:00:46. > :00:49.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. Petrol panic,
:00:49. > :00:55.pastygate, dinners for donors, a week of bad headlines for all David
:00:55. > :00:59.Cameron, so how did Downing Street loses its grip on the news agenda?
:00:59. > :01:03.Joy at Galloway conjured up an astonishing by-election victory in
:01:03. > :01:08.Bradford. -- George Galloway. Has he knocked the stuffing out of
:01:08. > :01:12.Labour? The NHS reforms have made it through Parliament at last, but
:01:13. > :01:16.what will they mean for patience? Andrew Lansley joins us for the
:01:16. > :01:20.Sunday interview. And our panel of the sharpest political journalists,
:01:20. > :01:26.here every week to analyse the week ahead and tweeting non-stop
:01:26. > :01:29.throughout the programme. In London this week, in the first
:01:29. > :01:39.of a series of interviews with the main candidates in the mayoral
:01:39. > :01:40.
:01:40. > :01:43.election, we talk to Jenny Jones All that coming out in the next
:01:43. > :01:47.hour, but first the news with Maryam Moshiri.
:01:47. > :01:53.Good afternoon. The polls are about to close in Burma's parliamentary
:01:53. > :01:56.by-elections. It is expected that Aung San Suu Kyi will win one of
:01:56. > :02:00.the fortified seats being contested. It is the first time her National
:02:00. > :02:03.League for Democracy has taken part in elections for more than 20 years.
:02:03. > :02:06.Rachel Harvey has been following the voting from the capital,
:02:06. > :02:10.Rangoon. Voting has been pressed throughout
:02:10. > :02:14.the day. People are apparently keen to take part in elections in which
:02:14. > :02:18.so much could be at stake. A small number of international monitors
:02:18. > :02:24.are on hand, although they have not been here long enough to assess the
:02:24. > :02:29.entire process. Well, there is a system, it looks as if the system
:02:29. > :02:34.is working, and, you know, we hope that lots of people come out to
:02:34. > :02:37.vote and that there is no problems and then it will be a good day.
:02:37. > :02:40.opposition party led by Aung San Suu Kyi has already complained of
:02:40. > :02:44.irregularities during the campaign and is now citing some problems
:02:44. > :02:48.during polling. The question is whether the imperfections are an
:02:48. > :02:53.attempt to manipulate the outcome or a reflection of inexperience.
:02:53. > :02:57.Burma has only held two elections in the past quarter of a century.
:02:57. > :03:00.The officials here were showing everybody that those ballot boxes
:03:00. > :03:05.were empty. They actually help them up to make clear to everyone there
:03:05. > :03:09.is nothing inside, it is an open process, then they sealed it up.
:03:09. > :03:19.Then they let the first vote to come in, so so far it looks as if
:03:19. > :03:22.
:03:22. > :03:25.Up to 3,000 jobs could be saved at the struggling computer games
:03:25. > :03:29.retailer or Game after a deal to buy half of the stores was reached.
:03:29. > :03:34.It is expected around 300 branches in the UK and Ireland could be
:03:34. > :03:38.saved after a deal with Opcapita. Foreign Secretary William Hague has
:03:38. > :03:42.defended the Government's handling of the petrol crisis. He said it
:03:42. > :03:47.had been caused by the threat of strike action by tanker drivers,
:03:47. > :03:51.not by government ministers urging motorists to top up their time
:03:51. > :03:58.sensed or petrol. It prompted a wave of panic buying at the arms. -
:03:58. > :04:01.- to top up thought -- to top up there tanks or store petrol.
:04:01. > :04:05.think ministers would have been criticised either way, because it a
:04:05. > :04:10.strike took place and they had not alerted people, it would be said
:04:10. > :04:15.that they were complacent and prepare the country. The country is
:04:15. > :04:19.any better State Opera Paribas now than it was a week ago. -- is in a
:04:19. > :04:26.better state of preparedness. Air Passenger Duty has been
:04:26. > :04:30.increased by around 8% to �13 for short-haul flights and �92 for
:04:30. > :04:33.longer all journeys. Airlines have criticised it as a tax on tourism,
:04:33. > :04:38.but the government says airlines will benefit from a reduction in
:04:38. > :04:43.corporation tax. More news here on BBC One at 6:30pm. Andrew.
:04:43. > :04:46.After what many see as David Cameron's was weak as Prime
:04:46. > :04:50.Minister, more details in today's Sunday Times about former
:04:50. > :04:54.Conservative treasurer Peter Cruddas and undisclosed meetings
:04:54. > :04:57.between the Prime Minister and a wealthy party backers. We can talk
:04:57. > :05:01.to political correspondent Iain Watson. The Tories are behind the
:05:01. > :05:04.curve once again. Last week they said, we will not publish the
:05:04. > :05:08.details of private dinners, but they were forced to do so, but now
:05:08. > :05:12.more have come out and they will have to do the same again. I think
:05:12. > :05:15.we should be clear, Andrew, that this week's story is not in the
:05:15. > :05:20.same league as last week's. Then the allegation was cash for
:05:20. > :05:23.influence, if you have got a big cheque and you are a Conservative
:05:23. > :05:27.donor, you can have direct influence over policy. Peter
:05:27. > :05:32.Cruddas said it was bluster but he resigned. This week the story is
:05:32. > :05:35.about transparency and openness. As you were mentioning, in the wake of
:05:36. > :05:40.last week's story, we had a list published of all the dinners which
:05:40. > :05:44.the Prime Minister had hosted with party donors at official residences.
:05:44. > :05:47.Peter Cruddas' name does not appear on those lists, but the Sunday
:05:47. > :05:51.Times has released footage of him boasting of being at an event at
:05:51. > :05:56.Chequers. What Number Ten are saying is that they only ever
:05:56. > :06:00.promised to publish a list of dinners, not a list of events that
:06:01. > :06:04.any donor might have attended. What Labour are saying is that it is
:06:04. > :06:06.time the government came clean and gave us a new list of all meetings
:06:07. > :06:10.which the Prime Minister has had with donors, what he has promised
:06:11. > :06:14.to do so far is the more open in future, to give us more details of
:06:14. > :06:18.future meetings that he has with people who are filling Conservative
:06:18. > :06:24.Party coffers. Is that the end of the story? Where does it go from
:06:24. > :06:27.here? It is not so much just about this story, and I have been saying
:06:27. > :06:30.since the Budget that the government has been plagued by
:06:30. > :06:35.political donations, pasties and petrol. There is a feeling that it
:06:35. > :06:39.might be reaching a defining moment for this government. It is possible,
:06:39. > :06:43.some Conservatives say, that they will recover, perhaps with a change
:06:43. > :06:47.in backroom personnel, perhaps by improving communications or seeing
:06:47. > :06:51.the petrol prices subside. Just as Tony Blair's government recovered
:06:51. > :06:56.from a deficit in the opinion polls in 2000 against weak opposition,
:06:56. > :07:00.this government could do the same. But there are wider fears here that
:07:00. > :07:04.we might be approaching a black Wednesday moment. Back then the
:07:04. > :07:07.government, for a long time, lost their reputation for economic
:07:07. > :07:12.competence, and there is a fear that everything taken together, the
:07:12. > :07:15.Government might be creating the kind of impression of permanent or
:07:15. > :07:18.semi-permanent impression in voters' minds that we are not all
:07:18. > :07:21.in this together, that they are out of touch with ordinary people's
:07:21. > :07:25.concerns. That would make a political recovery far more
:07:25. > :07:30.difficult, and that is what is looking Conservative MPs this
:07:30. > :07:33.weekend. We will investigate that Thorpe now. The week started with
:07:33. > :07:36.the Tory treasurer caught on camera offering access to the prime
:07:36. > :07:40.minister in return for hundreds of thousands of pounds. It ended with
:07:40. > :07:44.Labour's crushing defeat in the Bradford by-election at the hands
:07:44. > :07:49.of George Galloway. In between, we have had rows over the Leeds
:07:49. > :07:54.pasties and whether or not to fill up a jerry can with petrol. Here is
:07:54. > :07:57.Adam Fleming with a review of the past extraordinary seven days.
:07:57. > :08:05.Thanks to the government, connoisseurs of terrible tabloid
:08:05. > :08:09.word play have had a wonderful week. PM admits hosting donors at flat!
:08:09. > :08:14.That concerned the sting by the Sunday Times which caught the
:08:14. > :08:16.former Tory treasurer offering dinner with the Camerons at Number
:08:16. > :08:20.Ten in return for big donations to the party. With the government
:08:20. > :08:26.published a list of donors who dined in the flat? No way, they
:08:26. > :08:31.said, until they did a few hours later. Petrol, Number Ten fuels
:08:31. > :08:34.panic. This one was the result of some government advice to stock up
:08:34. > :08:38.on petrol just in case tanker drivers go on strike in the next
:08:38. > :08:44.few weeks. At the greater the extent to which people have petrol,
:08:44. > :08:48.fuel in their vehicles, maybe a little bit in the garage as well,
:08:48. > :08:52.in a Gerry McCann, the longer we will keep things going. Except that
:08:52. > :08:57.last bit is potentially dangerous and possibly illegal, highlighted
:08:57. > :09:02.when a woman suffered burns trying to decant petrol in a kitchen. Out-
:09:02. > :09:06.of-touch Tories hire and dry! This was the result of the Chancellor
:09:06. > :09:09.admitting to MPs that he could not remember the last time he had been
:09:09. > :09:13.to an well-known chain of high- street bakers, even though he is
:09:13. > :09:18.slapping VAT on hot Beitbridge to take away, through prime-
:09:18. > :09:23.ministerial attempts to shore up the pass the boat. The last one I
:09:23. > :09:28.bought was from the West Cornwall as the company. I seem to remember
:09:28. > :09:34.I was in Leeds station at the time. Except that shop closed five years
:09:34. > :09:39.ago. For Labour, revenge was a dish best served slightly warmed as they
:09:39. > :09:44.trooped to their local graves. hereby declare that George Galloway
:09:44. > :09:47.is duly elected. All the main parties were blown away by the news
:09:47. > :09:52.from Bradford West in the early hours of Friday morning that George
:09:52. > :09:56.Galloway had done it again, snatched a safe seat from Labour
:09:56. > :10:00.for his respect party. Adam Fleming looking back on a week of
:10:00. > :10:05.communication problems, to put it kindly, for the Conservatives and a
:10:05. > :10:09.disastrous by-election result for Labour, to put it bluntly. I joined
:10:09. > :10:12.by George Eustice, former press secretary in opposition, and the
:10:12. > :10:16.Labour Shadow Cabinet Office minister Michael Dugher, former
:10:16. > :10:21.chief political spokesman for Gordon Brown. George Eustice, the
:10:21. > :10:25.petrol crisis, the UK petrol industry association, with all its
:10:25. > :10:30.authority, described the panic buying as, quote, self-inflicted
:10:30. > :10:34.insanity. That is entirely down to the government, isn't it? Well,
:10:34. > :10:38.hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if you look at a different kind of
:10:38. > :10:43.media context for the type of thing that Francis Maude was saying, you
:10:43. > :10:47.might have got a different response. He would need hindsight to note
:10:47. > :10:52.that you would start a panic if you urged people to fill jerry cans?
:10:52. > :10:54.You would need hindsight to know that? There has been a huge media
:10:54. > :10:58.over-reaction, and it might have been a short bit of government
:10:58. > :11:04.advice that was number five on a news item and it suddenly became a
:11:04. > :11:08.raging row for three days due to the way the media reacted. Petrol
:11:08. > :11:13.stations, the media is not to blame for petrol stations running dry,
:11:13. > :11:18.queues around the block as try to fill up. That his government
:11:18. > :11:22.ministers! What they were trying to do was to make sure that we were
:11:22. > :11:28.prepared for a potential strike, that people had more petrol in the
:11:28. > :11:32.tank than they otherwise would. used Art of Touch You Never Saw
:11:32. > :11:36.that would cause panic? -- are you so out of touch that you never saw
:11:36. > :11:39.that would cause panic? Look, the advice was to maybe fill up if
:11:39. > :11:43.there was going to be a strike, and the reaction has been rather
:11:43. > :11:47.extraordinary. As I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the
:11:47. > :11:51.Government would not have chosen to do that given the way things have
:11:51. > :11:56.turned out. So it is all tickety- boo, no problem with communications
:11:56. > :12:00.in Downing Street whatsoever. they have got to do... Is there a
:12:00. > :12:05.problem? He was a long run-up to the Budget, and the media get bored
:12:05. > :12:08.of the same story day-in, day-out. They got to the problem when they
:12:08. > :12:11.needed a change in the story, the Budget was a moment for that.
:12:11. > :12:15.George Osborne was robbed of all the good announcements because they
:12:15. > :12:19.were leaked, and we have had a remarkable change in sentiment in
:12:19. > :12:22.the media, a very febrile atmosphere at the moment, and it is
:12:22. > :12:26.difficult for the government to get a good hearing. My advice would be
:12:26. > :12:30.to do nothing for the next government, apart from time to get
:12:30. > :12:37.Boris Johnson elected, but then work on a very coherent plan for
:12:37. > :12:40.after made to get back in the saddle. Michael Dugher, why were Ed
:12:40. > :12:44.Balls and Ed Miliband scoffing sausage rolls in Greggs in Redditch
:12:44. > :12:50.when they should have been fighting the Bradford by-election? There are
:12:50. > :12:52.a number of lessons we have got to learn from Bradford. I mean, I
:12:52. > :12:56.think we seriously underestimated the George Galloway effect,
:12:56. > :13:00.particularly in the last week of the campaign. Ed Miliband has said
:13:00. > :13:02.we are going to learn those lessons. By-elections sometimes throw up
:13:02. > :13:06.results like this when the mainstream parties get their
:13:06. > :13:10.backside kicked. That is what happened to all the mainstream
:13:10. > :13:14.parties last week. We make no bones about it, it was a Labour seat, we
:13:15. > :13:17.should have held onto that seat. Why were you like a bunch of kids
:13:17. > :13:23.in Redditch having great jokes at the Tories' expense instead of
:13:23. > :13:25.knocking on doors in Bradford? Greggs is a successful, expanding
:13:25. > :13:30.company, and it is no bad thing for political leaders to be buying a
:13:30. > :13:34.sausage roll. There has been a lot of media interest around that this
:13:34. > :13:39.week. We know why they were buying sausage rolls, we are not entirely
:13:39. > :13:43.stupid. Because the Government slapped VAT on sausage rolls and
:13:43. > :13:47.pasties whilst giving millionaire's tax cuts. There is a serious point
:13:47. > :13:50.to this. In Bradford there were some organisational reasons behind
:13:50. > :13:54.the fact that while Labour and the other mainstream parties did so
:13:54. > :14:01.badly, I think it is possibly the first by-election in history that
:14:01. > :14:05.was fought and even won on Social media. You had George Galloway with
:14:05. > :14:08.85,000 followers on his Facebook page. Our candidate was knocking on
:14:08. > :14:11.doors the old-fashioned way. George Galloway was able, particularly in
:14:11. > :14:15.the last week, to connect with a whole bunch of people who have not
:14:15. > :14:20.been voting in previous elections. There are big lessons for Labour
:14:20. > :14:23.and all the mainstream parties. have lost Scotland, you have lost
:14:23. > :14:30.Bradford West. If you do not win London, Mr Miliband has a
:14:30. > :14:32.leadership crisis, doesn't he? opinion polls put Ed Miliband and
:14:33. > :14:37.the Labour Party nine points ahead in the national polls. We are
:14:37. > :14:43.working very hard to win back trust in Scotland. If you take elections
:14:43. > :14:46.one year ago, Labour won 850 councillors. We have won every by-
:14:46. > :14:51.election in recent months. Bradford was a setback, but we need to learn
:14:51. > :14:54.lessons about what happened in that particular constituency. Across
:14:55. > :14:58.England and in Wales, in Glasgow and in other parts of the country,
:14:58. > :15:01.we will be taking the argument that this is a government that is out of
:15:01. > :15:06.touch, cutting taxes for millionaires while hitting hard-
:15:06. > :15:15.pressed pensioners and ordinary working families. George Eustice,
:15:16. > :15:25.what is worse for the Government, being seen to? -- to be out of
:15:26. > :15:26.
:15:26. > :15:34.Neither a very good, but neither a true. There has been a change in
:15:34. > :15:38.media sentiment. There is a cycle. The goal from sinking the
:15:38. > :15:41.government is good to thinking the Government is very bad. -- they go
:15:41. > :15:48.from thinking. The Government has to focus on getting a clear,
:15:48. > :15:51.coherent plan for after May. If Boris Johnson is elected, the
:15:51. > :15:55.weather will change. The media sentiment will change. The
:15:55. > :16:00.Government will have a chance of getting a fairer hearing. Are you
:16:00. > :16:04.wonder pressure to stop the pasty tax? Absolutely. I will be trying
:16:04. > :16:10.to amend it. Many of the manufacturers are in my
:16:10. > :16:14.constituency. All these cock-ups from Downing Street, the
:16:14. > :16:19.communications disasters, it must remind you of your time in Downing
:16:19. > :16:25.Street with Gordon Brown. Last week, I did wonder, I don't think Downing
:16:25. > :16:30.Street is very good at crisis management and PR. There is an
:16:30. > :16:34.increasing sense, reading reports today about the Government's
:16:34. > :16:39.handling of the fuel dispute, the RADA ports -- there are reports
:16:39. > :16:44.that David Cameron told the cabinet that petrol panic would not be a
:16:44. > :16:48.bad thing. There has been an increasing sense that what Downing
:16:48. > :16:54.Street did was were popping crisis around the dispute, to distract
:16:54. > :16:58.attention from bad headlines about Tory donors. But it backfired
:16:58. > :17:02.spectacularly. The people who paid the price are my constituents and
:17:02. > :17:07.others, stuck unnecessarily in massive queues. I think it was a
:17:07. > :17:13.crisis home-made in Downing Street and whipped up by stupid comments
:17:13. > :17:18.by ministers. Party funding is back in the headlines this morning. Both
:17:18. > :17:26.major parties, all three mainstream parties have problems with funding.
:17:26. > :17:30.Is there anything more that Labour can do to get some resolution?
:17:30. > :17:34.things need to happen. First, we have consistently said we want to
:17:34. > :17:38.get around the table with the other political parties and negotiate are
:17:38. > :17:44.a reform of party funding. We want to take the big money out of
:17:44. > :17:49.politics. We said we are prepared to look at a cap on spending, and a
:17:49. > :17:52.cap of �10,000 on donations to political parties. The political
:17:52. > :17:56.parties need to get around the table, soon. There has to be
:17:56. > :18:04.greater transparency. Last week Ed Miliband published not just his
:18:04. > :18:09.dinners, but all the meetings he has had. With anyone who has given
:18:09. > :18:16.the Labour Party �7,500. David Cameron has refused to match that
:18:16. > :18:19.and will only publish some details. With today's revelations, until
:18:19. > :18:27.David Cameron stops hiding his relationship with donors, the cloud
:18:28. > :18:32.hanging over the Government will not go away. Thank you both. The
:18:32. > :18:36.Government's NHS bill finally became law this week. No mean feat
:18:36. > :18:39.for Andrew Lansbury. -- Andrew Lansley. He has faced opposition
:18:39. > :18:44.from the Lib Dems and calls to drop the Bill from his own side but
:18:44. > :18:54.along the way he has had to agree major changes. At last in a moment
:18:54. > :18:54.
:18:54. > :18:58.how at the NHS in England will change. -- I will ask him in a
:18:58. > :19:08.moment how the NHS will change. In his first conference speech as
:19:08. > :19:12.
:19:12. > :19:18.leader, David Cameron spelt out his top priority. In three letters, NHS.
:19:18. > :19:25.Let us make this commitment, no more pointless reorganisations of
:19:25. > :19:31.our National Health Service. That personal view was turned into an
:19:31. > :19:37.election poster but they did not win the election. The sun is
:19:37. > :19:40.shining. Two parties now had a say on health. The coalition agreement
:19:40. > :19:45.laid out common ground but two months later, it was clear that
:19:45. > :19:51.wholesale reform was on the cards. When the Health and Social Care
:19:51. > :19:57.Bill was presented in January last year, it said patients first. PCTs
:19:57. > :20:02.out and GPs in. And all this as the NHS had to make huge savings.
:20:02. > :20:07.Health unions said that it was disrupting privatisation. The
:20:07. > :20:13.concerns of health professionals could not be ignored. Then Lib Dem
:20:13. > :20:16.party members voted at their conference against the bill. The
:20:16. > :20:20.former health spokesman threaten to resign if changes were not made.
:20:20. > :20:24.have said that if it is impossible for me to carry on, I will step
:20:25. > :20:31.down. We propose to take the opportunity of a natural break in
:20:31. > :20:37.the passage of the bill two Pauls, listen and engage with those who
:20:37. > :20:43.want the NHS to succeed. -- two balls. There was an eight week
:20:43. > :20:49.listening exercise. Cameron, Clegg and Lansley toured hospitals and
:20:49. > :20:52.the bill re-emerged in June with amendments. Growing hostility from
:20:52. > :20:55.professional bodies threatens to put the bill on wide support and by
:20:55. > :21:01.January, the Royal College of midwives and other unions were
:21:01. > :21:07.openly opposed. Others were allowed to engage with government but had
:21:07. > :21:12.objections. Concerns were echoed in the Lords, where over 1000
:21:12. > :21:17.amendments were suggested. It began to seem that the survival of the
:21:17. > :21:22.built lay in the hands of a veteran peer, not the Health Secretary,
:21:22. > :21:25.whose fate seemed to be in hand of a veteran at union rep, and a
:21:25. > :21:29.conservative bloc which suggested that Cabinet ministers and Tories
:21:29. > :21:34.wanted the bill dropped. But the bill stayed and last week it became
:21:35. > :21:44.law. Andrew Lansley joins me for the
:21:45. > :21:45.
:21:45. > :21:49.Sunday interview. The health reforms are now law and
:21:49. > :21:52.they have to be implemented. Rather than go over the old ground, let us
:21:52. > :21:58.look at what they will mean for patients in England watching this
:21:58. > :22:03.programme. Simply and concisely, explain what they will mean for NHS
:22:03. > :22:07.patients. It means that patients will get more information and more
:22:08. > :22:12.choice. An opportunity to choose their GP practice, to choose who
:22:12. > :22:15.looks after them, often when they are being referred for treatment,
:22:15. > :22:21.to have greater choice about services. Not only which hospital
:22:21. > :22:25.they go to, but who is providing the services in the community.
:22:25. > :22:29.Secondly, the bill is clear that these services have to be more
:22:29. > :22:34.joined-up. We're going to see more integrated services, including
:22:34. > :22:38.social care. Imagine you are someone with a long-term condition
:22:38. > :22:43.like diabetes. You're more likely to be able to say that if you have
:22:43. > :22:48.severe diabetes, not only do I know who Meyer -- who is responsible for
:22:48. > :22:55.my care in the community, but also if I need support from the local
:22:55. > :23:02.authority, that social care, too. Secondly... Thirdly. OK, thirdly.
:23:02. > :23:06.The GP with whom your registered, they have an ability to see the
:23:06. > :23:11.needs that you have. Instead of unaccountable bureaucracy, we will
:23:11. > :23:15.save money by cutting out two tears of bureaucracy. The GPS,
:23:15. > :23:20.collectively, will be able to design the services that you need
:23:20. > :23:26.locally. There will be somebody who knows your services. Additionally,
:23:26. > :23:30.there will be a stronger voice for patients. HealthWatch, in every
:23:30. > :23:37.area, will be able to speak up for patients. And the local authority
:23:37. > :23:42.is a central part of this. If -- they will be at the heart of trying
:23:42. > :23:48.to improve health for the future. Local campaigns to improve teenage
:23:48. > :23:54.pregnancy, to reduce obesity and improve sexual health, those things
:23:54. > :23:56.will be able to impact across a whole community. I'm not sure our
:23:56. > :24:03.viewers will find that simple or concise. I think it is pretty
:24:03. > :24:07.simple. I'm still not sure, and it took five points. It is a big bill.
:24:08. > :24:13.Will we see improvements as a result of these reforms in time for
:24:13. > :24:17.the next election? Yes. We are looking to achieve not only that
:24:17. > :24:21.the services continue to improve, so the number of people waiting
:24:21. > :24:25.more than 18 weeks for operations have gone down since the election.
:24:25. > :24:29.We have seen hospital infections at the lowest levels at but we want to
:24:29. > :24:34.go beyond that. We want to measure the things which are the principal
:24:34. > :24:41.results for patients, and see them improve, things like measuring
:24:41. > :24:47.survival after diagnosis. Let us go on to details. First of all, the
:24:47. > :24:53.British attitude survey. This shows satisfaction with the NHS. It has
:24:53. > :24:57.gone from 34% satisfaction in 1997 to 70% in 2010. Quite an
:24:57. > :25:03.achievement for the last government. Well you're reforms take
:25:03. > :25:07.satisfaction rates higher by 2015? A one of the things I was going to
:25:07. > :25:14.say, when you look at the results, part of it is measuring patients
:25:14. > :25:17.experience. Well that go up? -- will that go up? That does not
:25:17. > :25:26.measure that. It measures satisfaction. Well satisfaction
:25:26. > :25:30.rise? We are measuring patients' experience. But it has not covered
:25:30. > :25:33.all the things that need to be covered. If you were a young person
:25:34. > :25:43.under the age of 16, your experience of the NHS was never
:25:44. > :25:44.
:25:44. > :25:49.measured. Let us stick... The short answer. This is a simple thing. The
:25:49. > :25:53.British Social attitudes Survey is well respected. I know you are not
:25:53. > :25:57.going to fund it any more, but The King's Fund will fund it. Will that
:25:57. > :26:01.rise as a result of these reforms? Our objective is to improve the
:26:01. > :26:07.results. What matters to patients is their experience, so we are
:26:07. > :26:10.looking to improve the reports from patients of the quality of care
:26:10. > :26:15.they experience. That is what matters. Likewise, we are looking
:26:15. > :26:19.to people with long-term conditions, never measured in the past. For the
:26:19. > :26:23.first time, we will measure the experience of quality of life for
:26:23. > :26:27.people living at home with long- term conditions. There are 17
:26:27. > :26:32.million such people, with diabetes, asthma, respiratory diseases. They
:26:33. > :26:37.need to know that we are measuring how we improve the quality of their
:26:37. > :26:46.care. You are not answering that. More specifically, cancer survival
:26:46. > :26:50.rates. Let us look up breast cancer as an example. This shows, in a
:26:50. > :26:56.as an example. This shows, in a study by the Lancet, that England
:26:56. > :27:01.lags behind Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada. Specifically,
:27:01. > :27:06.will your reforms improve breast cancer survival rates?
:27:06. > :27:09.intention is to ensure improvement intention is to ensure improvement
:27:09. > :27:14.in one year and five year cancer survival rates. Nor will the
:27:14. > :27:18.international average, but exceeding it. -- 0 below. We want
:27:18. > :27:24.to have succeeded the international averages by 2015, and aim for the
:27:24. > :27:29.best. If we were to achieve, across the main cancers, survival after
:27:29. > :27:33.diagnosis that was amongst the best in the world, we could save up to
:27:34. > :27:39.10,000 lives a year. If we do not move up the ladder, these reforms
:27:39. > :27:45.will not have succeeded? That's right. The reforms are about
:27:45. > :27:49.improving cancer survival. That is a specific way to judge it. Coming
:27:49. > :27:54.on to the right of patients to be treated within 18 weeks, which is
:27:54. > :27:59.enshrined in the NHS constitution. When you came to power there were
:27:59. > :28:04.over 20,000 NHS patients, waiting more than 18 weeks. Will these
:28:04. > :28:09.reforms result in fewer patients having to wait 18 weeks? Yes. The
:28:09. > :28:14.objective is to meet the NHS constitution and improve it. You
:28:14. > :28:17.have not mention the current figure, which is below 9000. We have more
:28:17. > :28:26.than halved the number of patients waiting more than a year for
:28:26. > :28:30.treatment. Again, if you do not see eight clear improvement on the 18
:28:30. > :28:36.weak figure and the number of patients waiting more, we can judge
:28:36. > :28:41.that the reforms do not work? It is a constitutional right. We
:28:41. > :28:46.are looking to improve the quality of the NHS. We can also demonstrate
:28:46. > :28:49.how it will happen because in the document published this week on
:28:50. > :28:55.improving public services more openly, were part of it is
:28:55. > :28:59.precisely about giving patients more information so that when they
:28:59. > :29:03.book operations they can see if the hospital that they are booking with
:29:03. > :29:12.his meeting its obligation to treat patients with an 18 weeks. You're
:29:12. > :29:15.kidding us some yardsticks. -- you are giving us. Critics have charged
:29:15. > :29:20.that what you're doing amounts to the privatisation of the health
:29:20. > :29:22.the privatisation of the health the privatisation of the health
:29:22. > :29:27.service. The Act allows NHS service. The Act allows NHS
:29:27. > :29:31.hospitals to use half of their best for private patients. -- half of
:29:31. > :29:36.their beds. Is it any wonder that people suggest you are privatising
:29:36. > :29:41.the health service? It allows the hospital foundation trusts to
:29:41. > :29:44.secure private income. If Moorfields Hospital sets up a
:29:44. > :29:50.clinic in Dubai, which they have done, they may secure private
:29:50. > :29:54.income. It has not affected the availability of beds. You pick a
:29:54. > :30:01.specific hospital, but in general foundations will be allowed to take
:30:01. > :30:05.up to 49% of private patients. only if the effect of that, of
:30:05. > :30:10.whatever they do in terms of private income, is to benefit NHS
:30:10. > :30:14.patients. They have to demonstrate how it will benefit NHS patients.
:30:14. > :30:18.The largest proportion of private income of any hospital in the
:30:18. > :30:24.country is the Royal Marsden, who have about 27%. Again, you pick a
:30:24. > :30:27.specialist London hospital. They have 26% private income and they
:30:27. > :30:32.have consistently excellent performance in terms of their
:30:32. > :30:37.services to NHS patients. The two things are not contradictory.
:30:37. > :30:42.people watching this and experts in terms of the health service, they
:30:42. > :30:46.simply say, look, if you increase the number of private health beds,
:30:46. > :30:52.surely it follows that there will be fewer for NHS patients. That
:30:52. > :30:57.does not fall tall. Why not? If the NHS were to put alongside its
:30:57. > :31:00.existing facilities a joint venture with an international hospital
:31:00. > :31:03.group to provide services to patients from overseas, and there
:31:03. > :31:07.are hospitals to have done that and we'll do it in the future, does
:31:07. > :31:11.that reduce the services for NHS patients? I think we have to be
:31:11. > :31:16.clear, under legislation set this out, that they cannot cross
:31:16. > :31:25.subsidise any private activity. Private activity, which may be for
:31:25. > :31:31.international patients, has to You want doctors to be able to
:31:31. > :31:36.refer patients to private providers. It they are qualified to provide to
:31:36. > :31:41.NHS patients. You get the private sector provides more services and
:31:41. > :31:45.the NHS less and less? We have set up a level playing field. It is not
:31:45. > :31:49.a matter of not caring. I want to get the best services for patients,
:31:49. > :31:54.and from my point of view, what I also care about is not
:31:54. > :31:59.discriminating against the NHS. Under Labour, they introduced
:31:59. > :32:03.contracts for private sector to do NHS operations, they pay them more
:32:03. > :32:08.than the NHS, they told NHS hospitals that they could not
:32:08. > :32:12.compete for those contracts, and they ended up paying �250 million
:32:12. > :32:17.to private hospitals for operations that never took place. The
:32:17. > :32:21.legislation, for the first time, prevents any government
:32:21. > :32:25.discriminating in favour of private providers. If more procedures are
:32:25. > :32:31.done by private providers, within the NHS... Widely assumed that
:32:31. > :32:37.would be the case? I said Ife. Let's not assume that. Does it
:32:37. > :32:42.matter to you that the NHS will end up with fewer clinical facilities?
:32:42. > :32:48.I do not think it will. It did, would it matter? The legislation is
:32:48. > :32:51.clear. If there were any services that the NHS required in an area,
:32:51. > :32:56.NHS phone services, not just private ones, that when necessary
:32:56. > :33:00.in order to maintain services, the regulator would step in to ensure
:33:00. > :33:06.they were maintained. I think what worries people, political donations
:33:06. > :33:10.of very big in the news, as you well know right now. Your party has
:33:10. > :33:15.had 300 donations from private healthcare companies, totalling
:33:16. > :33:18.over �8 million in 11 years, over 100 Tory peers and MPs have
:33:18. > :33:23.connections to private healthcare. No wonder people are worried about
:33:23. > :33:26.privatising it. There is nothing in the legislation which permits
:33:26. > :33:31.privatisation of NHS services. took 8 million from healthcare
:33:31. > :33:35.providers. I have never looked at it. You should. He fact of the
:33:35. > :33:42.matter is that I have been the party's spokesman on health for 8
:33:42. > :33:46.1/2 years. At no stage, in no way, has anybody secured any influence
:33:46. > :33:50.over our policy by giving donations. They just give it out of the
:33:50. > :33:54.kindness of their hearts! Presumably because they supported
:33:54. > :33:58.the Conservative Party. Because you are expanding their business.
:33:58. > :34:01.is nothing in the legislation, as you yourself have said, you'll
:34:01. > :34:06.postulating a hypothesis about the private sector doing better than
:34:06. > :34:09.the NHS. It is perfectly possible that NHS hospitals, not
:34:09. > :34:13.discriminated against in the way that Labour did, can deliver better
:34:13. > :34:16.and more efficient services, and they are doing that at the moment.
:34:16. > :34:20.We are seeing productivity increases that we did not see under
:34:20. > :34:23.Labour, and that means NHS hospitals will be in a stronger
:34:23. > :34:28.place to provide services that patients need. Jo questions about
:34:28. > :34:33.where we go from here. If you are re-elected in 2015, can you give a
:34:33. > :34:38.pledge that there will be no more major reorganisation of the NHS?
:34:38. > :34:42.The manifesto for 2015 was at that out. The legislation is very clear.
:34:42. > :34:47.I'm not asking for that, you gave a pledge, and I do not think you can
:34:47. > :34:51.or want to, that there will be no more major reorganisation. From my
:34:51. > :34:55.point of view, and I'm sure the same will be true for David, the
:34:55. > :34:58.point of this legislation was to deal with all of the issues that
:34:58. > :35:03.are required, to deal with all the reforms that are required in order
:35:03. > :35:07.to sustain the NHS in the 21st century. To that extent, it should
:35:07. > :35:12.give stability for a long period of time. You will not try to reverse
:35:12. > :35:16.the changes that were forced on you by the Lib Dems in the Lords.
:35:16. > :35:21.no. You can see in the Lords, it was a positive and constructive
:35:21. > :35:27.process. He talked about lots of amendments, but we made amendments
:35:27. > :35:31.through a process of constructive debate and agreement. There were 32
:35:31. > :35:35.votes in the Lords. We actually only last two, one of which we
:35:35. > :35:39.accepted, and another where Lord Patel of Bradford put forward an
:35:39. > :35:44.alternative which we were happy with. To that extent, we have
:35:44. > :35:48.agreed that the legislation, by its nature, has a degree of additional
:35:48. > :35:53.reassurance and compromise. This has been an unpleasant road for you.
:35:53. > :35:57.Do you have regrets? My regret is that, if you recall, you show it on
:35:57. > :36:01.your package, one year ago we had to pause the legislation in order
:36:01. > :36:06.to have more engagement with staff. It is perfectly clear that although
:36:06. > :36:08.we consulted on the white paper more than 18 months ago, actually
:36:09. > :36:13.many of the organisations that responded did not get to grips with
:36:13. > :36:17.what was in the legislation. So too have had that kind of engagement
:36:17. > :36:21.with the NHS Future Forum would have been better earlier. Given
:36:22. > :36:25.your unpopularity with huge swathes of health professionals, would it
:36:25. > :36:29.not be better to let someone else come in and implement these reforms
:36:29. > :36:35.now? You are damaged goods in the eyes of the health industry.
:36:35. > :36:40.They're a kind of you to say so! It is what some trade unions say. --
:36:40. > :36:44.and very kind of you. Others say different things. They all know
:36:44. > :36:48.that for eight and a half years, as party spokesman, I have been at
:36:48. > :36:52.advocate and a supporter of the NHS. They know that under this coalition
:36:52. > :36:57.government, we have increased resources for the NHS in real terms
:36:57. > :37:01.each year. Has it destroyed your political career? It has not.
:37:01. > :37:05.still have one? My career has a purpose from my point of view, and
:37:05. > :37:10.it is not personal. It is a passion for insuring the NHS is in a
:37:10. > :37:15.stronger place in the future, to give greater service and benefits
:37:15. > :37:19.to patients. As he demonstrated, the quality we deliver to patients
:37:19. > :37:22.in the future will be my intention. You have given us some yardsticks,
:37:22. > :37:26.I hope you will come back to speak to us if you're still Secretary of
:37:26. > :37:31.State for Health. Thank you for joining us. You are watching Sunday
:37:31. > :37:35.politics. Coming up in 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead
:37:35. > :37:45.with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across
:37:45. > :37:48.
:37:48. > :37:51.Hello, welcome to the London part of the Sunday Politics, where we
:37:51. > :37:56.have had a moment the first of our interviews with the main candidates
:37:56. > :38:00.who would be mayor. A little later, after winning a seat in the London
:38:00. > :38:04.Assembly four years ago, the BNP faces the electorate in London
:38:04. > :38:09.again. What future for them at the party infighting and defeat at the
:38:09. > :38:15.polls? But first, with me today is the greens mayoral candidate, Jenny
:38:15. > :38:18.Jones, one of two Green members of the London Assembly. She was also a
:38:18. > :38:26.long-standing member of the former Metropolitan Police Authority which
:38:26. > :38:30.was recently abolished. First off, why could you do this job? Well, I
:38:30. > :38:35.was at City Hall and have been there for 12 years. I have kept the
:38:35. > :38:39.two mayors to account. I feel like I know how it runs. Plus the Green
:38:39. > :38:43.Party has the best ideas, radical, fresh ideas, and I think we could
:38:43. > :38:48.create a London that would be more equal, fair and healthier for
:38:48. > :38:52.everybody. That his opposition. What is the proof of competence of
:38:52. > :38:56.running an organisation that controls a budget of �15 billion?
:38:56. > :39:01.It is going to be a big job, and that is why they are so few people
:39:01. > :39:04.have wanted these days. But I have watched the budget go through, I
:39:04. > :39:08.paid a key role in some budget discussions, and I think I know
:39:08. > :39:12.enough about how the system works to actually do an extremely good
:39:12. > :39:18.job. You also depend a lot on your advisers, that is a crucial
:39:19. > :39:23.component. Something that is very topical, the current threat of
:39:23. > :39:27.tanker drivers to strike. Is that something that you could see as an
:39:27. > :39:32.opportunity to say to people, you don't need to be so dependent on
:39:32. > :39:35.cars? That is absolutely right, and it is a shocking example of how
:39:35. > :39:38.this government has failed to understand the needs and pressures
:39:38. > :39:42.of climate change. If they had been moving us towards a less oil
:39:42. > :39:47.dependent economy, they could have been doing that for two years, we
:39:47. > :39:50.would not be in the same position. It is a shocking indictment of
:39:50. > :39:54.their lack of understanding. Do you welcome the strike in that respect?
:39:54. > :39:59.It might change behaviour. I do not welcome the strike, it puts
:39:59. > :40:01.pressure on people, and I do not support that, but the Greens think
:40:01. > :40:05.that transport, public transport should be cheaper than driving.
:40:05. > :40:11.That is something we would aim to bring in in London. When you see
:40:11. > :40:16.people queuing, panicked, to fill their cars with petrol, deer have
:40:16. > :40:19.sympathy for that? Or to find it amusing? I have huge sympathy, it
:40:19. > :40:23.is an impossible situation to be put in. Many people leave their
:40:23. > :40:28.cars, I accept that, but the government could have avoided this.
:40:28. > :40:31.In some ways, it is an example, I think, of their immaturity as a
:40:32. > :40:36.government, because to create the panic they were trying to avoid is
:40:36. > :40:40.very incompetent. You say that people need their cars, how much?
:40:40. > :40:46.How much more difficult or costly would you make it for them to use
:40:46. > :40:49.cars? Well, we have a scheme that we would research, and we would
:40:49. > :40:53.probably wait three years, and during those three years we would
:40:53. > :40:58.engage with people in London, the business community, the elderly,
:40:58. > :41:00.the disabled, people who feel they need their cars, and then we would
:41:00. > :41:03.introduce a pay-as-you-drive pricing system for the roads.
:41:04. > :41:06.Successive governments have promised this in opposition. When
:41:06. > :41:12.they get into government, they fail because it is a frightening
:41:12. > :41:15.prospect. How much would it cost per mile? We did some research last
:41:15. > :41:19.year, and the price that was sort of worked out, and we have not
:41:20. > :41:23.decided it yet because we need to consult, what about 32p per mile,
:41:24. > :41:27.and that would bring in approximately �1.2 billion that we
:41:27. > :41:31.could pay for the scheme and also reinvest in public transport.
:41:32. > :41:35.Different rates at different times? This is all up for discussion, but
:41:35. > :41:40.I would hope so. I hope that residential roads would cost more
:41:40. > :41:43.to drive on then Maine Road. We want to keep traffic on main roads
:41:43. > :41:47.and allow people who live in pleasant areas did hit those areas
:41:47. > :41:54.pleasant. What is the effect of VAT on business? That is exactly why we
:41:54. > :41:57.need to consult. If businesses say no, it will clobber us, we are
:41:58. > :42:02.dependent... We look for ways to help them. A ways to drop the
:42:02. > :42:06.policy? I don't think so, it has to happen. It has to happen somewhere
:42:06. > :42:10.in Britain, and London is the perfect place to start. For
:42:10. > :42:13.businesses, I chaired something called London Food, and we
:42:13. > :42:18.discussed how to make it easier for small businesses to get food
:42:18. > :42:24.supplies of all sorts by creating hubs around the outside of London.
:42:24. > :42:27.It would mean fewer lorry journeys and more access to small businesses.
:42:27. > :42:32.Would road-pricing replace congestion charging? Absolutely.
:42:32. > :42:37.You want to see that go up, don't you? We want to see it raised to
:42:37. > :42:41.�15 for an ordinary car but �40 for a gas guzzler. How many were that
:42:41. > :42:47.affect? Hopefully, very few, because we want to deter them. We
:42:47. > :42:51.do not want them on our roads. Penalising families? Not all
:42:52. > :42:55.families have gas-guzzlers. I think gas-guzzlers are a lifestyle choice.
:42:55. > :43:01.We have a real problem with air pollution in London at the moment.
:43:01. > :43:05.It is causing 4,300 premature deaths, at least, every year, plus
:43:05. > :43:09.it gives children asthma, problems for people with lung problems or
:43:09. > :43:13.heart problems. We have to clean up our air, and we have to do it by
:43:13. > :43:18.any means possible. If you had that money, what would it enable you to
:43:18. > :43:21.do one terms of public transport fares? We would keep them below
:43:21. > :43:24.inflation for the whole four year term. If he did not implement that
:43:24. > :43:29.policy, what would you do if you inherited the Budget now about
:43:29. > :43:34.fares? If we put up the congestion charge, we would still have the
:43:34. > :43:39.money to reduce fares. It can be done. If you inherited Boris
:43:39. > :43:41.Johnson's budget, or Ken Livingstone, what would you do?
:43:41. > :43:47.would not be coming in with the same position. We have a different
:43:47. > :43:50.policy and we would reduce theirs. When? We would reduce... We would
:43:50. > :43:54.reduce fares immediately. We will put up the congestion charge as
:43:54. > :43:59.soon as humanly possible, which would generate the funds to bring
:43:59. > :44:04.fares down. I thought the pledge was to freeze fares for the first
:44:04. > :44:08.few years. I think that might be a different party. By as much as Ken
:44:08. > :44:13.Livingstone, 7%? Probably not, it depends how much we raise from the
:44:13. > :44:16.congestion charge. So a direct hypothecation? The congestion
:44:16. > :44:20.charge would go into the affairs? And other parts of the public
:44:20. > :44:23.transport network. Would you be prepared to see a delay in
:44:23. > :44:27.investment in infrastructure? Absolutely not! This is something
:44:27. > :44:30.the other political parties talk about as if lowering fares and not
:44:30. > :44:35.investing in transport, you know, that you cannot do both. In fact
:44:35. > :44:40.you can do both, lower fares and invest in infrastructure, which is
:44:40. > :44:43.crucial, and we can do it with the Budget we have got at the moment.
:44:43. > :44:46.Policing, do you think the Metropolitan Police is spending too
:44:46. > :44:50.much on phone-hacking inquiry? think probably they are spending
:44:50. > :44:55.too much, but there is huge public pressure on them to carry on. The
:44:55. > :44:59.fact is that they have had some very savage cuts this year. I have
:44:59. > :45:04.called for a moratorium on cuts to the policing budget. We were told
:45:04. > :45:13.this week it could end up costing �40 million. What you do? If they
:45:13. > :45:16.are spending too much, is there It is a case of getting the
:45:16. > :45:21.Commissioner to rebalance his priorities. I think we can
:45:21. > :45:24.investigated but at a slower pace. I want to make sure the child
:45:24. > :45:31.protection is properly funded. about the victims of phone hacking
:45:31. > :45:35.that want closure on this? course, of course. There are crimes
:45:35. > :45:42.against persons that I think at this stage ought to take priority.
:45:42. > :45:45.For example, we do not investigate enough in -- put enough into rape
:45:45. > :45:48.investigation and child protection services, and Paul Heaton --
:45:48. > :45:55.policing our roads. What about cutting the number of police
:45:56. > :45:59.officers? This obsession is mad. Why not cut them? I would certainly
:45:59. > :46:02.make sure that we have enough backroom staff to make sure the
:46:02. > :46:06.police officers we have are out there on the streets doing the jobs
:46:07. > :46:11.that people want them to do. At the moment we have a shelf. We do not
:46:11. > :46:17.have enough staff. Cup the backroom staff, that is what the current
:46:17. > :46:21.administration has been doing. is what they have been doing. I am
:46:21. > :46:26.saying I would not do that. The previous administration... If you
:46:26. > :46:31.can't backroom staff, the police officers will need to do those jobs.
:46:31. > :46:37.That is the case. The current administration cut backroom staff
:46:37. > :46:43.and so the police officers are actually not out doing what they
:46:43. > :46:48.should be doing, they are actually in call centres, doing desk work.
:46:48. > :46:52.That is ludicrous. So the case is to reinstate those backroom staff,
:46:52. > :46:57.but obviously that costs. You will then cut the number of police
:46:57. > :47:02.officers to make that happen. would get rid of them through
:47:02. > :47:09.natural wastage. Last year, the current administration spent �6
:47:09. > :47:13.million getting rid of 900 staff. That means there are now 1500 less
:47:13. > :47:17.staff. Police staff cost less than police officers so there has been a
:47:17. > :47:22.reorganisation of the budget to keep expensive police officers at
:47:22. > :47:26.the cost of backroom staff. What is a fair level, what is a functional
:47:26. > :47:34.level of policing? That is very difficult to say without having all
:47:34. > :47:37.the figures in front of. But I would say that 28,000 seemed an
:47:37. > :47:47.appropriate level when we reach that level under Ken Livingstone. I
:47:47. > :47:48.
:47:48. > :47:53.would investigate whether that is appropriate. Briefly, when a recent
:47:53. > :47:58.poll looked at what Londoners believed across the parties, who
:47:58. > :48:02.had the best policies on issues like the environment, six or 7%
:48:02. > :48:09.said you. I think that is pretty good. I think most people don't
:48:09. > :48:12.know what our policies are. It is difficult for us to get our
:48:12. > :48:17.policies out. People do not know that we have social policies. That
:48:17. > :48:24.is quite heartening. In the same elections four years ago, the BNP
:48:24. > :48:28.won a seat on the London Assembly for the first time. His can -- the
:48:28. > :48:33.candidate later fell out with the party leadership and is now an
:48:33. > :48:38.independent. It is one and a series of disastrous election results.
:48:38. > :48:42.Four years ago, the BNP won their first seat on the London Assembly.
:48:42. > :48:52.Some of the candidates were so appalled they refuse to share a
:48:52. > :48:52.
:48:52. > :48:57.platform with a member. Like rats leaving a sinking ship. Richard Tom
:48:57. > :49:01.Brook at the right to question the mayor and build a profile.
:49:01. > :49:06.rapid replacement of the white British population. For life was
:49:06. > :49:12.not made easy for him. Boris Johnson refused to make eye contact
:49:12. > :49:17.or address him directly. Do you know, I do not think I can think of
:49:17. > :49:22.an answer for that question. you do not have to. Away from city
:49:22. > :49:30.hall, the party has been beset by problems. In 2010, Nick Griffin
:49:30. > :49:37.fails to win a parliamentary seat. The message from Barking to the BNP
:49:37. > :49:43.is clear. Get out and stay out. the same night, they lost all 12
:49:43. > :49:49.seats on the council of Barking and Dagenham. The party lost money and
:49:49. > :49:52.members. Eddie Butler was one of them. Formerly a senior figure, he
:49:52. > :49:57.challenged Nick Griffin for the leadership but was then expelled
:49:57. > :50:03.from the BNP. He went on to join the English Democrats and blames
:50:03. > :50:06.Britain for many of his old party's problems. -- Nick Griffin. In the
:50:06. > :50:12.run-up to the election, Nick Griffin publicly accused his public
:50:12. > :50:15.-- publicity director of trying to kill him. It was not exactly... The
:50:15. > :50:24.charges were dropped because it was a ridiculous allegation. That is
:50:24. > :50:31.not good publicity. It has imploded. The financial and political
:50:31. > :50:35.allegations, the membership has declined by probably three-quarters.
:50:35. > :50:39.Richard Barnbrook also left the party but stayed on at the Assembly
:50:39. > :50:43.as an independent. That has left the BNP without a single elected
:50:43. > :50:46.representative in London. Even in areas like Barking and Dagenham
:50:46. > :50:51.where they once hoped to return a member to Parliament and even
:50:51. > :50:55.control the council. The election to the London Assembly is very
:50:55. > :50:59.different. You need a concentrated support in one particular place and
:50:59. > :51:05.you need to be popular. To get on the London Assembly, you only need
:51:05. > :51:09.about 5% of the vote spread across the entire city. Not beyond the
:51:09. > :51:14.reach of the BNP according to a group which campaigns against their
:51:14. > :51:19.party. The BNP have a brand name, still. Whatever is going on
:51:19. > :51:23.internally, the voters are not going to know about that. They know
:51:23. > :51:28.what the BNP stands for, and there is obviously a group of voters who
:51:28. > :51:32.find that quite appealing. In this election, the BNP might have a
:51:32. > :51:36.different appeal. The party, famous for their anti-immigrant stance, or
:51:36. > :51:42.trying something new. Their candidate is an immigrant from
:51:42. > :51:48.Uruguay. Campaigning with little money, much of his focus has been
:51:48. > :51:58.online. We found that he has started up logs hosted by the Daily
:51:58. > :52:02.
:52:02. > :52:06.Telegraph and Jewish Chronicle. The The Jewish Chronicle said they
:52:06. > :52:12.stopped imposing when they found out he was a BNP candidate but has
:52:12. > :52:17.not removed what was already up on the internet. It is issues like
:52:17. > :52:21.transport which will dominate the mayoral race. What is the BNP
:52:21. > :52:28.candidate's message on public transport? I directly oppose the
:52:28. > :52:33.initiative of Boris Johnson for giving us an automatic underground
:52:33. > :52:38.service. I think it is a scandal and with the rise in unemployment,
:52:38. > :52:42.they're talking about using robots instead of people. And on the
:52:42. > :52:48.signature issue, immigration, he strikes a less radical line than
:52:48. > :52:58.some might expect. We only oppose those who were not legally here.
:52:58. > :53:01.
:53:01. > :53:05.Anybody who is legally here, we This is Steve Squire, BNP candidate
:53:05. > :53:15.for the London Assembly. Using more traditional language, or of a one-
:53:15. > :53:19.
:53:19. > :53:23.Do you agree with the statement that all businesses that -- all
:53:23. > :53:28.businesses in London seemed to be owned by newcomers and immigrants?
:53:28. > :53:34.If they are legally entitled, even if they are immigrants, I have no
:53:34. > :53:39.issue with them. Because that is something that Steve said ornate
:53:39. > :53:43.p&p video on your website as part of your London campaign. -- all on
:53:43. > :53:48.a BNP video. Maybe you're giving one message to the internet and
:53:48. > :53:51.another message to the BBC. Come and ask me tomorrow and I'll give
:53:51. > :53:56.you the same answer. You are not interviewing anybody else, you are
:53:56. > :53:59.talking to me. If you want to know what I think, asked me. Voters will
:53:59. > :54:04.have five weeks to decide what they think of the BNP and their
:54:04. > :54:13.candidates. If these scenes are not repeated, it will be seen by many
:54:13. > :54:18.as a sign of a party in decline. Jenny Jones, the BNP are in trouble.
:54:18. > :54:22.The Greens had 10 councillors in London in 2010 and now only had two.
:54:22. > :54:29.Is this the end of small parties two at the last election, Labour
:54:29. > :54:33.stepped up its game. I do not see that happening again any time soon.
:54:33. > :54:36.You are telling supporters to vote for Ken Livingstone as a second
:54:36. > :54:42.preference. I am suggesting that they could and that would be
:54:42. > :54:45.appropriate. Is it appropriate or is it electoral suicide? Are you
:54:45. > :54:49.saying you do not want existing Liberal Democrat supporters to vote
:54:49. > :54:54.for you. I'm saying I would like everyone to vote Green because I
:54:54. > :54:59.think a green Mayer would make a huge difference. But if you cannot
:54:59. > :55:04.have a green Mayer, and it is likely that the two final
:55:04. > :55:08.contenders will be Boris and Ken, we are saying that we can work with
:55:08. > :55:13.Ken because we have worked with him before. Are you saying that
:55:13. > :55:17.Conservative voters or Lib Dem voters should not vote for you,
:55:17. > :55:21.that you do not offer what works for them? Of course not. People
:55:21. > :55:24.will make up the raw mind on our policies. The fact is, it has
:55:24. > :55:26.proved impossible to work with Boris Johnson and I regret that
:55:26. > :55:32.because I liked getting things done and a light co-operative working.
:55:32. > :55:35.It was not possible. We know we can work with can. Many people are a
:55:35. > :55:40.good is Ken Livingstone who has been divisive in the past and Boris
:55:40. > :55:45.Johnson is a consensual politician. That is not my experience. Where
:55:45. > :55:50.have you not achieved areas of policy in the last four years that
:55:50. > :55:57.you think you might have done before. --? Hundreds of areas. For
:55:57. > :56:02.example, I took an idea to Boris Johnson which was to allow
:56:02. > :56:05.borrowers to bring in a default of 20mph. Eight boroughs were willing
:56:05. > :56:10.to go ahead with this but he could not conceive of it and refused to
:56:10. > :56:15.give the money to those areas. When he was elected, he promised that he
:56:15. > :56:19.would not have -- he would not interfere in Barra decisions. But
:56:19. > :56:28.clearly he ignored that. He proved to me that we could not work
:56:28. > :56:32.together. He says that his has been a cycling revolution. Superhighways,
:56:32. > :56:38.a bike hire scheme. Surely you could have worked with him on this?
:56:38. > :56:42.All those ideas were worked up between me and TfL before Boris
:56:42. > :56:47.came in. But he missed out on a third very important component,
:56:47. > :56:54.which was to boost the cycling numbers beyond any sort of
:56:54. > :57:00.expectations, by funding cycling outside of the boroughs. Boris
:57:00. > :57:05.Johnson did not do that. He did not put in the third element. He spent
:57:05. > :57:10.some time with the protesters at St Paul's. We have seen disruption at
:57:10. > :57:13.the Olympic site this week. Do you approve of that? I think they
:57:14. > :57:17.should not have been building on greenfield sites. It is completely
:57:17. > :57:21.wrong. They build on Hackney Marshes and they're putting
:57:21. > :57:24.basketball pitches on Leyton Marsh. I think that is wrong. I have
:57:24. > :57:27.sympathy with the local people as sympathy with the local people as
:57:27. > :57:31.well as the occupy movement. Here is a full list of all the other
:57:31. > :57:34.is a full list of all the other candidates standing in the election.
:57:34. > :57:44.In two weeks time, we will be talking to Brian Paddick. Back to
:57:44. > :57:48.
:57:48. > :57:52.So we have had panic-buying at the petrol pumps, rows over past these
:57:52. > :58:02.and the return of Gorgeous George to Parliament. Let us discuss it
:58:02. > :58:06.
:58:06. > :58:09.Nick, taking the place of Isabel, we like to give you some work
:58:09. > :58:14.experience, the Government is seen as being out of touch and
:58:15. > :58:20.incompetent. According to the polls. Is this a passing phase, a mid-term
:58:20. > :58:23.blues, or is it a game changer in public perceptions? I do not think
:58:23. > :58:26.it is game changer territory because for something to be a game
:58:26. > :58:29.changer it has to affect the fundamental issue that matters,
:58:30. > :58:32.which is the economy. It appears that on the economy the
:58:32. > :58:35.Conservatives are ahead of Labour at the moment because people are
:58:35. > :58:40.not listening to the Labour message because people believe that the
:58:40. > :58:43.deficit has to be dealt with. I am not sure it is a game changer but I
:58:43. > :58:48.think it is an issue that could define the Government and define
:58:48. > :58:52.them in a dangerous way, as out of touch, posh and particularly
:58:52. > :58:56.dangerously, cynical. The reason I say that is that there was an
:58:56. > :59:02.agreed coalition line on the fuel staff, which is essentially, let's
:59:02. > :59:07.give cautious warning to the public. Francis Maude ratcheted that up,
:59:07. > :59:11.why? Because he saw it as a Thatcher moment. It was the
:59:11. > :59:14.equivalent of Thatcher stockpiling coal before the strike in 1984. The
:59:14. > :59:19.difference was that that did not inconvenience the public and this
:59:19. > :59:27.did. Maybe they should learn to stop having Thatcher moments and
:59:27. > :59:30.they might get on better. Clearly, some things -- something is awry,
:59:30. > :59:35.and you can tell that because the usual suspects on the Tory side are
:59:35. > :59:40.ganging up, David Davis and so on. They think that a watershed is
:59:40. > :59:46.taking place. And the Tory leaning press has been incredibly critical
:59:46. > :59:50.since the Budget. I think it speaks to David Cameron's indifference to
:59:50. > :59:54.media management or press management. He is always more
:59:54. > :59:59.interested in broadcasting the newspapers. It also speaks to this
:59:59. > :00:02.recurrent criticism made of Number Ten, and a perceived lack of grip
:00:02. > :00:06.at Number Ten has. The worrying thing is that in Westminster there
:00:06. > :00:09.is no conclusive answer to the question, who runs Downing Street?
:00:09. > :00:13.You would have been able to answer that under Tony Blair because
:00:13. > :00:17.Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell were very dominant
:00:17. > :00:21.politically. But Downing Street his foot -- Downing Street is full of
:00:21. > :00:24.technocrats rather than political operators. As it dawned on them
:00:24. > :00:28.that they face a fatwa in the Murdoch press? You only have to
:00:28. > :00:32.read the papers to see that the Murdoch press is out to destroy
:00:32. > :00:37.this government. I did is obvious will be grievance is. I think they
:00:37. > :00:41.are letting them know that they're angry. -- I think it is obvious
:00:41. > :00:48.what the grievance is. Is it not more likely that Murdoch will be
:00:48. > :00:53.more angry with the Labour Party in 2015? When you're out for revenge,
:00:53. > :00:57.you will have many partners to share your views. Maybe it may not
:00:57. > :01:02.be a game changer because of the situation with Labour. They have
:01:02. > :01:06.lost in Scotland, they have lost in Bradford West. Kumble local
:01:06. > :01:11.elections, if they lose in Glasgow and London, which they could do,
:01:11. > :01:18.then the story we will be writing about will be Mr Miliband's
:01:19. > :01:23.Politicians have been punching themselves in the face all week,
:01:23. > :01:27.but what is interesting in Bradford, quite a specific campaign similar
:01:27. > :01:32.to Scotland, is that it was not a referendum on Ed Miliband or even
:01:32. > :01:36.the economy, but it was George Galloway had a brilliant local
:01:36. > :01:41.campaign. It was positive, it had a vision that was grounded in
:01:41. > :01:44.Bradford, and he showed leadership and had alliances with the faith
:01:44. > :01:49.groups and working class communities. Meanwhile, Labour was
:01:49. > :01:53.just running a completely anti-Tory message, which was very negative
:01:53. > :01:57.and not grounded in Bradford. It is interesting that it is similar to
:01:57. > :02:06.Scotland. They assumed that the big opponent was the Tories, when that
:02:06. > :02:10.was just a fallacy. We heard from Michael Dugher that it was a social
:02:10. > :02:14.media campaign, but Ed Miliband was meant to be the Bobby Kennedy of
:02:14. > :02:19.the time, and the utterly failed. The problem is that they have been
:02:19. > :02:22.six by-elections in Great Britain since the general election, Labour
:02:22. > :02:26.have won 5, but there are signs they are not getting through in
:02:26. > :02:29.areas where they should be. They did really badly in the Scottish
:02:29. > :02:34.general election in 2011, because they were not seen as credible
:02:34. > :02:39.opposition. The most important vote is not London, it is Glasgow. If
:02:39. > :02:45.Labour loses control of Glasgow in May, people will be asking very
:02:45. > :02:53.serious questions. I am not saying they will, but PSN Day think they
:02:53. > :02:55.will take Labour. Serious Labour think they are in trouble. The big
:02:55. > :02:58.implications for our foreign policy will be discussed in parliament.
:02:58. > :03:02.There is the question of Afghanistan and Syria, and possibly
:03:02. > :03:07.this year there will be the question of an Iran-is a conflict
:03:07. > :03:10.over nuclear weapons. Those issues are discussed sensibly because of
:03:10. > :03:14.the convention that politics stops at the water's edge, but George
:03:14. > :03:19.Galloway will not observe that. this a high watermark for George
:03:19. > :03:24.Galloway now that he has had this amazing victory, he becomes one MP
:03:24. > :03:27.among 600? Speaking on foreign issues, he does not lead a party,
:03:27. > :03:32.very much an individual, an impressive individual, but is this
:03:32. > :03:34.as good as it gets? I think that is right, but he seems to be
:03:35. > :03:39.supporting Labour and their traditional way of doing politics,
:03:39. > :03:42.and the vision you are talking about of Ed Miliband being the
:03:42. > :03:48.change candidate, and he seemed really in favour of that. He is
:03:48. > :03:52.almost restoring sang something. The interesting thing will be the
:03:52. > :03:55.local elections and the mayorals. The campaign is very difficult what
:03:55. > :03:59.happened in Scotland and Bradford, because it is locally grounded and
:03:59. > :04:04.has a positive vision for London in a way that the other two did not.
:04:04. > :04:09.Will George Galloway be tempted back on to Big Brother? He has said
:04:09. > :04:15.he is a teetotaller, but will he want to sit milk when he was a cat?
:04:15. > :04:18.Is he going to be a serious person? It did not stop him winning!
:04:18. > :04:22.will have the Chilcot Inquiry published before summer, George
:04:22. > :04:26.Galloway will be responding to that. He was going to carry the can in
:04:26. > :04:34.government for this past week and the fact it may be a
:04:34. > :04:40.transformational week? Who is at there? Whose jacket is hanging by a
:04:40. > :04:46.pay? I will explain that later! Is it Francis Maude, Craig Oliver,
:04:46. > :04:49.Baroness Warsi, the unseen chairman of the Tory party? You would assume
:04:49. > :04:54.with a name like Cameron that the Prime Minister would understand.
:04:54. > :04:58.comes from much further up! There is talk that the Tories need a more
:04:58. > :05:01.vociferous and prominent party chairman, but it has never been an
:05:01. > :05:04.important role in Cabinet. I do not think they would change their
:05:04. > :05:10.approach to that. The Prime Minister has to carry the can when
:05:10. > :05:14.things go wrong, in terms of basic competence and communications.
:05:14. > :05:18.will have to... So much to talk about and we have run out of time
:05:18. > :05:23.again! That is all for this week. We are not on their bodies to