01/12/2013 Sunday Politics East

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne

announces a ?50 cut to annual household energy bills. We'll talk

to Lib Dem president Tim Farron ahead of the Chancellor's mini

budget this week. Net immigration is up for the first

time in two years. Labour and the Tories say they want to bring it

down, but how? Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper joins us for the

Sunday Interview. The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will

be for some cornflakes to get to the top. The Mayor of London says

inequality and greed are essential to spur economic

Suffolk MP Tim Yeo is docked by his local party.

Suffolk MP Tim Yeo is docked by his capital is now a crisis. Another

week, another strategy? Can this one deliver?

And with me throughout today's programme, well, we've shaken the

packet and look who's risen to the top. Or did we open it at the

bottom? Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates. All three will be

tweeting throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp. So, after

weeks in which Ed Miliband's promise to freeze energy prices has set the

Westminster agenda, the Coalition Government is finally coming up with

its answer. This morning the Chancellor George Osborne explained

how he plans to cut household energy bills by an average of fifty quid.

What we're going to do is roll back the levees that are placed by

government on people's electricity bills. This will mean that for the

average bill payer, they will have ?50 of those electricity and gas

bills. That will help families. We are doing it in the way that

government can do it. We are controlling the cost that families

incurred because of government policies. We are doing it in a way

that will not damage the environment or reduce our commitment to dealing

with climate change. We will not produce commit men to helping

low-income families with the cost of living. Janan, we are finally seeing

the coalition begin to play its hand in response to the Ed Miliband

freeze? They have been trying to respond for almost ten weeks and

older responses have been quite fiddly. We are going to take a bit

of tax year, put it onto general taxation, have a conversation with

the energy companies, engineered a rebate of some kind, this is not

very vivid. The advantage of the idea that they have announced

overnight is that it is clear and it has a nice round figure attached to

it, ?50. The chief of staff of President Obama, he said, if you are

explaining, you're losing. The genius of this idea is that it does

not require explanation. He would not drawn this morning on what

agreement he had with the energy companies, and whether this would

fall through to the bottom of the bill, but the way he spoke, saying,

I am not going to pre-empt what the energy companies say, that suggests

he has something up his sleeve. Yes, I thought so. The energy companies

have made this so badly for so long. It would be awful if he announced

this and the energy companies said, we are going to keep this money for

ourselves. I do not think he is that stupid. The energy companies have an

incentive to go along with this don't they? My worry is that I am

not sure how much it will be within the opinion polls. I think people

might expect this now, it is not a new thing, it is not an exciting

thing. Say in the markets, they may have priced the ten already. If by

Thursday of this week, he is able to say, I have a ?50 cut coming to your

bill. The energy companies have guaranteed that this will fall

through onto your energy bill, and they have indicated to me that they

themselves will not put up energy prices through 2014, has he shot the

Ed Miliband Fox? I think he has a couple of challenges. It is still

very hard. This is an answer for the next 12 months but did is no chance

announced that Labour will stop saying they are going to freeze

prices in the next Parliament. He will say, I have not just frozen

them, I have done that as well and I have cut them. When people look at

their energy bills, they are going up by more than ?50. This is a

reduction in the amount that they are going up overall. Year on 0

will be for George Osborne. He will have to come up with something this

time next year. The detail in the Sunday papers reveals that George

Osborne is trying to get the energy companies to put on bills that 50

has been knocked off your bill because of a reduction by the

government. He is trying to get the energy companies to do his political

bidding for him. It will be interesting to see if they go along

with that, because then we will know how cross the arm with Ed Miliband.

Let's get another perspective. Joining me now from Kendal in the

Lake District is the president of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Good morning. Let me ask you this, the

coalition is rowing back on green taxes, I do comfortable with that or

is it something else you will rebel against? I am very comfortable with

the fact we are protecting for the money is going. I am open to where

the money comes from. The notion that we should stop insulating the

homes of elderly people or stop investing in British manufacturing

in terms of green industry, that is something that I resolutely oppose,

but I am pleased that the funding will be made available for all that.

You cannot ignore the fact that for a whole range of reasons, mostly

down to the actions of the energy companies, you have prices that are

shooting up and affecting lots of people, making life hard. You cannot

ignore that. If we fund the installation of homes for older

people and others, if we protect British manufacturing jobs, and

raise the money through general taxation, I am comfortable with

that. It is not clear that is going to happen. It looks like the

eco-scheme, whereby the energy companies pay for the installation

of those on below-average incomes, they will spin that out over four

years, not two years, and one estimate is that that will cost

10,000 jobs. You're always boasting about your commitment to green jobs,

how do square that? I do not believe that. The roll-out will be longer.

The number of houses reached will be greater and that is a good thing. My

take is that it will not affect the number of jobs. People talk about

green levies. There has been disparaging language about that sort

of thing. There are 2 million people in this country in the lowest income

families and they get ?230 off their energy bills because of what isn't

-- because of what is disparaging the refer to as green stuff, shall

we call it. There will be more properties covered. We both know

that your party is being pushed into this by the Tories. You would not be

doing this off your own bad. You are in coalition with people who have

jettisoned their green Prudential is? -- credentials. You have made my

point quite well. David Cameron s panicked response to this over the

last few months was to ditch all the green stuff. It has been a job to

make sure that we hold him to his pledges and the green cord of this

government. That is why we are not scrapping the investment, we are

making sure it is funded from general taxation. I am talking to

you from Kendal. Lots of people struggle to pay their energy bills.

But all these things pale into insignificance compared to the

threat of climate change and we must hold the Prime Minister to account

on this issue. Argue reconciled to the idea that as long as you're in

coalition with the Tories you will never get a mansion tax? I am not

reconciled to it. We are trying to give off other tax cut to the lowest

income people. What about the mansion tax? That would be

potentially paid for by another view source of finance. That would be

that the wealthy... We know that is what you want, but you're not going

to get that? We will keep fighting for it. It is extremely important.

We can show where we will get the money from. I know that is the

adamant. That is not what I asked you. Ed Balls and Labour run in

favour of a mansion tax, have you talked to them about it? The honest

answer is I have not. It is interesting that they have come

round to supporting our policy having rejected it in power. So if

Labour was the largest party in parliament but not in power, you

would have no problem agreeing with a mansion tax as part of the deal?

If the arithmetic falls in that way and that is the will of the British

people, fear taxes on those who are wealthiest, stuff that is fear,

which includes wealth taxes, in order to fund more reductions for

those people on lowest incomes, that is the sort of thing that we might

reach agreement on. You voted with Labour on the spare room subsidy.

Again, that would be job done in any future coalition talks with Labour,

correct? I take the view that the spare room subsidy, whilst entirely

fail in principle, in practice it has caused immense hardship. I want

to see that changed. There are many people in government to share my

view on that. So does Labour. The problem was largely caused Labour

because they oversaw an increase in housing costs both 3.5 times while

they were in power. The government was forced into a position to tidy

up an appalling mess that Labour left. You voted with Labour against

it, and also, you want... No, I voted with the party conference

Let's not dance on the head of the ten. Maybe they voted with me. - on

the head of a pin. You are also in favour of a 50% top rate of income

tax, so you and Labour are that one there as well? No, I take the view

that the top rate of income tax is a fluid thing. All taxation levels are

temporary. Nick Clegg said that when the 50p rate came down to 45, that

was a rather foolish price tag George Osborne asked for in return

for as increasing the threshold and letting several million people out

of paying income tax at the bottom. So you agree with Labour? In favour

of rising the tax to 50p. I take the view that we should keep our minds

open on that. It is not the income tax level that bothers me, it is

whether the wealthy pay their fresh air. If that can be done through

other taxes, then that is something that I am happy with. -- their fair

share. Given your position on the top rate of tax, on the spare room

subsidy, how does the prospect of another five years of coalition with

the Tories strike you? The answer is, you react with whatever you have

about you to what the electorate hand you. Whatever happens after the

next election, you have got to respect the will of the people. Yes,

but how do you feel about it? We know about this, I am asking for

your feeling. Does your heart left or does your heart fall at the

prospect of another five years with the Tories? My heart would always

follow the prospect of anything other than a majority of Liberal

Democrat government. Your heart must be permanently in your shoes then.

Something like that, but when all is said and done, we accept the will of

the electorate. When you stand for election, you have got to put up

with what the electorate say. I have not found coalition as difficult as

you might suggest. It is about people who have to disagree and

agree to differ. You work with people in your daily life that you

disagree with. It is what grown ups do. A lot of people in your party

think that your positioning yourself to be the left-wing candidate in a

post-Nick Clegg leadership contest. They think it is blatant

manoeuvring. One senior figure says, this is about you. Which bit of the

sanctimonious, treacherous little man is there not to like? What can I

see in response to that. My job is to promote the Liberal Democrats. I

have to do my best to consider what I'd defend to be right. By and

large, my position as an MP in the Lake District, but also as the

president of the party, is to reflect the will of people outside

the Westminster village. That is the important thing to do. Thank you for

joining us. David Cameron has said he wants to get it down to the tens

of thousands, Ed Miliband has admitted New Labour "got it wrong",

and Nick Clegg wants to be "zero-tolerant towards abuse". Yes,

immigration is back on the political agenda, with figures released

earlier this week showing that net migration is on the rise for the

first time in two years. And that's not the only reason politicians are

talking about it again. The issue of immigration has come

into sharp focus because of concerns about the number of remaining ins

and Bulgarians that can come to the UK next year. EU citizenship grants

the right to free movement within the EU. But when Bulgaria and

Romania joined in 2007, the government took up its right to

apply temporary restrictions on movement. They must be lifted

apply temporary restrictions on end of this year. According to the

2011 census, about one eyed 1 million of the population in England

and Wales is made up of people from countries who joined the EU in 004.

The government has played down expectations that the skill of

migration could be repeated. This week David Cameron announced new

restrictions on the ability of EU migrants to claim benefits. That was

two, send a message. That prompted criticism is that the UK risks being

seen as a nasty country. Yvette Cooper joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Welcome to the Sunday Politics, Yvette Cooper. You

criticised the coalition for not acting sooner on immigration from

Romania and Bulgaria but the timetable for the unrestricted

arrival in January was agreed under Labour many years ago, and given the

battle that you had with the Polish and the Hungarians, what

preparations did you make in power? We think that we should learn from

some of the things that happened with migration. It would have been

better to have transitional controls in place and look at the impact of

what happened. But what preparations did you make in power? We set out a

series of measures that the Government still had time to bring

in. It is important that this should be a calm and measured debate. There

was time to bring in measures around benefit restrictions, for example,

and looking at the impact on the labour market, to make sure you do

not have exploitation of cheap migrant Labour which is bad for

everyone. I know that but I have asked you before and I am asking

again, what did you do? We got things wrong in Government. I

understand that I am not arguing. You are criticising them not

preparing, a legitimate criticism, but what did you do in power? Well,

I did think we did enough. Did you do anything? We signed the agency

workers directive but too slowly. We needed measures like that. We did

support things like the social chapter and the minimum wage, but I

have said before that we did not do enough and that is why we

recommended the measures in March. I understand that is what you did in

opposition and I take that. I put the general point to you that given

your failure to introduce controls on the countries that joined in

2004, alone among the major EU economies we did that, should we not

keep an embarrassed silence on these matters? You have no credibility. I

think you have got to talk about immigration. One of the things we

did not do in Government was discussed immigration and the

concerns people have and the long-term benefits that we know have

come from people who have come to Britain over many generations

contributing to Britain and having a big impact. I think we recognise

that there are things that we did wrong, but it would be irresponsible

for us not to join the debate and suggest sensible, practical measures

that you can introduce now to address the concerns that people

have, but also make sure that the system is fair and managed.

Immigration is important to Britain but it does have to be controlled

and managed in the right way. Let's remind ourselves of your record on

immigration. The chart you did not consult when in power. This is total

net migration per year under Labour. 2.2 million of net rise in

migration, more than the population of Birmingham, you proud of that? --

twice the population. Are you proud of that or apologising for it? We

set the pace of immigration was too fat and the level was too high and

it is right to bring migration down. So you think that was wrong?

Overruled have been huge benefits from people that have come to

Britain and built our biggest businesses. -- overall. They have

become Olympic medal winners. But because the pace was too fast, that

has had an impact. That was because of the lack of transitional controls

from Eastern Europe and it is why we should learn from that and have

sensible measures in place now, as part of what has got to be a calm

debate. These are net migration figures. They don't often show the

full figure. These are the immigration figures coming in. What

that chart shows is that in terms of the gross number coming into this

country, from the year 2000, it was half a million a year under Labour.

Rising to 600,000 by the time you were out of power. A lot of people

coming into these crowded islands, particularly since most of them come

to London and the South East. Was that intentional? Was that out of

control? Is that what you are now apologising for? What we said was

that the Government got the figures wrong on the migration from Eastern

Europe. If you remember particularly there was the issue of what happened

with not having transitional controls in place. The Government

didn't expect the number of people coming to the country to be the way

it was. And so obviously mistakes were made. We have recognised that.

We have also got to recognise that this is something that has happened

in countries all over the world We travel and trade far more than ever.

We have an increasingly globalised economy. Other European countries

have been affected in the same way, and America, and other developing

countries affected in the same way by the scale of migration. I am

trying to work out whether the numbers were intentional or if you

lost control. The key thing that we have said many times and I have

already said it to you many times, Andrew, that we should have a

transitional controls in place on Eastern Europe. I think that would

have had an impact on them level of migration. We also should have

brought in the points -based system earlier. We did bring that in

towards the end and it did restrict the level of low skilled migration

because there are different kinds of migration. University students

coming to Britain brings in billions of pounds of investment. On the

other hand, low skilled migration can have a serious impact on the

jobs market, pay levels and so on at the low skilled end of the labour

market. We have to distinguish between different kinds of

migration. You keep trying to excuse the figures by talking about the

lack of transitional controls. Can we skip the chart I was going to go

to? The next one. Under Labour, this is the source of where migrants came

from. The main source was not the accession countries or the remainder

of Europe. Overwhelmingly they were from the African Commonwealth, and

the Indian subcontinent. Overwhelmingly, these numbers are

nothing to do with transitional controls. You can control that

immigration entirely because they are not part of the EU. Was that a

mistake? First of all, the big increase was in the accession

groups. Not according to the chart. In terms of the increase, the

changes that happened. Secondly in answer to the question that you just

asked me, we should also have introduced the points -based system

at an earlier stage. Thirdly there has been a big increase in the

number of university students coming to Britain and they have brought

billions of pounds of investment. At the moment the Government is not

distinguishing, it is just using the figure of net migration. And that is

starting to go up again, as you said in the introduction, but the problem

is that it treats all kinds of migration is aimed. It does not

address illegal immigration, which is a problem, but it treats

university graduates coming to Britain in the same way as low

skilled workers. If Labour get back into power, is it your ambition to

bring down immigration? We have already said it is too high and we

would support measures to bring it down. You would bring it down? There

is something called student visas, which is not included in the

figures, and it does not include university graduates, and it is a

figure that has increased substantially in recent years. They

come for short-term study but they do not even have to prove that they

come for a college course. They do not even have to have a place to

come. Those visas should be restricted to prevent abuse of the

system and that is in line with a recommendation from the Inspectorate

and that is the kind of practical thing that we could do. Can you give

us a ballpark figure of how much immigration would fall? You have

seen the mess that Theresa May has got into with her figures. She made

a target that it is clear to me that she will not meet. I think that is

right. She will not meet it. Can you give as a ballpark figure by which

we can judge you? If she had been more sensible and taken more time to

listen to experts and decide what measures should be targeted, then

she would not be in this mess. You cannot give me a figure? She has

chosen net migration. She has set a target, without ifs and buts. I

think it is important not to have a massive gap between the rhetoric and

reality. Not to make promises on numbers which are not responsible.

OK, you won't give me a figure. Fine. Moving on to crime. 10,00

front line police jobs have gone since 2010 but crime continues to

fall. 7% down last year alone. When you told the Labour conference that

you do not cut crime by cutting the police, you were wrong. I think the

Government is being very complacent about what is happening to crime.

Crime patterns are changing. There has been an exponential increase,

and that is in the words of the police, in online crime. We have

also seen, for example, domestic violence going up, but prosecutions

dropping dramatically. There is a serious impact as a result of not

having 10,000 police in place. You have talked about the exponential

increase in online and economic crime. If those are the big growth

areas, why have bobbies on the beat? That would make no difference. It is

about an approach to policing that has been incredibly successful over

many years, which Labour introduced, which is neighbourhood policing in

the community is working hard with communities to prevent crime. People

like to see bobbies on the beat but have you got any evidence that it

leads to a reduction in crime? Interestingly, the Lords Stevens

commission that we set up, they have reported this week and it has been

the equivalent of a Royal commission, looking at the number of

people involved in it. Their strong recommendation was that this is

about preventing crime but also respectful law and order, working

with communities, and so they strongly took the view with all of

their expertise and the 30 different universities that they have involved

with it, that on the basis of all that analysis, the right thing was

to keep bobbies on the beat and not push them cars. Instinctively you

would think it was true. More visible policing, less crime. But in

all the criminology work, I cannot find the evidence. There is

competing work about why there has been a 20 year drop in overall crime

and everybody has different opinions on why that has happened. The point

about neighbourhood policing is that it is broader than crime-fighting.

It is about prevention and community safety. Improving the well-being of

communities as well. Will you keep the elected Police Commissioners?

Big sigh! What the report said was that the system is flawed. We raised

concern about this at the beginning. You will remember at the elections,

Theresa May's flagship policy, at the elections they cost ?100 million

and there was 15% turnout. You have to have a system of accountability

at the police. Three options were presented, all of which are forms.

So you have to have reform. It is not whether to have reformed, it is

which of those options is the best way to do it. The commission set out

a series of options, and I thought that the preferable approach would

be collaboration and voluntary mergers. We know they won't

volunteer. There have been some collaboration is taking place. I

think the issues with police and crime commissioners have fragmented

things and made it harder to get collaboration between police

forces. Everybody is asking this question, just before you go. What

is it like living with a nightmare? Who does all the cooking, so I can't

complain! Says Miliband people are wrong, he is a dream cook? He is!

In a speech this week, Boris Johnson praised greed and envy as essential

for economic progress, and that has got tongues wagging. What is the

Mayor of London up to? What is his game plan? Does he even have a game

plan and does he know if he has one? Flash photography coming up. Boris.

In many ways I can leave it there. You'd know who I meant. And if you

didn't, the unruly mop of blonde hair would tell you, the language.

Ping-pong was invented on the dining tables of England. Somehow pulling

off the ridiculous to the sublime. It is going to go zoink off the

scale! But often having to speed away from the whiff-whaff of

scandal. Boris, are you going to save your manage?

There's always been a question about him and his as role as mayor and

another prized position, as hinted to the Tory faithful this year at

conference, discussing former French Prime Minister Alan Juppe. -- Alain

Juppe. He told me he was going to be the mayor of Bordeaux. I think he

may have been mayor well he was Prime Minister, it is the kind of

thing they do in funds -- AvD in France. It is a good idea, if you

ask me. But is it a joke? He is much more ambitious. Boris wants to be

Prime Minister more than anything else. Perhaps more than he wants to

be made of London. The ball came loose from the back of the scrum. Of

course it would give great thing to have a crack at, but it is not going

to happen. He might be right. First, the Conservatives have a leader

another Old Etonian, Oxford, Bullingdon chap and he has the job

Boris might like a crack at. What do you do with a problem like Boris? It

is one of the great paradoxes of Tory politics that for Boris Johnson

to succeed, David Cameron must feel. Boris needs David Cameron to lose so

that he can stand a chance of becoming loser. -- becoming leader.

And disloyalty is punished by Conservatives. Boris knows the man

who brought down Margaret Thatcher. Michael Heseltine, who Boris

replaced as MP for Henley, never got her job. In 1986, she took on the

member for Henley, always a risky venture. And why might he make such

a jibe, because he's won two more elections than the PM. Conservatives

like a winner. Boris, against Robert expectations, has won the Mayor of

London job twice. -- public. He might've built a following with the

grassroots but he's on shakier ground with many Tory MPs, who see

him as a selfish clown, unfit for high office. And besides, he's not

the only one with king-sized ambition, and Boris and George are

not close, however much they may profess unity. There is probably

some Chinese expression for a complete and perfect harmony. Ying

and yang. But in plain black and white, if Boris has a plan, it's one

he can't instigate, and if David Cameron is PM in 2016, it may not be

implementable. He'd need a seat and it wouldn't be plain sailing if he

did make a leadership bid. My leadership chances, I think I may

have told you before, or about as good as my chances of ying

reincarnated as a baked bean. Which is probably quite high. So if the

job you want with Brown-esque desire is potentially never to be yours

what do you do? He is, of course, an American citizen by birth. He was

born in New York public hospital, and so he is qualified to be

President of the United States. And you don't need an IQ over 16 to find

that the tiniest bit scary. Giles Dilnot reporting. Helen Lewis,

Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates are here. Is there a plan for Boris and

if so, what is it? I think the plan is for him to say what he thinks the

Tory activist base wants to hear just now. He knows that in 18 months

time they can disown it. I think he is wrong, the way the speech has

played has a limited number of people. He has cross-party appeal.

He has now reconfirmed to people that the Tories are the nasty party

and they have been pretending to be modernised. Is it not the truth that

he needs David Cameron to lose the 2015 election to become leader in

this decade? It is very interesting watching his fortunes wax and wane.

It always seems to happen in inverse proportion to how well David Cameron

is doing in front of his own party. There is no small element of

strategy about what we are doing here. The problem with Boris is that

he's popular with the country, but not with the party's MPs and its

hard-core supporters. This was an appeal to the grassroots this week.

He is not the only potential candidate. If we were in some kind

of circumstance where Boris was a runner to replace Mr Cameron, who

with the other front the? I think it will skip a generation. The recent

intake was ideological assertive. I do not buy the idea that it will be

Jeremy Hunt against Michael Gove. I then, that generation will be

tainted by being in government. It is interesting, what is he trying to

pull? He is ideological. He does not believe in many things, but he

believes in a few things quite deeply, and one is the idea of

competition, both in business and academic selection. He has never

been squeamish about expressing that. We do make mistakes sometimes,

assuming he is entirely political. Look at all the Northern voters who

will not vote for the Tories even though they are socially or economic

the Conservatives. I do not think he helps. Who in the Tories would

help? That is a tough question. To reason me has also been speaking to

the hard right. -- Theresa May. I have been out with him at night It

is like dining with a film star People are queueing up to speak to

him. Educational selection is one of the few areas that he can offer He

has gone liberal on immigration as are made of London would have to.

Welcome to Sunday Politics in the East. Coming up, as George Osbourne

prepares for his Autumn Statement, we look at the pressures on local

services. In particular, proposed cuts to rural bus routes. Some

passenger journeys cost as much as ?15. It was not a good way of

spending public money. It will leave us stranded. We are all important

and need to get around as easily as other people do.

Let's get down to business with the news that one of this region's

longest serving MPs has been dropped by his constituency party. Tim Yeo

has represented South Suffolk for the last 30 years but the local

association have announced they do not want him to be their man of the

next election. The views of our guests in a moment. They are George

Knox and the Conservative MP for Norwich North. First, this report.

It was not supposed to end like this. For the last 30 years, Tim Yeo

has been a hard`working member of Parliament, re`elected with thumping

majorities on every occasion. In his constituency this weekend, surprise.

I think it is a bit rotten without a very good reason. He has done a good

job. He has always fought for things in the town. 30 years is a long

time. Possibly not the way it has been done but possibly 30 years, he

has had enough time to make changes. Is a little bit of `` there is a

little bit of controversy about some of his changes but I think it is

wanting a younger boys. In parliament, he had become an elder

statesman. As Chair of the environment select committee, a

respected, controversial voice on green matters. Last week, he was one

of 25 Conservative MPs who told the prime ministers you this dividing

the party if he dropped his green agenda. In an interview, he had

warned against cutting green taxes in this week's Autumn Statement.

Green taxes account for about 10% of the average energy bill and some of

them are designed to help able improve their energy efficiency. I

am not sure it is the right place to be looking at. I think it would make

a small difference and might even reduce some of the support for

energy efficiency measures, which particularly helped fuel poor

households. You are out on a limb within your party, are you not? I am

used to sometimes having to file a lonely furrow that Macleod. But I

will continue to argue for what I believe is right for energy

consumers and security. Labour said the deselection showed the Tories

were reverting to type with no place for those who believed in green

issues. But this weekend's developments are more to do with how

he was perceived in South Suffolk. I have been hearing stories for the

past year about concerns within the local party that Tim Yeo was typing

seen much in the constituency and appeared to be spending too much

time on his outside and well`paid business interests rather than

Parliament. `` was not seen much. These are claims which he denied. I

am told that local members look enviously at the younger MPs in

neighbouring constituencies, who were seen a lot of Parliament,

championing welcoming issues `` championing local issues. This

undercover sting by the Sunday Times was the final straw. He was cleared

last week of any wrongdoing but to be seen boasting about his influence

did not look good. Introducing tolls on roads without an alternative...

His question about the A14 Toll Rd was seen by some as an attempt to

show his local party that he was still feeling. It was too late.

Conservatives had hoped he would choose not to stand at the next

election and make a dignified exit but they had to make the decision

for him. We will talk about policy around

energy but less walk about Tim Yeo first. Are you surprised that such

an elder statesman has been treated in this way? I am not surprised in

view of the last Parliament report in the Sunday Times. Nobody has a

job for life. The idea that somehow deselection is some sort of, you

know, something on fear is wrong. You're not entitled to a job for

life. You have to deserve it. `` something not fair. I in favour of

regular reselection. Indeed, a leading Conservative councillor

recently called for all to be reselected. What I could you see

this as a formality? How does it work? In the Conservative party, the

local constituency has the right to choose the handed it. There are

different methods of choosing. Some hold large events, local primaries,

there may be more. In my case, we had a meeting with local members and

I was pleased to be able to lay out my record as an MP to date and heard

what I wanted to achieve with them and 19 in the future. In my case, it

was a very happy occasion. `` and plan what I wanted to achieve. What

about the issue of longevity? Surely Westminster should be wholly

representative and have people of all ages? It is absolutely up to the

local party. Let's face it, although we like to pretend that we are so

wonderful, I do not think any of us would be elected if we were not

representing a political party. That is the reality of the situation.

People vote because of their political affiliations and I do not

think... It is therefore up to local parties to choose who they want to

have as their standard`bearer. You can run as independent if you want.

Do you think there is a generation gap at Westminster? I was pleased in

2010 to see lots more people of different ages coming to Parliament.

I have been on record consistently saying that we need both old and

young in Parliament. I am at the younger end and very pleased to be

able to do more work at bringing younger people into politics. It is

crucial. I am at the older end! Conservatives said ?50 on energy

bills. Energy bills are going up for more than ?50 per year. It is a very

small amount. We're not going to get the details until next Thursday but

I think this is a feeble attempt to try to steal Ed Miliband's thunder.

Ed Miliband's proposals are quite clear`cut. Will come back to that in

a moment. You heard what Mr Nobbs had to say. You have been accused of

making politics on the hood. Ed Miliband's pose to is a con to stop

you cannot just freeze prices because everybody knows they would

go up. `` con. I think this morning's Postal 's which will be

fleshed out this week seek to `` this morning's proposals, which will

be fleshed out, what people need of their bills, to reward the need for

the cost of living to come down, which we have other policies on as

well. It has got to be a balance. There is not a single magic that.

What about the fact that you can freeze this for 20 months but prices

were what after? Superman this is why when Mrs Thatcher privatised

these companies had a `` the good sense to prevent a monopoly. We

cannot do without any of these things and that is why this is that

appointed regulators. You not think there is a flaw? No.

Obviously not. Otherwise there would not be advocating it. Ed Balls has

said that the Conservatives are running scared of the energy

companies, what you see? They are taking action on the cost of living.

We are going to move on to look at the impact of council cuts on bus

routes. First, a little background. There are some services that

councils have to provide. A fire service, good schools, decent

roads. Other areas, like bus travel, are discretionary. When council

started looking for savings, the state of subsidy quickly comes under

the microscope. `` when council 's start looking.

Jackie lives in the village. She cannot afford to run a castle couple

times a week, she travels with a group of friends on the one bus

Purdy to Royston. She relies on the bus for helping to create a small

community. `` hair day. It is a friendly atmosphere on the bus. That

also makes the David Broder. Now she and her friends are worried that the

bus operator might lose its subsidy. `` also makes a DDR bit brighter.

How worried are you that the service might disappear? We are worried

because we rely on it. We would be lost without it. We would lose our

independence. There are other means of transport but would prefer to

keep our costs. Cambridgeshire County Council has had to find

savings of ?150 million over five years. That is why it took a long

hard look at the bus subsidy. It was costing around ?2.7 million per

year. We have to look at all aspects of spend and looked at the bus

subsidy. We think that this was not providing good value for money for

the council taxpayer. When some passenger journeys were costing as

much as 14 or ?15, it was not a good way of spending public money.

This is the bus which serves other villages `` villages to the south of

Cambridge. It as an example of how the council sees the future. By

changing the route, using a smaller bus and working more closely with

commercial partners, it is hoping to see some ?200,000 on this route

alone. The council is reviewing some 50 routes across the county and

trying to find further savings. Susan is the Liberal Democrat

councillor for Melbourne and Mildred. `` for the villagers. She

is concerned that this has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. If

services are cut, vulnerable people could suffer, costing the council

more in the long`term. The cost of social care for people who are

isolated and may develop other problems due to isolation, the cost

of social care is expensive. It is something like ?15 per hour. We need

to think about the implications of removing what really is lifeline

transport. Back on the bus to Royston, Jackie

is keeping our fingers crossed. If you had to give a message to the

council, what would your message be? Please do not leave us stranded. We

are all important. We need to get around as easily as other people do.

So please do not leave us in the lurch. They do not want to lose

their bus. Can you say for sure that they will not? I cannot. Nobody

wants to lose their bus but what we will do is talk to them. We will try

to work it out with any area, not just that village, but any village

or town in the county. We will talk to people first.

There are no guarantees from the council, only difficult choices. Try

telling that to people like Jackie. When it comes to transport, the

choices are not difficult. The one to get to Royston is pretty much her

only choice. Since 2010, these are some of the

cuts to bus subsidies which have already gone through. The biggest in

Suffolk. All three rural counties had to make big cuts. Further

savings could well be on the way. Essex has an ?8 million budget for

subsidies and it is consulting on cuts at the moment. Earlier this

week, I spoke to local government Minister Brandon Lewis. I began by

going back to film and the passengers and asking if one bus

today into Royston is too much to expect. I think she makes a good

point. She is absolutely right to want to keep that service. In the

countryside it is important to be able to have access out over your

lives and into it. Whether it is to go to work, shopping, visit friends

or family. I think it is a very fair point. Particularly in

Cambridgeshire whether it is an increase in council tax next year

for `` last year. The right to say that they are spending money and so

it should be spent on services they want. You mentioned that campaigned

to keep services in Norfolk. You say that the system is broken and needs

reforming. Are you telling me that it is not the job of the Department

to help reformers? The reform of how this works comes through Department

for Transport. `` to help reformers. We did manage to confirm that there

are these flexibilities that councils can use. If they are

looking at a bus service that has very low usage, they can look at

other ways of providing that service and use the money in more effective

ways. Campaigners say that departments such as yours need to

work more closely with other departments to try to persuade

people of the benefits of bus travel and ring fence a pool of funding so

that we can maintain the subsidies. We do not ring fenced money for

local government. We trust local government, councillors who we

elect, to make the decisions that are right. We put a lot of pressure

on them. I am very open about this. The councils and council officers

should be looking at the needs of local residents. I am not saying

that every village should his own bus route and service if there is

very few people using it `` should have its own bus route. Some

councils may say that a taxi service or a small bus may be more

appropriate. If you live in the countryside, do you not agree that

we need a better deal for rural communities? The funding is 50% less

in real terms. What you have to look at is that when we look at funding

across it and the whole package of funding that local authorities get,

they get a very fair share of the funding. We did get extra funding

for rural bus routes. The Department of Transport put extra money across.

We have also got to make sure that her pencils look their whole pot of

money and how they spend it. `` our councils. Do you deny that there has

been too much of a cut? Local governments have done well and

reports show that satisfaction of council services has gone up since

2010. But the cuts are only just beginning to bite. Actually, the

cuts and changes has been a couple of percent. It is not that great a

change in spending power. There is no protection for that to change

dramatically. There are a lot of scare stories but the reality is

that the spending power council have changed pretty minimally. We have

been able to freeze council tax. That makes a big difference for

people and reality with the cost of living being an issue. That is a few

hundred pounds per year saved for people since 2010. That is really

good. What we are racing to local authorities is that where there is

less money, and from central government, central government has

got to live with and means, `` within its means, we have got to

make sure that money is being spent on those important following

services to stop thank you very much.

Mr Nobbs, you have been the leader of the County Council for six

months, bus subsidies must be pretty low on your list of things to save.

Are they? The Iraqi are not go on my list of priorities as Norfolk is one

of the most rural counties. They are a vital service. `` they are not low

on my list of priorities. He says the system is broken and needs

mending buttons to think it is nobody's responsibility. `` and

needs mending but seems to think. My counsel, unlike every other County

Council, has had to face massive cuts. We have now got to make

another ?189 million of cuts. On top of that, thanks to the lobbying of

Norfolk, `` Norfolk's MPs, we have lost ground. It is nonsense,

absolute nonsense. Do you know how much are discretionary spending will

become over this six`year period? 52%. For Brandon tried to make it

this is a drop in the ocean is nonsense.

What about this message he was trying to convey? There is more

austerity to come, is there not? I want to speak up in the taxpayer.

This is not the council's money, it is taxpayers' money. The reason

there is not very much of it available is because the Labour

Party, winning government, spend too much and borrowed too much and ran

up the debts. It is easy to make cuts? The Labour Party can blame the

other lot. I do not think there is any point in doing that. I will

certainly, along with every Council Leader in this country blame the

Government. There is not a party political issue as far as I'm

concerned. I am happy to stand alongside Conservative County

Council leaders and say the Government is being unfair to local

government. Are they making a 52% cut in their budgets? No, they are

not. We are having to do it. What about these figures? Mr Nobbs and

Brandon Lewis are seeing quite a different things. I do not think the

taxpayer cares whether it is local or central. Yes, they do. This is

about the money that comes from people's taxes and is in the sense

of what people has just `` the Government has to spend. There is

not enough because we have had to make tough decisions which are only

fair to make for the next generation. We have got to be

responsible in the sense of not loading debts onto our children. How

fair at the Conservatives being on people who live in rural areas? I do

not think they are forgetting rural people. I would point to a local

success which Brandon and the County Council have been part of West the

campaign last year which was a great success. What are your fears, Mr

Nobbs, for people living in rural areas? I am concerned with the whole

issue of rural isolation because you cannot continue to keep squeezing

local government. Ask any Conservative council leader whether

he agrees with you or me. You cannot continue to keep squeezing local

government, expecting them to carry the burden of the Government. The

Government is not cutting its own expenditure. It is asking local

government today. There is a very important point... The Lehman

Brothers responsible for the crisis in Greece. It is Gordon Brown's

fault. The practical thing is to look to the back office costs. I was

part of saving ?10 billion for the taxpayer. Norfolk County Council...

How much have you saved? How much have you saved? We will

discuss that with her. It is time for a summary. Mr Nobbs, you make

the cut in our 62nd round up. `` 60 second round up.

Last week, Norfolk County Council partnering with Southwark. This

week, controversy over delays to Labour's plans for a move towards

the committee system which shares more power. While the East of

England Ambulance Service has admitted it still needs hundreds

more paramedics before it can meet its targets for getting to emergency

calls on time. I am not hiding the fact that the agreement is a

problem. Add is not down to me not trying to grab people. MPs and

business leaders lobbied the Transport Secretary, and David

Cameron was forced to reiterate that he is looking at the planned toll

for the A14 upgrade. I am well aware of the strong feelings in Suffolk

about this issue. I have been approached by many members of

public. Partnership has said it wants to

create 65,000 jobs across Norfolk and Suffolk by 20 25. Here in the

East of England, we have got unemployment is lower than the

national average. That brings with it problems of needing to make sure

that are not skilled people around. Briefly, let's talk about the A14.

You are former Treasury minister. Any U`turns? I think the Prime

Minister has been quite clear. He has been asked twice on this. I

personally think that the Suffolk campaign is quite persuasive. It

seems unfair to have only one road up for the tour. Mr Nobbs, why do

you think there has been so much campaigning in Suffolk and not from

Norfolk? That is not true. Suffolk and Norfolk are as one on this. Jim

Rodger has also played its part. Norfolk County Council voted last

Monday against any tools. `` Cambridgeshire has also played its

part. Do you back that all? No. Others say, I think the campaign is

quite persuasive. It seems unfair to have just one road. Thank you for

joining us. That is all for now. You can keep in touch through our

website. You will also find links, a blog and all the latest political

updates. We blog and all the latest political

picked out. People thought he was touching on eugenics and things like

that. That is all we have time for. Thank you. What rabbit has George

Osborne got up his sleeve? And what's David Cameron up to in China?

All questions for The Week Ahead. To help the panel led, we are joined by

Kwasi Kwarteng, Tory MP. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Why has the

government been unable to move the agenda and to the broad economic

recovery, and allowed the agenda to stay on Labour's ground of energy

prices and living standards? Energy has been a big issue over the last

few months but the autumn state and will be a wonderful opportunity to

readdress where we are fighting the ground, the good economic news that

we delivered. If you look at where Labour were earlier this year,

people were saying they would they 5 million people unemployed. They were

saying that there should be a plan B. He is not in the Labour Party?

Elements of the left were suggesting it. Peter Hain told me it would be

up to 3 million people. Danny Blanchflower said it would be 5

million people. So we have got to get the economy back to the centre

of the debate? Yes, the game we were playing was about the economy. That

was the central fighting ground of the political debate. We were

winning that battle. Labour have cleverly shifted it onto the cost of

living. It is essential that the government, that George, talks about

the economy. That has been its great success. I do not think this has

been a week of admitting that Labour was right, plain cigarettes

packaging, other issues. If you look at the big picture, where we are

with the economy, we have the fastest growing economy in the G-7.

Despite Labour's predictions, none of this has happened, none of the

triple dip has happened. The British economy is on a good fitting. That

is a good story for the government to bat on. You say that people have

stopped talking about the economic recovery, but it is worse than that,

people have stopped talking about the deficit? As long as people were

talking about the deficit, the Tories were trusted. But people have

forgotten about it. This country still spends ?100 billion more than

it raises. Yes, I am of the view that the deficit, the national

debt, is the biggest question facing this generation of politicians. You

are right to suggest that the Conservative Party was strong on

this. That head, not deficit, is not going to come down in the

foreseeable future? It is rising. This is a test that George Osborne

is not going to pass. We know what is coming in the Autumn Statement,

it is lots of giveaways, paying for free school meals, paying for fuel

duty subsidies. We are still talking about the cost of living, not

changing it actively wider economy. There might be extra money for

growth but it is not clear what will happen to that. If it is time for

giveaways, let's speak about Labour. I have never been a fan of

giveaways. Fiscal prudence is what our watchword should be. Look at the

headlines. Each time, the deficit figures, the debt figures, were

always worse than predicted. This year it will be significantly

better. I think that is significant. Any kind of recovery is probably

better than no recovery at all. When you look at this recovery, it is

basically a consumer spending boom. Consumer spending is up, business

investment is way down compared with 2008, and exports, despite a 20

devaluation, our flat. Let's get one thing straight, it is a recovery.

Any recovery is better than no recovery. Now we can have a debate

about, technical debate about the elements of the recovery. It is not

technical, it is a fact. There is evidence that there is optimism in

terms of what are thinking... Optimism? If I am optimistic about

the economy, I am more likely to spend money and invest in business.

So far you have not managed that? Exports have not done well either?

Exports are not a big section of the British economy. But of course, they

are important. But given where we were at the end of last year, no

economist was saying that we would be in this robust position today.

That is true, in terms of the overall recovery. Now the PM loves

to "bang the drum abroad for British business" and he's off to China this

evening with a plane-load of British business leaders. And it's not the

first time. Take a look at this Well, you might not think exports

unimportant, but clearly the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do. They

are important, but they are not what is driving the growth at the moment.

We used to talk about the need for export led recovery is, that is why

the Prime Minister is going to China. Absolutely, and he's doing

the right thing. Do we have any evidence that these tend of trips

produce business? The main example so far is the right to trade the

Chinese currency offshore. London has a kind of global primacy. London

will be the offshore centre. Is that a good thing? I have no problem at

all with this sort of policy. I do not think that Britain has been

doing this enough compared with France and Germany in recent years.

I am optimistic in the long term about this dish -- about British

exports to China. China need machine tools and manufacturing products. In

20 years time, China will be buying professional groups, educational

services, the things we excel at. All we need to do is consolidate our

strengths, stand still and we will move forward. The worst thing we can

do is reengineer the economy towards those services and away from

something else. We have a lot of ground to make up, Helen? At one

stage, it is no longer true, but at one stage you could say that we

exported more to Ireland, a country of 4 million people, than we did to

Russia, China, India, Brazil, all combined. I believe we form 1% of

Chinese imports now. The problem is what you have to give up in exchange

for that. It is a big problem for David Cameron's credibility that he

has had to row back on his meeting with the Dalai llama. This trip we

have been in the deep freeze with China for a couple of years. This

trip has come at a high cost. We have had to open up the City of

London to Chinese banks without much scrutiny, we have had to move the

date of the Autumn Statement, and there is no mention of human rights.

It is awkward to deal with that all in the name of getting up to where

we were a few years ago. A month after strong anchor -- one month

after Sri Lanka, where he apologised three human rights abuses, this is

difficult to take. Do we have any idea what the Prime Minister hopes

to do in China this time? I am not sure there is anything specific but

when you go to these countries, certainly in the Middle East China,

they complain, why has the Prime Minister not come to see us? That is

very important. High-level delegations from other countries go

to these places because the addict -- because they are important export

markets. You might look at the Prime Minister playing cricket over there,

and wonder, what is that for? I do not mind the Prime Minister Rajoy

cricket. This is a high visibility mission, chose that politicians in

Britain care. You are part of the free enterprise group. It had all

sorts of things on it like tax cuts for those on middle incomes or above

the 40% bracket, tax cuts worth 16 billion. You will get none of that

on Thursday, we are agreed? No. But he does have two budgets between now

and the election and if the fiscal position is using a little bit, he

may have more leeway than it looked like a couple of months ago. Yes,

from a free enter prise point of view, we have looked at the tax cuts

that should be looked at. The 4 p rate comes in at quite a low level

for people who, in the south-east, do not feel particularly wealthy.

They are spending a lot of money on commuting, energy bills. The

Chancellor has been very open about championing this. He says that the

40p rate will kick in at a slightly higher rate. Labour had a bad summer

and the opinion polls seem to be narrowing. Then they had a good

hearty conference season. The best. Has the Labour lead solidified or

increased the little, maybe up to eight points? If it is a good Autumn

Statement, or the Tories start to narrow that lead by the end of the

year? If they go into 2014 trailing by single digits, they cannot

complain too much. That gives them 18 months to chip away at Labour's

lead. But do they do that chipping away by eight bidding Labour or do

they let time take its course and let the economic recovery continue,

maybe business investment joins consumer spending as a source of

that recovery, and a year from now, household disposable income begins

to rise? That is a better hope than engaging in a bidding war. Be

assured, they will be highly political budgets. That's all for

today. The Daily Politics is on BBC Two at midday all this week, except

on Thursday when we'll start at 10:45 to bring you live coverage and

analysis of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement in a Daily Politics

special for BBC Two and the BBC News Channel. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.