:00:37. > :00:43.Welfare reform is one of the government's most popular policies.
:00:44. > :00:46.So Labour says it would be even tougher than the Tories.
:00:47. > :00:50.We'll be asking the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary if she's got
:00:51. > :00:56.Even Labour supporters worry that Ed Miliband hasn't got what it takes
:00:57. > :01:01.Labour grandees are increasingly vocal about their concerns.
:01:02. > :01:12.Over 50% of Labour voters think they'd do better with a new leader.
:01:13. > :01:28.And in the east, a shortage apparently "toxic" on the doorstep.
:01:29. > :01:28.And in the east, a shortage of GPs leaving thousands
:01:29. > :01:40.promised an electric car revolution, why so little progress?
:01:41. > :01:47.Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, the toxic tweeters
:01:48. > :01:55.First, the deepening crisis in Iraq, where Sunni Islamists are now
:01:56. > :01:58.largely in control of the Syrian-Iraq border, which means
:01:59. > :02:04.they can now re-supply their forces in Iraq from their Syrian bases.
:02:05. > :02:07.Rather than moving on Baghdad, they are for the moment consolidating
:02:08. > :02:09.their grip on the towns and cities they've already taken.
:02:10. > :02:11.They also seem to be in effective control of Iraq's
:02:12. > :02:15.biggest oil refinery, which supplies the capital.
:02:16. > :02:18.And there are reports they might now have taken the power
:02:19. > :02:24.Iraqi politicians are now admitting that ISIS,
:02:25. > :02:27.the name of the Sunni insurgents, is better trained, better equipped and
:02:28. > :02:33.far more battle-hardened than the US-trained Iraqi army fighting it.
:02:34. > :02:35.Which leaves the fate of Baghdad increasingly in the hands
:02:36. > :02:53.No good news coming out of there, Janan. No good news and no good
:02:54. > :02:57.options either. The West's best strategy is to decide how much
:02:58. > :03:02.support to give to the Iraqi government. The US is sending over
:03:03. > :03:05.about 275 military personnel. Do they go further and contemplate
:03:06. > :03:12.their support? General Petraeus argued against it as it might be
:03:13. > :03:17.seen as the US serving as the force of Shia Iraqis -- continue their
:03:18. > :03:22.support. Do we contemplate breaking up Iraq? It won't be easy. The Sunni
:03:23. > :03:28.and Shia Muslim populations don t and Shia Muslim populations don't
:03:29. > :03:32.live in clearly bordered areas, but in the longer term, do we deal with
:03:33. > :03:37.it in the same way we dealt with the break-up of the Ottoman empire over
:03:38. > :03:42.100 years ago? In the short-term and long-term, completely confounding.
:03:43. > :03:47.Quite humiliating. If ISIS take Baghdad I can't think of a bigger
:03:48. > :03:53.ignominy for foreign policy since Suez. If Iraq is partitioned, it
:03:54. > :03:59.won't be up to us. It will be what is happening because of what is
:04:00. > :04:04.happening on the ground. Everything does point to partition, and that
:04:05. > :04:09.border, which ISIS control, between Syria and Iraq, that has been there
:04:10. > :04:14.since it was drawn during the First World War. That is gone as well. An
:04:15. > :04:20.astonishingly humbling situation the West, and you can see the Kurds in
:04:21. > :04:26.the North think this is a charge -- chance for authority. They think
:04:27. > :04:31.this is the chance to get the autonomy they felt they deserved a
:04:32. > :04:35.long time. Janan is right. We can't do much in the long term, but we
:04:36. > :04:39.have to decide on the engagement. And the other people wish you'd be
:04:40. > :04:42.talking turkey, because if there is some blowback and the fighters come
:04:43. > :04:47.back, they are likely to come back from Turkey. Where is Iran in all of
:04:48. > :04:51.this? There were reports last week that the Revolutionary guard, the
:04:52. > :04:56.head of it, he was already in Baghdad with 67 advisers and there
:04:57. > :05:01.might have been some brigades that have gone there as well. Where are
:05:02. > :05:06.they? What has happened? I'm pretty sure the Prime Minister of Iraq is
:05:07. > :05:16.putting more faith in Iran than the White House and the British. I think
:05:17. > :05:20.they are running the show, in technical terms. John Kerry is
:05:21. > :05:25.flying into Cairo this morning, and what is his message? It is twofold.
:05:26. > :05:30.One is to Arab countries, do more to encourage an inclusive government in
:05:31. > :05:33.Iraq, mainly Sunni Muslims in the government, and the Arab Gulf states
:05:34. > :05:38.should stop funding insurgents in Iraq. You think, Iraq, it's
:05:39. > :05:44.potentially going to break up, so this sounds a bit late in the day
:05:45. > :05:47.and a bit weak. It gets fundamentally to the problem, what
:05:48. > :05:51.can we do? Niall Ferguson has a big piece in the Sunday Times asking if
:05:52. > :05:56.this is place where we cannot doing anything. He doesn't want to do
:05:57. > :06:01.anything. By the way, that is what most Americans think. That is what
:06:02. > :06:05.opinion polls are showing. You have George Osborne Michael Gold who
:06:06. > :06:09.would love to get involved but they cannot because of the vote in
:06:10. > :06:12.parliament on Syria lasted -- George Osborne and Michael Gove. This
:06:13. > :06:15.government does not have the stomach for military intervention. We will
:06:16. > :06:19.see how events unfold on the ground. All parties are agreed that
:06:20. > :06:21.Britain's 60-year old multi-billion The Tory side of the Coalition think
:06:22. > :06:26.their reforms are necessary and popular, though they haven't
:06:27. > :06:29.always gone to time or to plan. In the eight months she's had since
:06:30. > :06:33.she became Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves
:06:34. > :06:40.has talked the talk about getting people off benefits, into work and
:06:41. > :06:43.lowering the overall welfare bill. her first interview
:06:44. > :06:45.in the job she threatened "We would But Labour has opposed just
:06:46. > :06:49.about every change the Coalition has proposed to cut the cost
:06:50. > :06:54.and change the culture of welfare. Child benefit, housing benefit,
:06:55. > :06:56.the ?26,000 benefit cap - They've been lukewarm about
:06:57. > :07:03.the government's flagship Universal Credit scheme - which rolls six
:07:04. > :07:06.benefit payments into one - and And Labour has set out only
:07:07. > :07:13.two modest welfare cuts. This week, Labour said young people
:07:14. > :07:16.must have skills or be in training That will save ?65 million,
:07:17. > :07:22.says Labour, though the cost And cutting winter fuel payments
:07:23. > :07:27.for richer pensioners which will Not a lot in a total welfare bill
:07:28. > :07:35.of around ?200 billion. And with welfare cuts popular among
:07:36. > :07:38.even Labour voters, they will soon have to start spelling out exactly
:07:39. > :07:54.what Labour welfare reform means. Welcome. Good morning. Why do you
:07:55. > :07:58.want to be tougher than the Tories? We want to be tough in getting the
:07:59. > :08:02.welfare bill down. Under this government, the bill will be ?13
:08:03. > :08:06.million more than the government set out in 2010 and I don't think that
:08:07. > :08:11.is acceptable. We should try to control the cost of Social Security.
:08:12. > :08:15.But the welfare bill under the next Labour government will fall? It will
:08:16. > :08:20.be smaller when you end the first parliament than when you started? We
:08:21. > :08:23.signed up to the capping welfare but that doesn't see social security
:08:24. > :08:29.costs ball, it sees them go up in line with with inflation or average
:08:30. > :08:34.earnings -- costs fall. So where flair will rise? We have signed up
:08:35. > :08:39.to the cap -- welfare will rise? We have signed up to the cap. We will
:08:40. > :08:43.get the costs under control and they haven't managed to achieve it. The
:08:44. > :08:46.government is spending ?13 billion more on Social Security and the
:08:47. > :08:51.reason they are doing it is because the minimum wage has not kept pace
:08:52. > :08:55.with the cost of living so people are reliant on tax credits. They are
:08:56. > :08:58.not building houses and people are relying on housing benefit. We have
:08:59. > :09:05.a record number of people on zero hours contracts. I'm still not clear
:09:06. > :09:09.if you will cut welfare if you get in power. Nobody is saying that the
:09:10. > :09:17.cost of welfare is going to fall. The welfare cap sees that happening
:09:18. > :09:21.gradually. That is a Tory cap. And you've accepted it. You're being the
:09:22. > :09:29.same as the Tories, not to. If they had a welfare cap, they would have
:09:30. > :09:31.breached it in every year of the parliament. Social Security will be
:09:32. > :09:36.higher than the government set out because they failed to control it.
:09:37. > :09:39.You read the polls, and the party does lots of its own polling, and
:09:40. > :09:42.you're scared of being seen as the welfare party. You don't really
:09:43. > :09:49.believe all of this anti-welfare stuff? We are the party of work, not
:09:50. > :09:51.welfare. The Labour Party was set up in the first place because we
:09:52. > :09:55.believe in the dignity of work and we believe that work should pay
:09:56. > :09:58.wages can afford to live on. I make no apologies for being the party of
:09:59. > :10:03.work. We are not the welfare party, we are the party of work. Even your
:10:04. > :10:08.confidential strategy document admits that voters don't trust you
:10:09. > :10:13.on immigration, the economy, this is your own people, and welfare. You
:10:14. > :10:16.are not trusted on it. The most recent poll showed Labour slightly
:10:17. > :10:19.ahead of the Conservative Party on Social Security, probably because
:10:20. > :10:23.they have seen the incompetence and chaos at the Department for Work and
:10:24. > :10:28.Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith. Your own internal document means
:10:29. > :10:34.that the voters don't trust you on welfare reform. That is why we have
:10:35. > :10:39.shown some of this tough things we will do like the announcement that
:10:40. > :10:42.Ed Miliband made earlier this week, that young people without basic
:10:43. > :10:46.qualifications won't be entitled to just sign on for benefits, they have
:10:47. > :10:49.to sign up for training in order to receive support. That is the right
:10:50. > :10:50.thing to do by that group of young people, because they need skills to
:10:51. > :11:00.progress. We will, once that. -- we progress. We will, once that. - we
:11:01. > :11:05.will, onto that. You say you criticise the government that it had
:11:06. > :11:09.a cap and wouldn't have met it, but every money-saving welfare reform,
:11:10. > :11:16.you voted against it. How is that being tougher? The most recent bout
:11:17. > :11:20.was the cap on overall welfare expenditure, and we went through the
:11:21. > :11:25.lobbies and voted for the Tories. You voted against the benefit cap,
:11:26. > :11:30.welfare rating, you voted against, child benefit schemes, you voted
:11:31. > :11:32.against. You can't say we voted against everything when we voted
:11:33. > :11:37.with the Conservatives in the most recent bill with a cap on Social
:11:38. > :11:44.Security. It's just not correct to say. The last time we voted, we
:11:45. > :11:50.walked through the lobby with them. You voted on the principle of the
:11:51. > :11:55.cap. You voted on every step that would allow the cap to be met. Every
:11:56. > :11:59.single one. The most recent vote was not on the principle of the cap it
:12:00. > :12:02.was on a cap of Social Security in the next Parliament and we signed up
:12:03. > :12:04.for that. It was Ed Miliband who called her that earlier on. Which
:12:05. > :12:11.welfare reform did you vote for We welfare reform did you vote for? We
:12:12. > :12:15.voted for the cap. Other than that? We have supported universal credit.
:12:16. > :12:20.You voted against it in the third reading. We voted against some of
:12:21. > :12:25.the specifics. If you look at universal credit, they have had to
:12:26. > :12:30.write off nearly ?900 million of spending. I'm not on the rights and
:12:31. > :12:34.wrongs, I'm trying to work out what you voted for. Some of the things we
:12:35. > :12:38.are going to go further than the government with. For example,
:12:39. > :12:42.cutting benefits for young people who don't sign of the training. The
:12:43. > :12:45.government had introduced that. For example, saying that the richest
:12:46. > :12:49.pensioners should not get the winter fuel allowance, that is something
:12:50. > :12:52.the government haven't signed up. You would get that under Labour and
:12:53. > :12:56.this government haven't signed up for it. ?100 million on the winter
:12:57. > :13:03.fuel allowance and ?65 million on youth training. ?165 million. How
:13:04. > :13:11.big is the welfare budget? The cap would apply to ?120 billion. And
:13:12. > :13:15.you've saved 125 -- 165 million Those are cuts that we said we would
:13:16. > :13:19.do in government. If you look at the real prize from the changes Ed
:13:20. > :13:23.Miliband announced in the youth allowance, it's not the short-term
:13:24. > :13:26.savings, it's the fact that each of these young people, who are
:13:27. > :13:30.currently on unemployment benefits without the skills we know they need
:13:31. > :13:36.to succeed in life, they will cost the taxpayer ?2000 per year. I will
:13:37. > :13:40.come onto that. You mentioned universal credit, which the
:13:41. > :13:44.government regards as the flagship reform. It's had lots of troubles
:13:45. > :13:50.with it and it merges six benefits into one. You voted against it in
:13:51. > :13:54.the third reading and given lukewarm support in the past. We have not
:13:55. > :14:01.said he would abandon it, but now you say you are for it. You are all
:14:02. > :14:03.over the place. We set up the rescue committee in autumn of last year
:14:04. > :14:08.because we have seen from the National Audit Office and the Public
:14:09. > :14:13.Accounts Committee, report after report showing that the project is
:14:14. > :14:16.massively overbudget and is not going to be delivered according to
:14:17. > :14:19.the government timetable. We set up the committee because we believe in
:14:20. > :14:23.the principle of universal credit and think it is the right thing to
:14:24. > :14:28.do. Can you tell us now if you will keep it or not? Because there is no
:14:29. > :14:34.transparency and we have no idea. We are awash with information. We are
:14:35. > :14:40.not. The government, in the most recent National audit Forest --
:14:41. > :14:44.National Audit Office statement said it was a reset project. This is
:14:45. > :14:50.really important. This is a flagship government programme, and it's going
:14:51. > :14:54.to cost ?12.8 billion to deliver, and we don't know what sort of state
:14:55. > :14:58.it is in, so we have said that if we win at the next election, we will
:14:59. > :15:05.pause that for three months and calling... Will you stop the pilots?
:15:06. > :15:10.We don't know what status they will have. We would stop the build of the
:15:11. > :15:14.system for three months, calling the National Audit Office to do awards
:15:15. > :15:20.and all report. The government don't need to do this until the next
:15:21. > :15:23.general election, they could do it today. Stop throwing good money
:15:24. > :15:28.after bad and get a grip of this incredibly important programme. You
:15:29. > :15:32.said you don't know enough to a view now. So when you were invited to a
:15:33. > :15:39.job centre where universal credit is being rolled out to see how it was
:15:40. > :15:41.working, you refused to go. Why We asked were a meeting with Iain
:15:42. > :15:45.Duncan Smith and he cancelled the meeting is three times. I'm talking
:15:46. > :15:48.about the visit when you were offered to go to a job centre and
:15:49. > :15:52.you refused. We had an appointment to meet Iain Duncan Smith at the
:15:53. > :15:56.Department for Work and Pensions and said he cancelled and was not
:15:57. > :15:59.available, but he wanted us to go to the job centre. We wanted to talk to
:16:00. > :16:05.him and his officials, which she did. Would it be more useful to go
:16:06. > :16:06.to the job centre and find out how it was working. He's going to tell
:16:07. > :16:24.you it's working fine. Advice Bureau in Hammersmith, they
:16:25. > :16:30.are working to help the people trying to claim universal credit.
:16:31. > :16:33.Iain Duncan Smith cancelled three meetings. That is another issue,
:16:34. > :16:37.Iain Duncan Smith cancelled three meetings. That is another issue I
:16:38. > :16:42.was asking about the job centre. It is not another issue because Iain
:16:43. > :16:46.Duncan Smith fogged us off. This week you said that jobless
:16:47. > :16:50.youngsters who won't take training will lose their welfare payments.
:16:51. > :16:58.How many young people are not in work training or education? There
:16:59. > :17:05.are 140,000 young people claiming benefits at the moment, but 850,000
:17:06. > :17:14.young people who are not in work at the moment. This applies to around
:17:15. > :17:21.100,000 young people. There are actually 975,000, 16-24 -year-olds,
:17:22. > :17:28.not in work, training or education. Your proposal only applies to
:17:29. > :17:33.100,000 of them, why? This is applying to young people who are
:17:34. > :17:40.signing on for benefits rather than signing up for training. We want to
:17:41. > :17:45.make sure that all young people .. Why only 100,000? They are the ones
:17:46. > :17:58.currently getting job-seeker's allowance. We are saying you can not
:17:59. > :18:02.just sign up to... Can I get you to respond to this, the number of
:18:03. > :18:11.people not in work, training or education fell last year by more
:18:12. > :18:22.than you are planning to help. Long turn -- long-term unemployment is an
:18:23. > :18:26.entrenched problem... This issue about an entrenched group of young
:18:27. > :18:33.people. Young people who haven't got skills and are not in training we
:18:34. > :18:37.know are much less likely to get a job so there are 140,018-24
:18:38. > :18:43.-year-olds signing onto benefits at the moment. This is about trying to
:18:44. > :18:48.address that problem to make sure all young people have the skills
:18:49. > :18:53.they need to get a job. Your policy is to take away part of the dole
:18:54. > :18:59.unless young unemployed people agree to study for level three
:19:00. > :19:04.qualifications, the equivalent of an AS-level or an NVQ but 40% of these
:19:05. > :19:10.people have the literary skills of a nine-year-old. After all that failed
:19:11. > :19:17.education, how are you going to train them to a level standard? We
:19:18. > :19:22.are saying that anyone who doesn't have that a level or equivalent
:19:23. > :19:28.qualification will be required to go back to college. We are not saying
:19:29. > :19:32.that within a year they have to get up to that level but these are
:19:33. > :19:35.exactly the sorts of people... These people have been failed by your
:19:36. > :19:39.education system. These people are, for the last four years, have been
:19:40. > :19:46.educated under a Conservative government. 18 - 21-year-olds, most
:19:47. > :19:52.of them have their education under a Labour government during which
:19:53. > :19:57.300,000 people left with no GCSEs whatsoever. I don't understand how
:19:58. > :20:01.training for one year can do what 11 years in school did not. We are not
:20:02. > :20:05.saying that within one year everybody will get up to a level
:20:06. > :20:09.three qualifications, but if you are one of those people who enters the
:20:10. > :20:14.Labour market age 18 with the reading skills of a nine-year-old,
:20:15. > :20:19.they are the sorts of people that should not the left languishing I
:20:20. > :20:26.should not the left languishing. I went to college in Hackney if you
:20:27. > :20:31.you are -- a few weeks ago and there was a dyslexic boy studying painting
:20:32. > :20:35.and decorating. In school they decided he was a troublemaker and
:20:36. > :20:40.that he didn't want to learn. He went back to college because he
:20:41. > :20:45.wanted to get the skills. He said that it wasn't until he went back to
:20:46. > :20:49.college that he could pick up a newspaper and read it, it made a
:20:50. > :20:55.huge difference but too many people are let down by the system. I am
:20:56. > :21:00.wondering how the training will make up for an education system that
:21:01. > :21:05.failed them but let's move on to your leader. Look at this graph of
:21:06. > :21:10.Ed Miliband's popularity. This is the net satisfaction with him, it is
:21:11. > :21:17.dreadful. The trend continues to climb since he became leader of the
:21:18. > :21:20.Labour Party, why? What you have seen is another 2300 Labour
:21:21. > :21:25.councillors since Ed Miliband became the leader of the Labour Party. You
:21:26. > :21:33.saw in the elections a month ago that... Why is the satisfaction rate
:21:34. > :21:38.falling? We can look at polls or actual election results and the fact
:21:39. > :21:43.that we have got another 2000 Labour councillors, more people voting
:21:44. > :21:47.Labour, the opinion polls today show that if there was a general election
:21:48. > :21:55.today we would have a majority of more than 40, he must be doing
:21:56. > :22:00.something right. Why do almost 0% of voters want to replace him as
:22:01. > :22:07.leader? Why do 50% and more think that he is not up to the job? The
:22:08. > :22:13.more people see Ed Miliband, the less impressed they are. The British
:22:14. > :22:18.people seem to like him less. The election strategy I suggest that
:22:19. > :22:22.follows from that is that you should keep Ed Miliband under wraps until
:22:23. > :22:28.the election. Let's look at actually what happens when people get a
:22:29. > :22:32.chance to vote, when they get that opportunity we have seen more Labour
:22:33. > :22:39.councillors, more Labour members of the European Parliament...
:22:40. > :22:45.Oppositions always get more. The opinion polls today, one of them
:22:46. > :22:50.shows Labour four points ahead. You have not done that well in local
:22:51. > :22:56.government elections or European elections. Why don't people like
:22:57. > :23:01.him? I think we have done incredibly well in elections. People must like
:23:02. > :23:05.a lot of the things Labour and Ed Miliband are doing because we are
:23:06. > :23:09.winning back support across the country. We won local councils in
:23:10. > :23:15.places like Hammersmith and Fulham, Crawley, Hastings, key places that
:23:16. > :23:20.Labour need to win back at the general election next year. Even you
:23:21. > :23:26.have said traditional Labour supporters are abandoning the party.
:23:27. > :23:31.That is what Ed Miliband has said as well. We have got this real concern
:23:32. > :23:36.about what has happened. If you look at the elections in May, 60% of
:23:37. > :23:41.people didn't even bother going to vote. That is a profound issue not
:23:42. > :23:46.just for Labour. You said traditional voters who perhaps at
:23:47. > :23:51.times we took for granted are now being offered an alternative. Why
:23:52. > :23:57.did you take them for granted? This is what Ed Miliband said. I am not
:23:58. > :24:03.saying anything Ed Miliband himself has not said. When he ran for the
:24:04. > :24:07.leadership he said that we took too many people for granted and we
:24:08. > :24:11.needed to give people positive reasons to vote Labour, he has been
:24:12. > :24:15.doing that. He has been there for four years and you are saying you
:24:16. > :24:20.still take them for granted. Why? I am saying that for too long we have
:24:21. > :24:24.taken them for granted. We are on track to win the general election
:24:25. > :24:35.next year and that will defy all the odds. You are going to win... Ed
:24:36. > :24:39.Miliband will win next year and make a great Prime Minister.
:24:40. > :24:44.Now to the Liberal Democrats, at the risk of intruding into private
:24:45. > :24:48.grief. The party is still smarting from dire results in the European
:24:49. > :24:51.and Local Elections. The only poll Nick Clegg has won in recent times
:24:52. > :24:55.is to be voted the most unpopular leader of a party in modern British
:24:56. > :24:59.history. No surprise there have been calls for him to go, though that
:25:00. > :25:00.still looks unlikely. Here's Eleanor.
:25:01. > :25:02.Liberal Democrats celebrating, something we haven't seen for a
:25:03. > :25:08.while. This victory back in 199 led while. This victory back in 1998 led
:25:09. > :25:13.to a decade of power for the Lib Dems in Liverpool. What a contrast
:25:14. > :25:19.to the city's political landscape today. At its height the party had
:25:20. > :25:23.69 local councillors, now down to just three. The scale of the
:25:24. > :25:30.challenge facing Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems is growing. The party is
:25:31. > :25:33.rock bottom in the polls, consistently in single figures. It
:25:34. > :25:39.was wiped out in the European elections losing all but one of its
:25:40. > :25:46.12 MEPs and in the local elections it lost 42% of the seats that it was
:25:47. > :25:51.defending. But on Merseyside, Nick Clegg was putting on a brave face.
:25:52. > :25:57.We did badly in Liverpool, Manchester and London in particular,
:25:58. > :26:02.we did well in other places. But you are right, we did badly in some of
:26:03. > :26:06.those big cities and I have initiated a review, quite
:26:07. > :26:12.naturally, to understand what went wrong, what went right. As Lib Dems
:26:13. > :26:17.across the country get on with some serious soul-searching, there is an
:26:18. > :26:21.admission that his is the leader of the party who is failing to hit the
:26:22. > :26:26.right notes. Knocking on doors in Liverpool, I have to tell you that
:26:27. > :26:32.Nick Clegg is not a popular person. Some might use the word toxic and I
:26:33. > :26:36.find this very difficult because I know Nick very well and I see a
:26:37. > :26:41.principal person who passionately believes in what he is doing and he
:26:42. > :26:52.is a nice guy. As a result of his popularity, what has happened to the
:26:53. > :26:56.core vote? In parts of the country, we are down to just three
:26:57. > :27:00.councillors like Liverpool for example. You also lose the
:27:01. > :27:04.deliverers and fundraisers and the organisers and the members of course
:27:05. > :27:10.so all of that will have to be rebuilt. As they start fermenting
:27:11. > :27:14.process, local parties across the country and here in Liverpool have
:27:15. > :27:21.been voting on whether there should be a leadership contest. We had two
:27:22. > :27:25.choices to flush out and have a go at Nick Clegg or to positively
:27:26. > :27:30.decide we would sharpen up the campaign and get back on the
:27:31. > :27:35.streets, and by four to one ratio we decided to get back on the streets.
:27:36. > :27:41.We are bruised and battered but we are still here, the orange flag is
:27:42. > :27:46.still flying and one day it will fly over this building again, Liverpool
:27:47. > :27:51.town hall. But do people want the Lib Dems back in charge in this
:27:52. > :27:55.city? I certainly wouldn't vote for them. Their performance in
:27:56. > :28:00.Government and the way they have left their promises down, I could
:28:01. > :28:06.not vote for them again. I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of
:28:07. > :28:12.the university tuition fees and I would never vote for them again
:28:13. > :28:15.because they broke their promise. The Lib Dems are awful, broken
:28:16. > :28:20.promises and what have you. I wouldn't vote for them. This is the
:28:21. > :28:24.declaration of the results for the Northwest... Last month, as other
:28:25. > :28:29.party celebrated in the north-west, the Lib Dems here lost their only
:28:30. > :28:34.MEP, Chris Davies. Now there is concern the party doesn't know how
:28:35. > :28:40.to turn its fortunes around. We don't have an answer to that, if we
:28:41. > :28:48.did we would be grasping it with both hands. We will do our best to
:28:49. > :28:53.hold onto the places where we still have seats but as for the rest of
:28:54. > :28:58.the country where we have been hollowed out, we don't know how to
:28:59. > :29:01.start again until the next general election is out of the way. After
:29:02. > :29:04.their disastrous performance in the European elections, pressure is
:29:05. > :29:15.growing for the party to shift its stance. I think there has to be a
:29:16. > :29:22.lancing of the wound, there should in a referendum and the Liberal
:29:23. > :29:27.Democrats should be calling it. The rest of Europe once this because
:29:28. > :29:32.they are fed up with Britain being unable to make up its mind. The Lib
:29:33. > :29:37.Dems are now suffering the effects of being in Government. The party's
:29:38. > :29:40.problem, choosing the right course to regain political credibility.
:29:41. > :29:46.to regain political credibility We can now speak to form a Lib Dems
:29:47. > :29:51.leader Ming Campbell. Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. Even your
:29:52. > :29:58.own activists say that Nick Clegg is toxic. How will that change between
:29:59. > :30:03.now and the election? When you have had disappointing results, but you
:30:04. > :30:07.have to do is to rebuild. You pick yourself up and start all over
:30:08. > :30:12.again, and the reason why the Liberal Democrats got 57, 56 seats
:30:13. > :30:16.in the House of Commons now is because we picked ourselves up, we
:30:17. > :30:27.took every opportunity and we have rebuilt from the bottom up.
:30:28. > :30:30.least popular leader in modern history and more unpopular than your
:30:31. > :30:35.mate Gordon Brown. You are running out of time. No one believes that
:30:36. > :30:39.being the leader of a modern political party in the UK is an easy
:30:40. > :30:43.job. Both Ed Miliband and David Cameron must have had cause to
:30:44. > :30:47.think, over breakfast this morning, when they saw the headlines in some
:30:48. > :30:51.of the Sunday papers. Of course it is a difficult job but it was
:30:52. > :30:55.pointed out a moment or two ago that Nick Clegg is a man of principle and
:30:56. > :30:59.enormous resilience if you consider what he had to put up with, and in
:31:00. > :31:02.my view, he is quite clearly the person best qualified to lead the
:31:03. > :31:06.party between now and the general election and through the election
:31:07. > :31:11.campaign, and beyond. So why don't people like him? We have had to take
:31:12. > :31:15.some pretty difficult decisions, and, of course, people didn't expect
:31:16. > :31:21.that. If you look back to the rather heady days of the rose garden behind
:31:22. > :31:23.ten Downing St, people thought it was all going to be sweetness and
:31:24. > :31:27.light, but the fact is, we didn't light, but the fact is, we didn t
:31:28. > :31:32.know then what we know now, about the extent of the economic crisis we
:31:33. > :31:35.win, and a lot of difficult decisions have had to be taken in
:31:36. > :31:40.order to restore economic stability. Look around you. You will see we are
:31:41. > :31:45.not there yet but we are a long way better off than in 2010. You are not
:31:46. > :31:52.getting the credit for it, the Tories are. We will be a little more
:31:53. > :31:57.assertive about taking the credit. For example, the fact that 23
:31:58. > :32:00.million people have had a tax cut of ?800 per year and we have taken 2
:32:01. > :32:04.million people out of paying tax altogether. Ming Campbell, your
:32:05. > :32:10.people say that on every programme like this. Because it is true. That
:32:11. > :32:14.might be the case, but you are at seven or 8% in the polls, and nobody
:32:15. > :32:22.is listening, or they don't believe it. Once
:32:23. > :32:23.is listening, or they don't believe doubt that what we have achieved
:32:24. > :32:27.will be much more easily recognised, and there is no doubt,
:32:28. > :32:31.for example, in some of the recent polls, like the Ashcroft Pole,
:32:32. > :32:39.something like 30% of those polled said that as a result at the next
:32:40. > :32:41.something like 30% of those polled general election, they would prepare
:32:42. > :32:46.their to be a coalition involving the Liberal Democrats. So there is
:32:47. > :32:50.no question that the whole notion of coalition is still very much a live
:32:51. > :32:55.one, and one which we have made work in the public interest. The problem
:32:56. > :32:58.is people don't think that. People see you trying to have your cake and
:32:59. > :33:02.eat it. On the one hand you want to get your share of the credit for the
:33:03. > :33:05.turnaround in the economy, on the other hand you can't stop yourself
:33:06. > :33:09.from distancing yourself from the Tories and things that you did not
:33:10. > :33:15.like happening. You are trying to face both ways at once. If you
:33:16. > :33:28.remember our fellow Scotsman famously said you cannot ride both
:33:29. > :33:28.remember our fellow Scotsman to the terms -- terms of the
:33:29. > :33:30.remember our fellow Scotsman coalition agreement, which is what
:33:31. > :33:34.we signed up to in 2010. In addition, in furtherance of that
:33:35. > :33:38.agreement, we have created things like the pupil premium and the
:33:39. > :33:42.others I mentioned and you were rather dismissive. I'm not
:33:43. > :33:45.dismissive, I'm just saying they don't make a difference to what
:33:46. > :33:51.people think of you. We will do everything in our power to change
:33:52. > :33:56.that between now and May 2015. The interesting thing is, going back to
:33:57. > :34:02.the Ashcroft result, it demonstrated clearly that in constituencies where
:34:03. > :34:05.we have MPs and we are well dug in, we are doing everything that the
:34:06. > :34:10.public expects of us, and we are doing very well indeed. You aren't
:34:11. > :34:16.sure fellow Lib Dems have been saying this for you -- you and your
:34:17. > :34:19.fellow Liberal Dems have been saying this for a year or 18 months, and
:34:20. > :34:23.since then you have lost all of your MEPs apart from one, you lost your
:34:24. > :34:29.deposit in a by-election, you lost 310 councillor, including everyone
:34:30. > :34:34.in Manchester or Islington. Mr Clegg leading you into the next general
:34:35. > :34:37.election will be the equivalent of the charge of the light Brigade.
:34:38. > :34:37.election will be the equivalent of the charge of the light Brigade I
:34:38. > :34:42.the charge of the light Brigade. I doubt that very much. The
:34:43. > :34:46.implication behind that lit you rehearsed is that we should pack our
:34:47. > :34:51.tents in the night and steal away. -- that litany. And if you heard in
:34:52. > :34:54.that piece that preceded the discussion, people were saying, look
:34:55. > :35:09.we have to start from the bottom and have to rebuild. That is exactly
:35:10. > :35:13.what we will do. Nine months is a period of gestation. As you well
:35:14. > :35:18.know. I wouldn't dismiss it quite so easily as that. I'm not here to say
:35:19. > :35:22.we had a wonderful result or anything like it, but what I do say
:35:23. > :35:26.is that the party is determined to turn it round, and that Nick Clegg
:35:27. > :35:31.is the person best qualified to do it. Should your party adopt a
:35:32. > :35:36.referendum about in or out on Europe? No, we should stick to the
:35:37. > :35:40.coalition agreement. If there is any transfer of power from Westminster
:35:41. > :35:46.to Brussels, that will be subject to a referendum. No change. And
:35:47. > :35:52.finally, as a Lib Dem, you must be glad you are not fighting the next
:35:53. > :35:57.election yourself? I've fought every election since 1974, so I've had a
:35:58. > :36:02.few experiences, some good, some bad, but the one thing I have done
:36:03. > :36:05.and the one thing a lot of other people have done is that they have
:36:06. > :36:07.stuck to the task, and that is what will happen in May 2015. Ming
:36:08. > :36:11.Campbell, thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35am, you're
:36:12. > :36:13.watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:36:14. > :36:35.in Scotland who leave us now East. Surgeons but no doctors,
:36:36. > :36:39.patients who cannot get appointments and half empty training courses.
:36:40. > :36:44.and half empty training courses This is probably the worst workforce
:36:45. > :36:55.crisis in my years as a qualified doctor. The parliamentarians trying
:36:56. > :36:59.to get their message across. I think politics really matters and can make
:37:00. > :37:03.a real difference to people's lives and unless they are engaged they do
:37:04. > :37:15.not worry to vote. Let's meet not worry to vote. Let's medt our
:37:16. > :37:25.guests, former Minister of Labour's candidate for Northampton North. And
:37:26. > :37:31.newly re`elected conservative MVP. I wanted to start with the environment
:37:32. > :37:35.committee report into flooding which criticised the lack of routine
:37:36. > :37:45.flight maintenance seeing it as our TB in a month. The tidal surge left
:37:46. > :37:53.1400 homes flooded and many acres of land underwater. 130 defencd
:37:54. > :37:58.projects needed repair. The main finding is that you must not cut
:37:59. > :38:06.down on maintenance because you create extra capital costs further
:38:07. > :38:12.down the line. This report says that not enough money is
:38:13. > :38:16.prevent flooding and that is a false economy? If you look back at what
:38:17. > :38:23.happened, the worst in 50 years, the Environment Agency did an
:38:24. > :38:27.amazing job compared to 50 years ago, but absolutely
:38:28. > :38:35.are changing and we need to make sure we are prepared and look at how
:38:36. > :38:41.flood defences are performed, whether they need to be better
:38:42. > :38:48.maintained. I am concerned about areas in the North claims and in
:38:49. > :38:55.Somerset making sure that experience would not happen here. Let's look at
:38:56. > :38:59.places where the defences h`ve held up well such as in
:39:00. > :39:08.Northamptonshire. That is because there was very good investmdnt at
:39:09. > :39:15.the time. ?7 million saved in any much more than that. The cost of the
:39:16. > :39:19.last round was around about ?1 billion, so we need to see flood
:39:20. > :39:24.defences and protection and essential infrastructure and
:39:25. > :39:30.increase funding which has been cut. Jobs going at the Environment
:39:31. > :39:39.Agency? Money has been put into environmental protection. If you
:39:40. > :39:44.look at what has happened in some places, there are flood defences and
:39:45. > :39:50.it is now time to be complacent when patterns changing and there is a
:39:51. > :39:54.commitment money will go into this. We want to learn from what happened
:39:55. > :39:59.in the West Country and that the needs to be more dredging we have to
:40:00. > :40:02.look at that. We will have to leave it.
:40:03. > :40:12.Staff shortages in doctors' surgeries. A struggle to recruit
:40:13. > :40:19.enough doctors to cope with demand and one surgery is expected to close
:40:20. > :40:24.later this year leaving 16,000 no family doctor and some GPs
:40:25. > :40:28.the crisis could force the privatisation of the NHS. The
:40:29. > :40:33.pressure is rising and the statistics tell a stark story.
:40:34. > :40:39.Demand for medical services are going up and they are not enough GPs
:40:40. > :40:43.to go around. This is probably the worst workforce crisis I have seen
:40:44. > :40:47.in 30 years as a private doctor. David is something going wrong and
:40:48. > :40:53.we need to change that. If xou have we need to change that. If you have
:40:54. > :40:59.been to the doctor lately you will have seen a few changes. Surgeries
:41:00. > :41:01.are high`tech places these days with a lot of Kier previously given by
:41:02. > :41:08.hospitals taking place. People are living longer and people have
:41:09. > :41:13.multiple diseases that are continuing to lead reasonably
:41:14. > :41:22.healthy lives. The increased workload has made many established
:41:23. > :41:28.doctors retired early and there is a significant shortage of GPs. I have
:41:29. > :41:35.a great practice with 16,000 patients about to be short of six
:41:36. > :41:43.doctors, and we will be down to two GPs within a few months. Thdy do not
:41:44. > :41:47.think they can provide a safe service any more.
:41:48. > :41:53.longer collect statistics btt we have learned the problem is not just
:41:54. > :41:57.in Essex. In Suffolk, 14 of 66 are currently advertising
:41:58. > :42:03.doctors and the Norfolk arotnd half have vacancies. This surgery in
:42:04. > :42:05.have vacancies. This surgerx in mid`Norfolk has had to transfer 1500
:42:06. > :42:22.to a nearby practice. It wouldn't be to a nearby practice. It wotldn t be
:42:23. > :42:27.a natural thing to do. Changes to funding mean local subsidies are
:42:28. > :42:34.also under financial pressure. GP surgeries like this account for 90%
:42:35. > :42:41.of patient contact time but attract only 8% of the budget, and fill
:42:42. > :42:47.every patient matters about 20p per day. Health education in England as
:42:48. > :42:53.the body responsible for tr`ining doctors and aims to get 50% of all
:42:54. > :43:01.graduates into general practice by 2016. It says the take`up in our
:43:02. > :43:08.region is around 93%, a fall of 7% since 2010. The take`up is still
:43:09. > :43:13.relatively high but we have been told by local medical committees
:43:14. > :43:18.that GP training courses attached to hospitals in our region are only
:43:19. > :43:24.half full. In Suffolk, the GP Federation aims to attract more
:43:25. > :43:28.doctors to the county. One of the things we really want to do is
:43:29. > :43:37.support general practices to make them a more attractive placd for
:43:38. > :43:41.young doctors to come to. It is a great place and when people come
:43:42. > :43:50.here they really `` do not often want to leave. I think Suffolk is a
:43:51. > :43:52.great place to work and I h`ve really enjoyed it. There's a great
:43:53. > :43:59.range of things work and been those great
:44:00. > :44:11.diversity. Do you think you might come back? I would not say no. A
:44:12. > :44:17.failure to solve the GP crisis could have far`reaching consequences. I
:44:18. > :44:25.worry that we are seeing thd privatisation of primary care. We
:44:26. > :44:30.would lose that personal care that the population has grown to
:44:31. > :44:39.appreciate. Joining me from Ipswich, a practising doctor. What are you
:44:40. > :44:46.going to do about this shortage You are right in saying that general
:44:47. > :44:52.practice and community carers the engine room of the NHS. We need to
:44:53. > :44:56.see more investment in the years ahead as they look after
:44:57. > :45:03.with increasingly complex Kier needs. That is why the government is
:45:04. > :45:07.increasing the funding available and that is happening across all the
:45:08. > :45:15.Legion but we are also making sure we're increasing the number of GPs,
:45:16. > :45:20.1000 than in 2010. `` 1000 lore The problem as it takes many years to
:45:21. > :45:28.train a general practitioner, five years from leading medical school,
:45:29. > :45:34.and that planning has to be in place many years in advance. Some of the
:45:35. > :45:41.issues we are tackling are due to decisions made in 2007, 2008. It is
:45:42. > :45:45.all very well blaming the previous incumbents but we heard from
:45:46. > :45:51.patients and about one surgery in Essex which will close leaving
:45:52. > :45:54.16,000 without any GPs. What will you do in the meantime? We've also
:45:55. > :46:04.got to recognise that many general practices are small businesses in
:46:05. > :46:08.their own right. That is the funding model for decades now. Therd's an
:46:09. > :46:14.opportunity for general practice is to offer additional salary for new
:46:15. > :46:17.GPs coming in and packages to attract people to the area, and as
:46:18. > :46:21.you have hard in England, we are relatively well`off
:46:22. > :46:29.people applying. Whilst it lay be people applying. Whilst it may be
:46:30. > :46:37.that you have indicated 93% is the fill rate, because the number of
:46:38. > :46:42.places has increased we are seeing more people choosing general
:46:43. > :46:45.practice as the carrier and what we will be seen by 2016 is 50% of
:46:46. > :46:51.doctors going into general practice, meaning a lot more effort and
:46:52. > :46:57.attention going into it. If these are run on some sort of business
:46:58. > :47:09.model, what happens if they effectively go bust? The model is
:47:10. > :47:16.run `` has run very effectively for many years and the average GP is
:47:17. > :47:20.paid a salary of ?110,000. Why aren't more people coming forward
:47:21. > :47:23.for these vacancies we talkdd about? Half of surgeries in Norfolk
:47:24. > :47:33.have vacancies with no applicants. have vacancies with no applhcants.
:47:34. > :47:37.There is a duty to those GPs as they run the small business to make sure
:47:38. > :47:44.they put together attractivd packages for new GPs coming into
:47:45. > :47:47.work and those practices in the future. It is incorrect
:47:48. > :47:51.there's a lack of people choosing general practice because we now have
:47:52. > :47:58.1000 more GPs than the work in 010. It is an attractive career and we
:47:59. > :48:02.need to see more people choosing but it is not just about delivering
:48:03. > :48:07.GPs and right technology and enabling
:48:08. > :48:12.practices to work health problems to cope and look
:48:13. > :48:17.after themselves. investing in important work for
:48:18. > :48:23.district nurses as well and making sure we have enough to support
:48:24. > :48:29.people with long`term conditions. Thank you for the moment. Do you
:48:30. > :48:35.think people have to expect less from GPs in the future? No, but I
:48:36. > :48:43.think you have to have experienced and properly trained GPs and Daz was
:48:44. > :48:46.just pointed out, you cannot train AGP overnight.
:48:47. > :48:55.the last few years of the L`bour government when they
:48:56. > :49:01.medical careers and I remember warning
:49:02. > :49:07.brightest would leave the country as a result.
:49:08. > :49:12.heard more money is going into GP training and
:49:13. > :49:16.GP practices is excellent. We also need to remember that the job is
:49:17. > :49:21.also changing, we are living longer and care of the elderly is
:49:22. > :49:26.important, so we want well`trained proper GPs. Do you think people are
:49:27. > :49:33.on the other hand expecting too much? They should not expect 24
:49:34. > :49:38.hours a day service. I do not think people are expecting too much and
:49:39. > :49:42.they would dispute some of figures because many of the people
:49:43. > :49:49.would have started under the Labour Government. My
:49:50. > :49:55.understanding is that while you have 93% take`up of training in the East
:49:56. > :50:04.Midlands, it is 62%, which is very serious. There's a 3% reduction in
:50:05. > :50:11.the number of GPs and people are waiting and you hear people talking
:50:12. > :50:14.about it. What needs to happen? There needs to be more investment
:50:15. > :50:20.GP training and attracting people into the profession. The government
:50:21. > :50:25.took their eye off the ball with their top`down
:50:26. > :50:30.wasted time and money and goodwill, and I think they need to look again
:50:31. > :50:35.at exactly how the services are configured, so that GPs can
:50:36. > :50:42.offer... I want to come back to Doctor Poulter. Are you resting on
:50:43. > :50:50.your laurels are busy work still to be done? Not at all. The 3% decrease
:50:51. > :50:56.in GP numbers is fully qualhfied GP and that is a direct legacy of the
:50:57. > :51:01.lack of investment towards the end of the Labour Government. The
:51:02. > :51:06.increase has mostly come from GP registers coming towards the end of
:51:07. > :51:11.their training who are about to become fully qualified GPs which
:51:12. > :51:19.shows we are investing in more GPs sure we have the workforce to look
:51:20. > :51:25.after people. There has been a lot of talk in
:51:26. > :51:29.recent weeks about the publhc feeling
:51:30. > :51:36.and in particular with the main parties. It probably explains why
:51:37. > :51:41.turnout in local elections is often so long. He recent survey found only
:51:42. > :51:51.49% were likely to vote and 67% believe politicians don't understand
:51:52. > :51:59.their daily lives. The Housds of Parliament recently launched an
:52:00. > :52:10.outreach service to explain how politics works. I think polhtics
:52:11. > :52:14.really matters and can make a difference to people's lives and
:52:15. > :52:19.unless people are engaged, I actually worry they do not have
:52:20. > :52:26.rights to complain. You are facing an uphill struggle? UKIP is a signal
:52:27. > :52:32.because a lot of the support seems to come from people who do not
:52:33. > :52:38.normally bought slaughters `n angry voice. One area of concern hs young
:52:39. > :52:47.walkers with less than one third under 24 saying they are interested.
:52:48. > :52:49.`` young voters. She has called on her party to do more to engage
:52:50. > :52:55.her party to do more to eng`ge with young voters. They may be voting
:52:56. > :53:02.less than older people, that is extremely clear, and they are voting
:53:03. > :53:08.less than previous generations. That is also an important point
:53:09. > :53:12.does not mean they are not doing politics.
:53:13. > :53:19.projects and getting results. That is politics, but there is perhaps a
:53:20. > :53:23.different language around it. I was speaking to another MP from our
:53:24. > :53:26.region who said we live in a world of instant
:53:27. > :53:32.particularly young voters expect things to be solved instantly. Is
:53:33. > :53:37.that one of the problems? I am sure it is in there but I do not see us
:53:38. > :53:41.as a problem, just the way the world doubts. It is an opportunity for
:53:42. > :53:48.politicians to do things differently and to serve the people we are there
:53:49. > :53:54.to serve. This is just the way my generation and those behind us will
:53:55. > :53:58.be like. How do you win thel back? You want to get the message out in
:53:59. > :54:08.the right way. should have been doing this for
:54:09. > :54:14.years? Of course and good ones have. It has not worked! Things kdep
:54:15. > :54:17.moving on and a particularly obvious changes the coming of the intranet.
:54:18. > :54:20.That affects all generations because we lived through, but my generation
:54:21. > :54:30.and those even younger have grown with the intranet and that changes
:54:31. > :54:34.politics and radically. Politicians need to change the game? Politicians
:54:35. > :54:41.need to respond to the Newm`rket. What business Woods failed to sell
:54:42. > :54:47.to new customers? Do you thhnk this is an opportunity to reject any
:54:48. > :54:55.newly to young people? `` in a new way? The big crisis coming is
:54:56. > :55:00.individual voter registration which will result in a lots young people
:55:01. > :55:07.disappearing off the electoral roll and it'll be a huge challenge
:55:08. > :55:13.make sure they are able to vote and actually use it.
:55:14. > :55:18.question of changing the message, we have to
:55:19. > :55:24.traditional and conventional politics as a way to change their
:55:25. > :55:27.lives. Do you agree, do they do it better elsewhere in Europe? Not
:55:28. > :55:33.necessarily because in the Duropean elections about one in the UK
:55:34. > :55:38.elections about one in the TK voted, about the same as five years ago,
:55:39. > :55:42.and the Conservative vote in the East of England held up
:55:43. > :55:47.you predicted. It is important that we engage, but if you look
:55:48. > :55:55.elsewhere, Slovakia was the worst at 13%. We are not the worst in terms
:55:56. > :56:02.of water turnout. In terms of using the Internet it is important we look
:56:03. > :56:08.at what people are saying and it is not just young people who are
:56:09. > :56:13.contacting us through the Internet, you have to use new media. TKIP
:56:14. > :56:20.brought in new voters, what are they doing right? And quite a lot of
:56:21. > :56:26.older voters. I had more active young campaigners knocking on doors
:56:27. > :56:34.campaigning with me than at any point in the last ten years. Your
:56:35. > :56:38.party is losing votes to UKHP, what are they doing you are not? We lost
:56:39. > :56:45.some and we probably lost fdwer than others. Why isn't labour and
:56:46. > :56:54.engaging as much? It was voting like a free kick at the traditional
:56:55. > :57:00.parties. We need to change the way we do politics and speak to people
:57:01. > :57:07.and over the coming year we will have to make sure that young people
:57:08. > :57:14.are on the register to vote. We must move on. Now to our politic`l
:57:15. > :57:19.round`up of the week and it seems the only way is Essex even hf the
:57:20. > :57:28.trends do not run. `` trains.
:57:29. > :57:34.A plea from Essex MP. Will he commend Essex businesses and support
:57:35. > :57:39.their efforts to export mord by looking favourably upon our plans to
:57:40. > :57:47.upgrade our infrastructure? As I have said before, where Essex leads
:57:48. > :57:52.the rest of the country follows. But nobody followed anybody into Essex
:57:53. > :58:01.as right on cue services and to call Chesterfield. And the need for a new
:58:02. > :58:07.road junction was argued in Westminster. But it was the plans
:58:08. > :58:12.for Rushden late's leisure complex that prompted an argument bdtween
:58:13. > :58:19.two Northamptonshire MPs. He should be getting the splinters out of his
:58:20. > :58:23.backside for sitting on the fence so long over this matter. A cl`im that
:58:24. > :58:36.was strongly refuted. What about the new a 14 junction? It
:58:37. > :58:46.is really important, infrastructure and investing in skills. And train
:58:47. > :58:48.chaos, is it time some of these franchises were handed back? We need
:58:49. > :58:51.more investment in infrastructure and we have started
:58:52. > :58:58.that. We have been campaignhng that. We have been campaigning for
:58:59. > :59:05.better railway infrastructure and have some improvements. We need a
:59:06. > :59:10.vibrant economy in order to deliver the cash and I agree we need that on
:59:11. > :59:15.broadband as well. Franchisds handed back to the government? If xou fail
:59:16. > :59:19.to deliver you should not bd doing it. Thank
:59:20. > :59:24.information, you can apply to them and they will be obliged to tell
:59:25. > :59:42.you. Thanks for joining us. Andrew, back to you.
:59:43. > :59:47.think you'd want to. Labour grandees are not queueing up to sing his
:59:48. > :59:52.praises. Look at this. In my view, he is the leader we have and he is
:59:53. > :59:56.the leader I support and he is somebody capable of leading the
:59:57. > :00:02.party to victory. Ed Miliband will leave this to victory, and I believe
:00:03. > :00:08.he can. If he doesn't, what would happen to the Labour Party? We could
:00:09. > :00:11.be in the wilderness for 15 years. At the moment he has to convince
:00:12. > :00:13.people he has the capacity to lead the country. That's not my view,
:00:14. > :00:17.people he has the capacity to lead the country. That's not my view but
:00:18. > :00:20.people don't believe that. We had a leader of the Labour Party was
:00:21. > :00:27.publicly embarrassed, because whoever was in charge of press
:00:28. > :00:36.letting go through a process where we have councillors in Merseyside
:00:37. > :00:40.resigning. It was a schoolboy error. Having policies without them being
:00:41. > :00:50.drawn together into a convincing and vivid narrative and with what you do
:00:51. > :00:56.the people in the country. You have to draw together, connect the
:00:57. > :01:02.policies, link them back to the leader and give people a real sense
:01:03. > :01:08.of where you are going. Somehow he has never quite managed to be
:01:09. > :01:14.himself and create that identity with the public. And we are joined
:01:15. > :01:24.by the president of you girls, Peter Kellner. Welcome to the Sunday
:01:25. > :01:29.politics. -- YouGov. The Labour Party is six points ahead in your
:01:30. > :01:33.poll this morning. So what is the problem? On this basis he will win
:01:34. > :01:37.the next election. If the election were today and the figures held up,
:01:38. > :01:42.you would have a Labour government with a narrow overall majority. One
:01:43. > :01:48.should not forget that. Let me make three points. The first is, in past
:01:49. > :01:54.parliaments, opposition normally lose ground and governments gain
:01:55. > :01:56.ground in the final few months. The opposition should be further ahead
:01:57. > :02:03.than this. I don't think six is enough. Secondly, Ed Miliband is
:02:04. > :02:06.behind David Cameron when people are asked who they want as Prime
:02:07. > :02:09.Minister and Labour is behind the Conservatives went people are asked
:02:10. > :02:13.who they trust on the economy. There have been elections when the party
:02:14. > :02:17.has won by being behind on leadership and other elections where
:02:18. > :02:21.they have won by being behind on the economy. No party has ever won an
:02:22. > :02:22.election when it has been clearly behind on both leadership and the
:02:23. > :02:28.economy. Let me have another go. The economy. Let me have another go The
:02:29. > :02:32.Labour Party brand is a strong brand. The Tory Bramleys week. The
:02:33. > :02:42.Labour brand is stronger. That is a blast -- the Labour -- the Tory
:02:43. > :02:50.Bramleys week. A lot of the Tories -- the Tory brand is weak. Cant you
:02:51. > :02:56.win on policies and a strong party brand? If you have those too, you
:02:57. > :03:02.need the third factor which isn t there. People believing that you
:03:03. > :03:04.have what it takes, competent skills, determination,
:03:05. > :03:14.determination, whatever makes to carry through. -- whatever mix. A
:03:15. > :03:18.lot of Ed Miliband policies, on the banks, energy prices, Brent
:03:19. > :03:22.controls, people like them. But in government, would they carry them
:03:23. > :03:27.through? They think they are not up to it. -- rent controls. If people
:03:28. > :03:31.think you won't deliver what you say, even if they like it, they were
:03:32. > :03:36.necessarily vote for you. That is the missing third element. There is
:03:37. > :03:40.a strong Labour brand, but it's not strong enough to overcome the
:03:41. > :03:47.feeling that the Labour leadership is not up to it. Nick, you had some
:03:48. > :03:50.senior Labour figure telling you that if Mr Miliband losing the next
:03:51. > :03:53.election he will have to resign immediately and cannot fight another
:03:54. > :03:58.election the way Neil Kinnock did after 1987. What was remarkable to
:03:59. > :04:02.me was that people were even thinking along these lines, and even
:04:03. > :04:08.more remarkable that they would tell you they were thinking along these
:04:09. > :04:14.lines? What is the problem? The problem is, is that Ed Miliband says
:04:15. > :04:18.it would be unprecedented to win the general election after the second
:04:19. > :04:22.worst result since 1918. They are concerned about is the start of a
:04:23. > :04:24.script that he would say on the day after losing the general election.
:04:25. > :04:29.Essentially what the people are trying to do is get their argument
:04:30. > :04:31.in first and to say, you cannot do what Neil Kinnock did in 1987. Don't
:04:32. > :04:33.forget that Neil Kinnock in 1987 what Neil Kinnock did in 1987. Don't
:04:34. > :04:35.forget that Neil Kinnock in 198 was forget that Neil Kinnock in 1987 was
:04:36. > :04:40.in the middle of a very brave process of modernisation and had one
:04:41. > :04:44.and fought a very campaign that was professional but he lost again in
:04:45. > :04:51.1992, and they wanted to get their line in first. What some people are
:04:52. > :04:54.saying is that this is an election that the Labour Party should be
:04:55. > :04:56.winning because the coalition is so unpopular. If you don't win, I'm
:04:57. > :05:00.afraid to say, there is something wrong with you. Don't you find it
:05:01. > :05:04.remarkable that people are prepared to think along these lines at this
:05:05. > :05:07.stage, when Labour are ahead in the polls, still the bookies favourite
:05:08. > :05:12.to win, and you start to speak publicly, or in private to the
:05:13. > :05:17.public print, but we might have to get rid of him if he doesn't win.
:05:18. > :05:19.Everything you say about labour in this situation has been said about
:05:20. > :05:24.the Tories. We wondered whether Boris Johnson would tie himself to
:05:25. > :05:29.the mask and he is the next leader in waiting if Cameron goes. It's a
:05:30. > :05:31.mirror image of that. We talk about things being unprecedented. It's
:05:32. > :05:35.unprecedented for a government to gain seats. All the things you say
:05:36. > :05:40.about labour, you could say it the Conservatives. That's what makes the
:05:41. > :05:43.next election so interesting. But in the aftermath of the European
:05:44. > :05:45.elections and the local government elections, in which the
:05:46. > :05:50.Conservatives did not do that well, the issue was not Mr Cameron or the
:05:51. > :05:53.Tories doing well, the issue was the Labour Party and how they had not
:05:54. > :05:56.done as well as they should have done, and that conversation was
:05:57. > :06:02.fuelled by the kind of people who have been speaking to nick from the
:06:03. > :06:06.Labour Party. Rachel Reeves cited their real-life performance in
:06:07. > :06:10.elections as a reason for optimism. When in fact their performance in
:06:11. > :06:12.the Europeans and locals was disappointing for an opposition one
:06:13. > :06:17.year away from a general election. What alarms me about labour is the
:06:18. > :06:22.way they react to criticisms about Ed Miliband. Two years ago when he
:06:23. > :06:25.was attacked, they said they were 15 points ahead, and then a year ago
:06:26. > :06:30.there were saying they were nine or ten ahead, and now they are saying
:06:31. > :06:35.we are still five or six ahead. The trend is alarming. It points to a
:06:36. > :06:39.smaller Labour lead. Am I right in detecting a bit of a class war going
:06:40. > :06:44.on in the Labour Party? There are a lot of northern Labour MPs who think
:06:45. > :06:49.that Ed Miliband is to north London, and there are too many metropolitan
:06:50. > :06:56.cronies around him must I think that is right, Andrew. What I think is,
:06:57. > :07:01.being a pessimist in terms of their prospects, I do think the Labour
:07:02. > :07:04.Party could win the next election. I just don't think they can as they
:07:05. > :07:08.are going at the moment. But the positioning for a possible defeat,
:07:09. > :07:14.what they should be talking about is what do we need to change in the
:07:15. > :07:18.party and the way Ed Miliband performs in order to secure victory.
:07:19. > :07:23.That is a debate they could have, and they could make the changes. I
:07:24. > :07:28.find it odd that they are being so defeatist. Don't go away. Peter is a
:07:29. > :07:33.boffin when it comes to polls. That is why we have a mod for the
:07:34. > :07:37.election prediction swings and roundabouts. He is looking for what
:07:38. > :07:43.he calls the incumbency effect. Don't know what is a back-up -- what
:07:44. > :07:53.that's about question don't worry, here is an. Being in office is bad
:07:54. > :07:57.for your health. Political folk wisdom has it that incumbency
:07:58. > :08:02.favours one party in particular, the Liberal Democrats. That is because
:08:03. > :08:05.their MPs have a reputation as ferociously good local campaigners
:08:06. > :08:10.who do really well at holding on to their seats. However, this time
:08:11. > :08:14.round, several big-name long serving Liberal Democrats like Ming
:08:15. > :08:18.Campbell, David Heath and Don Foster are standing down. Does that mean
:08:19. > :08:24.the incumbency effect disappears like a puff of smoke? Then there is
:08:25. > :08:29.another theory, called the sophomore surge. It might sound like a movie
:08:30. > :08:33.about US college kids, but it goes like this. New MPs tend to do better
:08:34. > :08:37.in their second election than they did in their first. That could
:08:38. > :08:42.favour the Tories because they have lots of first-time MPs. The big
:08:43. > :08:46.question is, what does this mean for the 7th of May 2015, the date of the
:08:47. > :08:56.next general election? The answer is, who knows? I know a man who
:08:57. > :09:01.knows. Peter. What does it all mean? You can go onto your PC now and draw
:09:02. > :09:04.down programmes which say that these are the voting figures from a
:09:05. > :09:08.national poll, so what will the seats look like? This is based on
:09:09. > :09:13.uniform swing. Every seat moving up and down across the country in the
:09:14. > :09:18.same way. Historically, that's been a pretty good guide. I think that's
:09:19. > :09:22.going to completely break down next year, because the Lib Dems will
:09:23. > :09:27.probably hold on to more seats than we predict from the national figures
:09:28. > :09:31.and I think fewer Tory seats will go to the Labour Party than you would
:09:32. > :09:36.predict from the national figures. The precise numbers, I'm not going
:09:37. > :09:42.to be too precise, but I would be surprised, sorry, I would not be
:09:43. > :09:48.surprised if Labour fell 20 or 5 seats short on what we would expect
:09:49. > :09:52.on the uniform swing prediction Next year's election will be tight.
:09:53. > :09:57.Falling 20 seats short could well mean the difference between victory
:09:58. > :10:01.and defeat. What you make of that, Helen? I think you're right,
:10:02. > :10:06.especially taking into account the UKIP effect. We have no idea about
:10:07. > :10:07.that. The conventional wisdom is that will drain away back to the
:10:08. > :10:09.Conservatives, but nobody knows, that will drain away back to the
:10:10. > :10:12.Conservatives, but nobody knows and Conservatives, but nobody knows, and
:10:13. > :10:16.it makes the next election almost impossible to call. It means it is a
:10:17. > :10:19.great target the people like Lord Ashcroft with marginal polling,
:10:20. > :10:24.because people have never been so interested. It is for party politics
:10:25. > :10:31.and we all assume that UKIP should be well next year, but their vote
:10:32. > :10:36.went up from 17 up to 27%. Then that 17% went down to 3%, so they might
:10:37. > :10:39.only be five or 6% in the general election, so they might not have the
:10:40. > :10:44.threat of depriving Conservatives of their seats. Where the incumbency
:10:45. > :10:50.thing has an effect is the Liberal Democrats. They have fortress seats
:10:51. > :10:54.where between 1992 and 1997 Liberal Democrats seats fell, but their
:10:55. > :10:58.percentage went up. They are losing the local government base though.
:10:59. > :11:02.True, but having people like Ming Campbell standing down means they
:11:03. > :11:05.will struggle. We are used to incumbency being an important factor
:11:06. > :11:10.in American politics. It's hard to get rid of an incumbent unless it is
:11:11. > :11:14.a primary election, like we saw in Virginia, but is it now becoming an
:11:15. > :11:18.important factor in British politics, that if you own the seat
:11:19. > :11:23.you're more likely to hold on to it than not? If it is, that's a
:11:24. > :11:26.remarkable thing. It's hard to be a carpetbagger in America, but it is
:11:27. > :11:30.normal in British Parliamentary constituencies to be represented by
:11:31. > :11:34.someone who did not grow up locally. It is a special kind of achievement
:11:35. > :11:37.to have an incumbency effect where you don't have deep roots in the
:11:38. > :11:41.constituency. I was going to ask about the Lib Dems. If we are wrong,
:11:42. > :11:44.and they collapse in Parliamentary representation as much as the share
:11:45. > :11:49.in vote collapses, is that not good news is that the Conservatives? They
:11:50. > :11:53.would be in second place in the majority of existing Lib Dems seats.
:11:54. > :11:56.For every seat where Labour are second to the Lib Dems, there are
:11:57. > :12:00.two where the Conservatives are second. If the Lib Dem
:12:01. > :12:08.representation collapses, that helps the Conservatives. I'm assuming the
:12:09. > :12:13.Tories will gain about ten seats. If they gain 20, if they'd had 20 more
:12:14. > :12:17.seats last time, they would have had a majority government, just about.
:12:18. > :12:22.So 20 seats off the Lib Dem, do the maths, as they say in America, and
:12:23. > :12:26.they could lose a handful to labour and still be able to run a one
:12:27. > :12:29.party, minority government. The fate of the Lib Dems could be crucial to
:12:30. > :12:36.the outcome to the politics of light. On the 8th of May, it will be
:12:37. > :12:41.VE Day and victory in election day as well as Europe. The Lib Dems will
:12:42. > :12:46.be apoplectic if they lose all of the seats to their coalition
:12:47. > :12:51.partners. The great quote by Angela Merkel, the little party always gets
:12:52. > :12:54.crushed. It's a well-established idea that coalition politics. They
:12:55. > :12:57.can't take credit for the things people like you may get lumbered
:12:58. > :13:01.with the ones they don't. They have contributed most of this terrible
:13:02. > :13:04.idea that seized politics where you say it, but you don't deliver it.
:13:05. > :13:10.Tuition fees is the classic example of this Parliament. Why should you
:13:11. > :13:14.believe any promise you make? And Ed Miliband is feeling that as well.
:13:15. > :13:19.But in 1974 the liberal Democrats barely had any MPs but there were
:13:20. > :13:22.reporters outside Jeremy Thorpe's home because they potentially held
:13:23. > :13:26.not the balance of power, but were significantly in fourth. Bringing
:13:27. > :13:30.back memories Jeremy Thorpe, and we will leave it there. Thanks to the
:13:31. > :13:34.panel. We are tomorrow on BBC Two. At the earlier time of 11am because
:13:35. > :13:39.of Wimbledon. Yes, it's that time of year again already. I will be back
:13:40. > :13:42.here at 11 o'clock next week. Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the
:13:43. > :13:46.Sunday Politics.