09/03/2014 Sunday Politics East

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 Here in the East,the governlent s

final warning to the federation running schools and colleges in

Bedfordshire. And the rural communities paying for flood

defences from their own pockets 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

promised in our manifesto in 2010 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.

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

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

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. 20.

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. 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 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

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? 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 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 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 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-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. 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

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 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. Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

East, I'm Etholle George. Later Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

East, I'm Etholle George. L`ter in East, I'm Etholle George. Later in

the programme, defending our coasts and rivers. Let down by the

government, the locals having to foot the bill for their own flood

defences. We will try to raise it by donations of land that can then be

used for housing. The development value of that land will then be able

to pass on to the trust for funding the programme of upgrading.

Get back on track or face closure. The warning from the government to

Get back on track or face closure. The warning from the governlent to a

group running a college and schools in Bedfordshire. What's happened

since we got those allegations from the whistle`blowers demonstrates how

quickly and comprehensively we have dealt with this problem.

So let's meet our guests thhs week. Andy Sawford, Labour MP for Corby.

And also, Rupert Read, who is the And also, Rupert Read, who is the

Green Party lead candidate `t And also, Rupert Read, who hs the

Green Party lead candidate at the Green Party lead candidate `t the

forthcoming European elections and the party's transport spokesperson.

That is where I would like to start. The scenes of extraordinary chaos in

Northampton this week. This is the gridlock in the town centre as a

result of the opening of a new bus station. The police had to be called

in to help clear the traffic. Roads to the town centre had to bd

in to help clear the traffic. Roads to the town centre had to be blocked

to the town centre had to bd blocked off. Engineers worked through the

night to change parts of the road layout. Andy Sawford, clearly a huge

embarrassment for the counchl after embarrassment for the council after

this new bus station was latnched. this new bus station was launched.

Was it simply unfortunate or an oversight? It is a growing town, a

oversight? It is a growing town a county town in my area. This was

absolutely foreseeable. Thex county town in my area. This was

absolutely foreseeable. They have absolutely foreseeable. They have

gone from a very large bus station to a much smaller one. They had not

planned it properly. Just as when they closed roads around thd A4

they closed roads around the A43 improvements in Corby, they did not

properly communicate with the public and think about how to manage it.

Rupert Read, is there just only so much traffic that an urban centre

like this can take? I think Andy is right in what he just said. But we

also need to look at the deeper also need to look at the dedper

roots of the problem. In Northampton, we haven't had any park

and ride. We haven't had any guided and ride. We haven't had anx guided

busway. That's very interesting. A busway. That's very interesting A

former Labour MP for Northampton former Labour MP for Northalpton

essentially stymied the guided busway project and then went on to

open one in Cambridge. We haven't open one in Cambridge. We h`ven t

really had anything. All we have is this inadequate bus station. Where

is the vision? In the Greens, we are saying their needs to be far more

serious investment in public transport. That is the future. Thank

you for the moment. Now, spring may be in the air. But

Now, spring may be in the ahr. But no one will forget the damage caused

by the storms this winter. Flood defences in the East were put

by the storms this winter. Flood defences in the East were ptt under

enormous pressure. That has raised questions over how much to spend on

flooding and where. Many rural communities here feel abandoned by

the government. It has been a winter people on our

coasts wwn't forget. `` won't forget. Onslaught after onslaught.

Tidal surge. Breached defences. Seemingly relentless storms. All

taking their toll on sea defences. Now the criteria used to decide what

we spend on defences and where Now the criteria used to decide what

we spend on defences and whdre being we spend on defences and where being

challenged. Some argue the `pproach challenged. Some argue the approach

to defending our coast is flawed and needs a radical overhaul. Linda

Lodge is among them. In 2006, she bought her bungalow on the Cliff at

Scratby in Norfolk. Just a few years ago, the policy here was to defend

this stretch of coast. Not any ago, the policy here was to defend

this stretch of coast. Not `ny more. Now plans to extend a successful

rock defence, to protect thd eroding rock defence, to protect the eroding

cliff, have also failed to pualify cliff, have also failed to pualify

for funding. They are not going to do the rock burn. I think that was

three million. And to do thd cages three million. And to do thd cages

for the stones is half a million. That is not an awful lot of money to

save a village. And it will be saving the whole village. It's not

just saving these houses along the cliff top. Because if we go, the

houses behind will go. And we thought we had a good 50`60 years

here. And now what can it be? thought we had a good 50`60 years

here. And now what can it be? Three years? Five years? Who knows? Defra

rules state, for each pound spent on new defences, ?8 of damage must

rules state, for each pound spent on new defences, ?8 of damage lust be

prevented by them. Scratby, like the Somerset Levels, doesn't qualify.

The council leader says the rules failed to take into account the

millions of pounds that tourism brings to the local economy every

year. The ?8 benefit to the pound spent on defences is a nonsdnse It

spent on defences is a nonsense. It is just never going to help places

like Scratby or Winterton or Hemsby along our coastline. Huge amounts at

stake. I don't know the millions that the villagers bring into the

borough, the local economy. But it is millions. Scratby isn't `lone.

There are scores of flood defence There are scores of flood defence

projects that are on hold effectively, because those projects

can't attract the funding needed. effectively, because those projects

can't attract the funding needed. So what do communities that ard

can't attract the funding ndeded. So what do communities that are under

what do communities that ard under threat do? Increasingly, some are

scrabbling around to try to find the money themselves. Five years ago, at

East Lane in Suffolk, they did just that. Landowners donated three

blocks of land for housing. The money raised helped to pay for new

defences. The trouble is, there wasn't enough money to repair

defences. The trouble is, there wasn't enough money to repahr the

entire defence. Now the sea is threatening once again. Even though

the policy here is to hold the line, East Lane also fails to qualify for

funding. There is barely a single location on the entire Suffolk

coastline that meets the current Environment Agency 8/1 ratio. Blyth,

two. Alde and Ore, three or less. Another, naught to two. Are we

really saying we are going to abandon the entire coastline?

really saying we are going to abandon the entire coastlind? So is

abandon the entire coastline? So is self help the way forward? Ht

abandon the entire coastlind? So is self help the way forward? It will

cost around ?7 million to r`ise self help the way forward? Ht will

cost around ?7 million to raise the cost around ?7 million to r`ise the

river walls on the internationally river walls on the internathonally

renowned Alde and Ore Estuary to protect it from tidal surges. A new

partnership involving landowners, businesses and local people hopes to

raise the money and complete the raise the money and complete the

work within ten years. We whll raise the money and completd the

work within ten years. We will try work within ten years. We will try

to raise it by donations of land that can then be used for the

development of housing. The development of that land will then

be able to pass on to the trust for funding the programme of upgrading.

Back at Scratby, there is no such hope in prospect. Here they fear the

establishment of a mindset. An acceptance of the abandonment of

entire committees. All while acceptance of the abandonment of

entire committees. All whild others entire committees. All whild others

across the water defend theirs. entire committees. All while others

across the water defend thehrs. I across the water defend theirs. I

think the Dutch have spent the time and the money on getting it right.

They have been there to protect their people. When you think most of

the people along here are rdtired the people along here are rdtired

people. They have paid in all their lives and they are getting nothing

back. At all. And it just doesn't seem right.

Joining us from Norwich is floods Minister Brandon Lewis, who is also

the MP for Great Yarmouth, where people living in his constituency

have also started work on their own sea defences this week. Hemsby gave

us the most memorable images of this winter's tidal surge. Houses there

crashed into the sea. Mr Lewis, we are going to see more images like

that, are we not, on the east coast? Houses crashing into the se`? You

Houses crashing into the sea? You are simply not prepared to defend

our coastline. That is not puite our coastline. That is not quite

true. When you talk to experts, such as the Environment Agency, they made

clear that, for example in Hemsby, that the coastal erosion protection

that we want to see in Hemsby would not necessarily have protected those

properties from the tidal surge not necessarily have protected those

properties from the tidal strge of properties from the tidal strge of

the skill we saw back on the properties from the tidal surge of

the skill we saw back on the fifth and 6th of December. `` of the

scale. That is quite a diffdrent issue. But it is right that we want

to see them protected. Somewhere like Hemsby, that has approximately

?80 million per year to tourism industry. And one of the things we

have announced today with the Coastal Communities Fund actually

does give an opportunity for those types of communities to bid in. But

next door, we also have Scr`tby and next door, we also have Scr`tby and

other committees who want to see the money already being given to them

spent to get those coastal drosion protections in place. We heard

protections in place. We he`rd people in the film seeing the

funding formula for them is not working and they feel abandoned.

working and they feel abandoned Scratby, which was mentioned. We had

a Pathfinder scheme. Great Yarmouth a Pathfinder scheme. Great Yarmouth

Borough Council still sitting on about ?80,000 of their monex

Borough Council still sitting on about ?80,000 of their money to

about ?80,000 of their monex to spend on that scheme. We want to

make sure that what we do in one community does not detrimentally

affect another. But it is also important to be in mind that,

particularly where we are looking at protecting and developing jobs for

the future. And in areas where we have tourism. On the Suffolk

coastline or on the Norfolk coastline. Under the new re`met,

coastline. Under the new re`met criteria announced this week for the

Coastal Communities Fund, they can read into that fund. So there is

another opportunity for thel read into that fund. So there is

another opportunity for them to bid. another opportunity for thel to bid.

But we heard Linda Lodge there But we heard Linda Lodge there

saying that she believes it could be half a million pounds to defend her

home and others in Scratby. ?80,000 home and others in Scratby. ?80,000

isn't going to go anywhere. It needs more funding. This Coastal

Communities Fund you keep talking Communities Fund you keep t`lking

about is lottery money, isn't it? The Coastal Communities Fund is

going forward now, ?64 millhon. The going forward now, ?64 million. The

third round is now open. Colmunities third round is now open. Colmunities

can bid. It's not just Local Authorities. We have had great

Authorities. We have had grdat success with that fund over the last

couple of rounds across Norfolk and Suffolk. We have announced bids in

Suffolk and Great Yarmouth `nd North Suffolk and Great Yarmouth `nd North

Norfolk this week. It is no good doing these things in isolation We

doing these things in isolation. We need to look at the bigger picture.

The whole coast surely needs defending. We heard people darlier

defending. We heard people earlier this week saying, if you defend

parts of the coast up in Norfolk, which some people are doing at their

own expense, others further down could suffer. It is absolutdly

could suffer. It is absolutely right. What you do in one p`rt of

right. What you do in one part of the coastline can have an ilpact

elsewhere. That is why experts like the Environment Agency are there to

advise and look at that. Do those assessments. That is what whll be

happening in Hemsby. The work being done there now. But somebodx in the

report also mentioned the Dutch. It report also mentioned the Dutch. It

is true to say that, over there they have retreated from parts of

their coast in order to protect other parts. Is that what is at the

heart of this? You are prepared other parts. Is that what is at the

heart of this? You are prep`red to heart of this? You are prepared to

sacrifice some communities here in the East for others? Actually, if we

look at the shoreline managdment plan that was approved for Great

Yarmouth, across the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline, I was ond

Yarmouth, across the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline, I was one of

those fighting for more protection in there. I was pleased we managed

to get that for communities, whether it is Hemsby, Scratby, all of which

we got adjusted to give them more we got adjusted to give thel more

protection. I know my colleague we got adjusted to give them more

protection. I know my colleague did the same in North Norfolk. @nd

protection. I know my colle`gue did the same in North Norfolk. And it

was also done for the Suffolk coastline. We have more protection

in there. We also have to make sure we get the right schemes th`t

in there. We also have to m`ke sure we get the right schemes that have

the right impact. We will h`ve we get the right schemes th`t have

the right impact. We will have to the right impact. We will h`ve to

leave it there. Thank you. Andy Sawford, let's talk about

Northamptonshire. Not much goes there. But inland flood defdnces.

There has been a lot of money there. But inland flood defences.

There has been a lot of mondy spent there, because you have built up

areas. It's not fair, is it? We have had flooding in Northamptonshire and

in my own constituency. A pdrsistent in my own constituency. A persistent

problem in the centre of thd in my own constituency. A pdrsistent

problem in the centre of the town. problem in the centre of thd town.

Really, there needs to be work in urban areas to, for example, clear

out the grates. I have been talking to the Environment Agency and

Northamptonshire County Council about that. But in terms of the

coastal flooding, I don't think that we should abandon these comlunities.

Clearly, the government are getting this wrong at the moment. What they

are doing is reacting to evdnts letting the floods have a terrible

toll on communities. As we have seen at the Somerset Levels. And then,

seeing they will pump money in there and not giving a fair deal to the

coastline in this region. Let's and not giving a fair deal to the

coastline in this region. Let's talk about this funding formula. You have

to draw the line somewhere. The other side of the fence is you can't

defend everywhere. It is not financially possible. That hs true.

But I think also, there is something wrong with basing the way this

formula works entirely on money. formula works entirely on money.

There is something fairly obscene about saying a human life is worth

this much money, or a beauthful about saying a human life is worth

this much money, or a beautiful view is worth that much. We really need

to get out of that mindset of thinking only in terms of money. And

think in terms of what is rdally important. The things that make

think in terms of what is really important. The things that lake our

lives worth living. In terms of what Brandon Lewis said about this in

lives worth living. In terms of what Brandon Lewis said about thhs in his

Brandon Lewis said about this in his piece we saw, one thing I phcked

Brandon Lewis said about thhs in his piece we saw, one thing I picked up

on is he mentioned the Environment Agency. And something important here

is that the Environment Agency are losing 550 staff, who are

specifically supposed to work on flood protection, because of

government cuts. So really, it is quite outrageous of him to come on

here and say he is doing something here and say he is doing something

about this when it is his government making the cuts. Andy Sawford, you

could say it is not just about this government, but successive

governments. P we have heard MPs saying this week that these flood

defences are 1950s, 1960s some of them. It is successive governments

that have failed to grasp it. Actually, there was a great deal of

work done by the last government. And that had a really benefhcial

And that had a really beneficial effect this winter. And what we were

wanting to do. The report by Michael wanting to do. The report bx Michael

Pitt a few years ago made a whole series of recommendations. And the

government could be doing mtch more government could be doing much more

to augment those. But this Green idea that money doesn't matter, of

course money matters. We have got to spend money, but let's not abandon

areas in this region. We will have to move on. Thank you.

Now to the damning reports into a federation running academy schools

and a college in Luton. The government has given the Barnfield

Federation one month to improve or it could be shut down. The report

said the college had wrongly it could be shut down. The report

said the college had wronglx claimed said the college had wrongly claimed

nearly ?1 million for students it had no records of teaching. And it

has lost ?1.25 million on f`iled has lost ?1.25 million on f`iled

projects. The government has called for a complete overhaul of the

organisation's structure and half of the existing governors to be

the existing governors to bd replaced. Just three years ago, the

Barnfield Federation was held up by the government as a beacon of the

academy movement. The report has revealed that its former boss, Sir

Peter Birkett, was given two payoffs. Holiday allowances and a

car. That was when he resigned. Despite only being entitled to and

asking for holiday pay. The report states that the investigation was

prompted by the actions of whistle`blowers. One former teacher

told us, at the end of last year, when we first highlighted the

problems, just how difficult it was to report their concerns. I did try

ringing them. And it was re`lly ringing them. And it was re`lly

difficult. The person at the end of the line at the Department for

Education said, I do not know who you need to speak to. I felt like I

was going round in circles. So I gave up. Debra McGurran raised that

point with the skills Minister Matthew Hancock earlier this week.

As soon as we heard the whistle`blower's allegations, we

investigated. We moved very quickly to act and to find out what was

happening. The report lays bare what was found. We have put in place new

leadership already. And we will do whatever it takes to make stre we

get the highest possible education get the highest possible edtcation

standards for students and potential students in the area. We have spoken

to whistle`blowers who wantdd to to whistle`blowers who wanted to

report to the DFE and had tdrrible report to the DFE and had terrible

trouble doing so. Some whistle` blowers told me that they h`d

trouble doing so. Some whistle` blowers told me that they had been

blowers told me that they h`d been waiting on the phone for 20 minutes

to report their concerns. What has happened since we got those

allegations from the whistle`blowers demonstrates how quickly and

comprehensively we have dealt with this problem. What if the government

wants to see Barnfield kept together? Will you back thel in that

or do you want to see it split up? We have made it very clear that we

have a report into what went on And we have put in new leadership.

have a report into what went on. And we have put in new leadershhp. Now

we will look at how we make sure that Barnfield is structured for the

best possible outcome for the students in the future. That is

still an open question. We will look into that over the coming weeks.

still an open question. We will look into that over the coming wdeks If

this school had been under local authority control, don't you

this school had been under local authority control, don't yot think

these concerns would have surfaced these concerns would have strfaced

sooner? I don't think so. Bdcause as soon as the whistle` blower's

allegations were brought to us, we acted immediately. I think it is

acted immediately. I think ht is hard to see how we could have acted

any more quickly than taking very seriously their actions. Another

problem here was the rapid dxpansion problem here was the rapid expansion

of schools in this federation. Doesn't it make it more difficult to

deal with when you have multiple sites like this? Dealing with

Barnfield is very important as a priority. And making sure that the

education is as good as possible. And any education organisathon that

has difficulties as severe as And any education organisation that

has difficulties as severe `s this, clearing that up is always

difficult. But we are absolttely on difficult. But we are absolttely on

top of it. We have put new leadership in place already. Very

experienced leadership. We will take whatever action is necessary

experienced leadership. We will take whatever action is necessarx to get

whatever action is necessary to get the best school education.

Dashboards `` best possible education. But if there are more

sites, doesn't that make it more difficult with the academy lodel

creating this federation. Because creating this federation. Bdcause

this is a federation with real this is a federation with real

problems at its heart, as your report says. I think what is

important is that when allegations are brought to light, we acted very

quickly. We have new leadership in place. We have done an investigation

and report. And now we will take action. Whatever the scalel of an

institution, what matters is that, as soon as you find out there is a

problem, you grip the probldm and you do whatever is necessary. ``

whatever the scale. And at the front of your mind the interests of the

pupils and the potential pupils in the area.

This is Barnfield's statement.. Rupert Read, we had talk of multiple

sites there. Do you think it makes it harder to get a grip of a

it harder to get a grip of ` federation that is running multiple

sites? Definitely. Let's get to the root cause of the problem hdre.

sites? Definitely. Let's get to the root cause of the problem here. And

that is the academy system. This absurd system created, let's not

forget, by a Labour government, forget, by a Labour government,

continued by the current government. It enables rich people to bty

continued by the current government. It enables rich people to buy access

It enables rich people to bty access to the state education system for

derisory sums. A few rich businessmen control the education of

our children. We in the Greens think our children. We in the Greens think

that is completely wrong. Ldt's our children. We in the Gredns think

that is completely wrong. Let's put that is completely wrong. Ldt's put

that to Andy Sawford. Labour introduced them. Did you not foresee

problems like this? Under Labour, there was an approach where, if

schools were struggling over a long period of time, that to givd

schools were struggling over a long period of time, that to give them a

period of time, that to givd them a fresh start they were made

academies. That was a very small number in the overall scheme. The

number in the overall schemd. The real problem is this government

number in the overall scheme. The real problem is this governlent is

pushing academies as their approach pushing academies as their approach

for all schools. Particularly secondary schools. There are very

few left that are maintained. There are over 3500 created by this

government. And there is very poor accountability and they varx

anonymously. So I have great schools in my area. But we hear somd

anonymously. So I have great schools in my area. But we hear some really

in my area. But we hear somd really difficult examples of poor

leadership. Things going wrong. Poor financial management. Ultimately, in

the end, we have responsibility to the children. There is nothhng

intrinsically wrong with thd academy system. There will always be

system. There will always bd underperforming schools. Won't

there? Andy has just admittdd underperforming schools. Won't

there? Andy has just admitted his there? Andy has just admittdd his

party created the academy system, party created the academy sxstem,

just like the created PFI. It is no good him blaming the Conservatives

for simply continuing something be created. It is time for an

alternative. Time for a proper state education and proper public

services. That is what the Greens are calling for. It seems a bit of

point`scoring unnecessarily. This Barnfield is going wrong for years

into a Conservative governmdnt. They into a Conservative governmdnt. They

have a completely different academies programme to the Labour

programme, which was about two and failing schools. Not completely

different. It is surely a continuation of the same thhng.

continuation of the same thing. Children are not interested in this

kind of point`scoring or evdn in the nameplate on the door of the

kind of point`scoring or even in the nameplate on the door of thd school.

They just want a good education. They just want a good education

Children do not want their education Children do not want their education

to be controlled by a few rhch to be controlled by a few rich

businessmen. Tell me about the system of education the gredn

system of education the green support, then. Do you want things

back on local authority control completely? Yes, with strong parent

involvement and stakeholder involvement. We want to see money

not being put in by rich businessmen who then get to control what the

children are taught. We want to see an education system that actually

works for the benefit of the common works for the benefit of thd common

good. Andy Sawford, academies are good. Andy Sawford, academids are

here to stay, aren't they? The Corby Business Academy in my constituency

is teaching my nieces. They are doing really well. And of course, I

will support those schools. But there is an issue about

accountability. Also an issue there is an issue about

accountability. Also an isste about accountability. Also an issue about

where these are opened up about school plays planning. We h`ve a

school plays planning. We have a crisis of primary places in my

constituency. So there is a proper role for government. We shotldn t

role for government. We shouldn't just abdicate education to the

schools themselves. Thank you. Now for the political round`up of

the week when someone showed a clean pair of heals in the annual MP's

pancake race. Here is our 60 second round`up. `` heels.

Peterborough MP, Stewart Jackson, was delighted to hear this week that

he has won his legal battle with the parliamentary expenses watchdog over

whether his house had gained in value. Ofsted inspectors were not

pleased with the performance value. Ofsted inspectors were not

pleased with the performancd of pleased with the performancd of

schools in Suffolk at key stages two and four and is still well below the

national average. While I recognise national average. While I rdcognise

and welcome the Ofsted report that has been published today, there are

elements of that report I do not agree with. Patients at Northampton

General Hospital did not like the fact that all non`urgent opdrations

fact that all non`urgent operations had been cancelled because of the

extreme pressure on accident and emergency. The Green Party is

calling for action to allow the East Coast Main Line to remain in public

ownership. But the MP for Cambridge, ownership. But the MP for Cambridge,

Julian Huppert, was ahead of the pack at the start of the MP's

charity pancake race. But his pack at the start of the MP's

charity pancake race. But hhs team charity pancake race. But hhs team

failed to take the tape at the end. Rupert Read, why should the East

Coast Main Line remain in public Coast Main Line remain in public

ownership? Because last year, it made a profit of ?208 million. And

because it had a low inflathon price because it had a low inflation price

rise this year, unlike virtually any other part of the rail network. The

East Coast Main Line is showing how a proper joined up railway system

could be run if we renation`lise could be run if we renation`lise

railways, as ourMP, Caroline Lucas, railways, as ourMP, Caroline Lucas,

is hoping to do. `` as our MP. It is a real shame the other parthes would

a real shame the other parties would get behind this. `` won't gdt

get behind this. `` won't get behind. Andy Sawford, how concerned

are you about the problems we saw there that Northampton general? Very

concerned. At Kettering General Hospital and Northampton, there are

real pressures on accident and emergency and services. I w`nt

real pressures on accident `nd emergency and services. I want to

emergency and services. I w`nt to see new urgent treatment centres

opened up. How soon does that need opened up. How soon does that need

to happen? There is now an trgent to happen? There is now an trgent

care centre in Corby, but it is the only one in the county. We need to

see them across the county which will benefit my constituency is and

everybody in the area. OK, we will have to leave it there. Thank you

very much. As always, you can have to leave it there. Thank you

very much. As always, you c`n keep very much. As always, you can keep

in touch via our website, where you will also find links to Debra

McGurran's blogs for the latest political updates. We are b`ck at

the same time next week when we look forward to the budget and whether

there will be financial support announced for our cities. For now,

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 2006

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

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 16 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 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,

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.