22/01/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks, welcome to Sunday Politics. Our top story:

George Osborne wants Britain to "play its part" to stabilise the

world economy. But opposition is growing to a request for billions

of pounds in extra funds from Britain to bailout the eurozone.

Does the Chancellor have a fight on his hands?

The unions didn't like it, neither did some of his own MPs. Has Ed

Miliband got his fingers burnt messing with Labour's economic

policy? I'll be asking Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna,

Their judges ruled that radical Muslim Cleric, Abu Qatada, can stay

in this country, so should we leave the European Court of Human Rights?

We'll debate that live. And our regular political panel is

here to analyse the week ahead in politics and tweeting throughout

the programme, including the journalist whose story could end

Environment Secretary Chris Huhne's political career. In London, why

Boris Johnson has said that he backs a new airport. What is the

coalition government going to All that is coming up. First, the

news with Tim Willcox. The long journey to finding a

Republican presidential candidate has taken another twist overnight

after the right winger, Newt Gingrich, triumphed in the key

South Carolina primary. The former Speaker of the House of

Representatives pulled off a surprise victory over the current

frontrunner, Mitt Romney. Our North America editor, Mark Mardell,

reports from South Carolina. Meet Gingrich's supporters had a

lot to celebrate. -- Newt Gingrich's supporters. But he has

an immense amount of work to do if this victory is to be any more than

a flash in the pan. The former Speaker told the crowd why he

wanted to win the right to take on President Obama in the autumn

election. I believe because we, after a year of conversation -- we

decided we wanted to run because we concluded, this is the most

important election of our lifetime. If Barack Obama can get re-elected

Just think how radical he would be in a second term. The victory is a

blow to Mitt Romney, the front runner who is distrusted by many

Republican Conservatives. In his speech, he warned Newt Gingrich to

lay off attacking -- attacking his record as a businessman. Our party

can't be led to victory by someone who has also never run a business,

and never run a state. When my opponent's attack success and free

enterprise, they are not only attacking me, but their attacking

every person who dreams of a better future. Black - but they are

The state by state election next move to Florida. Conservative

celebrating here tonight will hope they have found one single

candidate they can unite behind and so a pos Mitt Romney. This result

means the road ahead will be long and probably rather nasty. -- and

Close The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick

Clegg, has defended Government proposals for a �500-a-week benefit

cap. Mr Clegg told the BBC he believed the measures would

encourage people who were able to work to seek employment. But he

said more thought was needed on the way the plans are implemented.

The Government's controversial plans to reform the NHS in England

are expected to be criticised this week in a report by senior MPs. The

Commons Health Select Committee - which is led by a Conservative - is

likely to attack Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's strategy of trying

to save billions of pounds while attempting to carry out a major

overhaul of the service. A 6-year-old girl is in hospital

with serious injuries after being mauled by a dog. It happened in a

park near Chingford in north-east London yesterday. The dog bit off

part of her ear. Police are trying to find the dog and its owner.

That's it - there's more here on BBC One at 6:30pm this evening.

Andrew. There's mounting opposition from

MPs to the idea that Britain should stump up billions of pounds to help

the stricken eurozone. The money would be channelled through the IMF

- the International Monetary Fund - which has asked for an extra �325

billion from members. In a moment I'll be joined by senior Tory

backbencher, David Davis. But first, this is what the Deputy Prime

Minister said on this morning's Andrew Marr Show. We ought to, and

the Chancellor was very clear about this, we must always be strong

supporters of the IMF. It is a linchpin, in many ways it was a

British invention in the creation of these great institutions in the

post-war period. It is a linchpin in creating a system of stability.

We will contribute more if we asked to? We will always make our fair

contribution to the IMF, when it says and shows that increased

contributions are necessary. David Davis, do you agree with the Deputy

Prime Minister? Historically he is right, the IMF has been the

linchpin, but you have got to ask himself why -- yourself why the

Americans, Canada, Japan, are all antagonistic towards this proposal.

It is because the IMF is about to do something new. That is not to

look after poor countries in difficulty but prop up some of the

richest countries in the world, in pursuit of a policy which has

failed already. I don't know which buyout this will be by the time we

get to it. -- which bail-out. Principle because the leaders of

Europe will not recognise it is not just the return that has a problem

but that the euro is a problem. -- not just the eurozone that has a

problem. Look at the proposals, they are continually bailing out

but not allowing the one thing which will allow Greece, Portugal,

Ireland, Spain, Italy to recover, which is devaluation, which

requires leaving the euro. As a result, what we are looking at is

probably a decade of zombie economies, of countries to have no

way forward other than to cut back on public services and public

spending. They have got to do some of that anyway, but if they haven't

got any growth in the economy, all our markets in Europe... They will

be suffering poverty for a decade. British policy as given by the

Treasury, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, is to try to save the

eurozone as currently constituted. We are supporting measures to that

end. Is that the wrong policy? think it is. I think we should

recognise that the measures designed to keep Greece and

Portugal and maybe others within the euro are not working. They

actually hold out the prospect for causing a bigger catastrophe and

crisis. I think we should think again about that possible but I can

understand why. There is lots of business pressure on the government

to protect the euro as it now stands, because we have got big

markets. But they are going to be eroded and damaged by the policy

the European Union is following. Our policy in your view should be

to let purism break up? I would go for an orderly reductions. -- to

let the eurozone break up? I still think there will be a eurozone in a

decade, but if they are sensible, it would be the strong economies of

the north plus those they can keep within, France and Italy, probably,

in the medium term. I don't really think that keeping Greece and

Portugal, maybe Ireland within, is in the very long term, even

possible. If the government comes to Parliament to ask for more money

for the IMF, will you vote for or against? If it is for the IMF to

support the current year his own policies, I would vote against.

be joined by many of your colleagues? -- will you be joined?

There are quite a few who are critical of supporting the eurozone

with British taxpayers' money. The Prime Minister has said we did not

intend to do that. I suspect there would be quite a few there, yes.

Political parties can't win elections if they are not trusted

on the economy. Despite the television's economic troubles,

Labour is struggling to convince voters that it could do better. It

is also struggling in the polls. One put Labour five points behind

the Conservatives this morning. That's despite Labour's leadership

efforts to shift the political debate forward.

Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, said he could not commit to reversing

any government cuts, if Labour came to power in 2015. He backed the

coalition's cap on public sector pay. The head of Labour's biggest

union donor was furious and said embracing austerity would lead to

the destruction of the party and certain election defeat. Ed

Miliband stood firm, saying it was tough if people disagreed with him.

Meanwhile, the party has not given up fighting individual cuts,

helping defeat government welfare reforms in the Lords. One Labour MP

questioned whether this new strategy made sense. I think Ed

Miliband is to go back to the drawing board, to rethink through a

current deficit reduction plan, which he should have. But one that

has got some real meat in it. was John Mann. With me to discuss

Labour's economic policy, the Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka

What is different about Labour's economic policy now, compared with

a week ago? I think the key thing is that we have emphasised what we

would do in the current climate, given the current situation with

the public finances. We still, absolutely oppose the economic

strategy that is being pursued by the government. Not least because

yes, it is true, we have to reduce debt. But the way they are going

about it is counter-productive. Because it is creating a vicious

circle. So what is different? key thing we have emphasised is

that we are not in a position to promise now to reverse all of the

different things that the government is doing. In respect of

the 2015 general election. In the same way that viewers of this

programme are not in a position to decide, given household finances,

where they will be in three years' time, whenever they decide to go on

holiday, we are not in a position to do that either. I asked what was

different. That was also your policy over a week ago and it has

been your policy throughout opposition. Ed Balls told the

Labour conference last September, no matter how much we dislike

particular Tory spending cuts or tax rises, we cannot make promises

not to reverse them. I won't do that, neither will any of my shadow

cabinet colleagues. So that is not new either. I suppose the one thing

that has been different is that we have been very clear that we are

not in a position to promise -- make promises on public-sector pay,

which are practically different from the government. We have said

that we would accept the 1% cap on public sector pay. Where we differ

from the government is that we think you should look to do that in

a far more fairway. If you were tough on those earning more in the

public sector, we believe that in respect of lower-paid workers, we

would be able to give them �250 more at least. On the public sector

pay freeze, you are really running to catch up with the coalition

there. I don't accept that. In government, we were quite clear

from 2009 that we would have to have public sector pay restraints,

and we made some reference to that in our manifesto as well. If that

is the any substantive change, and it is what Andy Burnham told me on

The Daily Politics last week as well, is that alongside the public

sector for its -- pay freeze enough to restore your economic

credibility? I think for economic credibility, you need growth.

That's why we have put forward are five point plan for growth in jobs,

because we say that you cannot reduce the borrowing of the country

unless you have growth, unless you have people getting back into work.

2.6 million people out of work are people not paying income tax and to

whom we have to pay benefit. We must prioritised growth in

particular as a way of sorting out the country's finances. To that

extent, that is a key distinction between us and the government. The

government say everything has to be about the debt, we say you can't

reduce your debt unless you have gross going again. I understand

that but if we look at the map - a measure of growth going again. If

you look at the public attitude -- It doesn't get worse than that.

What I would say, polls are polls. that matters of votes. First of all,

clearly, if we had got everything right and people had full

confidence in the Labour Party, we would be in government now. We have

to be humble enough to admit we did not get everything right, for

example around the regulation of the banks. Secondly, I see the

survey -- the poll in front of us but what really matters is what

people think in the ballot box. We have had five by-elections over 12

months, not all of them easy, that we have won. Those are votes from

people. David Cameron in particular will tell you this, in the lead-up

to the 2010 general election, the polls were saying he was going to

be governing with a majority and that he would win the election.

That did not happen. We have to be absolutely focused on the main

things that people care about, the cost of living is the one thing

that people are concerned about at the moment. That is something Ed

Miliband was talking about. He was ridiculed for talking about the

squeezed middle. That is a key argument. If all that is true, why

have you got a 23% credibility on the economy? At a time when it is

hardly going well for the coalition. Polls go up and down. These haven't,

they have kept going down. If you look at the overall rating for the

Labour Party, it is significantly higher than 2010. We will come on

to that in a minute! Votes are what matters and the key thing is, are

we making the arguments that really impact on people's lives? I have

over 4,000 people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in my

constituency, they don't care about polls, they care about what you are

going to do to get me back into work. That is what really matters,

Let's look at welfare reform, which is becoming a big issue. �26,000 a

year, more than the average age, isn't that plenty for anybody on

benefits to be collecting from the state? If you put it in those terms,

you make a persuasive argument. We are not opposed to a benefit cap in

principle. We are opposed to the way that the Government is doing it.

Actually this is based on what Eric Pickles has said in a letter to

Number 10 Downing Street. He pointed out last year that because

of the changes, you would be forcing 40,000 people into

homelessness. It was a departmental letter which the Government now

says was based on false figures. Hang on just a moment. This is

their own communities secretary saying that this could potentially

cost them more money in the long term. In respect of that �26,000

figure which you mention, Andrew, the way it has been calculated,

they say that is the average of what people in work are learning in

this country. The average includes people on benefit. In fact it comes

in under what the average would be for people not on benefit. For any

of our viewers watching this programme, they would have to earn

�35,000 a year, much above the average wage, to end up with the

take home of �26,000. Surely that is a decent cab for people on

benefits. Otherwise you take away any incentive to work. There are a

number of problems with it, as I said. I have outlined why the

26,000 figure is not entirely accurate. What would you have?

are not in Government at the moment. But you don't like what the

Government is doing. No, what I said was that in principle we are

not opposed to having a benefits cap. We are opposed to the way the

Government has done it. There is also an issue about having the same

level across the country, which needs to be looked at. Would you

have a London cab and one for the rest of the country? I am not

necessarily saying that. So what are you saying? The Government

needs to think this out better. do you. Hang on just a minute,

Andrew. We are not in Government. It is for the Government to come

forward. If you are criticising the Government then you need to tell us

what you would do. We do not have a problem with the cap in principle,

but Denise to be implemented in a fair weight which would not cost

more to society. -- which needs to be implemented in a fair way.

McCluskey, let's look at what he had to say. It was not just policy.

He said that Ed Balls's sudden embrace of austerity challenges the

whole course that Ed Miliband has set for the party and perhaps his

leadership itself. That is the head of your union, Len McCluskey, so

how significant is he as a political figure to talk of Labour

leadership? Len McCluskey leads the country's biggest union and it is

significant when he says anything. I fundamentally disagree with it

though. We have to be careful that we do not end up doing George

Osborne's work for him. Why do I say that? Because the argument that

George Osborne is seeking to prosecute is that there are only

two options. Either 100% austerity or an option which says we do not

have to do any consolidation at all. We are going for a more sensible

argument, which says that we have to consolidate and reduce borrowing,

but in a realistic way that does not choke off growth and keeps

people in work and can hopefully raise living standards, which is

the big issue for people in this country. It seems to be so subtle

that it is not getting through to the country. Let's look at your

leader's net approval rating, among all voters. It compares to light of

last year with January now. He had a negative approval rating in July,

not great, -12. Now it has gone all the way down in six months to minus

35. As I said, these are opinion polls. By that is what you get for

subtlety. You say that. That is what the opinion polls tell us.

say that, but what are the big issues that people are talking

about? I have talked about the cost of living rises. The debate around

capitalism and the way markets work. Ed Miliband has been leading this

debate and to talk about it in the party conference speech. He was

criticised at the time by the Prime Minister in particular and now

everybody is saying that this is something that we need to look at.

I have already talked about the squeezed middle. Are the arguments

that he is making resonating? Yes. If you look at the different voting

systems that we had, by-elections, local elections, remember we took

its 800 more councillors, several hundred more than the

Conservatives... He cannot even influence his own supporters. This

is what it is like among Labour voters. In July he used to have a

positive rating of 30% among Labour voters, which was not great. He now

has a positive reading of 4%. That is among Labour voters. Andrew,

Andrew, opinion polls go up and down. Sorry, they did. It just goes

down. This is over a period of a year. The six months. Opinion polls

go up and down over a longer period. People form their views on

political parties over the course of many more months, actually years.

If we look at the opinion polls leading up to the 2010 general

election, David Cameron would be governing without the Liberal

Democrats right now. We are under no illusion about the scale of the

task. Come back in another six months and we will see what has

happened. You are obsessed with opinion polls, Andrew. You can see

Ed Miliband interviewed on BBC Radio 5 Live with John Pienaar at 7

o'clock. The ruling by the European Court of

Human Rights last week that the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada

cannot be deported to Jordan has left many asking whether we should

reform the court or leave altogether. David Cameron is

pushing for changes, but what are It was the debt of World War Two

and the Government was run from his bunker below Whitehall. Winston

Churchill took to the airwaves to propose a new organisation that

would safeguard human rights across the battle-scarred Continent. The

Council of Europe. We must try to make the Council of Europe, or

whatever it may be called, into a really effective leader, with all

the strongest forces concerned, woven into its texture. With a High

Court to sort out disputes. He got his way, because there are now 47

member states and the cornerstone is the European Convention on Human

Rights, written in 1950, which guarantees things like an

individual's right to live, freedom of expression and freedom of

torture. Individuals who feel those rights have been denied can take

their own Government to the European Court of Human Rights in

Strasbourg. For some, it strayed far from Churchill's ideal. Getting

there has to write on this actually shows that the cabinet at the time

was concerned that the text of the convention was a reflection of

English common law principles, the protection of rights that we have

enjoyed in this country for centuries. What has happened since

has been the growth of a human rights culture, driven by the

Strasbourg court, which has taken those fundamental principles very

far away from the common law tradition that the convention was

established to protect. He means decisions like the one this week

that the Islamist cleric Abu Qatada cannot be deported from the UK.

That followed a ruling that British prisoners should be given the vote,

which caused outrage in the Commons. In his speech next week, David

Cameron will push for changes to the court, mainly to make it more

efficient, such as cutting the backlog of cases, currently 150,000

long. There is easier said than done, according to this QC. We can

propose reforms that are debated for months, for example the

committee of ministers, but if they think it is a political agenda

designed to dilute the power of the court, rather than merely to make

it more efficient, then those proposed reforms will not go

through. Others hope to mount a defence against the court by

writing a British Bill of Rights, which could from Strasbourg. If you

want the Prime Minister to do the reverse Churchill, and withdraw

from the Convention of Human Rights altogether. -- some people want the

Prime Minister to do a reverse Churchill.

To debate this, Helena Kennedy and Martin Callanan, the Conservative

leader in the European Parliament. David Cameron is off to Strasbourg

this week to argue for major reform in the European Court. If that

proves impossible, should Britain withdraw? It might do. I hope we

can get some reforms. The trouble is that there has been a series of

increasingly ludicrous job to rent from the Court of Human Rights, --

ludicrous judgments. It is bringing human rights into dispute. If we go

to a part in the UK, and we ask what people think, you will get an

answer that cannot be printed because of these judgments that are

superimposing the will of an unelected panel of judges, some of

whom are not even legally qualified, over the will of Parliament and the

elected Home Secretary of this country and it is becoming

ridiculous. If we cannot get major reform, should we withdraw? No. We

were at the heart of drafting the European Convention on Human Rights

and it was a very good purposes. It was about creating a template of

standards that should apply around all of Europe. It should bring

conformity to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As it

were dealt as Winston Churchill would have wanted? With votes for

prisoners? -- has it worked out? This is very much about the

protection of democracy. Winston Churchill would have been appalled

to find that the convention, which is perfectly well drafted and well-

meaning, we do been used to mean that terrorist prisoners cannot be

deported from this country. -- would be used. Let's talk about

this. Let's put it in the context of that pub. Back there again!

point about human rights was that you have to make decisions that

will not be popular with people sometimes but which are about

protecting principles. This is about torture. One of the things

that the European Court did was to say very clearly that the process

that we have developed of having discussions with countries and

protections, diplomatic assurances with countries that have a record

on torture, diplomatic assurances so that we can return people, they

found that we were right on that and they found in our favour. But

they said that the evidence was that Abu Qatada would be facing

trial that was based on evidence extracted from people using torture.

We have led the way in the world on saying that torture cannot be

tolerated and sometimes you have to make decisions, even if that means

that that people can take advantage of it. It is not just the

occasional bad decision. The court has found against the UK 300 times

in the last few years. These are decisions that often fly in the

face of common sense. Do you really think that this country is a

bastion of human rights abuses to mean that the court can stand

against us? Nobody has any faith in their judgments. Would you replace

the European Convention, if we withdrew, with the British Bill of

Rights? Ideally, yes. I have no problem with the concept of human

rights being recognised. I agree with it. Of course we do not agree

with torture. Look at the Abu Qatada case. He arrived in this

country on forged documents. Since then he has not been loyal to the

country, he backed the 9/11 hijackers, he was described as a

truly dangerous individual in a British court. Successive home

secretaries, Labour and Conservative, have tried to deport

him and the court has said no. Let's move on from Abu Qatada

because I want to get the principle. What would be wrong with a British

Bill of Rights that would be used in our Supreme Court, and are the

finest judges in Europe, and that British Bill of Rights reflecting

our experience from the Magna Carta onwards? That is what we are

investigating. I am sitting on a Government commission that is

looking at this and we are taking evidence. What would be wrong with

it? The number of things have been raised. People are concerned that

if we withdraw from the European Convention, that would mean

withdrawing from the Council of Europe. It would be very difficult

to withdraw from the European Court... That is a technical thing.

What would be wrong with having a British Bill of Rights? We could

have a British Bill of Rights and still be part of the European

consensus. Including everything but adding more of Britain? A listen, I

am one of the people always arguing that we should have jury trial,

habeas corpus, incorporated into our very own Bill of Rights. The

problem with it is that people like Martin really want to use this as a

Trojan horse because they don't like Europe. The Council of Europe,

as you well know, is completely separate to the EU. Take another

issue, prisoner voting rights. The House of Commons has voted on a

number of occasions by enormous majorities that we do not wish to

give some prisoners in the UK the right to vote. The European Court

of Human Rights is substituting its judgment for the will of our

elected representatives. If this is such a good thing, it stand before

the people of the UK in elections and ask them. What are the chances

of David Cameron making any material progress on this? We will

see what he comes up with. He wants a filtering mechanism. What are his

chances? I don't think they are You are watching the Sunday

Politics. In 20 minutes I will be looking at the week ahead with the

political panel. You're watching As the economic forecasts did clear

by the day, how much money is being wasted by leaving the lights on in

London? -- forecasts get gloomier. Joining us, Tessa Jowell and

Conservative MP for Croydon Central, Gavin Barwell. I will start by

talking about the crime figures this week. While they have come

down, over all the fences have come down, it has come down far less

than elsewhere in the country. -- overall offences have gone down.

Violent crime looks to be going in the wrong direction. You have to

look at crime figures over a longer period. Over the period that Boris

has been there, they are down 10%. There were a significant number of

defences -- offences connected with the riots. The overall trend on

robberies is down, certainly in Croydon. We hope to see that

continue. I don't actually agree with Gavin on the figures. If you

take the years of the Labour government, overall crime fell by

40%. We have now seen serious violent crime beginning to rise

again. Rape, and very particularly knife crime, which was one of the

Mayor's number one priority is, when he stood as a candidate to be

elected. He would tackle life crime in London and he has to answer why

knife crime is rising, not falling. I will help him with the answer and

say the fact he is cutting police numbers by more than he told

Londoners he would is clearly a factor in this. Police on the

street reduce knife crime. Do you agree with that, or do you think

should happen? The police numbers will be higher at the end of

Boris's turn than when he -- what he inherited from Ken. I don't want

to see a fall in frontline officers and I support the Mayor in same

money to keep numbers at 32,000 officers after the Olympics, I

think he is right to do that. are said to be 900 below that, so

perhaps Gavin will join with me on calling on the Mayor to restore

those cuts -- they are set to be 900. Boris Johnson attempted to

breathe new life into the decades old idea of an airport in, or close

to the Thames Estuary. Some saw a mayoral candidate keen to keep

alive a scheme he has backed so relentlessly, at least until after

the next mayoral election. There is not much evidence yet that the

Prime Minister has, quote, warmed to the idea, other than the Mayor's

word for that. But this did remind us that this is a government in

need of a modern, updated aviation policy. As the Chancellor said last

autumn, all options for a new hub airport are being considered as

A huge hub airport in the history, technically it's possible, hurdles

are many. A son called -- sunken battleship full of explosives, bird

strikes, fierce local opposition and coalition partners, the Liberal

Democrats. We would not support the building of a new airport and we

would do our best to stop it. is the airport in the news again?

Have some on the blue side of government warmed to the idea?

policy has not been cleared through the normal government processes. It

seems to me, that someone in favour of the airport is deliberately

pushing the story. The history aboard's most high-profile

supporter is... For a long time, George Osborne and David Cameron

have been very interested in the idea of a long-term, sustainable

solution for Britain's aviation needs. Apart from extra runways at

Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, the government has also always said it

is looking at all of the aviation options. There is now time to make

the case for and mystery airport, or kill it. -- 4 and estuary

This may not move the airport idea any closer, but it is reopening the

debate, shifting it, might you say? Perhaps shifting the perception a

little bit. They have got a big decision coming up on capacity.

What we know is that there is an aviation reviewed going on. We have

been told there are no extra and run race -- no extra runways at

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Apart from that, nothing is being

rolled in or out. That includes the Thames Estuary and also the high-

speed air link -- rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick. The aviation

industry say there is a vacuum in policy, this is a shambles, a joke,

very critical of the government policy. Some suggest that Boris

Johnson may have overplayed his hand, and there is a danger of

whipping up opposition, not just in Conservative areas like Kent, but

also among the Liberal Democrats, who are against expansion. Those

are the messages that were seen to be coming out of Number 10 on the

Thursday, the day after this big announcement. I think what the real

concern is, is because they have been critical of the Mayor, he put

this idea out there, and from their point of view, opponents could then

easily kill it. I think there is another angle. When I have ever

spoken to the Mayor about it, he says he always wants to shift,

broaden the debate on aviation, one capacity. I think arguably, he has

perhaps done that when it comes to the capacity issues we will see in

the south-east -- on capacity for Do you support the idea of an

estuary airport? I think the Mayor is right to look at it. If you look

at the 12th Chinese cities that will be in the world top 25 cities,

London has a connection with just two. Can you see it happening, do

you want it to happen? You can't take a final decision until you

have looked at all the different options and the government is right

to do that. I want to see a Mayor of London who is looking at the

long term economic future of the capital and maintaining their

status as an international hub is important. You are well plugged

into Conservative HQ, has David Cameron wants to the idea? It is

clear that he is prepared to look at it, they are not saying they

will go ahead with air but it is an option on the table. We knew that

already. -- they have not said they will go ahead with it.

government recognises the importance of having this

international hub. There are real issues with police night as with

Heathrow in terms of pollution and noise and its ability to expand.

The Mayor is right to have pushed this idea. Have you seen any signs

or got any idea that the Prime Minister or the Chancellor have

warmed, that they now support this idea more than before? I can't

speak personally for the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. I think

the fact the government has set out the review shows there is an

appetite took find a solution. third runway has gone out of the

window now and labour accepts that, so you would presumably welcome

this kind of original... It is decades old, but this revival of

the idea. I agree with a lot of what Gavin has just said. London

and the south-east definitely need more airport capacity, for the

reasons that Gavin has outlined and many more besides. I think there

are two points. I think the Mayor did overplay the announcement meant

his great mates, Dave and George... You would say that. I would, but

the important point is realising this. This is a 15 year product --

project, and therefore it has got to be handled deftly at every stage.

If the Liberal Democrat partners in the coalition are going to sit on

it, it is very unlikely to make progress. The point is that this is

the kind of project, a bit like the Olympics, that has got to be

planned on a cross-party basis. would all fit into a logic. Tell us

that you like this idea and you would like it pursued. I like the

idea of building capacity in London and the south-east. You want expert

views on where the best location is. You want expert analysis of the

impact on Heathrow and the hundred 1,000 jobs. You want a proper

assessment of how it might create an altogether different balance in

London. I am absolutely in favour of looking seriously at all the

options but doing it on a cross- party basis. A lot of people in

Croydon go to Gatwick, you must be attracted by this idea for a double

hub? I think that is an option. A lot of my constituents are employed

at Gatwick Airport, the vitality of Gatwick is important to Croydon. I

think since the ownership was transferred to BAA we have seen an

improvement in the service that passengers get. We want to find a

solution best for London's economic future and which represents

taxpayers best. Cash-strapped councils have been turning off the

street lights in order to save money and protect other services

from the cuts. But London is bucking that trend and the number

of street lights has actually increased in the last year. We have

also discovered a rather awkward problem affecting half of the

capital's Tube stations. This is Stratford International

station. In the last decade or so, hundreds of millions of pounds have

been spent up grading it. One thing they didn't get round to building

was a light switch. The problem is that they used to turn the lights

of by using a circuit breaker. In this day and age, it doesn't pass

health and safety, so the lights shine all the time. Stratford

station is not alone. We found that half of London's Tube stations

don't have a light switch at all. In all, that is 136 Tube stations

where come day or night, the lights stay on. Transport for London say

they don't know how much it costs the taxpayer. However, could it be

that all over London, money is being wasted on unnecessary

lighting? It was certainly the worry for Westminster Council, who

are in the process of replacing all the street lights in the borough

with a computerised system which leads the council been the lights

as and when they think it is appropriate. The word of dimming

the lights is something that will frighten people. The fact that they

think it is going to be dark and dingy. We have seen on the street,

we have dimmed the lights, and some of it, you don't notice it at all.

It might not look like much is happening here, but what you are

seeing is the street lights being turned down by 25%. The lights on

the street are so high tech, you can control them remotely. You can

stand on the street with an iPad, or even a phone, and turn them up,

But at the moment, Westminster are pretty unusual. Sunday Politics but

to every local authority in London and only seven of 33 have dimmed

the lights at all in the last year. In effect, spending on street

lighting has gone up, with 4,000 new units put up over the capital

in the last 12 months. Shouldn't we be welcoming the move by councils

to keep a safe. Isn't it common sense that better street lights

mean less crime? Not necessarily, according to one ex- gang member.

In a time when I was of a frame of mind, we used to do things in

daylight. Street lighting meant nothing. I guess it is good for the

people who come out of their house and they are scared, to reassure

them, it is good for them to have street lighting, so they can feel

safer. But it is not going to matter to somebody who wants to do

something to them. Some fear that saving money on street lights may

be a false economy. When you consider it costs �1.6 million to

clear up every time there is a fatal road accident, you can see

the consequence of not getting this right to the public purse, let

alone beefier that this will create among those who decide not to go

out at all -- let alone the fear. Come the morning, the arguments for

keeping the lights on maybe harder to make. I am joined by London

Assembly Member Darren Johnson from the greens, and from Ealing council,

cabinet member responsible for the environment and transport. Darren

Johnson, what do you think of the Tube stations? Is there nothing

that can be done about this? It is ridiculous that they still have not

got a way of turning the lights off at these Tube stations. The once

above ground, obviously. Are we spending too much on street lights?

I think there are massive savings to be made, not by plunging London

into total darkness. We definitely don't want that. But technology is

the answer. If we move to energy saving early delights, we also have

dimming programmes where lights can be deemed in certain areas, we

don't necessarily need a uniform level of brightness across the

You are responsible for the greatest increase in street lights

recently in Ealing. What are you doing to mitigate the effects?

are right. In 2005, residents gave us a clear message. Let there be

light. We have been delivering that throughout Elin. Now that we have

finished their programme, with better street lighting across the

borough, we are looking at a programme of installing street

lights in locations that are crime hot spots. We are also looking

forward to moving towards efficient street lighting. Why are you

putting lighting in just because residents ask for it? They also

want libraries, education, great children's services. Absolutely and

we are working on all of those areas but in 2005 we were one of

the worst boroughs for lighting. I can proudly so that we have

transformed that with the programme that we have. -- proudly say.

you think there is any link between reduction of crime and street

lighting? With this programme we are working with the police and

local representatives to identify locations when you street lighting

will make a real difference to tackle the crime. -- new street

lighting. Also real differences where we have got CCTV, now you can

see what is on the camera. Do you think local authorities are doing

enough? I think there is far more potential to save money and energy.

Obviously we don't want to plunge London into darkness and fear of

crime is important. But also householders are being urged to

save energy in their own homes and quite rightly. The public sector

also needs to get its own house in order and stop wasting money.

we ever spent too much John Whiting? I think Darren has set out

a good plan. Lighting, commensurate with people feeling safe as they

walk the streets, and that is important. Croydon always seems to

be very light. Is there enough? They are putting in an intelligent

lighting system which can be turned down in particular areas so that

the system is flexible. In certain boroughs we have a programme so

that there is a win-lose situation. The borough council wins by saving

money but residents lose out with demonstrates. I am sorry, but...

also need to make sure that struck the tube station is sorted out in

time for the Olympics. It would be embarrassing. -- Stratford to

station. Very illuminating but we have to move on! What else has been

On Monday, Shepherd's Bush was a bad place to be for criminals.

Coppers and cameras the law assembled to mark the transfer of

new powers over policing to this man. I carry the can in the sense

that I want London to be safer and I am pleased that we are achieving

that. The acronym for the new body? Inside London's Government, another

landmark. 12 years after its first meeting, the London Assembly used

to new powers to have its first vote to block one of the Mayor's

policies. The Occupy protesters were occupied with a court case

about how long their occupation would continue. The verdict came

back. Not very long. Just last week on the programme,

outgoing Westminster council leader Colin Barrow told us that plans to

introduce parking charges at evenings and weekends should stay.

We have argued about police numbers already but this new policing Board,

some argue, because it is just the Mayor holding the commissioner to

account, if you like, is less accountable. I think they have done

the sensible thing and separated responsibility between those

running the service, the Mayor and the commissioner, and given the

assembly the role of scrutinising the work. Previously, they were

making decisions and also scrutinising so this separation is

very sensible. Do you think Labour might have encouraged this move?

They didn't do it. The test will be whether it safeguards the safety of

people on the streets. Is this a structure that will oversee the

reduction of crime? Will it preserved in line with the Mayor's

promises the number of people policing the streets? She has got

it back to those numbers. Do you accept that this will be a crucial

issue, with crime going up again, in a mayoral election? We were hit

so hard by it the riots and so I support the police in numbers. The

solution the Prime Minister came up with was to increase them, so the

Mayor is right and keeping the numbers at 32,000 is important. But

what do you do with them? The Mayor deserves a lot of credit to bring

in single patrolling so that we seek more visibility with the

numbers that we have got. Thank you. Welcome back. There have been

tweeting throughout the programme and they are with me now, the

political panel, the best and brightest, I am told, of a new

generation of commentators. Janan Ganesh of the Economist, Isabel

Oakeshott of the Sunday Times and Rowenna Davis of the New Statesman.

Isabel Oakeshott, Chris Huhne, your story. The Sunday Times has agreed

to hand over the communications, emails with his former wife. Has it

done so yet? We will do that next week. The police have been looking

at this for a very long time. The Criminal Prosecution Service has

had a file for a very long time and the fact that they have considered

it so carefully shows how sensitive the case is. This is a sitting

cabinet member and it is a serious allegation. Are there lots of

emails? Will it take the police a long time to go through them?

Speedie when I go through the mouth but the police cannot afford to

make mistakes so they may not be that quick. -- speedy when I go

through emails. You may want to ask me what will happen. What will

happen? If I knew that then I would go to the bookmakers and pile money

on. They all think Chris Huhne is heading for a swift exit. I think

it is a difficult one to call. have seen all of the emails. Are

they incriminating? I can't talk about emails because they are

subject to a confidentiality order from the judge. I think the police

will need to look at all of the evidence. It is a difficult

decision for them to take. Will anybody as the implicated?

Particularly Vince Cable? There are allegations that Chris Huhne sought

advice from home in the past. If it tangled up Vince Cable then it

becomes a much bigger story. If and if Chris Huhne does go, who will

replace him? If he is charged, of course. Yes, and if he does go. The

Tories will push for a much green energy secretary, mindful of rising

energy prices. It is a Lib Dem cabinet post. Yes. One of the

interesting things about this Government is that the ultimate

power for the Prime Minister only exists in some form. There are five

cabinet posts where he does not have the final say. If Nick Clegg

chooses somebody that is not to his liking, there is not much David

Cameron can do. If Chris Huhne goes, they want to put in someone that is

quite new liberal. S Davey, Jeremy Browne, someone like that. That

would be interesting in terms of policy because you are going to get

rid of the strongest socialist democratic influences in that

Cabinet, which could be an interesting branding issue for the

Lib Dems. Actually I think that Nick Clegg gave a strong hint this

morning that he wants David Laws back. It was not a hint. In a way

we are getting ahead of ourselves. Chris Huhne appears to think that

you may be able to stay in position, even if he is charged. I saw that.

What do you make of that? Absolute pie-in-the-sky. My understanding is

that it would be completely unacceptable to have a Cabinet

minister, still doing his job, while facing criminal charges. He

does protect his innocence and that is fair enough. Let's move on.

Welfare, a big story again. Going back to the Lords. Nick Clegg gave

a robust defence of the welfare cap on the Andrew Marr Show. Paddy

Ashdown said that he would vote against it in the Lords. I suspect,

and I have been criticised for mentioning opinion polls too much,

that when you look at opinion polls in this respect, the Tories seem to

be on to a winner. They are prepared to fight on that

battleground because public opinion is on their side. If you look at

the polling numbers, the main grievance that boaters have with

the benefit cabbie's that it is not tough enough. -- voters have with

the benefit cap is that it is not offer enough. David Cameron has

said that he could not believe how tough the public wanting to be on

welfare. He went into the campaign assuming that the Tory policy would

be too harsh, but he is getting the opposite message in town hall

meetings and the like. The Government is very confident on

this issue and if anything it is a challenge for Labour. Do they want

to be seen as supportive of the current rules. It is an

uncomfortable issue for Labour. We saw how Chuka Umunna handled that.

It is very uncomfortable for Labour. They want to so that they agree

with the principle that the incentives of the system are wrong.

They agreed that it is criminal that some people cannot afford to

work in this country. But at the same time there are real problems

with this particular benefit issue. If you take away benefits now,

you'll find that lots of people, and this is raised by the Lib Dems

massively, like Simon Hughes, that people will be homeless. I have to

reject here. Let her reply. This word homeless goes to the heart of

what is going on here. There is a lot of disingenuous spinning going

on. What definition of homeless are you using? If you are in a council

home, it is a very loose definition. If you are in a council home in

Southwark, the rents are incredibly high. Without housing benefit you

either move out or you go onto the street. At the moment there are not

alternative jobs for people to be going into. You are completely

right. Labour cannot win on defending the benefits bill at the

moment and that is where they are being quiet about it and that is

why Chuka Umunna cannot make any points. The Government will be

careful to make sure nobody end up on the street. Imagine these

children in cardboard boxes, like an Indian slum. That is absurd.

Nobody is talking about taking away their housing. They were still be

on a maximum of �400 a week, which is more than MPs get to spend on

their flats. We will talk about health again, which will become an

issue with the Select Committee. We have had most of the major medical

trade unions and authorities and lobbies against the Government

reforms. We now have a Select Committee chaired by the former

Conservative Secretary of State for Health. Tory MPs must be saying

that we have welfare and education reform, why did we go down this

road as well? Lots of Tories are mystified as to how they arrived

here. In opposition their policy on the NHS was effectively that we

love the NHS, at no, really, we really love it. It was a message of

reassurance rather than structural reform. Then in 2010 they found

this bill emanating from Andrew Lansley, proposing exactly that,

radical structural reform of the NHS. Now they are having to unpick

the whole thing. The service in for them to do politically would be to

abandon the whole thing. This is a terrible issue for Labour. Until

recently lots of party members about that the party has been far

too quiet on this. Ed Miliband got a massive cheer for this on his

conference speech, defending the NHS. They are taking a huge gamble

by backing this. There -- I work quite closely on the NHS, and the

consistency of the bill has been jeopardised. They are taking things

away and it is becoming dangerously inconsistent. Andrew Lansley has

one great advantage in this debate, which is that hardly anybody apart

from Andrew Lansley actually understand what the proposals are.

I remember looking at them when this came up last year and they

were fiendishly complicated. This includes Nick Clegg! He did not

understand it. Honestly, I don't blame him and I don't think people

at home as the understand them either. For all the talk of

technical reform of the NHS, there is a clear view in Number 10 that

the public only understand one thing about the NHS, which is

waiting times. If they go up over the cause of this Parliament then

it will be disastrous. And they have started to. This is a negative

issue for the Government. Will Andrew Lansley survive? Will there

be more changes? There is no prospect of an immediate reshuffle.

Yes, there will be if Chris Huhne bites the dust. Not a comprehensive

one. A nobody would want Andrew Lansley's job. Thank you to all

three of you. Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two tomorrow at midday for the