:00:41. > :00:47.Afternoon folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. David Cameron puts
:00:47. > :00:52.his Culture Secretary on probation this morning. He'll see how Jeremy
:00:52. > :00:53.Hunt performs before Leveson, then decide his future. But a lot could
:00:53. > :00:58.happen before then. We'll ask Lib Dem Culture spokesman Don Foster
:00:58. > :01:01.who he's backing in the hunt for Hunt.
:01:01. > :01:05.Hunt's tormentor in-chief has been Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman,
:01:05. > :01:07.who joins us for the Sunday interview. She'll tell us what's at
:01:07. > :01:15.stake for Labour when London, Glasgow and councils around the UK
:01:15. > :01:18.go to the polls on Thursday. And, how do you get out of an omni-
:01:18. > :01:23.shambles? Don't know? Well, we've been asking around Westminster for
:01:23. > :01:26.tips. Always happy to help. All that, and our political panel
:01:26. > :01:29.of the best and the brightest, here every week to analyse British
:01:29. > :01:39.politics in The Week Ahead and tweeting mercilessly with abandon
:01:39. > :01:42.throughout the programme. In London: Four days to go and in
:01:42. > :01:45.the last of our series of interviews with the mayoral
:01:45. > :01:54.candidates we will be speaking not to Boris Johnson, but one of his
:01:54. > :01:58.deputies. All that coming up, but first the
:01:58. > :02:01.news with Maxine. Good afternoon. The Prime Minister
:02:01. > :02:04.has insisted there was no grand deal between him and the Murdoch
:02:04. > :02:08.media empire to trade political support in return for helping their
:02:08. > :02:10.business interests. Speaking to the BBC, David Cameron also said he if
:02:10. > :02:15.it is shown that the Culture Secretary breached the code for
:02:15. > :02:21.Government ministers, then he would act. Our political correspondent
:02:21. > :02:25.Naomi Grimley reports. David Cameron has had a terrible
:02:25. > :02:30.week of headlines, after new evidence emerged from the Leveson
:02:30. > :02:35.Inquiry into media ethics. Even the Prime Minister's own meetings with
:02:35. > :02:37.the Murdoches are being examined. So, was there some unspoken
:02:37. > :02:42.agreement whereby News International backed the
:02:42. > :02:48.Conservatives in return for commercial favours? Mr Cameron says
:02:48. > :02:52.no. Was there some big deal, some big agreement between me and Rupert
:02:52. > :02:56.Murdoch or James Murdoch that in return for the support for the
:02:56. > :03:02.Conservative Party I would somehow help their business interests or
:03:02. > :03:06.allow this merger to go through? That is not true. But this man, the
:03:06. > :03:10.Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is still under the most scrutiny. His
:03:10. > :03:15.office appears to have had regular contact with News International at
:03:15. > :03:19.a very sensitive time and the Murdoches were hoping to launch a
:03:19. > :03:24.full buyout of BSkyB. So is the Prime Minister still backing him
:03:24. > :03:28.100%? I think he does a good job. I think he is a good culture, media
:03:28. > :03:33.and sport sport Secretary. He is He is doing an excellent job on the
:03:33. > :03:37.Olympics. I do think... You think he can survive? People deserve to
:03:37. > :03:40.have these things looked into properly. The Prime Minister has
:03:40. > :03:44.insisted that Jeremy Hunt should be able to give evidence to the
:03:44. > :03:48.Leveson Inquiry before any judgments are made. But, as Jeremy
:03:48. > :03:52.Hunt's own advisor has already resigned, Mr Cameron is under
:03:52. > :03:57.pressure to trigger a specific investigation into whether
:03:57. > :04:00.Ministerial rules were broken. things stand, I don't believe
:04:00. > :04:04.Jeremy Hunt breached the Ministerial Code. If evidence comes
:04:04. > :04:07.out through this exhaustive inquiry, where you are giving evidence under
:04:07. > :04:11.oath f he does breach the code, clearly that's a different issue
:04:12. > :04:15.and I would act. Jeremy Hunt isn't due to appear before the Leveson
:04:15. > :04:24.Inquiry until mid-May. But a trawl of the Culture Secretary's e-mails
:04:24. > :04:27.and text messages is already under way.
:04:27. > :04:30.Police in Leeds have arrested a 36- year-old man in connection with two
:04:30. > :04:34.murders in the North East of England. James Allen is being held
:04:34. > :04:38.on suspicion of killing an 81-year- old man in Middlesbrough and a 50-
:04:38. > :04:40.year-old woman in Whitby. Residents in a block of flats in
:04:40. > :04:43.East London have been told that surface-to-air missiles could be
:04:43. > :04:46.placed on their roof during the Olympics. People living there have
:04:46. > :04:48.received a leaflet telling them soldiers could be based there over
:04:48. > :04:56.the summer. Ministers revealed last year that the military might deploy
:04:56. > :04:59.missiles in the capital to defend the Games. Flood alerts have been
:04:59. > :05:03.issued across England and Wales for the next 48 hours. Up to 40
:05:03. > :05:05.milimetres of rain is predicted to fall in places - more than the UK's
:05:05. > :05:08.average rainfall last month. At Burnham-on-Sea in Somerset the bad
:05:08. > :05:12.weather has brought down a number of trees, causing delays on the
:05:12. > :05:19.roads. Engineers are also working to secure electricity cables which
:05:19. > :05:24.fell down overnight in gales of up to 60mph. That's it for the moment.
:05:24. > :05:31.The next news on BBC1 is at 6.00pm. Thank you. Good to see the drought
:05:31. > :05:33.is still going well! Another day, another set of grim
:05:33. > :05:36.headlines for the Government. After ricocheting from tax trouble to tax
:05:36. > :05:39.trouble post-Budget, the Government is now reeling from complaints that
:05:39. > :05:41.it got too close the the Murdochs, especially Culture Secretary Jeremy
:05:41. > :05:44.Hunt, who's now fighting for his political life, with only
:05:44. > :05:47.conditional support this morning from the Prime Minister. More
:05:47. > :05:50.important, the economy is back in recession. It wasn't meant to be
:05:50. > :05:56.like this and it's taking its toll. One poll today has the
:05:56. > :05:58.Conservatives on their lowest rating for eight years at 29%. So,
:05:58. > :06:03.how might the Tories and the Coalition Government, more
:06:03. > :06:09.generally, recover? Giles Dilnot's been asking around.
:06:09. > :06:18.The PM has admitted it's been a bad day for a month ahead of the local
:06:18. > :06:28.elections. An omni-shambles Budget. If it
:06:28. > :06:28.
:06:28. > :06:32.starts to look incompetent, it's in trouble.
:06:32. > :06:37.Two arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk.
:06:37. > :06:41.Forget milk or indeed the price of it, there is a bewildering awry of
:06:41. > :06:45.suggestions across Westminster for what the PM could grab off the
:06:45. > :06:50.political shelf to reseize the initiative. Could it be tax cuts or
:06:50. > :06:55.public spending cuts? More of them. Is it getting the policy focus
:06:55. > :06:58.right? Or is it indeed just renosing the message? Could it be a
:06:58. > :07:04.range of new political people in Downing Street? Or does it just
:07:04. > :07:09.boil down to a few treats for those backbenchers who still feel he is a
:07:09. > :07:13.bit aloof? I am not bothered whether he has - what I am
:07:13. > :07:17.interested in is whether escapable of doing it, what we need are
:07:17. > :07:21.solutions at the moment. And not some, to be honest, people are
:07:21. > :07:25.being rude at each other. We don't need to have Ministers inviting us
:07:25. > :07:30.in for cups of tea and glasses of wine. What we need is for them to
:07:30. > :07:33.be delivering stuff that we can talk about in our constituencies
:07:33. > :07:38.and actually see that it's making a difference. That's all very well,
:07:38. > :07:41.but they may be expecting too much of this coalition. The base
:07:41. > :07:45.position for the Government is very difficult. The Conservatives don't
:07:45. > :07:48.have a majority. They're in a coalition with a party with which
:07:48. > :07:53.they don't have that much in common. They don't have any money. I think
:07:53. > :07:57.one of the things that's happened is MPs, journalists, the Government
:07:57. > :08:01.itself, doesn't accept this is a Government with real limitations.
:08:01. > :08:07.Another limitation may be the very structure of the Downing Street
:08:07. > :08:11.operation. I think the root of the problems lie in absence of
:08:11. > :08:15.political nous inside Number 10. Coalition has given huge power to
:08:15. > :08:19.civil servants. The policy unit is entirely staffed by civil servants.
:08:19. > :08:22.The idea that by moving the press office from one room to another and
:08:22. > :08:26.making sure that someone in the policy unit has a political
:08:26. > :08:28.background rather than a civil service one, the idea that that
:08:28. > :08:31.standing against billions of pounds of public spending reductions is
:08:31. > :08:35.going to make a difference is fanciful.
:08:35. > :08:40.Hence, in the short-term to draw a line the PM needs a Boris Johnson
:08:40. > :08:46.victory in London this week. There's no doubt that for a Tory to
:08:46. > :08:49.win in mid-term in austerity driven Government with all this t would be
:08:49. > :08:53.wonderful blast of good news, a shot in the arm for David Cameron t
:08:53. > :08:58.might even tip his fortune from bad to good. In the long-term, everyone
:08:58. > :09:01.we spoke to knew the Government's fortunes hinge on the economy.
:09:01. > :09:05.policies that we have announced and that are all about getting the
:09:05. > :09:08.economy growing again, rebalancing it away from the public sector,
:09:08. > :09:11.away from financial services, that actually starts happening and
:09:11. > :09:14.starts happening visibly in people's lives. I think that when
:09:14. > :09:18.that does happen, and I am confident it will, and can, then I
:09:18. > :09:23.think that people will start ignoring the sort of froth that
:09:23. > :09:27.otherwise with dominate. Dominate it has, but in a week that
:09:27. > :09:33.saw us enter a double dip recession, the men at the top know that
:09:33. > :09:39.confidence has certainly yet to spread to the wider public.
:09:39. > :09:43.For the latest on Government's big problem this weekend, the the skapt
:09:43. > :09:47.hunt affair, we are joined by Adam Fleming. We have had the Sunday
:09:47. > :09:50.papers and the Andrew Marr show, is Mr Hunt in a better or worse place?
:09:50. > :09:54.Afternoon, well it looks like the interpretation that's been put on
:09:54. > :09:58.this is that David Cameron has put his Culture Secretary on probation.
:09:58. > :10:03.That's because we have now got a timeline for the process by which
:10:03. > :10:06.it will be judged whether Jeremy Hunt has broken the rule book for
:10:06. > :10:11.Cabinet Ministers, the Ministerial Code and this looks like this, in
:10:11. > :10:14.the middle of next month Mr Hunt will go to the Leveson Inquiry and
:10:14. > :10:17.give evidence under oath, like all witnesses there, although he is not
:10:17. > :10:21.going earlier than planned because Lord Justice Leveson refused to
:10:21. > :10:28.change the timetable for political reasons. David Cameron will look at
:10:28. > :10:33.that evidence as it's published and will decide whether any new facts
:10:33. > :10:37.have come out that cast doubt on Jeremy Hunt's version of events. He
:10:37. > :10:42.will judge on the Ministerial Code, with Alex Allen, whether there's
:10:42. > :10:45.been any breach of that code. What deck's done is neutralise two
:10:45. > :10:49.criticisms levelled at him. One that the inquiry was going to take
:10:49. > :10:53.too long to sort this out and it's not Lord Justice Leveson's job to
:10:53. > :10:57.judge Ministers. The Prime Minister anxious to let us know this morning
:10:57. > :11:00.he did no deals with Rupert Murdoch. David Cameron spent a long time in
:11:00. > :11:04.that interview with Andrew Marr and said over and over again there was
:11:04. > :11:06.no grand bargain with Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch or News
:11:06. > :11:09.News Corporation or News International. David Cameron says
:11:09. > :11:13.there was no no tweaks to Conservative policy to get the
:11:13. > :11:16.support of those newspapers. In fact, Mr Cameron pointed out where
:11:16. > :11:20.they disagreed on things. For example, detention without charge
:11:20. > :11:23.for terror suspects for 42 days. Although David Cameron said
:11:23. > :11:27.something that he said a few times, which is that he and all Prime
:11:27. > :11:30.Ministers had got too close to newspaper proprietors and newspaper
:11:30. > :11:34.editors, although Mr Cameron pointed out that Tony Blair and
:11:34. > :11:42.Gordon Brown had met Rupert Murdoch far more times in the first few
:11:42. > :11:47.years in office than he had. We got that infamous pre-Christmas Daner a
:11:47. > :11:49.couple -- dinner a couple of years ago, much speculation about what
:11:49. > :11:52.was said at that. David Cameron says the conversation was entirely
:11:52. > :11:58.appropriate. It was all about how from now on the Government was
:11:58. > :12:02.going to handle the merger talks over BSkyB properly after Vince
:12:02. > :12:06.Cable got caught out. Thank you for that.
:12:06. > :12:13.Where do David Cameron's coalition partners stand on this? We are
:12:13. > :12:19.joined by Don Foster, a man who has been covering the culture brief for
:12:19. > :12:24.the Liberal Democrats since most of us were in short trousers.
:12:24. > :12:27.The chairman of the committee on public standards agrees, even
:12:27. > :12:31.senior Tory backbenchers want this to happen. The Prime Minister says
:12:31. > :12:36.wait. Where do you stand? I think everybody's agreed that we have got
:12:36. > :12:39.to have that investigation as to whether Jeremy Hunt breached the
:12:40. > :12:44.Ministerial Code, the public want that. The real question is how is
:12:44. > :12:49.the best way of going about that. Is it by having some sort of behind
:12:49. > :12:54.the scenes investigation into what is after all an investigation into
:12:54. > :12:58.alleged behind the scenes deals anyway? Or should we have the
:12:58. > :13:05.opportunity that is provided of Jeremy Hunt having to give evidence
:13:05. > :13:08.in front of a judge, under oath, with some of the most forensic
:13:08. > :13:12.examination team available to ask him questions? I think the public
:13:12. > :13:15.would prefer that, and the minute we have seen that then if there is
:13:15. > :13:21.anything untoward, then I have no doubt whatsoever that there has to
:13:21. > :13:24.be an immediate investigation into the Ministerial Code. Justice
:13:24. > :13:30.Leveson says he is not competent to rule on breaches of the code,
:13:30. > :13:35.that's not his job. Nor should it be. But the job of Lord Justice
:13:35. > :13:38.Leveson is clear in his remit, it's to investigate the relationship
:13:38. > :13:43.between politicians and the media and that's what he will do and this
:13:43. > :13:47.is part of it. After all, if you have a big deal, politicians
:13:47. > :13:50.agreeing who can own the media, there can't be much of a bigger
:13:50. > :13:54.deal going on. Incidentally, it's sort of deal that I don't think
:13:54. > :13:57.politicians should ever be be deciding on anyway. I said on a
:13:57. > :14:03.number of occasions that should be done independently. But what's the
:14:03. > :14:07.point of Alex Allen? We the taxpayer pay him to police the
:14:07. > :14:13.Ministerial Code. Why do we bother if we are never referring anything
:14:13. > :14:16.to him? If we didn't have Leveson going on, with all of the benefits
:14:16. > :14:22.of Leveson, I would be the first to be saying that this should
:14:22. > :14:26.immediately go to Alex Allen. All I am saying is that given we have the
:14:26. > :14:30.opportunity to have a public evidence-giving session, a public
:14:30. > :14:34.inquiry with some really forensic questioning that we can all observe,
:14:34. > :14:38.in about two weeks' time, let's have that and then immediately
:14:38. > :14:41.after we have all seen what emerges from that, then you ask Alex Allen
:14:41. > :14:45.to have a look and make it a recommendation to the Prime
:14:45. > :14:49.Minister. Surely there is already enough grounds for referring this
:14:49. > :14:54.to the Ministerial Code. Sir Michael Lyons had to deal with
:14:54. > :15:02.Jeremy Hunt a lot of the time and with his special advisor. He says
:15:02. > :15:06.Adam Smith did nothing without Mr Hunt knowing and condoning it.
:15:06. > :15:10.Michael Lyons is entitled to his view and may or may not be right. I
:15:10. > :15:17.don't know. The public don't know. We have an opportunity... Did you
:15:17. > :15:21.meet Mr Smith? On many occasions. Did you see him as a maverick?
:15:21. > :15:31.Someone who would do all this on his own without his master
:15:31. > :15:35.I think he was a guy of great integrity who went beyond what was
:15:35. > :15:40.appropriate, and that is what he has admitted. You do not think he
:15:40. > :15:46.would have checked? The honest answer is I genuinely do not know.
:15:46. > :15:49.Let's put it to the ministerial code! Adam Smith's relationship
:15:49. > :15:54.with Jeremy Hunt will be best investigated by getting all of the
:15:54. > :16:00.data which Jeremy Hunt has agreed to provide, or of the text messages,
:16:00. > :16:03.the e-mails, provide that and then have questioning under oath.
:16:03. > :16:09.Everybody wants an answer to this. All I am suggesting is getting it
:16:09. > :16:13.done under a judge-led inquiry first of all, then, in the light of
:16:13. > :16:20.that, going and doing the other investigation. Thank you for
:16:20. > :16:23.joining us. Now, what is that you hear? Could it be the sound of
:16:23. > :16:27.Harriet Harman rubbing her hands together with glee as Jeremy Hunt
:16:27. > :16:34.twists in the wind? It has been good sport for Labour, but back in
:16:34. > :16:37.the real world, there is a big electoral test coming for a party.
:16:37. > :16:41.Labour going to Thursday's local elections expected to pick up large
:16:41. > :16:46.numbers of seats, but they start from a low base, and they are big
:16:46. > :16:50.test for Ed Miliband's party in London, where polls say that Boris
:16:50. > :16:55.Johnson will beat Ken Livingstone. And in Glasgow, the SNP have high
:16:55. > :16:58.hopes of success in city council elections. Earlier this week,
:16:58. > :17:02.deputy leader Harriet Harman targeted Liberal Democrat voters in
:17:02. > :17:08.the South in an attempt to win back the sort of seats that Tony Blair
:17:08. > :17:12.used to win in the 1990s and early 2000s. But when mere mention of the
:17:12. > :17:20.former Labour leader guess this reaction at Labour conference...
:17:20. > :17:23.And not Tony Blair. His Ed Miliband's Labour likely to win in
:17:23. > :17:33.the south again when they are desperate to shake of the legacy of
:17:33. > :17:39.
:17:39. > :17:42.New Labour? And Harriet Harman Harriet Harman, the Prime Minister
:17:42. > :17:46.says Jeremy Hunt will have to testify under oath, he will be
:17:46. > :17:49.interrogated by a QC, and all communications that are relevant
:17:49. > :17:54.will be published. Then you will decide his future, what is wrong
:17:54. > :17:59.with that? It is already evidence that Jeremy Hunt has breached the
:17:59. > :18:03.ministerial code. The ministerial code says that you must not, a
:18:03. > :18:09.Secretary of State must not mislead Parliament. He has. He said on the
:18:09. > :18:11.3rd March that he had published all the exchanges between his
:18:11. > :18:15.department and News Corp, and evidently he had not published all
:18:15. > :18:20.those exchanges, because he is now offering to do that some months
:18:20. > :18:24.later. Also, the ministerial code says your special adviser, your
:18:24. > :18:28.political appointee must act appropriately, and you must be
:18:28. > :18:31.responsible for and control your political adviser. Well, the Prime
:18:31. > :18:38.Minister and Jeremy Hunt have acknowledged that he did not. That
:18:38. > :18:41.is a breach of the code, they have acknowledged that. There is really
:18:41. > :18:43.no point in referring to the ministerial code, because you have
:18:43. > :18:49.called for his resignation. You have already convicted him without
:18:49. > :18:52.a hearing. He is evidently that not only has he breached the
:18:52. > :18:58.ministerial code in many ways, but even more seriously than that, when
:18:58. > :19:04.he was responsible for acting in a quasi-judicial manner on a hugely
:19:05. > :19:09.important take over bid of �8 billion, he did not act impartially.
:19:09. > :19:13.So you have decided he is guilty. Absolutely. So what is the point of
:19:13. > :19:17.a hearing? It says everything about David Cameron that he is refusing
:19:17. > :19:20.to refer him to Sir Alex Allan to investigate all these breaches of
:19:20. > :19:23.the ministerial code, and there is one thing which I would like to
:19:23. > :19:25.point out, which is that the ministerial code says that if a
:19:25. > :19:31.matter warrants further investigation in the view of the
:19:31. > :19:35.Prime Minister, then he will refer it to the independent adviser. He
:19:35. > :19:38.does not have a discretion to say, oh, somebody else can look at it.
:19:38. > :19:43.The Prime Minister himself was now in breach of the ministerial code.
:19:43. > :19:49.I have read that bit of the code, it says the Prime Minister himself
:19:49. > :19:53.feels there has been a breach. You called for his resignation within
:19:54. > :19:58.25 minutes of the publication of crucial correspondence between
:19:58. > :20:04.Jeremy Hunt's office and the Murdoch empire. Had he read it all?
:20:04. > :20:07.No, in fact, I had already formed a view that Jeremy Hunt had acted
:20:07. > :20:12.totally inappropriately even before those e-mails were published, and I
:20:12. > :20:18.went to the House of Commons. When I saw James Murdoch's evidence
:20:19. > :20:22.to Leveson, it was quite clear that the Culture Secretary had given
:20:22. > :20:28.James Murdoch to understand that he was not impartial in the bid, that
:20:28. > :20:32.he was on his side. So you believes James Murdoch? What you have got to
:20:32. > :20:35.do... Let me explain this, what you have got to do when you act in a
:20:35. > :20:39.quasi-judicial fashion is that you have got to be impartial, and you
:20:39. > :20:42.have got to make it clear that everybody understands you are
:20:42. > :20:47.impartial, so you have got to create the perception that of
:20:47. > :20:52.impartiality, and clearly one... Clearly James Murdoch had the
:20:52. > :20:57.perception and had been given to believe that Jeremy Hunt was on his
:20:57. > :21:02.side. That is hopeless. But rather than studying the 163 pages of
:21:02. > :21:04.evidence, within 25 minutes, on the basis of testimony from James
:21:05. > :21:09.Murdoch, he decided he had to resign, even though there's plenty
:21:09. > :21:14.other bits of testimony you do not agree with. Well, the point is...
:21:14. > :21:19.Correct? It was before the e-mails were published that I formed the
:21:19. > :21:23.view that Jeremy Hunt had made a major... On the basis of James
:21:23. > :21:27.Murdoch saying, I had nothing to do with the hacking, do you believe
:21:27. > :21:30.him on that? Do you believe him on that? Either he knew about the
:21:30. > :21:34.hacking or he should have known about the hacking. So you do not
:21:34. > :21:37.believe him on that, but you believe them on the basis of his
:21:37. > :21:43.testimony, on evidence that had not been published and you have not
:21:43. > :21:49.read. What he had done is said that the Secretary of State had given
:21:49. > :21:53.him to understand that, actually, he was on his side. Actually,
:21:53. > :21:58.Andrew, the e-mails have only borne that out, so the idea that
:21:58. > :22:04.somehow... Which you had not read, you condemned the man before you
:22:04. > :22:10.had read the evidence. I formed the view, before the e-mails were
:22:10. > :22:13.published, that he had acted so wrongly and so out with the
:22:13. > :22:17.obligations to be quasi-judicial and impartial, that he could no
:22:17. > :22:22.longer carry on in his office. And every minute of every day brings
:22:22. > :22:26.more evidence that my judgment was right and he should go all start do
:22:26. > :22:31.you believe David Cameron when he says there was no grand bargain,
:22:31. > :22:35.you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, with Rupert Murdoch?
:22:35. > :22:41.I think the more that David Cameron refuses to refer the matter...
:22:41. > :22:44.you believe them? Well, I do not have any specific evidence that he
:22:44. > :22:48.did, although I think it was unwise of David Cameron, when the
:22:48. > :22:53.government was considering his �8 billion deal, to be at a dinner
:22:53. > :22:57.with one side of the deal. Remember, there was a lot of people against
:22:57. > :23:01.this bird, and the Government was opposed the even-handed. Let's move
:23:02. > :23:06.on to the wider political scene now. The government is in the middle of
:23:06. > :23:10.almost a self-styled omni-shambles at the moment, and David Cameron
:23:10. > :23:13.has become considerably less popular, it is clear in all polls,
:23:13. > :23:17.the budget and the things we are talking about, the economy taking
:23:17. > :23:21.its toll. Given that has happened, why does he remain more popular
:23:21. > :23:25.than your leader? Well, let's see what happens at elections this
:23:25. > :23:30.Thursday. Currently, people are already filling in their postal
:23:30. > :23:35.vote ballot forms... Your party is more popular, I accept that in the
:23:35. > :23:40.polls, I've seen the Tories are down to 29%. But in terms of
:23:40. > :23:46.performance, Your leader is less popular than David Cameron. Why?
:23:46. > :23:50.terms of performance, Ed Miliband is leading the team of Labour
:23:50. > :23:52.candidate in an election on Thursday. It is his job to lead a
:23:52. > :23:57.great team of Labour candidates to make sure we have Labour
:23:57. > :24:01.councillors who can stand up for people at local level. The wheels
:24:01. > :24:06.have for Mark the coalition economic policy, that is clear to
:24:06. > :24:09.see, it is back in recession. -- have fallen off. Your party has a
:24:09. > :24:16.comfortable lead in the polls. I want to show you these figures.
:24:16. > :24:21.Given the state of the economy, quite remarkably, people are still
:24:21. > :24:27.more inclined to trust Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne on the economy than
:24:27. > :24:33.Mr Miliband and Mr Balls. Why? you know, we will see... You can
:24:33. > :24:37.see the figures there, 36%, more people trust Mr Osborne and Mr
:24:37. > :24:41.Cameron on the economy than are prepared to vote for them! We are
:24:41. > :24:44.making an argument which we believe is right, which is that
:24:44. > :24:48.unfortunately the Government have got it completely wrong. They
:24:48. > :24:53.promised that they would bring the deficit down, that the economy
:24:53. > :24:56.would grow and that unemployment would fall. Actually, what is
:24:56. > :25:00.happening is it is becoming evidence that they are borrowing
:25:00. > :25:05.much more than a plant, �150 billion more, the economy is
:25:05. > :25:11.stagnating... Why do people trust them more? You are not winning the
:25:11. > :25:13.argument. I think people will say that the argument being made by the
:25:13. > :25:17.shadow chancellor and by Ed Miliband is actually, unfortunately,
:25:17. > :25:21.coming true, and the Government's need to go to Plan B, because
:25:21. > :25:24.people are really suffering because of their mistakes. Isn't there
:25:24. > :25:29.something wrong with the Labour leadership? Ken Livingstone is less
:25:29. > :25:33.popular than the Labour Party in London, much less popular. Ed
:25:33. > :25:39.Miliband is less popular than the Labour Party in the country. This
:25:39. > :25:43.is a quote from your deputy- chairman, Tom Watson, let's get
:25:43. > :25:50.that onto the screen. This is what he said to London supporters, hold
:25:50. > :25:55.your nose, vote for Ken. Hold your nose! Hardly a rallying cry, is it?
:25:55. > :26:01.Well, I am strongly supporting Ken, and he would be saying to make...
:26:01. > :26:05.Why did he say, hold your nose? have put it to me that, if Ken were
:26:05. > :26:09.more popular than the party, you would be saying, why is the party
:26:09. > :26:12.so unpopular? There is often a differential. The point is that Ken
:26:12. > :26:18.is putting forward a lot of key points which are really important
:26:18. > :26:25.for Londoners. Will you hold your nose when you vote for Ken? No.
:26:25. > :26:29.is Tom Watson? I had not seen that quote. You have now! I have seen it
:26:30. > :26:37.and your assurances that is what he said. I do not agree with it, Ken
:26:37. > :26:41.is the best mayor for London. is another quote from a Labour pier,
:26:41. > :26:44.he was characteristically forthright. I do not care if Ed
:26:44. > :26:50.Miliband is backing Ken Livingstone, I suggest no-one votes for Ken
:26:50. > :26:53.Livingstone. When you have a word with him? If you want to lower
:26:53. > :26:57.fares, more police, the restoration of the Education Maintenance
:26:57. > :27:02.Allowance, low energy costs, vote for Ken Livingstone. This is about
:27:02. > :27:04.policy, not about what people say about 10, it is about policy and
:27:04. > :27:08.the difference it will make for Londoners. Will you withdraw the
:27:09. > :27:14.whip from Lord Sugar? They are all sorts of different views in the
:27:14. > :27:18.party. So you will not say to Alan Sugar, you are fired! We are saying
:27:18. > :27:24.to voters, vote for Ken, vote Labour, do not have Tory Boris
:27:24. > :27:29.Johnson who wanted the top rate of tax cuts by 10%. So Alan Sugar's
:27:29. > :27:34.job is safe in the House of Lords. He is a peer, once you are
:27:34. > :27:39.pointed... Oh, well, it is really not the issue. People are not
:27:39. > :27:42.voting on Alan Sugar. He has got 2 million followers on Twitter! You
:27:42. > :27:46.have a particular problem in the south, problems in Glasgow against
:27:46. > :27:51.the nationalists, in London against Ken, and even at a time when you're
:27:51. > :28:00.doing well nationally, you have a problem in the south. Let me ask,
:28:00. > :28:05.why should people in the South vote for a party that brews Tony Blair?
:28:05. > :28:11.The party did not boo Tony Blair. There was a tiny fraction of the
:28:11. > :28:15.audience. I was there, it was more than a tiny fraction. So was I.
:28:15. > :28:19.Your leader did not slap them down, he did not say a word about it.
:28:19. > :28:23.tiny fraction of the audience, quite wrongly in my view, and in
:28:23. > :28:29.the view of the rest of conference, jeered the reference to Tony Blair,
:28:29. > :28:32.and for the rest of the conference, anybody who said, and we don't
:28:32. > :28:37.believe that Tony Blair should have been jeered, the conference
:28:37. > :28:41.actually erupted in support. Do not misrepresent that. Viewers will
:28:41. > :28:46.make up their minds. Let me bring you back for circle and as a simple
:28:46. > :28:49.question. His Rupert Murdoch a fit and proper person to hold a
:28:49. > :28:54.broadcasting licence in the United Kingdom? Well, I would say that
:28:54. > :29:00.should be examined... What is your view? If I were examining it
:29:00. > :29:04.independently, of course I would say no, because... So we should
:29:04. > :29:08.lose the 40% of BSkyB that he currently owns? If the test were to
:29:08. > :29:13.be applied and you asked, what has gone on in this organisation...
:29:13. > :29:17.Should he lose it? Yes, he is not a fit and proper person because of
:29:17. > :29:22.what went on in his organisation, widespread criminality. Thank you
:29:22. > :29:26.for being with us on the Sunday Politics. It is approaching 12:30pm,
:29:26. > :29:30.you are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes,
:29:30. > :29:40.I will be back to look at the week ahead with the best political panel
:29:40. > :29:52.
:29:52. > :29:54.in the business! Until then, the There are four days to go and the
:29:54. > :29:58.mayoral campaign now enters its final crucial stage. While Boris
:29:58. > :30:00.Johnson is - according to the polls - personally ahead so far, his
:30:00. > :30:06.Conservative Party is beset by economic woes and yet more fall-out
:30:06. > :30:09.from the phone-hacking scandal. In the last of our series of
:30:09. > :30:14.interviews we were hoping to talk to Boris Johnson today, but he was
:30:14. > :30:20.unable to be with us. Joining me instead is Kit Malthouse, who has
:30:20. > :30:24.been one of his deputies for the last four years. Welcome. Did he
:30:24. > :30:27.not want to do this? As you were told in March bore his a long-
:30:28. > :30:30.standing -- bore his a long- standing engagement this morning.
:30:31. > :30:36.What is he doing, campaigning? has a private engagement this
:30:36. > :30:46.morning. He didn't want to defendant his record in -- defend
:30:46. > :30:48.
:30:48. > :30:50.his record in person? You were told in March. You can make an issue of
:30:50. > :30:53.it or ask information. OK, you are here. Let's put to you the
:30:53. > :30:55.questions we would have asked him. Is Boris Johnson pleased with the
:30:55. > :30:57.Government's economic plans, their progress, the us a terality
:30:57. > :31:07.measures and -- austerity measures? Boris recognises the Government has
:31:07. > :31:07.
:31:07. > :31:12.done London a good deal. He's been on the phone badgering to get
:31:12. > :31:15.London the deal it needs. He has a philosophy which is this, London is
:31:15. > :31:19.the heart of the UK economy. It's the beating heart often of the
:31:19. > :31:23.European economy and it needs investment. So, he has over the
:31:23. > :31:27.last four years extracted billions of pounds for investment in the
:31:27. > :31:30.basic infrastructure of London to produce an economic machine, if you
:31:30. > :31:32.like, that will be the rival of the world and in those circumstances I
:31:32. > :31:35.think he does think the Government's done the City well.
:31:35. > :31:40.Was he pleased for instance that the Chancellor bowed to what he had
:31:40. > :31:44.been asking for repeatedly? Lowering the top rate of tax for
:31:44. > :31:49.the rerich? What Boris has done over the last four years is take a
:31:49. > :31:53.lot of flack, if you like, for standing up for London's
:31:53. > :31:59.competitiveness across the world. The Chancellor obviously - listened
:31:59. > :32:03.to him and said reduce the top rate. Can I tput in context. We have been
:32:03. > :32:09.dealing with the biggest financial crash for the last whatever years,
:32:09. > :32:13.the financial services industry was in a very bad odour with lots of
:32:13. > :32:17.people. Boris recognised early on and he called it right, I think t
:32:17. > :32:23.would be a mistake to jump on the band wagon of trashing that
:32:23. > :32:27.industry. I am just saying he is happy that's happened and happy
:32:27. > :32:30.with what we have to do to pay for that, like, for instance freezing
:32:30. > :32:34.tax relief for pensioners, the granny tax, if you like? I don't
:32:34. > :32:38.think he necessarily backs the entire balance of things that were
:32:38. > :32:42.in the Budget. A number of things that he has some question marks
:32:42. > :32:45.over. But at the same time... Because they're harmful? His view
:32:45. > :32:51.was that for London to remain competitive to attract the best and
:32:51. > :32:54.the brightest here, and to attract the headquarters of huge financial
:32:54. > :33:00.institutions, we had to be tax competitive. Having a higher rate
:33:00. > :33:05.tax rate at 50% didn't put us in that position. It was putting
:33:05. > :33:09.people off coming. When those high paid people come, didn't give them
:33:09. > :33:13.unqualified support, when they come they bring wealth throughout the
:33:13. > :33:16.City, they bring with them jobs, rents for landlords, in buildings,
:33:16. > :33:20.they bring cleaning jobs, supply jobs, middle management,
:33:20. > :33:23.accountants, lawyers, all those people benefit from that wealth.
:33:23. > :33:27.One last part on this section, happy with the benefit changes and
:33:27. > :33:31.the cap which we are seeing already are forcing hundreds and will force
:33:31. > :33:34.hundreds of Londoners to move from their homes? Boris wasn't happy
:33:34. > :33:38.with that and he berated the Government and managed to extract
:33:38. > :33:41.three things from them. A transitional arrangement, he
:33:41. > :33:45.extracted 100 million for the boroughs, and he extracted a number
:33:45. > :33:48.of landlord incentives to try and make housing cheaper so that people
:33:48. > :33:52.who are at benefit levels could stay in their homes. There is no
:33:52. > :33:58.need, we believe, for people to export people out of London. We
:33:58. > :34:01.think the arrangements put in place to soften, if you like... Three or
:34:01. > :34:06.four years down the line, but it will happen and you won't be able
:34:06. > :34:10.to do anything about it. housing - something knees to be
:34:10. > :34:14.done -- needs to be done about that, in a gradual way so people are not
:34:14. > :34:16.damaged or affected significantly in any way. Boris personally
:34:16. > :34:22.extracted those concessions from the Government for the people of
:34:22. > :34:26.London. Let's look at the flagship policies which - the cycle hire
:34:26. > :34:30.scheme to begin with. Is he disappointed this hasn't made the
:34:30. > :34:34.money? It's not self-financing, it's a drain on public resources,
:34:34. > :34:37.contrary to what he said? overall view of the scheme is a
:34:38. > :34:42.great one. That's why we are expanding it. It's going east to
:34:42. > :34:44.the Olympics, west in the next couple of years and once it's
:34:44. > :34:51.expanded and there is wider use there will be greater recovery of
:34:51. > :34:53.the underlining costs and it may over time, hopefully... Costs?
:34:53. > :34:56.Fundamentally when you are providing public transport
:34:56. > :35:02.infrastructure often it's not done at full cost recovery. The buses
:35:02. > :35:07.get a subsidy, the tube. People understand that. But disappointed,
:35:07. > :35:11.he promised that and it hasn't happened. It was self-financing.
:35:11. > :35:13.is pleased with the amount of private sponsorship. We would like
:35:13. > :35:17.it to be making more money than it is. We recognise this is a public
:35:17. > :35:21.good. This is something that is trying to get a shift in the
:35:21. > :35:25.mindset of Londoners about how they travel around the capital. I wanted
:35:25. > :35:34.to check... Can I finish. He said he is pleased with that. Is he
:35:34. > :35:38.pleased with up to to �25 million from Barclays Bank whose chairman,
:35:38. > :35:42.Bob Diamond made �17 million in one year? He would have liked to have
:35:42. > :35:47.got more, �25 million was the best bid at the time. The expansion
:35:47. > :35:50.hopefully will extract more and the west even more again. These are one
:35:50. > :35:53.of the new things Boris has brought. Never before had a mayor extracted
:35:53. > :35:58.tens of millions of pounds of private sponsorship into public
:35:58. > :36:02.works. This is money that's given for public public good and he got
:36:02. > :36:07.that personly himself. That's I think an achievement. What about
:36:07. > :36:10.the other flagship measure, tackle the underlining causes of youth
:36:10. > :36:14.crime. The civil servant, if you like, that designed the time for
:36:14. > :36:18.action, said virtually nothing had been done. How does the mayor react
:36:18. > :36:23.to that? Obviously, as you know that was part of my remit as well,
:36:23. > :36:28.and I react very badly to that, that's a slur on the work of many
:36:28. > :36:32.people who were in that man's team. A slur? He is just saying it didn't
:36:32. > :36:35.work. Tim, you have been down to Feltham and seen the prison unit
:36:35. > :36:40.there, that is a sign of what we have been doing f you bothered we
:36:40. > :36:44.could have taken to you see the thousands of extra cadets across
:36:44. > :36:47.the now... You haven't done anything to tackle the underlining
:36:47. > :36:51.causes of youth crime particularly as it affects young black people.
:36:51. > :36:54.At some stage in this interview you have to allow me to finish an
:36:54. > :36:58.answer. You are getting plenty of time to finish. Go ahead. We have
:36:58. > :37:01.put together a comprehensive plan working backwards from young
:37:01. > :37:04.offenders institutions through young people's lives looking at
:37:04. > :37:07.where things are going wrong and they're getting into crime. That's
:37:07. > :37:12.dealing with difficult issues and difficult young people. These are
:37:12. > :37:17.young people who were neglected for many, many years before. This is
:37:17. > :37:20.new work - Ken said... Are you disappointed at the progress?
:37:20. > :37:24.not. I am pleased with the progress. Is the mayor disappointed? He is
:37:24. > :37:29.not. One of the critical things here, Tim, this is one of the
:37:29. > :37:33.things BBC London always goes for Boris on. Boris is somebody who
:37:33. > :37:39.sets ambitious targets. We don't resile from that. Reset ambitious
:37:39. > :37:43.targets because we are driving a machine here, TFL, the Met police,
:37:43. > :37:48.we set hard targets and if we fall short that doesn't mean we failed.
:37:49. > :37:51.It means that we made progress, but we haven't done p... Does he regret
:37:51. > :37:55.misleading people about the effectiveness of the Feltham unit
:37:55. > :38:00.and that programme as you said with his giving of false statistics
:38:00. > :38:03.about how it was impacting on re- offending? You are misleading
:38:03. > :38:07.people. He gave the best statistics that he had been given at the time.
:38:07. > :38:10.They were unreliable statistics which the officials had expressly
:38:10. > :38:12.said to Boris Johnson and presumably you, should not use
:38:12. > :38:17.publicly about the re-offending rates, claiming great things for
:38:17. > :38:22.this unit which were not imperically proven? They were early
:38:22. > :38:24.statistics. They were always in the framework of going to be an
:38:24. > :38:28.independent evaluation. You have had a session with this scheme
:38:28. > :38:33.over... The Howard league for penal reform said why are they making
:38:33. > :38:39.these claims, you know it is not possible to make claims? One guy
:38:39. > :38:44.from the Howard League who you repeated go to for quotes. Can I
:38:44. > :38:47.just... Can I give you. You tput in every report you do. The paragraph
:38:47. > :38:50.from the official evaluation. can talk more in the interview than
:38:50. > :38:58.me. A small number of people released, their potential
:38:58. > :39:01.motivation to change their - and lack of adequate matched control
:39:01. > :39:04.group, mean no firm conclusions can be drawn. You picked a group of
:39:04. > :39:12.people where you can't tell that Feltham made the difference, they
:39:12. > :39:15.were going to not reoffend anyway, if they haven't been retpaefding.
:39:15. > :39:18.That's not true. There is much about that scheme that is good. We
:39:18. > :39:20.have had fantastic stories, young people coming out of Feltham who
:39:20. > :39:24.have gone straight to university. We are trying to turn lives around
:39:24. > :39:28.but I am not going to pretend this is not difficult and because you
:39:28. > :39:32.and your pals at BBC London decide to have a go at the scheme doesn't
:39:32. > :39:37.mean... Professor Gus John an educationalist said the policy was
:39:37. > :39:43.a sham. You have done not enough, nothing to understand the
:39:43. > :39:47.underlying causes of black youth crime. Can I speak now? OK. Tim, we
:39:47. > :39:51.started out on a very, very difficult job four years ago. The
:39:51. > :39:55.gangs, the knives, all of them had been left unattended for eight
:39:55. > :39:58.years under Ken Livingstone. These were deep-seated problems that had
:39:58. > :40:01.infected the minds of young people and communities over a number of
:40:01. > :40:05.years. Turning that around is a very difficult job and is going to
:40:05. > :40:09.take a lot longer than four years. If I can finish, please. What we
:40:09. > :40:13.try to do was address the issue through policing, to look at the
:40:13. > :40:23.enforcement side and if we can improve that and at the same time
:40:23. > :40:23.
:40:23. > :40:26.do some of that longer-term work. The critical word is longer-term
:40:26. > :40:28.and we learn as we go. The proof of the pudding is the numbers.
:40:28. > :40:31.Teenager killings are half what they were in... Serious youth crime
:40:31. > :40:33.going up every year. That's not true, either. You are promoting
:40:33. > :40:38.falsities here. Let's not get involved in a dispute about the
:40:38. > :40:42.numbers. The wider picture, it was his main pledge, very reasonant to
:40:42. > :40:47.hold the Metropolitan Police to account during his term. Yes.
:40:47. > :40:50.badly does he feel about how he failed over the phone hacking
:40:50. > :40:55.scandal which brought the Metropolitan Police to their knees
:40:55. > :40:59.last year? Holding the Metropolitan Police to account, to investigate
:40:59. > :41:03.News International, they didn't do their job, did they? Tim Tim, I
:41:03. > :41:08.find it very odd that you are posing this in a sort of framework
:41:08. > :41:12.of some failure of Boris. Boris was briefed on a regular basis by the
:41:12. > :41:18.third most senior police officer in the land about the progress of the
:41:19. > :41:24.hacking investigation. He was given - he was given briefings from John
:41:24. > :41:28.Yates that led him to make certain public statements. Subsequently...
:41:28. > :41:31.Didn't ask the questions. There are all these people apparently
:41:31. > :41:35.emerging who have had their phones hacked and he didn't ask questions.
:41:35. > :41:38.He received a letter of apology from John Yates to say the
:41:38. > :41:43.information given was not necessarily correct and after that
:41:43. > :41:47.he has put... People knew that. I am saying at the time the
:41:47. > :41:50.importance of this constitutional role holding the police to account,
:41:50. > :41:54.was it right for instance for him to be pursuing commercial
:41:54. > :41:57.arrangements, deals with News International when they were under
:41:57. > :42:05.suspicious, their staff over phone hacking? What commercial deal as
:42:05. > :42:09.soon as. A partnership to open a new mayoral academy in east London.
:42:09. > :42:13.Interesting them in cable car. There were regular regular
:42:13. > :42:19.discussions, did you not know about that? You have to put two parts of
:42:19. > :42:23.the equation together. He is being told by the - on the other side, he
:42:23. > :42:27.has this large employer in London who is willing to put private money
:42:27. > :42:31.into academies or whatever. Isn't that the iraou -- issue? There was
:42:31. > :42:34.a conflict of interest here. He was the person constitutionallily in
:42:34. > :42:38.charge of the police and he was embarking on these dealings and
:42:39. > :42:41.there were lunches and dinners, we can put those aside, seeking
:42:41. > :42:44.commercial partnerships with News International? Was that right?
:42:44. > :42:47.is a rather crafty kind of smear attempt which is frankly a bit
:42:47. > :42:51.beneath you. A conflict of interest. Throwing in that little line about
:42:51. > :42:56.lunches and dinners, we will forget that. This is a straight smear and
:42:56. > :42:59.you should stop it, it's not fair. It's not right. Would it have been
:42:59. > :43:03.right when there was an ongoing, concerns raised by parliamentary
:43:04. > :43:07.committees. Boris was a victim of phone hacking himself. He relied on
:43:07. > :43:10.information that he was given by extremely senior police officers
:43:10. > :43:16.and indeed I might say by the Commissioner of the Police himself
:43:16. > :43:20.and that's a perfectly legitimate and fair... I haven't suggested,
:43:20. > :43:22.you will know other politicians are being accused of trying to tury
:43:22. > :43:27.favour with News -- curry favour with News International. Was this
:43:27. > :43:31.an appropriate way, did it lead to this hacking scanned al, not
:43:31. > :43:34.emerging as it might have done through Boris Johnson who has
:43:34. > :43:38.constitutional responsibility? Was it an error of judgment to have
:43:38. > :43:42.been so close to News International during his mayoralty? Tim, I have
:43:42. > :43:46.to say this is pretty disgraceful. Boris has behaved with complete
:43:46. > :43:49.probity throughout this issue. He was a victim of phone hacking
:43:49. > :43:54.himself. If we are talking about judgment, maybe we should talk
:43:54. > :43:59.about Ken Livingstone, who was at the employ of Mr Murdoch writing
:43:59. > :44:01.for The Sun. Now suddenly seems to have forgotten that. We are talking
:44:01. > :44:05.about partnerships, talking about public money. Two things happening
:44:05. > :44:08.at the same time. A guarantee, hacking victims may well have
:44:08. > :44:13.suggested of wanting to know the extent of phone hacking. He was the
:44:13. > :44:17.person that could put pressure, ask the right questions of the
:44:17. > :44:21.Metropolitan Police, as we see that didn't happen. No, no. At the same
:44:21. > :44:24.time,... You are making massive leaps and assumptions which are
:44:24. > :44:27.unwarranted. Boris was briefed and asked questions in those briefings
:44:27. > :44:32.about phone hacking. He got reassurances from the most senior
:44:32. > :44:34.police officers in the land that everything was fine, that there was
:44:34. > :44:38.no requirement to reopen the investigation and he relied on that
:44:38. > :44:41.information. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If he had
:44:41. > :44:44.done anything different, if he had put pressure on the police to
:44:44. > :44:47.reopen the investigation, that would have been equally as improper.
:44:47. > :44:50.Stay with us. Given the economic dip, austerity and other problems,
:44:50. > :44:53.was there ever a better time for a Labour candidate? Boris Johnson
:44:53. > :45:03.remains the bookies' favourite but could there be a Labour resurgence
:45:03. > :45:12.
:45:12. > :45:17.on the ground which springs a Boris Johnson is consistently shown
:45:17. > :45:23.as more popular than his party, Ken Livingstone dragging behind his. So
:45:23. > :45:27.why is the race falsity of different? It isn't really about
:45:28. > :45:32.the parties, although that is part of it. It is just as much about the
:45:32. > :45:36.character of the two men, and Ken Livingstone seems a bit tired,
:45:36. > :45:41.Boris is seen as amusing, he is a character, and as a result he
:45:41. > :45:48.appears to be well ahead in the polls. Boris provides a few laughs
:45:48. > :45:57.every now and then. For me, everyone I know sides with Boris,
:45:57. > :46:02.really. Why is that? Ken has had his time. But is the fact that he
:46:02. > :46:05.tickles funny Bones enough to explain why the former Etonian who
:46:05. > :46:12.acts and sounds just like a traditional Tory is not as
:46:12. > :46:16.unpopular in the polls as the Conservative Party? He does appear
:46:16. > :46:19.like a conventional Conservative if you look from outside. His image is
:46:19. > :46:24.one that you could associate with a certain part of the Conservative
:46:24. > :46:28.Party, but actually, in office, he has sustained many of the policies
:46:28. > :46:32.that Ken Livingstone had, he is relatively young and a social
:46:32. > :46:35.liberal. He does not believe in what Theresa May called the nasty
:46:35. > :46:40.party things that the Conservative Party used to be associated with.
:46:40. > :46:44.He has run London in a tolerant and relatively liberal way. He is a
:46:44. > :46:48.modern conservative in that sense. Perhaps an attempt to contaminate
:46:48. > :46:52.Boris with the Tory brand, Ken Livingstone is fond of reminding
:46:52. > :47:02.people of his opponent's affiliation. He refers to Boris
:47:02. > :47:06.Johnson part in the manifesto... But do people really need
:47:06. > :47:11.reminding? I think most people have got that Boris Johnson is posh and
:47:11. > :47:16.a Tory. Trying to remind... There is no need to remind them of that,
:47:17. > :47:20.the man appears on Have I Got News For You and remind them of that. He
:47:20. > :47:25.has been an mayor since 2008, and therefore it does not particularly
:47:25. > :47:28.help. Secondly, he has done quite a few things to distance himself from
:47:28. > :47:33.the Conservative Party. Perhaps in contrast, Ken Livingstone seems to
:47:33. > :47:36.be making the most of his association with Labour. He says he
:47:36. > :47:40.enjoys the closest relationship with the party leader and key
:47:40. > :47:43.figures often accompany him on the campaign trail. But if the last
:47:43. > :47:50.election is anything to go by, one group of traditional Labour voters
:47:50. > :47:55.are keener on the party than the man, the white working class.
:47:55. > :48:01.matter what the social class was of the people living in a White Awards,
:48:01. > :48:05.they voted Boris. The more diverse the ward, the more likely they were
:48:05. > :48:11.too vote for Ken, but the challenge for Ken is that although London is
:48:11. > :48:15.an extremely diverse city, only a minority of voters were get out to
:48:15. > :48:19.vote. No normal I am not a floating voter. I have voted Labour my
:48:20. > :48:25.entire life. I'm just not convinced that Ken is the right candidate for
:48:25. > :48:28.Labour this year. Rather than remind people he is Labour, much of
:48:28. > :48:33.the campaign has been spent reminding the public that Ken is,
:48:33. > :48:38.well, Ken. Indeed, a challenge for Ken Livingstone is that some in his
:48:38. > :48:43.own party do not seem too keen on him. People like Alan Sugar, a
:48:43. > :48:47.long-time Labour supporter, saying not can again! That has become a
:48:47. > :48:51.real problem. One of the tests offer wins an election is how
:48:51. > :48:55.committed supporters are and what they think is going to happen. The
:48:55. > :48:59.Conservatives have more support in their car -- called base for Boris
:48:59. > :49:03.that Labour does for Ken. Whatever the polls are showing, they can be
:49:03. > :49:07.wrong. There's no guarantee that on Thursday Londoners will not vote on
:49:07. > :49:12.something more like the traditional party lines.
:49:12. > :49:17.A final few words, does he feel he has it in the bag? No, I think it
:49:17. > :49:21.is very close. As we get nearer the time, people are recognising they
:49:21. > :49:26.want a mayor who will bring the city together, who recognises the
:49:26. > :49:30.need to grow the economy, but I think it is very close. All to play
:49:30. > :49:40.for. Kit Malthouse, thanks very much indeed. There is a list of all
:49:40. > :49:46.
:49:46. > :49:50.the male candidates on screen. With What have we got? A Cabinet
:49:50. > :49:53.minister struggling to hold on to his job, and economy back in
:49:53. > :49:59.recession, polls plummeting for the Prime Minister, and elections
:49:59. > :50:03.across the UK on May 3rd. David Cameron must need them like a hole
:50:03. > :50:10.in the head, but there could also be problems for Ed Miliband, plenty
:50:10. > :50:14.to talk about in the weekend! -- week ahead!
:50:14. > :50:18.We are back in recession, although Goldman Sachs has come out to say
:50:18. > :50:21.that they do not think we are, but the damage is done. Even if we are
:50:21. > :50:26.not, we are bouncing along the bottom. The coalition must be
:50:27. > :50:31.worried of the timing of this. If it stays like this for much longer,
:50:31. > :50:34.even 2015 will be trouble. whole election strategy for 2015
:50:35. > :50:38.assumed the economy would be going at a healthy clip and that the
:50:38. > :50:42.fiscal deficit would be more or less taken care of, and neither of
:50:42. > :50:47.those things look quite as likely. Even more worrying is that the
:50:47. > :50:50.economy is likely to get worse, because whether you believe the
:50:50. > :50:54.economy is suffering because of cuts or because of the eurozone,
:50:54. > :50:58.both of those things are likely to worsen over the next year. Most of
:50:58. > :51:02.the cuts have not picked in, and the eurozone crisis is now
:51:02. > :51:08.ensnaring Spain and potentially even France, countries which are
:51:08. > :51:13.too big. Ed Balls is talking about a lost decade in one of the papers.
:51:13. > :51:19.We have already had a lost half a decade. This economy is 4% smaller
:51:19. > :51:23.than it was in 2007, half a decade has already been lost. That is true,
:51:23. > :51:27.but Labour are still worried about this, because the Conservatives
:51:27. > :51:30.could still preside over five years of economic decline, but if there
:51:30. > :51:34.is a tiny bounce towards the end, they will say at the beginning of
:51:34. > :51:39.the next election, we are vindicated, so the real problem
:51:39. > :51:44.Labour has is, how do we prove the opportunity cost? How do we prove
:51:44. > :51:47.things would have been different? Also, particularly, what they try
:51:47. > :51:50.to do is shift the debate on not just what growth is there but what
:51:50. > :51:54.type of growth, is it in the private sector as well as public,
:51:54. > :51:59.in the north as well as the South, in terms of wages rather than
:51:59. > :52:03.profits? We certainly would not want the wrong sort of growth!
:52:03. > :52:07.Before I come to you, let's just see what the Prime Minister, asked
:52:07. > :52:11.about the economy, had to tell Andrew Marr this morning. I will
:52:11. > :52:15.strain every sinew to make sure we get our economy growing and get
:52:15. > :52:19.people back to work and get ourselves out of the mess that we
:52:19. > :52:23.were left by the last government. The figures this week were, you
:52:23. > :52:27.know, extremely disappointing. You know, the economy did not grow in
:52:27. > :52:32.the first three months of this year. Strain every sinew? One would hope
:52:32. > :52:37.he has been doing that already. It reminded me of Gordon Brown. You
:52:37. > :52:40.used to think, if only he worked harder, 22 hours a day, if he
:52:40. > :52:44.worked a wee bit harder, everything would be fine! I think people
:52:44. > :52:49.believe the government is working as hard as they can to make things
:52:49. > :52:52.better. The political question is whether the Tory leadership in
:52:53. > :52:57.particular I seem to understand what people who are struggling are
:52:57. > :53:00.really going through. I think you are in a good job in London and you
:53:00. > :53:04.have that kind of background, You are quite insulated from what it
:53:04. > :53:09.really feels like. Strain every sinew is not an effective message,
:53:09. > :53:14.is it? I don't think so. I think people would like to see George
:53:14. > :53:18.Osborne doing a live swap for a week, let's see how he gets on in a
:53:18. > :53:21.council house living on the minimum wage on no wage at all, and then we
:53:21. > :53:25.will feel the Chancellor is somebody who really understands
:53:25. > :53:30.what people are going through. Maybe he would think twice about
:53:30. > :53:35.putting 20% on pasties if he had to do that! Coming to May 3rd, and
:53:36. > :53:40.actions across the UK, it seems pretty clear it will be grim for
:53:40. > :53:45.the Tories. Just how good they will be Paul Labour is not so clear, but
:53:45. > :53:48.they will be grim for the Tories. But if things go badly in London
:53:48. > :53:52.for Labour and in Glasgow, we may end up still talking about Ed
:53:52. > :53:56.Miliband on Friday. I'm certain we will be if that is what happens.
:53:56. > :54:00.You could have a situation where the Tories lose 400 council seats
:54:00. > :54:05.and still end up being seen as symbolic winners, because London
:54:05. > :54:09.and Glasgow will attract so much attention. I wonder if we would be
:54:09. > :54:12.right to do that. London gets covered too much already, Glasgow
:54:12. > :54:16.is symbolic as the home of Red Clydeside, and it would show the
:54:16. > :54:21.nationalists on the move if they do win, which is not a foregone
:54:21. > :54:26.conclusion. In between, the country matters as well. Of course. Labour
:54:26. > :54:31.may do very well in between. interesting thing for me is that
:54:31. > :54:35.the turnout in the last election was 35%, phenomenally low, and we
:54:35. > :54:39.are living in a time when it is not even an delayed and anti-
:54:39. > :54:42.Conservatives, it is anti-politics. I think we are going to see the
:54:42. > :54:47.turnout go down again, and that is a massive challenge for Labour and
:54:47. > :54:51.the Tories. If I can come back on Ed Miliband, one thing I will say
:54:51. > :54:54.is that it will only go on so long, to sustain this kind of lead for a
:54:55. > :54:59.long time, to keep making us points and hammering them home on Leveson,
:54:59. > :55:05.the economy, the NHS. I think the tide will start to change, and it
:55:05. > :55:10.is going to take time. He is not actually a great leader. He is only
:55:10. > :55:15.11 points ahead, Labour across the UK, which is pretty woeful when the
:55:16. > :55:20.Tories are on 29. You would expect Labour to be picking up more.
:55:20. > :55:29.are on 10, nip and tuck with the Lib Dems! A lot of joy is expected
:55:29. > :55:33.to be 20% behind in the polls by midterm. -- a lot of Tories. Yes,
:55:33. > :55:35.they thought the cuts would be hurting, going through the hair
:55:35. > :55:41.shirt, doing the right thing, but the sunshine in the distance would
:55:41. > :55:47.be visible. It is not. It is not at the moment. The did not expect to
:55:47. > :55:51.be down in the polls because of the perception of omni-shambles. And
:55:51. > :55:53.number of entirely avoidable fiascos. Labour have been good at
:55:54. > :55:59.downplaying expectations for Thursday. They have not been
:55:59. > :56:02.boasting about making 700 seats, which is a feasible target.
:56:02. > :56:07.Perversely, because of expectations management, we might not even be
:56:07. > :56:12.talking about Boris. We have got the Select Committee on the whole
:56:12. > :56:15.hacking scandal coming out on Tuesday morning, and Harriet Harman
:56:15. > :56:21.has just of this programme that she does not think that the Murdochs
:56:22. > :56:26.are fit and proper people to own a TV licence, to have a 40% of BSkyB
:56:26. > :56:31.that they have. This makes it... If this report is highly critical of
:56:31. > :56:35.James Murdoch, that as to the clamour. I am not so sure it really
:56:35. > :56:39.does. I think people are getting very confused, because the Leveson
:56:39. > :56:43.Inquiry has come on for long time now, and we have got a select
:56:43. > :56:47.committee inquiry as well. That seems to be a little bit irrelevant
:56:47. > :56:51.at his point. The big game is Leveson. He is taking his time,
:56:51. > :56:54.going through things forensically. I do not think there will be huge
:56:54. > :57:00.amount of excitement from the select committee report. Remind Me
:57:00. > :57:03.Who owns the Sunday Times. well! I understand the committee
:57:03. > :57:08.has been arguing down to the wire. They cannot be tough about those
:57:08. > :57:13.who have been arrested, because it is sub judice. And contempt. But
:57:13. > :57:17.James Murdoch has not been arrested. If the what Harriet Harman says, if
:57:17. > :57:20.the report is book about James Murdoch, that whole issue, and
:57:20. > :57:23.Ofcom is investigating whether they are fit and proper, it becomes an
:57:23. > :57:27.issue. I am surprised that whether the question of whether Murdoch
:57:27. > :57:30.should be able to hold on to BSkyB has not taken up in the way I
:57:30. > :57:36.thought it would. I think it is right that he is allowed to retain
:57:36. > :57:39.40%. It would not exist if he did not started. We would have an
:57:39. > :57:44.extraordinary monopolistic media market were it not for what he did
:57:44. > :57:46.with Sky. The political question of whether Jeremy Hunt hands on on not,
:57:46. > :57:53.on top of that there is David Cameron's own appearance before
:57:53. > :57:58.Leveson in June. Fit and proper, 20 seconds. There la two big questions
:57:58. > :58:01.coming out of this, bigger than the personalities involved. 10 seconds!
:58:01. > :58:06.Can you have an independent investigation into what is going on
:58:07. > :58:11.when it is only cold for by Cameron? The second one I will have
:58:11. > :58:15.to tweet! We will look forward to that. That is all for today. You
:58:15. > :58:19.can follow the twists and turns of the huge political week on the
:58:19. > :58:23.Daily Politics over on BBC Two at noon from tomorrow and every day.
:58:23. > :58:28.Just imagine, this time next week we will know if it is 10 or Boris