21/09/2014 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning from Manchester, where the Labour Party are gathering


for their annual conference as British politics adjusts to what


the rest of the UK. in Scotland might mean for


Scotland's decision to vote 'no means more powers heading north


But what about Home Rule for England?


Independence for Scotland has been his life's work. Alex Salmond tells


us why he is stepping down after losing Thursday's vote. And we've


Here in the east. people who want to be Labour


Why Labour doesn't want rail services for passengers in this


And we've run our affairs bdfore, why can't we do it again?


powers and more freedom to spend. But what is the next devolution step


for the capital? With me, the best and brightest political panel in the


business, at least that is what they pay me to say every week. Nick Watt,


Helen Lewis and, this week, we have done some devolution ourselves to


other areas, and we have Sam Coates from the times. The union survived,


but only at the cost of more powers for the Scottish parliament and


enshrining the formula that gives Scotland a privileged position when


it comes to public spending, which has MPs on both sides of the Commons


of in arms. The Scottish question has been answered for now. Suddenly,


the English question takes centre stage, doesn't it? Absolutely. It


has a grubby feel, when that vow was put to the Scottish people, that


they hoped would swing the vote there was nothing about English only


votes. It was unconditional? The Tory proposal did talk very core


justly about looking at the proposals by a former clerk of the


House of Commons that looked at this issue. That was very cautious. -


cautiously. These proposals will not get through Westminster unless David


Cameron addresses the English-only issue. You look at people like Chris


Grayling in the Sunday Telegraph. Alistair Darling on the Andrew Marr


Show said you could not have a link between what you are giving Holyrood


and English-only MPs. Back on says, is welshing on the deal. -- comic he


They were furious that he gave away these tax powers and inscribed the


Barnett formula. They said they weren't going to vote for it. It is


a shameless piece of opportunism. Now they can say that Labour are the


ones that don't trust you and don't want to give you more powers. He


knows it is going to be a tight timetable. The idea of getting a


draft of this out by Burns Night, most people would say, given they


had six years to set up Scottish parliament, the idea we will solve


these huge constitutional questions in four months is absurd. But they


don't care about the constitutional questions, the one they care about


is English votes? There is a simple reason they won that. If you look at


the MPs in England alone, the Tories have a majority of 59, an


overwhelming bias, and if you strip out Wales Scotland and Northern


Ireland, so this has become a partisan issue. The question is


whether David Cameron can follow through on the promise. He said he


would link the two Scottish powers, but it's not clear you will get


either before the general election. It's not but the purpose is to cause


Labour Party discomfort, and it is. You can see with date -- Ed Miliband


this morning, they find it very hard to answer the question, why


shouldn't there be English votes for English laws? Ed Miliband this


morning was saying how London MPs get to vote on London transport and


English MPs don't outside of London and it is confusing, but Labour is


in a difficult position. They were before the Prime Minister made his


announcement. The yes side triumphed in Glasgow, the largest city in


Scotland, a Labour heartland, and the Prime Minister is saying that if


Labour don't agree to this by the time of the general election, he is


handing a gift to the SNP, that that would be the party that the natural


Labour voters would vote for to see off the plan. It's not just Tory


backbenchers. There are Labour backbenchers saying there should be


in which bodes for English laws Even people in the Shadow Cabinet


think it is right. The cases unarguable. If you say her chewing a


partisan way, you can't sell it to the country. Ed Miliband is on


course to have a majority of about 20, and you take the 40 English MPs,


and he hasn't got it. This is a coalition government where the


Conservatives haven't got really to be in charge, they have put in


sweeping laws. Labour should probably take the bullet on this


one. Let's leave it for the moment. But don't go away. As they struggle


to keep the United Kingdom in one piece, David Cameron, Ed Miliband


and Nick Clegg promised to keep something called the Barnett


Formula. It wasn't invented in Barnet,


but by man called Joel Barnett. And it's how


the UK government decides how much public money to spend in Scotland,


Wales and Northern Ireland. It's controversial,


because it's led to public spending being typically 20% higher


in Scotland than in England. Well, some English MPs


aren't happy about that. I'm joined now by the


Tory MP Dominic Raab. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. How


can the Prime Minister scrap the Barnett Formula when he has just


about to keep it on the front page of a major Scottish newspaper? If we


are going to see financial devolution to Scotland, more powers


of tax and spend, it's impossible not to look at the impact on the


wider union, and there have been promises made to the Scottish and we


should do our best to deliver them, but there have been promises made to


the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If you look at the Barnett


Formula which allocates revenue across the UK, it is massively


prejudicial to those other parts. We have double the number of ambulance


staff and nurses compared to England. The regional breakdown is


more stark with double the amount spent on social housing in Scotland


than in Yorkshire and the North West and the Midlands. The Welsh do very


poorly on social services for the elderly. What are we saying? That


they need our children, patients and the elderly are worth less than the


Scots? That's not the way to have a sustainable solution. I understand


the distribution impact of the Barnett Formula, but Westminster


politicians are already held in contempt by a lot of people and to


rat on such a public pledge would confirm their worst fears. Your


leader would have secured the union on a false prospectus. First of


all, it's clear from the Ashcroft poll that the offer made in the


Scottish newspaper had zero effect and if anything was


counter-productive to the overall result because two thirds of swing


voters in the last few days voted for independence. But we can't keep


proceeding without looking at the promises made to the English. We


said in the referendum that we would have English laws -- English votes


on English issues. The Liberal Democrats, in their manifesto,


pledged to scrap the Barnett Formula. We have to reconcile all of


the promises to all parts of the UK, and Alex Salmond talks about a


Westminster stitch up, but what he's trying to do is, with gross double


standards, is in French stitch up in rapid time, which would be grossly


unfair to the rest of the rest of UK -- is contrive stitch up. What is


unfair about the current spending formula? The extra money Scotland


gets from Barnet, is covered by the oil revenues it sends to London


Scotland is only getting back on spending what it pays in tax. There


is no analysis out there that suggests it is the same amount.


Having voted to stay in the UK. Let me give you the figures. Last year


revenues were 4.5 billion, and the Barnett Formula was worth 4.5


billion to Scotland. It is awash. A huge amount of British taxpayer


investment has gone into extracting North Sea oil, and if we move to a


more federal system, we would need to look at things like the


allocation of resources, but the Barnett Formula has been lambasted


as a national embarrassment and grossly unfair by its Labour Party


architect, Lord Barnett. So what we need is to change this mechanism so


it is based on need. The irony is, when the Scots allocate Avenue to


the -- revenue to their local authorities, it's done on a needs


basis, and what is good for Scotland must be good for the rest of


Britain. One final question. The Prime Minister is now making his


promise of more home rule for Scotland conditional on English


votes for English laws. Why didn't he spell out the condition when he


made his bow to the Scottish people? Why has this condition been tacked


on by the Prime Minister? In the heat of the referendum debate lots


of things were said, but the truth is that Parliament must also look at


this and make its views known, and English MPs as well. You will find


that conservative as well as a lot of Labour MPs would say, we cannot


just rush through a deal that is unsustainable. It has to be good for


all parts of Britain. Yes, we should deliver on our promises for more


devolution to Scotland, but let s deliver on promises to be English,


and Northern Irish. Why are they locked out of the debate? Let's


leave it there. Thank you for joining us.


The man responsible for taking Scottish nationalism from


the political fringes to within touching distance of victory, Alex


Salmond, has a flair for dramatic announcements, and he gave us


another on Friday when he revealed he's to stand


Friends and foes have paid tribute to his extraordinary career.


In a moment I'll be speaking to Alex Salmond,


but first here's Adam Fleming with the story of the vote that broke


The BBC's HQ on the Clyde, the whole place converted into a studio for


Scotland's big night. You know what you need for big events, big


screens, and there are loads of them here. That one is three stories


high, and this is the one Jeremy Vine uses for his graphics. The


other thing that is massive is the turnout in the referendum, it is


enormous. It was around 85% of the electorate, that is 4 million ballot


papers. First to declare Clackmannanshire. No, 19,000. 1 ,000


and 36. The first Noel of the night, and there were plenty more. -- the


first no vote. The better together campaigners were over the moon, like


Jim Murphy, who had campaigned in 100 different towns. I don't want to


sound schmaltzy, but it makes you think more of Scotland. It makes you


small tree. Yes, 194,779. Around five a.m., the Yes campaign


applauded as they won Scotland's biggest city, Glasgow. Dundee went


their way as well, but just for areas out of 32 opted for


independence. How many copies have you had? This is my second cup of


tea on the morning -- how many copies. He was enjoying the


refreshments on offer, but the yes campaigners were not in a happy


place. We are in the bowels of one of the parts of the British


establishment that, I've got to say, has probably done its job in this


referendum, because I think the BBC has been critical in shoring up the


establishment and have supported the no campaign as best as they could.


But there was no arguing with the numbers, and by sunrise, the BBC


called it. Scotland has voted no in this referendum on independence The


result, in Fife, has taken the no campaign over the line and the


official result of this referendum is a no. There we go, on a screen


three stories high, Scotland has said no to independence. As soon as


the newsprint was driving north of the border, the focus shifted south


as the Prime Minister pledged more devolution for Scotland but only if


it happened everywhere else as well. Just as Scotland will vote


separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax,


spending on welfare, so to England, as well as Wales and Northern


Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues, and all this must take


place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement for Scotland.


It began to dawn on us all that we might end up doing this again. See


you for an English referendum soon? Northern Ireland. There could be


another one in Scotland. But not next weekend? Give me a break. There


was no break for Nick, because Alex Salmond came up with one last twist,


his resignation was as leader, my time is nearly over. But the


Scotland, the campaign continues, and the dream shall never die. So,


the referendum settled, the Constitution in flux, and a leader


gone. All in a night work. Alex Salmond is to stand down as


First Minister of Scotland. He shows no signs of going quietly. Last


night, I spoke to the SNP leader in Aberdeen and began by asking him if


it was always his intention to resign if he lost the referendum. I


certainly have thought about it Andrew. But for most of the


referendum campaign I thought we were going to win. So, I was...


Yeah, maybe a few months back I considered it. But I only finally


made up my mind on Friday lunch time. Did you agonise over the


decision to stand down? I'm not really an agonising person. When you


get beaten in a referendum, you have to consider standing down as a real


possibility. Taking responsibility and politics has gone out of fashion


but there is an aspect, if you need a campaign, and I was the leader of


the Yes Campaign, and you don't win, you have to contemplate if you are


the best person to lead future political campaigns. In my


judgement, it was time for the SNP and the broader yes movement, the


National movement of Scotland, they would benefit from new leadership.


In your heart of hearts, through the campaign, as referendum on day


approached, you did think you were going to win? Yes, I did. I thought


for most of the last month of the campaign, we were in with a real


chance. In the last week I thought we had pulled ahead. I thought the


decisive aspect wasn't so much the fear mongering, the scaremongering,


the kitchen sink being thrown at Scotland by orchestration from


Downing Street, I thought the real thing was the pledge, the vow, the


offer of something else. A lot of people that had been moving across


to independence saw within that a reason to say, well, we can get


something anyway without the perceived risks that were being


festooned upon them. You were only five points away from your dream.


You won Scotland's largest city There is now the prospect of more


power. Why not stay and be an enhanced First Minister? Well, it is


a good phrase. I'm not going away, though. I'm still going to be part


of the political process. In Scotland, if people in Aberdeenshire


wish to keep electing me, that is what I will do. But I don't have to


be First Minister of Scotland, leader of the Yes Campaign, to see


that achieved. The SNP is a strong and powerful leadership team. There


are a number of people that would do a fantastic job as leader of the


party and First Minister. I've been leader of the party for the last 24


years, I think it is time to give somebody else a shot. There are many


able-bodied people that will do that well. -- many able people that will


do that well. I'm still part of the national movement, arguing to take


this forward. I think you are right, the question, one of the irony is


developing so quickly after the referendum, it might be those that


lost on Thursday end up as the political winners and those that won


end up as the losers. When we met just for the vote, a couple of days


before the vote, you said to me that there was very little you would


change about the campaign strategy. Is that still your view? Yes. There


are one or two things, like any campaign, there is no such thing as


a pitcher campaign. I would refer not to dwell on such things. I will


leave of my book, which will be called 100 Days, coming out before


Christmas. Once you read that, I will probably reveal the things I


would have changed. Basically, broadly, this was an extraordinary


campaign. Not just a political campaign, but a campaign involving


the grassroots of Scotland in an energising, empowering way, the like


of which in on of us have witnessed. It was an extraordinary phenomenon


of grassroots campaigning, which carried the Yes Campaign so far


almost to victory. If Rupert Murdoch put his Scottish Sun behind you


would have that made the difference? If ifs and ands were pots and


pans... Why did he not? I would not say that, you have form with him


that I do not have. I'm not sure about that. I was very encouraged.


The coverage, not in the other papers, The Times, which was


extremely hostile to Scottish independence, but the coverage in


the Scottish Sun was fair, balanced and we certainly got a very fair


kick of the ball. In newspapers I would settle for no editorial line


and just balanced coverage. We certainly got that from the Scottish


Sun and that was an encouragement. I think you saw from his tweets,


certainly in his heart he would have liked to have seen a move forward in


Scotland and I like that. He said if you lost, that was it, referendum


wise, for a generation, which he defined as about 20 years. Is that


still your view? Yes, it is. It has always been my view. It's a personal


view. There are always things that can change in politics. If the UK


moved out of the European Union for example, that would be the sort of


circumstance. Some people would argue with Westminster parties, and


I'm actually not surprised that they are reneging on commitments, I am


just surprised by the speed they are doing it. They seem to be totally


shameless in these matters. You don't think they will meet the vow?


You don't think there will keep to their vow? They are not, for that


essential reason you saw developing on Friday. The Prime Minister wants


to link change in Scotland to change in England. He wants to do that


because he has difficulty in carrying his backbenchers on this


and they are under pressure from UKIP. The Labour leadership are


frightened of any changes in England which leave them without a majority


in the House of Commons on English matters. I would not call it an


irresistible force and immovable object, one is resistible and one is


movable. They are at loggerheads. The vow, I think, was something


cooked up in desperation for the last few days of the campaign. I


think everybody in Scotland now engines that. -- recognises that. It


was the people that were persuaded to vote no that word tricked,


effectively. They are the ones that are really angry. Ed Miliband and


David Cameron, if they are watching this, I would be more worried about


the anger of the no voters than the opinion of the Yes Vote on that


matter. If independence is on the back burner for now, what would you


advise your successor's strategy for the SNP to be? I would advise him or


her not to listen to advice from their predecessor. A new leader


brings forward a new strategy. I think this is, for the SNP, a very


favourable political time. There have been 5000 new members joined


since Thursday. That is about a 25% increase in the party membership in


the space of a few days. More than that, I think this is an opportunity


for the SNP. But my goal is the opportunity for Scotland. I would


repeat I am not retiring from politics. I'm standing down as First


Minister of Scotland. On Friday coming back to the north-east of


Scotland, I passed through Dundee, which voted yes by a stud --


substantial margin. There was a line of a song I couldn't get out of my


head, and old Jacobite song, rewritten by Robert Burns, the last


line is, so, tremble falls wakes, in the midst of your glee, you've not


seen the last of my bonnets and me. So you are staying a member of the


Scottish Parliament, shall we see you again in the House of Commons?


What does the future hold for you? Membership of Scottish Parliament is


dependent on the good folk of Aberdeenshire east. If they choose


to elect me, I will be delighted to serve. I've always loved being a


constituency member of Parliament, I have known some front line


politicians that regarded that as a chore. I'm not saying they didn t do


it properly, I am sure they did But I love it. You get distilled wisdom


from being a constituency member of Parliament that helps you keep your


feet on the ground and have a good observation as to what matters to


people. I have no difficulty with being a constituent member of


Parliament. Can you promise me it will never be Lord Salmond? Yes


Thanks for joining us. Great pleasure, thank you. Now, the


independence referendum is over the next big electoral test is a general


election. It is just over seven months away. In a moment I will be


talking to Chuka Umunna, but what are the political views of the men


and women fighting to win seats for the Labour Party? The Sunday


Politics has commissioned an exclusive survey of the


Parliamentary candidates. Six out of seven Labour candidates


say that the level of public spending during their last period of


office was about right. 40% of them want a Labour government to raise


taxes to reduce the budget deficit. 18% favour cutting spending. On


immigration, just 15% think that the number coming to Britain is too


high. Only 7% say we generous to immigrants. Three in ten candidates


believe the party relationship with trade unions is not close enough.


Not that we spoke to think it is too close. Or than half of the


candidates say want to scrap the nuclear deterrent, Trident. Four in


five want to nationalise the railways. If they are after a change


of leader, Yvette Cooper was their preferred choice. Chuka Umunna came


in fourth. And he joins me now for the Sunday interview.


Why is Labour choosing so many left-wing candidates? I don't think


I accept the characterisation of candidates being left wing. I don't


think your viewers see politics in terms of what is left and right I


think they see it in terms of what is right and wrong. Obviously, many


of the things we have been talking about, how we ensure that the next


generation can do better than the last, how we raise the wages of your


viewers, who are currently working very hard but not making a wage they


can live off, that is what they are talking about and that is what the


public will judge them on. But they want to raise taxes, they don't want


to cut public spending, they want to re-nationalise the railways, they


don't think there is too much immigration, they want to scrap


Trident. These are all positions clearly to the left of current party


policy. But that is your characterisation. If you look at our


policy to increase the top rate of tax to 50% for people earning over


?150,000, that is a central position. It is something that


enjoys the support of the majority of the public. Trident? If you talk


to the British public about immigration, yes, there are concerns


about the numbers coming in and out, yes people want to see integration,


yes, people want to see people putting a contribution before they


take out, the people recognise, if you look at our multicultural


nation, we have derived a lot of benefits from immigration. I don't


think your characterisation of those positions, that is your view... It's


not, it is their view. They are saying... You describe it... You


described those positions as left wing positions. I am saying to you


that I actually think a lot of those positions are centrist positions


that would enjoy the support of the majority of your viewers. I don t


think your viewers think the idea of the broadest shoulders bearing the


heaviest burden in forms of tax are going to see it as a way out,


radical principle. They want to scrap Trident, not party policy It


isn't. I think that 73... Well, we will


have 400 Parliamentary candidates at the time of the next general


election, not including current MPs. This is 73 out of over 400 of them.


I think we also need to treat the survey with a bit of caution. They


are not representative? You are basically quoting the results of a


small percentage of our Parliamentary candidates. It's


pretty safe to say when you look at their views, they might be right or


wrong, that's not my point, it's fairly safe to say that new Labour


is dead? Again, I don't think people see things in terms of gold -- old


or new Labour. We are standing at a Labour Party. We are a great


country, but we have big challenges. We want to make sure that people can


achieve their dreams and aspirations in this country. Too many people are


not in that position. Too many people worry about the prospects of


their children. Too many people do not earn a wage they can live off.


Too many people are worried about the change. We have to make sure we


are giving people a stake in the future. That is a Labour thing, you


want to call it old or new come I don't care. It's a choice between


Labour and the Conservatives in terms of who runs the next


government. That one of your candidate we spoke to things that


the party's relationship with the unions is to close. 30% of them


think it should be closer. You have spoken to 73 out of 400 candidates.


Why should the others be any different? It's a fairly


representative Sample. Many people working on this set are the member


of the union, the National union of journalists. People that came here


to this Conference would have been brought here by trade union members.


Do you think the relationship should be closer? I think it is where it


should be. It should not be closer? I think that trade unions help


create wealth in our country. If you look at some other success stories


we are in the north-west, GM Vauxhall is there because you have


trade unions working in partnership with government and local employees


to make sure we kept producing cars. I'm not asking if unions are good or


bad, I'm asking if Labour should be closer. You are presupposing, by the


tone of your question, that our relationship is a problem. Let's


turn to the English question. Why do you need a constitutional


conversation where you have to discuss whether English people


voting on English matters is unfair? We want to give the regions


and cities in England more voice, but let's get it into perspective,


we have had a situation where the Scottish people, as desired buying


rich people, have to remain part of the UK -- by English people. What is


the answer to the question? I don't want to get to a situation where


people have voted for solidarity where you have a prime ministers


talking about dividing up the UK Parliament. Let me put this point


you. Most Scottish voters think it is unfair that Scottish MPs get to


vote on English matters. That comes out in Scottish polls. Why don't you


see it as unfair? If the Scots see it as unfair, why don't you? This is


an age-old conundrum that has been around for 100 years and it's not so


simple. You're talking about making a fundamental change to the British


constitution on a whim. It's not just an issue, in respect of


Scottish MPs. As a London MP, I can vote on matters relating to the


transport of England and transport is a devolved matter in London. In


Wales, there are a number of competencies that Welsh MPs can vote


on and they've been devolved to them. So with all of these different


votes, you will exclude different MPs? I think the solution is not


necessarily to obsess about what is happening between MPs in


Westminster. That turns people politics. We need to devolve more. I


think we should be giving the cities and regions of England more autonomy


in the way that we are doing in Scotland, but I've got to say,


Andrew, it's dishonourable and in bad faith for the Prime Minister to


now seek to link what he agreed before the referendum to this issue


of English votes for English MPs. That is totally dishonourable and in


bad faith. You have promised to devolve more tax powers to Scotland.


What would they be? This is being decided at the moment. I cannot give


you the exact detail of what the tax powers would be. Could you give us a


rough idea? There is a White Paper being produced before November and


there will be draft legislation put forward in January. Your leader has


vowed that this will happen. And you haven't got a policy? You can't tell


us what the tax powers will be? I can't tell you on this programme


right now. But we have accepted the principle on further devolution on


tax, spending on welfare and we will have further details in due course.


Your leader promised to maintain the Barnett Formula for the foreseeable


future. Why is that fair when it enshrines more per capita spending


for Scotland than it does for Wales, which is poorer, and more than many


of the poorer regions in England get? Why is that fair? We have said


that in terms of looking at go - local government spending playing


out in this Parliament, we have looked at what the government has


done which is having already deprived communities having money


taken away from them and wealthier communities are getting more. We


accept that the Barnett Formula has worked well. How has it works well?


There is a cross parliamentary consensus as they don't know what to


do about it. Why has it works well, when Wales, clearly loses out? I'm


not sure by I accept that when you look at overall underspend --


government spending. It is per capita spending in Scotland, which


is way ahead of per capita spending in Wales, but per capita incomes in


Scotland are way ahead of Wales Why is that fair Labour politician? We


have said we want to have more equitable distribution. You haven't,


you have said you will keep the Barnett Formula. I'm not sure


necessarily punishing Scotland is the way to go. The way that this


debate is going, what message does it send to the Scottish people? I


want to be clear, I am delighted with the result we have got. The


unity and solidarity where maintaining across the nations of


the United Kingdom. All of this separatist talk, setting up


different nations of the UK against each other goes completely against


what we've all been campaigning for over the last two years, and we


shouldn't have any truck with it. Coming onto the announcement on the


minimum wage, you would increase it by ?1 50 to take it to ?8, which


would be over five years. That is all you are going to do over five


years. Have you worked out how much of this increase will be clawed back


in taxation and fewer benefits? Work has been done on it. How much? I


can't give you an exact figure. The policy pays for itself. The way we


have looked at this, we looked at the government figures, and if


people are earning more, they would therefore be paying more in income


tax and they will be receiving less in benefit and will pay out less in


tax credits, so we are confident that this will pay for itself. I'm


not asking about the pavement, I'm asking what it means for low paid


workers will stop they will get an extra 30p per hour -- about the


payment. How much of the 30p to they get to keep? In terms of what they


get in the first instance, somebody on the minimum wage now, with our


proposal, would get in the region of ?3000 a year more than they are at


the moment. That is before tax and benefits. How much do they keep I


cannot give you an exact figure Why don't you give me an exact figure if


you've done the modelling? We are talking about some of the lowest


paid people in the country, and I would suggest to you that going down


this route, they would face a marginal rate of tax of 50 or 6 %


and they will not keep most of this increase you are talking about. I


don't accept your figures. But you haven't got any of your own. I just


don't have any in my head I can give you right now. Don't you think out


policies before you announce them? Of course we think our policies


before we announce them but we are confident people have more in their


pocket and will be better off with the changes proposed, and we are


also seeking to incentivise employers to pay a living wage as


well. At the end of the day, as I said, the economy is recovering


great, but we know, at the moment, it's still not delivering for a huge


number it's still not delivering for a huge


The status quo is not an option And even joining me. Twice in three


days. You can't have too much of a good thing. I am mad. He said that,


not me. It's just gone 11.35, you're


watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland


who leave us now for Coming up here in twenty minutes,


we'll be joined by John Prescott to talk about the challenge facing


Labour as their conference starts First though,


the Sunday Politics where you are. Hello and welcome to


the local part of the progr`mme The no vote in the Scottish


referendum, promises to change how we're governed here,


and there're plenty of ideas being We'll discuss those later,


and ask could Saint Edmund, the last King of East Angli`,


help us forge a regional iddntity? At this particular moment when we


are thinking about nationalhsm and England, we need to remind ourselves


that the word England comes from the word Anglia.


Of course, because Scotland voted no, it meant parliament was not


recalled and the Labour Party has been able to gather in Manchester


And a key policy to be disctssed is the party's plans to transform


At the forefront of Labour's drive for part re`nationalisation is


the east coast mainline, which runs through Stevenagd and


Peterborough and which they believe should remain in public hands.


Good morning from Manchester where the rdgional


Ed Miliband dropped into their eve of conference recdption


last night and told them th`t the route to Labour being back hn power


This election is ours to win, he said, but we must keep working


Labour has eight dozen key seats in the region.


This conference is all about highlighting policies which will


We've had his announcement about the minimum wage todax but


There are many Labour candidates, in Norfolk, Milton Keynes and Peter


Bradshaw openly calling for full renationalisation of the rahlways.


The party leadership will not go that far but they have come up with


a form of partial renationalisation. They want to see companies taking


over franchises. So, can it work? In a moment, Labour's case. But, first,


isn't there an argument for keeping privatisation? This is how ht used


to be back in the 80s, or this is what the adverts want us to believe.


Commuters, bound for the office The reality was very different. British


rail felt tired and dated, with old rolling stock, poor punctuality and


very expensive to run. The dntrance port secretary, John MacGregor, set


about planning its privatis`tion. It is the right way to have an


effective railway system. Wd have seen it happen in other countries.


Then you see big improvements. There is a growing body of opinion within


the Labour Party that privatisation hasn't delivered what it promised


and it is time to make some changes. But there is also a lot of dvidence


that privatisation has been very good for the railways, and partly


re`nationalising some franchises would be costly, confusing, and


wouldn't make much difference. Six rail franchises now operate across


our region. A major study conducted last year found that since


privatisation, things have hmproved, not just a butt across the country.


Not all of the measures likd punctuality, frequency of sdrvices,


customer satisfaction, but `ll of those are up. On a broad range of


measures, it's been a success. Passenger journeys are up 4$ every


year before privatisation it was 1.7%. Satisfaction levels h`ve


climbed from 76% to 85%. Thd amount of rolling stock is up 19%. Making


companies bid to run a railway line has driven up standards. Thdre are


performance regimes in Herod in the franchise documents, which hs


everything from punctuality, to the level of graffiti and litter on the


trains. They have to abide by those and if they don't, there ard


significant penalties. Finally, there are committed obligathons in


the bid. Copyright about wh`t you will do, the government will hold


you to those obligations. The amount of money generated by the r`il


companies for the government to reinvest in new track has qtadrupled


since privatisation. The fr`nchises also contribute to rolling stock.


MPs are campaigning for multi`million pound improvelents to


the region's rail network and say taxpayers could never put stch a


bill. What happens when unaccompanied takes on a fr`nchise


is essentially they put up the money to get things like new carrhages and


that is what we need partictlar on the Norwich to London line. We need


that investment coming in to get us a better railway. The actual money


comes from the operator signing up to run the next franchise. Not only


is it important that they m`ke that investment, that operator, but it is


also important this proceeds to time. They do points to the success


of the East Coast Main Line, a failing franchise which has done


well in temporary public ownership, as proof the public sector can do a


better job. It wants to see it publicly run company being `llowed


to bid for franchises alongside the commercial sector, a sort of partial


renationalisation. This is lodelled thinking because it is actu`lly


quite a palaver to bid for one of these trench rises. It might cost


?10 million. Which, if the state owned franchisee, that monex will be


wasted. It would be simpler to say let the franchises run out, we will


take them back in`house and recreate a kind of British rail. This week, a


new company took over the rtnning of the old First Capital Connect


franchise. Passengers didn't notice much difference on day one. 17 years


after privatisation, there hs still a need to improve the region's rail


services. The government believes franchising is still the best way


forward. Earlier in the week I asked Mary Craegh why change now. People


are to side. They were paxing ?6,000 a year in 2010 and in January


2015, season ticket holders will be paying ?7,660 a year. Just for the


privilege of getting to work in London. In that time, down to


government incompetence, thdy will have seen no `` improvement in


rolling stock, little improvement in train running time, and there has


been a series of things running on this line which means that there


hasn't been a lot of investlent in this land. There has been a lot of


dissatisfaction in that lind and Chloe Smith would agree with you.


But if the private sector is not involved in that line, wherd is that


money going to come from poor investment? This is a heavily


subsidised franchise so we want to see better value on the lind and we


think there are plans to brhng together track and trains in a new


overarching organisation, to plan the sort of investment we nded, to


plan the rolling stock and better train carriages on the line, this is


what the country needs, not another series of franchise extensions and


poor value for money for passengers and taxpayers. Let's talk about


Labour's policy. What do yot actually want to do? Are yot in or


out? With you renationalise the whole system, or not? We want to


bring together Network Rail and the passenger rail organisations into


one body that actually looks at the railway as a single hole. I am still


not clear what your policy hs. It's not just me. We heard from other


people. They think it is also a bit of a model. We are trying to go


beyond the ideological debate of public versus private and h`ve a


railway that puts interest of passengers first, not profits. We


want to have a cap on rail fares. We want to an upper directly operated


railway to bid at games the private sector operators and we want to


devolve rail services to local communities to run them in the


interest of the economic ardas they serve. He spent some time in this


interview telling us the down point of privatisation. Why not go the


whole hog and renationalise our railway which is what a lot of


Labour MPs would like to sed you do. There are many people who would like


to see the railways renationalise but we have to be aware this is a


time. The financial crisis for whoever winds the next election And


we have to make sure we are getting absolute best value on the railways


for the taxpayers. Isn't thhs a question of being a little bit brief


here and doing it? What we `re proposing is brave. It goes against


the old left and right debates, it looks at the passenger and their


journey. That is why the rahlway needs to be, not looking at the


vested interest of the railway companies, not going back to the old


days of British rail. We nedd a railway fit for the 20th century and


I'm afraid under this government that has been sadly lacking. I


started talking about passengers with you, let's finish with the


passengers. How will you allay fears? I can hear people saxing


oh, my goodness, this is gohng to take us back to the bad old stays of


British rail. We are going to have confusion, chaos, strikes. What do


you say to those people? Wh`t I would say is that we are not trying


to go back to the old days of British rails but to go to ` new


21st`century. Anyone on a train in East Anglia would see that hs the


future of rail transport. M`ry Craegh, thank you very much.


So let's meet our guests, Luton MP Gavin Shuker for L`bour


and George Freeman, the Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk


Gavin Shuker, I am still not clear about Labour's policy, are xou? I


am, actually. Essentially, what we are saying is we have a fragmented


railway system at the moment. For a lot of people, their daily commute


is a grind. Why can't we allow the public sector to compete alongside


the private sector, as they have done with East Coast, with brilliant


performance. We think banning the private sector from the railways is


wrong. That is what the Torhes are pursuing, and it is what we will


reverse in government. You can get away from it, George Freeman, the


trains have been appalling fists and very expensive. More and more people


are using the trains, they `re full. This is a really, really silly


policy and went somebody it is an expert says things like that, you


are in a mess. More and mord passengers are using the rahlways,


higher volumes, higher satisfaction and we have embarked on a ?38


billion programme on rail investment. The biggest since the


Victorian age. You have no `nswer to how we invest in a modern r`ilway


network. My daily commute, for example, is First Capital Connect.


Now the new train operating company. The reasons why the standard is


coming up is because the government is investing. I would prefer that if


there is value in that franchise, I would prefer the value coming back


to government. I would have the private sector and public sdctor to


compete along the same rules. Let's look at East Coast mainline. ?2 0


million for the Exchequer, why not leave it where it is? A couple of


reasons. If you look at it, and off`peak return fare is twice as


expensive as the West Coast. Frequency is down and puncttality is


down. That service is getting worse in public ownership and the idea we


will go back to the `` to the old days of British rock is silly. There


were strikes, bad food, expdnsive. You've got to ask a question, where


will you find the investment if you nationalise it? If you don't think


there is a problem currentlx on RL or system, if you don't think that


we are more expensive than on the continent... I do, but you have to


ask the question, where will you get money from? More debt and more tax.


I wanted to ask both of you, were you up through the night on


Thursday? I started and I fhnished, but I went to sleep in the liddle. I


went to sleep confident the people of Scotland would do the right


thing. Well, in the end, it was a decided


no to independence from the people of Scotland but their vote hs set to


have a direct impact on us here David Cameron has pledged to deliver


a new and fair devolution sdttlement for the whole of the UK,


and that includes us. But how will more power be delivered


here in the east We have ruled ourselves before,


even if it was centuries ago, In the 850s, King Edmund ruled


the East of England. The region was independent,


rich and powerful. Rather than being English,


people here considered themselves This statue of King Edmund here in


Bury Saint Edmunds was commhssioned in 1974 to mark the unification


of East and West Suffolk. For his part, this 9th centtry


East Anglian King was remembered for his sense of justice, f`irness,


his unwavering passion Imagine no running water,


no electricity. People were much more local,


lived much more locally. That whole thing of the thrdat


of a Viking invasion, All those things led people


to live much more localised. Captured by Vikings at Hoxon in


Suffolk, this is where the country's last ruler of an independent


regional kingdom met his brttal end. Of course, at this particul`r


moment, when we are thinking about nationalism and England, we need to


remind ourselves that the word So, in one sense,


we are where England begins. Self`determination


is very important. However, to say that the Angles are


entitled to some sort of devolution begs the question what other groups


are entitled to devolution? Devolution to the regions is not


on the agenda. Which seems rather absurd bdcause,


as far as I can see, It could be in places like Bedford.


It's like that. I don't think we have much


association with the countids Although more powers for thd East


are broadly being welcomed, there are many questions ovdr how it


could be devolved. We should also, of course,


decentralise much more to local government,


much more to the county of Dssex, to towns and cities like Chelmsford,


and Ipswich, and Cambridge, and also to the great cities `


London, Manchester, Norwich. We should be celebrating


and empowering local governlent This referendum vote,


very high turnout, narrow ddfeat for independence, everyone `greeing


more powers to Scotland. That has got to mean more powers


for localities in England as well. It could be very good news


for us here in the East. So, no matter what route we take,


the destination should lead to local people to having


a greater say over how they live. Sounds like a great idea, btt how do


we deliver it? The first thhng you did was scrap the regional


assemblies. They were a waste of money and didn't achieve enough The


big point David Cameron has made is that we have given Scotland a


devolution package and I thhnk that has been the right thing to do.


Wales has an independent assembly and Northern Ireland, too. We need


to talk about the Midlothian question. Gavin's party when they


were in power... It is time we looked to the English questhon. Do


we deliver it, Gavin Shuker to the cities because we don't havd many


cities. Luton isn't a city. Sadly, but we are working on it. I would


devolve much more down to local communities. Every government


pledges devolution and then they take the other approach. I think


devolution down to the most appropriate level, the most local


level is the right one, and I think people will look at what has


happened in Scotland and David Cameron's rushed announcement that


he didn't tell other party leaders about. What about East Anglha's


identity? We heard in that film we have difficulties. We are E`st and


West, not gelling. It is trhcky It is, and we need a package of


constitutional reforms. If we don't get the image question right, it


will be illegitimate. I think one of Labour's good idea was elected


mayors and cities. We need stronger leadership there. The north`east was


given a big raspberry under John Prescott. The regional government


isn't the answer. We can work together in East Anglia and we


should. We have done locallx is back to neighbourhoods and towns and


parishes. Let's talk about the time frame. Gavin Shuker, Ed Milhband


said it is important but let's do it in the right way. But sounds like


he's putting the brakes on things. We need to consult people in the


country and work out what wd want to do. I have to say, the ironx of


spending the last three years watching the zombie governmdnt doing


very little and then in the final six they are going to throw all the


pieces up in the air is not wasted on me. That is going to hold up


getting power in the east, which is said is said is a good thing. You


can do much greater devoluthon right now to local authorities. The truth


is... Everyone is scared because there is a general election coming


up and they know they will never form a government without Scottish


MPs. That is not true! That is why they ask aired. Let me just ask you,


should we discussed properlx? Should we recall Parliament? We should be


discussing fairness giving devolution to Scotland becatse


England deserves better. Of course, the referendum h`s


been the big story this week. But plenty of other politic`l news,


too. Here's our 60 second round


up with Deborah McGurran. Hundreds of jobs are under threat


at Group Lotus in Norfolk. The company, which builds


high`performance sports cars, could shed a third of its workforce


as part of restructuring pl`ns. We want to do everything we can to


make sure that the end numbdr, the actual number of job losses


is as low as it possibly can be Day centres in Northamptonshire


including the Afro`Caribbean They now have to apply to


the council for money You have this in the pipeline


for closing. Right in the middle


of Wellingborough! Where are these people going to go,


for God's sake? The blame game over the King's Lynn


incinerator continued this week when the Public Accounts Colmittee


said DEFRA's withdrawal of funding had left Norfolk taxpayers hn the


lurch to the tune of ?34 million. We can ill afford to throw this sort


of money away, and we are h`ving to throw it away, effectively,


because the government can't make up So, a pretty unsettling week for


those working at Group Lotus. We heard Richard Bacon they're saying


everything must be done, but practically what can the government


do to try to bring those potential 325 job losses down? I am working


closely with Richard on this and with events. I'm making surd we are


doing everything. We have a reasonable track record when these


restructures take place. Whdn we talk to the company many jobs can


be. The truth is that in thhs area we have two Formula One teals in


Norfolk. Northamptonshire is a global centre for Formula One, we


have a great story to be proud of. Many people will recycle into the


automotive economy. This nedd not be a disaster. Gavin Shuker, it was


almost a disaster for foxhole in Luton. But it came back frol the


brink. Any essence for Lotus? In 2001 when we lost the car plant


10,000 jobs that was. But wd allowed people to retrain and get into new


jobs. Peter Mandelson, under the last Labour government, these guys


in government as well, therd is a strong story about automotive that


has meant that places like GM have decided to reinvest in Luton. We are


the last place to make whitd vans here. The Ashes of the car hndustry


in the 70s, we rebuilt the automotive industry. Thank xou both


very much. We're back next week at the same time for the other


the Conservative mayor's policy No more time I'm afraid. Andrew, back


to you. Welcome back the to Labour


conference, where we're joined by the latest hot new stand-up


comedian on the Manchester circuit. I speak of course of former Deputy


Prime Minister John Prescott. In between giving tub-thumping


speeches to rally the party faithful this week,


he's appearing at the Comedy Store. He was also of course the man


behind the last attempt to solve Our political panel is with me as


well. John, we have got Scottish votes for Scottish laws, and more


Scottish votes for Scottish laws, why not English votes for English


laws? That's an English parliament in a major constitutional change and


that is what has started. I certainly don't agree with that I


campaign for powers to be given to the regions. When I first tested it


in the Northeast, I lost. Why? Because they said they were not the


same powers you are giving to Scotland. So, basically, we must do


that, decentralised, not just with a Westminster Parliament. As you know,


in 32 years I produce the alternative. You've kept that for 32


years? I took it off my shelf and everybody was talking about it now,


but they weren't in 1982. This was my five plan. 200 meetings all


around the country -- five-year plan. You wrote this morning, not 35


years ago, that this was a plot to turn Westminster into a Tory


dominated English parliament. But if that is how England had voted, it's


not a plot, it's democracy. You can get reform in a more federal


structure, and even English parliament does fit into the federal


structure and that is what the Liberals say, but you need a fairer


representation. It might be quite radical, and we could get rid of the


Lord's, and have representation in the region there. It can't be done


in two weeks. Alex Salmond, he's assuming he has been sold out, and


it was less than a week ago they remain the announcement. We have to


get it carried out will stop but don't connect it to the English


parliament that fixes it in their favour. It may be pretty low


politics from David Cameron to come up with something that was not in


the vowel -- a bow on the front page of the daily record, but if they do


not agree with what he said at the time of the general election, he


will say two in which voters, if you want real protection in England


vote Conservative, and if you want Scottish MPs deciding on your level


of taxation, vote Labour. He is scared to death of UKIP may have


been saying it for a while. In the constitutional changes have to see


what is fair and equitable, the same with the Barnett fallen -- formula.


But what you have to do is get a fair system. It takes time to


discuss it. I was doing a 32 years ago and nobody wanted to know. We


had better start a debate, and don't mixed up the constitutional type of


English parliament with what we are promising in Scotland. It is about


trust and politics. So the turnout of the north-east regional assembly


and they voted against it. The turnout that the police and crime


commissioners was low. How'd you get people interested in the process and


it doesn't feel like a conversation in smoky rooms and you go back to


British people and tell them what you decided? If you look at the


turnout in Scotland whether they were interested in, now it is


phenomenally interesting. It is about real power, having real


influence. What they said to me in the north-east, they said we know


you have an idea for devolution and you will give us assemblies but it


doesn't have the power of Scotland, but now we are talking about


equity, similar distribution of power and similar resources. The


English people are entitled to that. They have been robbed of it for too


long. Labour has long struggled with what it should do over devolving


power to the regions and you came up with regional assemblies. Ed


Miliband has a different idea of city regions. Aren't they the same


idea of yours but without a democratic accountability? Can we


really trust the greater region of Manchester or Birmingham to deliver


if there is not the same kind of democratic link with the people I


live in whole, and it stops on the boundary of the Pennines -- the city


of Hull. We have city regions from Labour because I failed in the


north-east to get the assemblies in, and now we have to look at those


options. Do you work through city regions? Mainly in the north, I


might say. Even the federal structure they talk about my be in


the North or Midlands with Birmingham, but there are a number


of options and that is where I believe that what the White Paper


should do is to put those options in. Instead of having to put them


together, state what you want to do in the English regions. Leave it to


the legislation, which is what will happen with the Scottish, and once


you've agreed it, you do it after. You have to start the radical debate


about giving the English regions, not centralised in London, but


decentralised. Do you need to have a separate English parliament?


Wouldn't it just satisfy the English if you simply said to MPs, when it's


in English matter in the House of Commons, stop interfering? I would


disagree with that. I would say put the option in the White Paper. The


White Paper seems to be talking about Scotland. If you don't put the


commitments to what you want to do with the English regions, people


might say I'm not supporting that. Put the framework in the White


Paper, but a different timetable. Devolution in this country has been


to a different timetable, whether it's Wales, Northern Ireland. Start


looking fundamentally at it and the Labour Party should be leading the


debate. Let's come the no campaign lost Glasgow. The cradle of British


socialism. -- let's come to something that happened with the


referendum as the no campaign lost Glasgow. Is it a sign that the


Labour Party are finding it hard to what -- hold on to their traditional


working class vote question mark its different in Manchester. They would


say it is a message about decentralisation. If we change the


message a bit maybe. We have been thinking that now it is that either


the Labour Party to recognise it is not the old message and old areas


that will win it. I remember covering the 1997 referendum in


Scotland and you gave a tub thumping speech in a big hall in Hamilton and


you really connected. Obviously it was a different referendum because


that was about a parliament, not independence and Alex Salmond was on


your side, but you, and Ingush MP, an English minister, connected to


the core Labour voters in a way that Ed Miliband is failing to do -- an


English MP. You make a fair point. In the big rally, I had to point out


I was Welsh. Enough of this. Get on with it. What I was saying there was


that I supported you, as I did for 30 odd years when Labour MPs were


against any thinker Scotland. I support you, but I expect you to


come in with your Scottish MPs and make sure the English get their


share of the powers and resources and that is what that speech was


about, and by God, it's as relevant today as it was then. I haven't got


any Scottish MPs, I live in Knightsbridge. Did you get the vote?


No. What would you have done? I can't tell you. You would have voted


yes, come on. I'm interested. What do you want to hear from the speech


by Ed Miliband? People are wondering about where Labour stands. There are


many issues we have flown around, and we've done the discussion just


now. What he has got to do where he started off on the minimum wage You


are trying to deal with those left behind. Those are the bottom. That


is the Labour message. The National Health Service is our creation and


we have to say it will be saved If you can save all of these bankers


with all the money and say you haven't got the money for the NHS,


say where we stand. That will be the priority. The third one, housing. I


have had a revolutionary idea that you can buy a house without a


deposit and without the interest or paying the stamp duty, and you buy


it by rent. The government gives ?150 billion guaranteed housing for


up to 600,000. Get down to ordinary people who can use their rent to buy


the house. It's happening in the north-east. Why are they not


listening to you? You have said more to connect with ordinary people in


three minutes than we will probably hear in an hour. I've been telling


them, made, and we have a commission coming out. People don't want


commissions, they want action. I say, I know what we do, housing


health, the people. That is our language. That is why we are Labour.


That a lot of people run away. I think in Glasgow, they wondered


about that. If you turn up on the same three platforms, and I know


it's a critical thing to say, they think in Scotland it is a coalition.


I don't like coalitions. It looks like a coalition, didn't it? Maybe


it was saved because Rupert Murdoch started the The Times about the


polls and he couldn't even get the sun to say that they wanted. We


haven't got time. I wondered how long it would take is to get to


repot Murdoch. You beat the record. -- to Rupert Murdoch. Labour is


quite behind on the economy, and people are looking at Labour, trying


to work out if they can trust you to the stewards of the economy given


2010. Under Labour 's plans there is 20 billion of cuts to make in the


next Parliament. Will we hear anything about that? It is about the


proportion of debt to GDP. I know it sounds historic, but our debt when


we came in in 1997 was a proportion of GDP, and you must know this, and


that was less than Thatcher's. Why did we get done on debt? You guys


run around saying a lot about it, but the fact is it was worse under


Thatcher. Thatcher is now seen as a hero. If you look at the debt, it is


still a problem. Gordon Brown did an awful lot to solve those problems,


but they were still left with us. What we have to have is a sensible


discussion like we had on devolution and now we are talking about


finances. Let's look at the public sector debt and the price we pay. We


need to be putting the record straight. The problem is they tell


me, John, we have to look to the future not the past. We are getting


screwed on the past and we have to change it and perhaps Gordon Brown


coming in could do something. Finishing on the future, when we did


a poll of the Labour candidates you were watching on the big screen


when it came up that their favourite to succeed Ed Miliband was Yvette


Cooper, why did you shout no! That is alive. -- alive. -- that is not


true. I know resistance is not strong. What did that mean?


You can't get away with anything at a Conference, John. I was dropping


comments them to pick up everywhere, I do not wear -- nowhere they got


that one from. Good to have you back. Round of applause for former


Deputy Prime Minister. That's it for today. Don't applaud them, they are


useless. my guests. I'll be back here at


Labour conference for the Daily 11:30am tomorrow when we'll bring


you live coverage of the speech by We're here all week, and next Sunday


you can find us in Birmingham for Remember if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles