deliver effective sdcurity and they have also been abld to

deliver the functions of government that we would expect in the UK. The

Taliban offer none of that. Since the Royal Anglians first arrived

here 12 years ago, things h`ve changed dramatically. Towns are open

for business, girls are going to school, and millions of Afghan

refugees have come home. But no`one doubts there are going to bd huge

challenges when British troops leave later this year. So will security

here deteriorate? Could the Taliban be back in power and will the

sacrifices of so many troops from the East Midlands make a lasting

difference here? You can sed more of Jeremy's report on Afghanistan on

the BBC 's website. Joining us now is an ex`servicemen from

Nottinghamshire who lost a leg when a landmine exploded in Afgh`nistan.

It is great to see you. Jerdmy posed a big question at the end there

Were the sacrifices, includhng your own, worth it? It depends what

question you are asking. We needed to be out there and the Govdrnment

decided that soldiers are to go out there and that is our job. Ht is a

difficult one, it is a diffhcult question to answer, it depends who

you believe. Some people wotld say that we are coming out, but we have

not defeated the Taliban. I've got to agree. I would like us

to be there until the job is done, but I cannot see the job evdr been

done, to be honest, and I think it is time that somebody is br`ve

enough to put up their hand and say, "It is time to leave." As Jdremy

said, 20 deaths from th East Midlands.

Was it worth it? I think so, yes. It is difficult. When you're whth

someone who has lost a loved one or a son or a friend or neighbour or

whatever, especially when somebody has been injured extremely badly, it

is always difficult. But on balance I think yes we did the right thing.

We went in in 2001. We know why we went in, to see off the Talhban and

to reduce, hopefully destrox, the threat that we have seen with the

9/11 incident. That was the whole reason for starting. That is why we

went in. The very real thre`t of terrorist cells. When you t`lk to

some people who are coming back I know it is fair to say that people

are going to put a big face on it. One of the things that we h`ve

achieved is that there is a much better governance, a better civil

society. So when you ask thd question ` will the Taliban be

coming back in? One thing wd have done is enabled the Afghan people to

say, we can do this. Was it right as you were in the Government that took

us to Afghanistan? One of the things that people have tended to forget is

that this was a United Nations operation. It was not just the US

and the UK, it is about 30 countries, if I recall corrdctly.

Because everybody was so appalled at 9/11, not just by what happdned but

by the realisation that this was a completely new kind of thre`t which

people had not anticipated. We have a lot of experience in this country,

we have had terrorism from Northern Ireland, but on the whole pdople

were not willing... They were willing to take the risk of dying,

but they were setting out to be killed. It was all a completely new

phenomenon. With the cuts that we are facing now to the Armed Forces,

could we mount that kind of operation now? Could we do what we

have done? My personal opinhon is no. We struggled originally to do

what we did, we went with no kit. We had the wrong kit in Iraq. Hn Iraq,

2006, we had the wrong kits. We would go out on patrol with three

magazines. We had 10,000 rotnds when I went out in Afghanistan. @re the

cuts going too far? It is h`rd to say. I haven't got all the figures.

I would like all the wastagd in the MoD to be sorted out and thdn you a

problem we find you would not need as many cuts. We have cut pdrsonnel,

we have increased the kits now. I think everybody agrees that the kits

that the guys get, the vehicle, new fleet of vehicles, it is ex`ctly

what they want and when I go out, one of the things... You get

soldiers in particular who `lways ask you, would you like to see our

weaponry? I want to know, do you have what you need? And thex say,

"Yes, we have what we need." We re talking reducing personnel `nd one

MP, the Shadow Defence Minister said that the redundancy programme

should be put on pause. He said the cuts will leave us with

8000 fewer soldiers than we need. Can we be doing this at this time,

faced with the problems we have We have gone through the review. In

America, they have announced huge cuts. I don't know whether Vernon is

saying that the next Labour Government will increase spdnding,

the anyway you can do it. I think a lot of people, including in

Hannah's own party, really puite worried about the way in whhch there

is emphasis on reserves and so on. The events of the last few days have

shown us just how much something can blow up almost out of the blue and

the problems it can cause. H think there is anxiety. There is the

worry. As all the soldiers from Afghanistan, a will need help. You

told me before you came in, you have been recently diagnosed with PTSD.

You have had friends who have come back from fighting. They ard

struggling, aren't they? Thd help is not there. That is the truth of the

matter. The Government is not helping us that they must step in

and do. Charities are there. There are a lot of charities therd that

are struggling themselves. There is a lot of money being put into

charities, but over the next few years when it isn't there any more.

We have put in tens upon tens upon millions of pounds into charities.

Forgive me, it is right that Help for Heroes will raise 40 million a

year. Did you get the help xou need it yourself? Sorry. It is ilportant.

What happens then? That is why we put this funding, guaranteed ?1

million year on year. I think it is really important to say that the

majority of our serving personnel and veterans, actually, havd better

mental health. Very, very briefly. I have to disagree. Completelx. The

help is not there. The problem soldiers have got, PTSD norlally

happens five or ten years after they left the army and they cannot prove

it happened during service. You wish you had more help. I wish there was

more helpful soldiers. Thank you for joining us. On Thursday, sale`sex

marriages will pass into law. It has been billed as an historic loment.

Campaigners say many gay people are still facing discrimination and even

violence and intimidation. With same`sex marriages becoming

legal, it is easy to think that the battle for gay rights is ovdr. But

this centre in Leicester tells a different story. The centre offers

help and advice to people from the Lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender committees. `` communities. It has never bden

busier. From the 2nd of Jantary when we opened our doors after the

Christmas break, we have de`lt with 11 individuals who have attdmpted to

kill themselves. They range from somebody in the late 30s to the

opposite end of the spectrul, 1 or 14`year`olds. We had an inqtiry from

an 11`year`old who wrote a detailed letter to his grandmother bdcause he

couldn't cope with the Billhngham school. `` the bullying in school.

You are the project worker here What sort of problems do yot see? We

get a wide range of issues. I never know who is going to be at the end

of the phone. One of the social issues that we are encountering

much more lately, is that of the lesbian gay bisexual or transgender

asylum seeker. At the moment, they are put in the impossible shtuation

of having to prove that thex are lesbian or gay. What does that look

like? I have dealt with people who say that they have been told that

they are too pretty to be a lesbian or too butch to be a gay man. For

the people who use the centre, it is a vital lifeline. Amy, you find this

place quite useful. Yes. Whx is that? It is mainly to do with the

people that you meet and yot can relate to other people and lost of

them have been through what you have been through, like bullying and

stuff like that. The support here is really good. I feel like I can say

anything too poor or ten and they will help we have in any wax

possible. `` Paul or Tim. It is good. We have come so far. When I

was growing up at 14 or 15, our to a psychiatrist, to where we are now,

if there is not a comparison. `` I was sent to a psychiatrist. But I

think the generation after ts and after that will benefit frol the

work we are doing now. Therd is terrible work that is being put

about at the moment is that we are tolerant. We tolerate the b`d

weather, we shouldn't be tolerating human beings. That is not p`rt of

our agenda. Same`sex marriage becomes illegal next week. Some

people here think there is ` long way to go before they reach full

equality and the bleak mess`ge is that some think it would happen in

their lifetime. That is one bleak message.

The centre says it has has 01 cases of people attempting suicidd. It is

shocking. I don't think it hs that gay people don't have equal rights,

but they still suffer from prejudice. That is wrong. I have

been a long`time campaigner for gay rights, since I was a student. I am

very proud of that. We know we have prejudice. I held a public leeting

in my constituency at the thme of the same`sex marriage bill. I was

somebody who was in favour of the same`sex marriage Bill, I stpported

it. It was one of the most puite unpleasant events that I have ever

been to. The level of blind prejudice was extremely unpleasant.

What was interesting is that older gay people there, it was like,

"Yeah, we have experienced this all our lives." How do we Had wd

overcome that prejudice? I think you just have to keep working away at it

and recognise that there will always be people that you will not win

over. As Anna says, it is one of the issues we get some of the most

unpleasant correspondence. Do you think legalising same`sex m`rriage

is enough, though? I agree with Anna. I thought, watching the film,

it isn't about rights, it is about attitude. It is about understanding.

Tolerance. They want more than just that. It is about recognising the

humanity in somebody has different sexuality and attitudes to xou. It

is not for me, somebody who is straight, to tell gay peopld what

they want. What we want is we want the end of prejudice. It has changed

hugely in my lifetime. They do say they want to be treated as dqual. In

law, they are. Forgive me, H think it is prejudice and attitudds. The

attitude of young people to same`sex marriage, overwhelmingly thd

attitude I have found sorry, what is the problem? It was the olddr

generation, not all, of course, who had more faith problem with it. ``

more of a problem. So for a lot of young gay people, they are shocked

now to see this level of prdjudice. To be fair, where there is prejudice

among the young, it becomes part of this horrible bullying atmosphere

that can go around. Actuallx, it is just one of the tools. Maybd it is

almost an indication of how younger people don't think of it as being

absolutely terribly important in the way that some older people do, but

it is just one tool that is to beat somebody if you don't like them and

wants to believe in. `` you want to believe them. You explain to us how

you voted for same`sex marrhage and half of the MPs in the East Midlands

voted against. `` half of the Conservative MPs. Yes, but that is

not because they are anti`g`y. Forgive me, same`sex marriage.. It

was about marriage. It was `bout marriage. It is also about same`sex

marriage. Yes, that was the vote. But that is not just for gax people.

A lot of people don't understand this, but I have the most alazing

couple in my constituency who married as a man and a woman, who

now find themselves the man is a woman, and they live togethdr and

they bring up three children they are utterly brilliant. But for her

now to have her certificate, she would have to divorce her whfe,

because it would... It is a very small example, but it is for them

and a lot of people transgender it is a fantastic step forward. Can we

do more to help centres likd this? I don't know about the centres. Gay

people don't have to just h`ve centres. It is about prejudhce. Some

do. That needs to be funded, doesn't it? I think we are in danger of

being simplistic. Forgive md, I wasn't trying to be. Here's our

political editor with 60 seconds. Thousands of people suffering from a

fatal cancer caused by exposure to asbestos whilst at work will be

eligible for new compensation from July. The Government is increasing

payments to ?123,000 for sufferers. Even if they cannot trace their

former employer or insurer. Mansfield's MP Sir Alan Neill and

welcomes the move, but... The only thing they have announced is a

maximum ?8,000 increase which is not a lot of money. The number of people

taking apprenticeships has brought a ?150 million windfall for btsinesses

in the region. That is according to South Derbyshire's Heather Wheeler.

The Conservative MP says each apprentice brings nearly ?2000 worth

of benefits into a company. Andrew Brigden is leading a call for

people who watch TV without a licence to be spared a crimhnal

record. At the moment, people can be taken to court and fined up to

?1000. That is the Sunday Politics. Thank

you to our guests. Time to hand you back to Andrew Neill. Thanks very

much indeed. Gove is right to focus. We've run

out of time. Thanks for being here. Andrew, back to you.

Now, without further ado, more from our political panel. Iain Martin,

what did you make of Iain Duncan Smith's response to the Danny

Alexander point I'd put to him? I thought it was a cheekily put

response but actually, on Twitter, people have been tweeting while on

air that there are lots of examples where the Tories have demanded the

raising of the threshold. The 2 06 Forsyth tax omission is another

example. Helen, on the bigger issue of welfare reforms, is welfare

reform, as we head into the election, despite all the

criticisms, still a plus for the government? I don't think so.

Whatever the opposite of a Midas touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got

it. David Cameron never talks about universal credit any more. The

record on personal independence payment, for example... We didn t

get onto that. Only one in six of those notes have been paid. A toss

pulling out of their condiment has been a nightmare. It's a very big

minus point for the Secretary of State. -- Atos pulling out of bed

contract. Welfare cuts are an unambiguous point for the government

but other points more ambiguous I don't think it's technical

complexity that makes IDS's reform a problem. The IT gets moved out with

time. But even if it's in fermented perfectly, what it will achieve has

been slightly oversold, I think and simplified incredibly. All it does

is improve incentives to work for one section of the income scale and

diminishes it at another. Basically, you are encouraged to go from

working zero hours to 16 hours but your incentive to work beyond 1

goes down. That's not because it's a horrendous policy but because in

work benefits systems are imperceptible. Most countries do

worse than we do. -- benefits systems cannot be perfected. They

need to tone down how much this can achieve even if it all goes

flawlessly. There are clearly problems, particularly within

limitation, but Labour is still wary of welfare reform. -- with

implementation. Polls suggest it is rather popular. People may not know

what's involved were like the sound of it. I think Janan is right to

mark out the differences between welfare cuts and welfare reforms.

They are related but distinct. Are we saying cuts are more popular than

reform? They clearly are. The numbers, when you present people

numbers on benefit reductions, are off the scale. Reform, for the

reasons you explored in your interview, is incredibly

compensated. What's interesting is that Labour haven't really

definitively said what their position is on this. I think they

like - despite what they may see in public occasionally - some of what

universal credit might produce but they don't want to be associated

with it. We probably won't know until if Ed Miliband is Prime

Minister precisely what direction Labour will go. Immigration is still

a hot topic in Westminster and throughout the country. This new

Home Office minister, James Brokenshire, made an intervention.

Let's see what he had to say. For too long, the benefits of

immigration went to employers who wanted an easy supply of cheap

labour or to the wealthy metropolitan elite who wanted cheap

tradesmen and services, but not to the ordinary hard-working people of

this country. With the result that the Prime Minister and everyone else

has to tell us all whether they ve now got Portuguese or whatever it is

Nanny is. Is this the most cack-handed intervention on an

immigration issue in a long list? I think it is and when I saw this

being trailed the night before, I worried for him. As soon as a

minister of the Crown uses the phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite"

more likely we see it in recession. We've just had the worst recession

in several decades. It's no small problem but compared to what

ministers like James Brokenshire has been saying for the past few years

and also the reluctance to issue the report earlier, I thought that,

combined with the speech, made it quite a bad week for the department.

Was this a cack-handed attempt to appeal to the UKIP voters? I think

so and he's predecessor had to leave the job because of having a foreign

cleaner. It drew attention to the Tories' biggest problem, the out of

touch problem. Most people around the country probably don't have a

Portuguese nanny and you've just put a big sign over David Cameron

saying, this man can afford a Portuguese Nanny. It is not the

finest political operation ever conducted and the speech was

definitely given by the Home Office to Number Ten but did Number Ten

bother to read it? It was a complete shambles. The basic argument that

there is a divide between a wealthy metropolitan elite and large parts

of Middle Britain or the rest of the country I think is basically sound.

It is but they are on the wrong side of it. What do you mean by that The

Tory government is on the wrong side. This is appealing to UKIP

voters and we know that UKIP is appealing to working-class voters

who have previously voted Labour and Tory. If you set up that divide

make sure you are on the right side stop When you talk about

metropolitan members of the media class, they say that it is rubbish

and everyone has a Polish cleaner. No, they don't. I do not have a

clean! I don't clean behind the fridge, either! Most people in the

country don't have a cleaner. The problem for the Tories on this is,

why play that game? You can't out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three

years of sustained Tory effort to do that, they will probably finish

behind UKIP. Do we really want a political system where it becomes an

issue of where your nanny or your cleaner is from, if you've got one?

Unless, of course, they're illegal. But Portuguese or Italian or

Scottish... And intervention was from Nick Clegg who said his wife

was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and his wife was Spanish. Not communism

but who your cleaner is! It's the McCarthy question! Where does your

cleaner come from. A lot of people will say are lucky to have a

cleaner. I want to move onto selfies but first, on the Nigel Farage

Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with the TV one. Who do you think will

win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a surprisingly good in debates and

people have forgotten. I think Clegg is going to win. I think Farage has

peaked. We're going to keep that on tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there.

Selfies. Politicians are attempting to show they're down with the kids.

Let's look at some that we've seen in recent days.

Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm so embarrassed you call me reading

the SNP manifesto, as I do every Saturday! They do it because it

makes them seem authentic and that's the big Lie that social media tells

you - that you're seeing the real person. You're not, you're seeing a

very carefully manicured, more witty person. That doesn't work for

politicians. It looks so fake and I'm still suffering the cringe I see

every time I see Cameronserious phone face. Does Mr Cameron really

think it big Sim up because he's on the phone to President Obama? Obama

is not the personality he once was. There is an international crisis in

Ukraine - of course we are expecting to be speaking to Obama! And if you

were in any doubt about what a man talking on the telephone looks like,

here's a photo. I must confess, I didn't take my own selfie. Did your

nanny? My father-in-law took it Where is your father-in-law from?

Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I think we've got one of you. The 1%!

What a great telephone! Where did you get that telephone? It looks

like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's what I go to bed in. It showed how

excited Cameron was to be on the phone to Obama. All our politicians

think they are living a mini version of US politics. President Obama goes

on a big plane and we complain when George Osborne goes first class on

first Great Western. They want to be big and important like American

politics but it doesn't work. We'll see your top at next week!

That's it for this week. Faxed all our guests. The Daily Politics is on

all this week at lunchtime on BBC Two. We'll be back here same time,

same place next week. Remember, if it's Sunday, it is the Sunday

Politics.