12/02/2012 Sunday Politics London

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The Prime Minister

insists this morning he is at one with Health Secretary, Andrew

Lansley, over the troubled NHS reform. But is the rest of the

Cabinet? Eric Pickles tells us in our top story.

As Greece suffers and Syria bleeds, where does Labour stand on the big

foreign policy issues of the day? Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas

Alexander joins us for the Sunday interview.

And with the Murdoch empire reeling from yet more high profile arrests

at the Sun, we are joined by the media tycoon's chief tormentor,

Labour MP Tom Watson. And as ever, our political panel of

the best and the brightest are here to analyse British politics in the

week ahead, and tweeting throughout the programme.

In London, why the sums didn't add up in the mayor's 14 billion pound

budget. And what will happen to transport and policing in the

All that coming up in the next hour. But first the news with Maxine

Mawhinney. Good afternoon. The singer, Whitney

Houston, has died. She was 48. Los Angeles police say she was found in

her hotel room at the Beverley Hilton yesterday afternoon. From

the mid 1980s until the end of the 1990s, she was one of the world's

# And I will always love you #. Whitney Houston was one of the

world's bestselling artists, unassailable, from the mid- 1980s

to the mid- 1990s. 11 number-one songs in America, 170 million songs

sold worldwide. And six Grammies to her name. She was in Los Angeles

for the awards ceremonies. The tragic last image of a woman whose

voice inspired a generation of female singers. At midnight in Los

Angeles, her body was removed from the Beverly Hilton Hotel, hours

after paramedics had been called but were unable to revive her.

Police still do not know what caused the death. The crime scene

investigators are conducting an investigation to try to determine

the cause of death. She died in a bedroom on the fourth floor of this

hotel. It is the biggest weekend of the year for the music industry and

a party is being hosted this evening. She was due to attend.

This was her last performance. A spontaneous appearance two days ago.

She was seen leaving a nightclub in the early hours of the morning on

the day she died looking worse for wear. There was speculation she was

found in the bath but as yet, it is not known how she died. Whitney

Houston was 48. The Shadow Health Secretary, Andy

Burnham, has urged the government to drop its plans for changing the

health service. He said the moves, which involve giving control over

much of the budget in England to family doctors, were not wanted by

most NHS workers. In a newspaper article today, Mr Cameron gave his

strong support to the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

Rupert Murdoch is expected to fly to Britain in the coming days to

try to tackle a crisis at the Sun newspaper. Last night five senior

journalists on the paper were released on bail after being

arrested over allegations of improper payments to police and

public officials. Mr Murdoch has insisted he is committed to the Sun.

More news on BBC One at 6:35pm. Andrew.

We have always known that the Lib Dems weren't that keen on Andrew

Lansley's health reforms but this week we discovered there is also

considerable disquiet not just among Tory backbenchers, but among

Tory Cabinet Ministers. The Prime Minister, however, is not for

turning. This morning David Cameron insisted that he is at one with his

Health Secretary, and that the plans for the NHS in England will

go ahead. A little earlier this morning I was joined by Cabinet

Minister Eric Pickles. I began by asking him why, after spending

years trying to be trusted on the NHS, the government was proceeding

with reforms the public didn't trust?

It is important that we strengthen the health service and this Bill

will do that by a natural evolution of giving more power to doctors and

clinicians, removing a layer of bureaucracy, and proper regulating

of competition between the state sector and the private sector,

which has always existed in the health service. But you have not

convinced the public. In 2010, the polls showed you were as trusted as

Labour on the NHS. The latest polls show that almost two-thirds of

people do not trust you on the NHS. We have to clearly demonstrate by

these reforms that we will make the National Health Service a stronger

institutions, that we retain that it is given to be a free service,

that it will not be dependent on what you can pay, so we will ensure

that local GPs are in a much stronger position to ensure people

get the right health treatment. why aren't you trusted on the NHS

any more? Why haven't you, Andrew Lansley, the Prime Minister, been

able to convince people? We have to clearly demonstrate that this will

make the health service much stronger. The prime minister says

he is at one with Andrew Lansley. Isn't that a risky place for the

Prime Minister to be, given that so many Tories don't like these

reforms Ivor? You only need to spend some time with the Prime

Minister to understand how passionately he supports the health

service, how passionately he believes in making the health

service stronger. We need to ensure... So why has he not

convinced the people? These reforms will make... Why has he lost the

trust of the British people? need to demonstrate that. We need

to clearly demonstrate that these reforms will work. They are part of

a natural process that has been going on for a considerable time.

When you take on vested interests, sometimes there will be a degree of

controversy but that should not deter you from doing what do you

think is right. Maybe if you could convince your own side. Three

Cabinet ministers urging the most prominent Tory -- Tory blogger for

the Bill to be junked. Another Tory saying you are bankrupt on the

issue. The Cabinet is fully supportive of these measures. The

Cabinet voted for these measures of stock not win three ministers are

urging for it to be junked. -- voted for these ministers. Not when

three Tory ministers voted for it to be junked. The Cabinet that

these reforms because they will make the health service stronger.

One of your colleagues says you are in a phenomenal mess. I am sorry to

hear him saying that. I am sure that once it is clearly

demonstrated that the health service will be stronger by these

reforms, that he will have the grace to admit he was wrong. Do you

deny that three Cabinet ministers urged the Conservative blog to call

for the Bill to be emasculated? have no knowledge of the internal

workings of that blog but what I do know is that I am not aware of any

Cabinet minister that has expressed reservations. You just said the

Cabinet was totally united? I am not aware of the internal workings

of that but I am aware of supportive discussions around the

Cabinet table. Nadine Dorries says Andrew Lansley is toast. What do

you say to her? I suspect that Andrew Lansley will have a long and

distinguished record of the Health Secretary. So she is wrong? I guess

she is wrong. -- yes, she is wrong. Do you think other Tory critics

should now shut up? What I think is massively important is that we move

forward with this Bill. People in the health service want to ensure

that there is stability and continuity. This Bill ensures both

stability and continuity. It is a natural extension of what the

health service has been moving towards for 20 years and indeed,

largely where the Labour Party wanted us to take the health

service. And number of Conservative MPs are saying that they think

these reforms could cost you an overall majority in the next

election? You have to do the right thing. The right thing is to

strengthen the health service. These reforms to strengthen the

health service. They remove bureaucracy and they will save the

best part of �4.5 billion, which can be reapplied to deal with

patients, and that seems to me to be a sensible thing to do. A Tory

MPs said, we cannot win an outright majority next time unless we have

credibility on the NHS and we have lost that credibility. I am sure we

will regain their lead in the polls with regard to the health service

because these reforms, I am sorry to keep repeating this but I think

it is important, they will make the National Health Service much

stronger. And if you do not regain their credibility, you will not win

an outright majority on something as important as the NHS? Being in

government is about doing the right thing and ensuring that something

as important and as precious as the health service comes out of any

period of government stronger than you went in, and that is something

that the Labour Party could not say. Thank you.

With the scenes of bloodshed on our screens every day from Syria, the

continuing British commitment in Afghanistan and the chaos and

trauma inside the eurozone, foreign policy remains a central concern

for British politics. So where does the opposition stand?

Mention Labour and foreign policy and most people think of Tony Blair

and Iraq. Hugely contentious war. It contributed to Labour losing 4.9

It was one of the first issue's Ed Miliband felt he must address.

believe we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to

be honest about that. Wrong because war was not a last resort and

because we undermined the United Nations. Since then Labour has

backed action in Libya. The failure of the Security Council to agree

even on a resolution condemning Syrian brutality has reopened

questions about the role of the United Nations and the

circumstances in which the international community should

intervene. Joining us to discuss that his shadow Foreign Secretary,

Douglas Alexander, Labour used to stand for an ethical foreign policy.

Then we had Tony Blair's liberal interventionism. How would you

summarise it now? I am innately sceptical of a doctrine per se but

in terms of priorities, of course Afghanistan is at the top of the

list with 10,000 British men and women in harm's way, but beyond

that we remain true to my make into nationalist position and we will

take a hard-headed view in some of the changes we are seeing.

Realpolitik? No. It should be informed by values and interests

and that is the approach we will take. On the biggest foreign policy

call of all, since Suez, the Iraq war, did your government get it

wrong? Ed Miliband said it was a mistake. What do you say? Listen,

if I had the opportunity to cast their vote again that was cast in

2003, I would not have voted for action because if we had known then

what we know now, it turned out to be a war that did not need to be

fought. That led to a terrible loss of life, and trust. That is why we

should be informed by Iraq, not paralysed by it. Did you get it

wrong because there were no weapons of mass destruction, the ostensible

cause of the wall? Or because you invaded without UN sanctions?

are arguments in terms of the revival principle, but there is no

dispute that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was a

mistake and that is something that many people have made clear all

their apologies. But would a Labour government take part in

international intervention without UN approval? The Bar has been

raised because of it back. With Libya, there is no doubt it was the

combination of legal authority, and demand by the people of Libya that

allowed Britain and others to participate. I will not speculate

as to the position in the future but I am clear that in terms of

where we are today, for example Syria, that we do need UN backing

and that... I do not get the sense that in the West there is

contemplation of military force. get the idea that the Labour

government would not intervene if they did not get UN sanctions? It

is unlikely? The circumstances need to be judged on a case-by-case

basis. But the principle of getting UN backing where there is action

taking place is crucial. Is there a problem that if you base British

foreign-policy on UN approval...? You talked about your values. Take

that and you may British foreign- policy a hostage of Russia and

I don't think that is what I said. It needs to be judged on a case-by-

case basis. But the context of European forces be used in an Arab

country without local support, it seems to provide a better way

forward. What is the choice we face in Syria? Is it the same as Libya?

No, it is not. That is why I hope the Arab League leaders will

shorten the choice faced by the Syrian regime. I'm still not clear,

do you or do you not to proceed with or without UN support on

military intervention as principle? You make that judgment on a case-

by-case basis. Is it preferable to have United Nations backing? Of

course it is. That is why it was significant and building a broad

coalition in Libya. That would I say that in every circumstance

Britain would not use force without the Russians or the Chinese? Of

course not, we have the right to defend ourselves as a country in

the future. That was the argument with Iraq. The Blair government

said, preferable to going with a UN sanction, if we don't get it we are

still going in. What has changed us to mark the bar of legitimacy has

been raised. There are profound lessons that need to be learnt

after Iraq. The approach that was taken not just in Britain, but in

France, the United States and elsewhere in relation to Libya,

that would not have happened without UN backing. The bar of

legitimacy was raised by the long shadow of Iraq. Syria, there is not

UN sanctions for going in, even if there was I'm not sure many

countries would want to do so. Other than moral support, what

practical support would you give the rebels? There is a meeting of

the Arab League taking place today. I hope they will do a couple of

specific things. First, ensure that sanctions are being imposed by

their own members, principally Lebanon. If you look at the trade

still happening, it is significant. Secondly, save havens for Syrian

fighters that choose to leave the Syrian armed forces, potentially in

Jordan or Turkey. On the board of Turkey, spilling into Syrian

territory itself? We should sharpen the choice facing those military

officers being directed to kill civilians by the regime. You can do

that by providing them something they can go to if they choose to

leave the armed forces. Secondly, we should be publishing the names

of the offices shelling and they bring people in Homs at the moment,

so they are aware that if we see the four of the regime they will be

held responsible for the conduct they are engaged in. The policy of

your party on Europe was clear air at one stage. To prepare to join

the euro, to make a decision when you thought it was right and then

to get support of the British people. Is that still your policy?

No, nobody is seriously contemplating joining the euro on

the Labour front bench for the considerable future. Circumstances

have changed so profoundly from when we were in office and that is

reflected in our thinking. would never say never, but for the

foreseeable future you think it unlikely that Labour's policy would

be to join the euro? I don't think it has been given serious

contemplation at the moment, it is off the agenda. As Ed Miliband

ruled it out? He is in the same position as the rest of us. He says

the first responsibility is to deal with the problems in the eurozone.

Ed is not giving consideration to Britain joining any time soon.

Greek parliament has to take a vote won further austerity plans,

including a cut in the minimum wage, which is not high in the first

place. How should they vote? It's not for me to tell great

parliamentarians how they should exercise their vote. I have deep

concerns that the austerity alone approach being taken by eurozone

countries will actually proved to be inadequate in the face of a

crisis still affecting the country. Is it your policy that the aim of

Brussels and will France and Germany should be to keep the

eurozone with its 17 members as currently constituted? Listen, we

want a stable and prosperous eurozone. There has been

speculation by eurozone leaders themselves as to the future of

individual countries. I don't know if it helps for Britain to join in

that speculation. We are not convinced that the austerity only

approach that is being taken, Greece hasn't seen growth for five

years now, it doesn't have much prospect of success. There needs to

be a plan, but one that addresses the structural problems as well as

immediate decisions being taken by the eurozone the area. Wouldn't it

relieve at least some of the pain on the quick people that it came

out of the euro, devalued the currency and got back to graft?

There are no risk-free options. maybe not as painful as cutting the

minimum wage by 22%? I don't think anybody regards the prospect of a

default by Greece as not carrying severe consequences for the quick

people themselves. There are also potential consequences for other

countries within the eurozone. That is why I hope they will take a more

balanced view in the months ahead. European leaders are insisting that

whoever leads after the election in Athens sticks with the policy.

approach being taken by the eurozone is simply not working.

That is why I fear we have not yet seen the final chapter of this pack

-- crisis. These are extraordinary times for

the tabloid press. After the hacking scandal, the closure of the

News of the World and the launch of the Leveson Inquiry, Britain's most

popular tabloid, The Sun, it is in crisis. The roster of high ranking

journalists have allegations of payments to police and others

forced Rupert Murdoch to assure staff yesterday that he remained

committed to the paper. For months it has been a series of

terrible headlines for the tabloid press. He Iraq news and national HQ

there is a gap on the wall where the News of the World logo used to

be, before the paper was closed down last year. This weekend they

have been allegations against its sister title, The Sun. Rupert

Murdoch says he is still behind the paper, which means people have been

asking the question about whether he is or not. It makes these look

like the glory days. Murdoch and his rivals invented a winning

formula, scoops aplenty mixed with journalism that was campaigning.

And sometimes less so... But recent years have been a shocker. A long

rumbling scandal about phone hacking exploded when the News of

the World was accused of listening to the voice mails of murdered

schoolgirl Milly Dowler. Drawn in to it, David Cameron's former

communications director Andy Coulson, the ex-editor of the News

of the World who has always denied knowledge of the practice. That is

now the subject of a police inquiry and one into the ethics of the

press by Lord Justice Leveson, which has seen a torrent of further

allegations. The Metropolitan Police have been running a separate

investigation into whether illegal payments have been made by the

papers to the police. That is what led to this weekend's arrests of

five senior staff at The Sun, along with an official from the Ministry

of Defence, so what from the odd forces among officer from Surrey

police. -- someone from the armed forces and an officer for the

Surrey police. There is a bigger question, is the good done by these

papers are outweighed by all of the bad they are accused of?

A so, what now for The Sun and tabloids in Britain? We are joined

by Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has led criticism of News

International. We had hoped to be joined by Kelvin MacKenzie, but he

pulled out this morning. Journalists arrested at dawn, drag

to the police station, isn't this process putting proper journalism

in danger? Let me say to you is that the reason I am here today is

that I was hoping to debate Kelvin MacKenzie. I understand, so were we.

Like any tabloid bully, he has run at the sound of gunfire. The point

you make is very important. Derry is a danger of that. We have to

understand how we got here. We got here because this scandal has gone

beyond phone hacking and gone to the very heart of corporate

government at News International, the company led by Rupert Murdoch.

They failed to deal with wrongdoing over many years. Now we have a

police investigation that is going deep. I understand, but I'm

worrying that the spillover into newspaper journalism in general, I

speak to journalists a lot and so do you, they are feeling cowed and

restricted. The Sun journalists say that there is a witch-hunt against

them. Isn't it time to pull back or we will lose free press? The free

press and credibility of it only works when they don't break door or

at least have a cogent view of what public interest is. At we have the

tabloid press on trial by the public because of wrong doing over

many years. Good journalists lost their jobs when they close to the

News of the World. I feel for those very talented tabloid journalists

that must be living in fear at the Sun right now. But he was

responsible for that? The guy at the top, Rupert Murdoch. He creates

the culture that allows these things to go on. It looks like they

have been arrested because of paying for stories. Surely paying

for stories can be justified if it is in the public interest? It would

be wrong of me to speculate too much of why they have been arrested.

They have not been challenged. phone hacking scandal would only

have come into the public domain, I would only have got information, or

rather I would not have got information had it not been for

whistleblowers in the police and at the heart of News International.

The noble tradition of whistle- blowing is what keeps the democracy

clean. A free press is part of that. What is wrong with paying for

stories? When people give information, not because they think

it is right but because of money, that is when the institutions of

democracy are corroded and things start to go very badly wrong.

newspaper had not been prepared to pay, we would never have found out

about the scandal MP expenses. There was a clear public interest

defence on that. So it was not wrong? Personally, I think the

scandal MP expenses goes back to Parliament not being able to

regulate itself. A journalist wrote the story and the officials from

whom they got the story, they had stolen the information and sold it

on. Should these people face investigation and prosecution?

should certainly justify if there was a public interest defence. I

think the Speaker of the House of Commons, in failing to continue

with the internal investigation, took that view. If someone hadn't

paid for the story, that you claim a maximum of �4,000.800, �100,000

on upon -- apartments, as an MP. didn't do that, but what I claimed

was in the park -- public domain. For most people it was not. It was

paid for journalism that got it. I doubt anybody would do that now,

given the climate of fear. I am certain they would. If I was

fiddling my expenses, I am sure that every tabloid newspaper would

be almost like a shot. Would it be OK to pay a Commons official to do

so? There is public interest in all of this, you could have a public

interest defence for hacking a phone if the level of seriousness

warranted it. Would you like to see Rupert Murdoch dispose of his

remaining newspaper and essentially depart these shores? I would like

Rupert Murdoch to stand up for clean investigative journalism. I

would like him to clean up what went on at News International.

don't want him to sell out? That is down to News Corp. You have a view

on those things he does! I just wanted to take responsibility for

what happened that his company. A lot of people lower down the food

chain have carried the can. He's flying into London and should take

his share of responsibility. Given the arrests, and if people are

charged, is he a fit and proper person to hold a licence for Sky?

No, I don't think so. He should be forced to relieve himself of that

percentage? Ofcom have to apply that test. It's clear that over a

number of years wrongdoing took place at a number of newspapers at

News International. Therefore, he is not a fit and proper person to

run a television company. Clear enough. When it comes to paying the

police and other public officials, can we agree it is not confined to

Rupert Murdoch's papers? Everybody tells me that. The only evidence I

have seen personally is what went on at News International. Clearly,

we now have an inquiry that will do that. How did we get here? It is

Rupert Murdoch that appoints bullies like Kelvin MacKenzie,

small children like Dominic Mohan to run these very big institutions

of national newspapers of repute. He is responsible for the personnel

that allowed these things to happen. He must take responsibility for it.

And you don't rule out it could be happening elsewhere? Obviously not.

But I don't know. Now, you are watching Sunday

Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead

with our political paddle. Until then, the Sunday politics across

Hello. In the capital this week we are focusing on the mayor's budget

for next year and where the sums did not quite add up this week and

should be council taxpayer be favoured over the commuter? Here

with us, Mary MacLeod, Conservative MP, and Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP

for Tooting, shadowed Justice Secretary. Can we kick off with a

quick comment about Boris Johnson...? -- shadowed Justice

Secretary. That the London mayor should have control about the rail

service. We do need an integrated approach. I am positive about Boris

been given no opportunity to look across transport -- an opportunity.

Starting outside the capital, it is plagued with difficulties. It is

complex and it would take a lot of planning to get it right but I

think the commuter is often confused by it in terms of where

London starts and stops and when they can use their Oyster Card.

you look at this when you would transport secretary? It is a good

ideas. The problem is, dealing with each individual train operating

company is a nightmare. When Ken began negotiations for the Oyster

Card, it took him years to get it to fruition... The final push from

Boris to make it happen? Myself, actually. The key issue is joined-

up transport. Many commuters live on the outskirts of London, and

have a train operating company where the mayor has no say, and I

think this is a very good idea. A lot of the contracts come up for

renewal over the next few years. Last week we've looked at the use

of injunctions to deal with gangs. This week the Met launched a major

initiative to tackle this problem. It has involved refocusing of

Operation Trident. The essence of this is blaming the police together

with all the other key agencies to bed down on an estimated 250 gangs

responsible for the violent offences in the capital. The worst

thing is to throw things in the air and get rid of the past. We will

build on the success of Operation Trident but it is not a black

problem. The people in gangs and represent the diversity of London.

I don't care what colour they are. You are having all kinds of reviews

about this across the board. Is this the right answer? It is a good

idea. This is the really good idea. It was originally positive three

years ago and the Met police decided not to do it. They did not

want to glamorise being a member of a gang that it is a big issue in

London, not just inner-city London. This Commissioner understands it is

important to be tough on those in gangs but also to find alternatives,

and that means working with councils, abrasion, schools, so

young people have something productive to do -- councils,

probation. So you think this has allowed the problem to get worse?

Three years ago, it was suggested and the then commissioner was not

keen on it. It was certainly five years ago when Ken Livingstone was

mayor? The issue has been going for 20 years, 30 years. I was growing

up with this issue in my community. The important thing is we know

there are part of the country where there has been successful victories

for gangs. Strathclyde in Scotland is a good example. By local

authorities, police and schools, coming together. What is important

it needs to be with education, employment and training for young

people. Many of these communities, prevalent with gangs, the person

who is a role model is the young man who has got a nice car and two

is in a gang. How much is riding on this? -- and who is. Violence is

beginning to go up a game. Crime was down in London by 10% but that

does not mean we ignore this issue of gang culture, which is prevalent

in London. Of the number of gangs, 60 are really serious, that the

police really want to tackle. Given what happened last summer, it is

really important we deal with this and deal with it from a young age.

Looking at families and how families can help to sort out some

of the issues. There is a lot of work that needs to be done and the

Commissioner is right to be launching this and taking it

seriously. These people are doing crimes on a daily basis. If it is

just an enforcement policing thing, will it work? I think it will. When

you have a focused project like this, which is saying this is a top

priority for policing in London, everyone absolutely get on the

Agenda and says, we are going to do this Foster is there the money?

we are going to do this. Is there the money? I think so. The mayor

will make this a priority. We do not want a repeat of last summer.

We will make sure this does not happen again, support the victims

who were hurt by this, and make sure that for London, we are

cutting down gun crime on an ongoing basis. It is not just a

police issue and the police by themselves cannot solve this. You

need a family dimension at a young age. We shall start closing down,

that is a problem. It needs youth offending teams -- Sure Start. The

police by themselves will not lead to the success stories we have seen

in Strathclyde and elsewhere. is where we have to work together.

My Labour council in Hounslow wanted to cut youth counselling

services and we fought against that, ridiculous. We need to support

young people and get them on to the right path so we can have a say for

London. Warned that in a moment. We have enough money for investment in

policing and transport but we are also making sure you do not have to

pay too much. That was the message from Boris Johnson this week that

his opponents says he is making the wrong choices and we found an

embarrassing slip up in the accounts.

This, say his critics say, is foreign -- Boris Johnson's eye-

watering offer to the electorate. By cutting his share of council tax

by 1%, the mayor is giving the average house or 26p a month.

Enough to buy an onion. Conservatives are pleased with what

this symbolises. It means Boris Johnson has been cutting down on

waste and giving you something to put in your pocket. The difficulty

with that message is this: The mayor is taking more out of London

has this year and he was last year. For every �1 he takes on Londoners

in council tax, he takes another �4 through public transport fares, and

the price of travel is rising. So much so that Ken Livingstone is

trying to frame the election debate as one between Boris's 1 onion a

week and his cut in fares, which he claims will save the average

commuter �1,000 over his time in office faster even after the cut,

we will still have the highest fares in the world. Why should they

be twice what it is in Paris? I am embarrassed we are not cutting them

more. When I cut fares at the GLC, we cut them by a third. It is not

just Labour. I think there is the difference between those of us who

would like to see transport fares go down and those of us trying to

put them up. He's a tough times for Londoners and putting fares down is

the only way to go -- these are tough times. The Lib Dems also say

they would cut back on waste at city hall. Why are you spending so

much on police? The senior officers get free chauffeur-driven cars and

accommodation and transport. They are spending large amounts on what

we would call propaganda, publicity films, and not cutting waste.

this is the image of Boris Johnson's City Hall the mayor's

opponents would have us believe? Costs inflating. So is spending

really going up and up and up? The answer has been quite hard to find

out. This is the mayor's budget, signed off by the London Assembly

this week. At first glance it would appear spending is going up by 2.3

billion, or 13%. However we have learnt those figures are wrong.

City Hall made a mistake with the numbers and are out in places by

nearly �4 billion. That is a quarter of the budget or the entire

police end for one year. City Hall told us this was due to a clerical

Boris Johnson was elected on the ticket of driving out waste and

inefficiency at City Hall. This may, you will find his opponents saying

they will do exactly the same to him, and offering London more than

just an onion. I am joined by the mayor's chief of

staff. You are one of the lead offices of this. Did you read the

Budget clearly? Absolutely. We go through this Budget time after time

and it goes before the assembly on many occasions and unfortunately,

there was align with the Crosswell spend that came in and it was

interpreted wrong. -- CrossRail. billion wrong? It was an error in

one particular chart, that's all. Let's not make it more than it is.

Page two of the final copy of the legal document presented to the

London Assembly. Answer that first. No, I have said to you... These are

headline figures. How much are we spending on capital and revenue on

transport, and you check in another 4 billion? Because they put in the

entire CrossRail spend into that. And you did not spot it? It was not

spotted. Can I make the point, that is not keep. The key is, what is

Boris doing with the Budget coming forward? He is reducing the budget.

He has held the budget for four years. That has been a consistent

message that Boris has done. Prior to him, the budget went up by over

�900... You are talking about council tax, not the budget. Yes,

52%. 2011, 934 million. Next year, 935 million. You are spending more

for. Correct but we are also taking on the Housing Corporation, the

Department of local government, the London Thames Gateway Corporation,

the Old El the AA functions. All of these are now absorbed -- LDA. If

you look at that on a year-by-year comparison, Boris Johnson has

reduced by �2 billion. The talking about cutting spending, you are

reducing spending on capital investment, on transport, excluding

CrossRail, next year. How come people are paying big increases if

you are put in less money into the system? Because that happens to be

this bend in that particular year. What does that mean? -- this bend.

You have to look at the spending on infrastructure. If you look at its

going forward, he would see the massive increases of the upgrade of

different lines -- you will see. People will be expected to pay more

and more but you are paying less for Investment? No, it is for

investment. We have to raise that money now so that we can go forward

and do the work. How much of a problem is the amount people are

having to pay for increased fares? Do you accept that the �3.10

reduction in annual council tax bills is scandalous compensation?

�3.10 reduction. It is going down, not up. Under the previous

administration, it was up every year. We know that. This is the

direction of travel. Set it is a gesture. The mayor has held it. It

is now going down. He will continue to drive down costs. The issue on

fares, and yes, the mayor fully accepts they are high. We all

accept that. It is hard. Everybody is finding it hard. But anybody who

uses London Transport knows the problems. They know how creaking

infrastructure is, they know about and Investment. If we do not do

that, in the long term, we will not get cheaper transport. A senior

Conservative said today that those people that use it should pay for

it and the majority of Londoners do not use public transport. Is there

a thinking that it should just be the burden on the commuter? That

subsidy should come down from government and that households

should not pay for transport? don't think that has ever been the

mayor's argument. The mayor has always said he would deliver the

cheapest possible transport system that he can. The mayor has taken

very significant sums of money out of London Transport to pay for the

infrastructure. Going forward in the Budget, you have seen the

Budget, there is 1.7 billion of further reductions. He's a massive

Sadiq Kahn, they have not done badly in very austere times to keep

investment on track? The direction of travel is a year on year

increase in fares. This year, 7%. The direction of travel is a year

on year cuts in police numbers over the next four years. Even Boris

Johnson conceded 1700 drop in police officers. Oh, come on!

is rubbish! That is the direction of travel. He conceded earlier that

the investment is in Crossrail, rather than the creaking Tube. It's

not true to say that the mayor has been prudent and spend money in an

effective way. Most Londoners who use the Tube are finding it really

hard to pay the increase in the fares as a consequence of this

mayor. What is also the case, and I am not sure if he will also say

this is an error, in last year's TfL budget there was an unplanned

surplus of �700 million. In the last six months, a further

unplanned surplus. I want to know one thing from you, a one-off

payment of �90 million to bed at the mayor this year. If you talk to

Nick Herbert, will he guarantee giving that money next year, the

year after, to keep police numbers up? Guarantee it now, it is your

opportunity! I'm afraid I can't guarantee anything. I do think it's

very important for London this year, with the Olympics, that we have the

infrastructure to support London in terms of policing. We will have

1000 more police officers on the streets of London by made 2012.

Sorry, I couldn't get the money guaranteed. One final comment on

transport. And firstly going to deal with the police in numbers.

32,000, there or thereabouts, is the number that Boris is committed

to. Deal with the transport. Like- for-like. 34,300. He is

guaranteeing 1000 more police on the streets. Transport, if you can.

Transport, the investment is on the whole of the rail infrastructure,

not just Crossrail. The sums of money are large, very significant

and spread over a number of years. Thank you for coming in. Stay with

us for the remainder of the spot. What else has been happening in the

City this week? Here is an idea in The consultation on the

controversial London super sewer closed this week, with the expert

who originally recommended a scheme causing a bit of a stinker. He now

considers the proposed scheme to be economically unviable. Lib-Dem MP

Simon Hughes was the latest high- profile personality to receive

damages from the publisher of the News of the World for having his

own act. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the practice of

hacking was widespread. If you are lucky enough to have a ticket for

the London Olympics, it will not be made in Britain. To the

consternation of the British business community, the contract

was awarded to an American firm. Six months from the summer riots

and almost nine out of 10 victims are still waiting for compensation.

So far, the Met have made almost 4000 arrests and 13th hundred

people have been sentenced. 650 received com -- custodial sentences.

Transport for London have announced that 500 blackspot junctions in

London are to be reviewed in a move Quick thoughts, Sadiq Khan. Has

cycling become more dangerous? Is it safe in London? It is not. I am

pleased that The Times newspaper has this fantastic campaign, which

Ken Livingstone has signed up for. Many people would like to cycle to

work, school or college, but they are scared because it is dangerous.

One of your constituents was killed on this roundabout, wasn't she?

That is right. The cycle superhighway is great. I think it

will make it much safer. It's good that they are looking at the 500

junctions, they are also looking at traffic lights to make sure that

lorries get to see cyclists around them. We are heading in the right

direction. It is a serious issue that we need to get on top of but

we are doing the right things. Thanks very much indeed to both of

Don't go thinking there will be no politics, it really doesn't work

that way. What will be grabbing the political headlines in the week

I was looking at the various tax stories, including doors, this

morning, sticking with the 50 pence to operate until 2015, back Tory

backbenchers not getting the married couple's allowance, the

talk of an end to higher tax relief on pensions for the better-off,

child benefit, the 40 pence band to be scrapped and so on. Where is the

conduct in the con-Dem coalition budget? There is no money, that is

the problem. The Lib Dems have set the running on this. They've

recently said that they have been quite aggressive and want the

minimum level for income tax to be raised to �10,000. The onus is now

one then -- now on them to find ways to pay for it. One of the

ideas floating around, at a time when Mr Cameron is not Top of the

Pops with his own backbenchers, this will go down like a lead

balloon. The frustrating thing for Tory MPs is that, having swallowed

a watering down of the Europe veto, and other tough things in recent

weeks, to swallow a budget that is more of a liberal budget than a

Conservative one would be provoking a lot of them into anger. Electa

orally, this is exactly the right move because of the public is

thinking that too many vulnerable people is taking the hit on the

cuts. It also colonises Labour's ground. It is a smooth move, but

Cameron has to pay the cost with his backbenchers. If you think

there are 50 Lib-Dems in Parliament and 300 Conservative MPs, I think

they are thinking, what is the point? What is the point of a

Conservative government if they continually veto these measures?

don't think there was a great amount of expectation from Tory MPs

that there would be something on the married tax allowance. It is an

aspiration, Cameron has never said he was going to do it. The Lib-Dems

have commandeered all of the money for their plan to take lower

earners out of income tax. None of it is a done deal yet. It's going

to be very expensive. There are rumours at the moment going around

saying what is going to come up in the Queen's Speech? The Lib Dems

veto anything that the Conservatives would like to put

forward at the moment. There is a real question, what is the

Conservative government for? marriage tax allowance is being

portrayed as a conservative concession to the Lib Dems. George

Osborne is probably the most socially liberal member of the

Cabinet. He was never desperately keen on the idea to begin with.

Even though Tories are now making these various Treasury based

concessions to the Lib-Dems, they will ask for something in return.

It probably will not be the 50 pence top rate of income tax being

removed, but may be something of labour market regulations to boost

the economy of the supply-side. Let's move on to the NHS, the story

this weekend, it has been for a while. Where are we on these

reforms? I assume the bill will get onto the statute book, right?

always said that and I firmly believe it will. I think where we

are is at a place of weary resignation on the part of the

Prime Minister and every other Cabinet minister in public,

privately, weary resignation. They cannot drop this bill, it will go

through. I get the impression that the people that angry now are the

Lib Dems around Mr Clegg. They are saying, we have gone out on a limb

and now it is the Tories undermining it? There are

strategists at number 10 and Number 11 that secretly wish that the Lib-

Dems have forced them to scrap the bill this time last year. Not just

the bill, Andrew Lansley's future, David Cameron seems to feel

historical loyalty to him, but I don't believe that for a second.

you want a friend in politics, get a dog? Of all the words I would use

to describe David Cameron, sentimental is not one of them. I

think David Cameron still rate him as a policy maker and a technocrat,

and he still rates the Bill as something that will deliver

efficiencies in the NHS. I just think there is short-termism on

this. I completely agree with the Conservative ministers that spoke

out on Conservative Home this week. Anonymously! As they do. Any single

time that the NHS's has anything going wrong between now and the

election, it will depend to David Cameron's door. It is bigger than

the NHS, it is the detoxification of the conservative brand. The NHS

was used to win trust back for the Tories. If that trust wanes, I

think it does have the power to take them down. I think that is

true, but I don't think the next election will be determined by the

NHS. It will be determined by who is the best leader and which party

is the most economically credible. On those measures, until the next

election, I think the Tories still have that. For the question is if

patients will notice any difference. I can't work out if this is a

radical reform or not. I don't think the Government can work that

out. Now they are slightly saying that it is evolution, not

revolution. The chief-executive of the NHS has said that the reforms

are so big we could see them from space. I just don't buy that.

Murdoch, flying into another crisis at News International. Now it is

The Sun. He has kind of lost control of the Standards Committee,

which is doing its own thing and giving the police all of these e-

mails. How big a crisis is this, not just for Mr Murdoch, but the

tabloid press? Potentially it goes beyond the tabloid press. The

profits of the Sun to pay part in cross-subsidising other parts of

the Murdoch empire. Including The Times, I don't know about the

Sunday Times. If The Sun was to go down, that would have implications

not just for the rest of the tabloid sector but for the quality

press as well. If the important thing to say is that The Sun is not

a rogue newspaper and never has been. While I don't want to see the

newspaper industry further clobbered, times are difficult

enough as they are, it would be entirely wrong for an investigation

like this to focus purely on News International titles. Well, it will

go wider? Yes, massively. This is only the beginning. Every time it

tries to be contained, it keeps infecting. The contagion is

constant. What we learned from the News of the World is that none of

these titles are too big to fail any more. This kind of crisis has

come on at the same time that the media is not making much money for

itself at the moment. A combination of that damage of reputation with

the kind of economic damage being done in the media industry I think

it is a pretty lethal combination. I wouldn't take anything of the

table. Some bits of the print media still make a profit. Show-off!

sometimes wonder if Rupert Murdoch doesn't say, right, that's it, I'm

out of here. He might. You are all against a, it's a small part of my

empire. You worked with him, what do you think he is going to do?

still loves his tabloid newspapers. He said clearly yesterday that he

is committed to The Sun. When he feels the need to say that, you

know that there is a question about it was a bare eye implications on

his ability and right to control his broadcast empire as well.

Watson said he didn't think he was a fit and proper person. Next week

it is going to be the police, of course.