29/04/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. David Cameron puts

his Culture Secretary on probation this morning. He'll see how Jeremy

Hunt performs before Leveson, then decide his future. But a lot could

happen before then. We'll ask Lib Dem Culture spokesman Don Foster

who he's backing in the hunt for Hunt.

Hunt's tormentor in-chief has been Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman,

who joins us for the Sunday interview. She'll tell us what's at

stake for Labour when London, Glasgow and councils around the UK

go to the polls on Thursday. And, how do you get out of an omni-

shambles? Don't know? Well, we've been asking around Westminster for

tips. Always happy to help. All that, and our political panel

of the best and the brightest, here every week to analyse British

politics in The Week Ahead and tweeting mercilessly with abandon

throughout the programme. In London: Four days to go and in

the last of our series of interviews with the mayoral

candidates we will be speaking not to Boris Johnson, but one of his

deputies. All that coming up, but first the

news with Maxine. Good afternoon. The Prime Minister

has insisted there was no grand deal between him and the Murdoch

media empire to trade political support in return for helping their

business interests. Speaking to the BBC, David Cameron also said he if

it is shown that the Culture Secretary breached the code for

Government ministers, then he would act. Our political correspondent

Naomi Grimley reports. David Cameron has had a terrible

week of headlines, after new evidence emerged from the Leveson

Inquiry into media ethics. Even the Prime Minister's own meetings with

the Murdoches are being examined. So, was there some unspoken

agreement whereby News International backed the

Conservatives in return for commercial favours? Mr Cameron says

no. Was there some big deal, some big agreement between me and Rupert

Murdoch or James Murdoch that in return for the support for the

Conservative Party I would somehow help their business interests or

allow this merger to go through? That is not true. But this man, the

Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is still under the most scrutiny. His

office appears to have had regular contact with News International at

a very sensitive time and the Murdoches were hoping to launch a

full buyout of BSkyB. So is the Prime Minister still backing him

100%? I think he does a good job. I think he is a good culture, media

and sport sport Secretary. He is He is doing an excellent job on the

Olympics. I do think... You think he can survive? People deserve to

have these things looked into properly. The Prime Minister has

insisted that Jeremy Hunt should be able to give evidence to the

Leveson Inquiry before any judgments are made. But, as Jeremy

Hunt's own advisor has already resigned, Mr Cameron is under

pressure to trigger a specific investigation into whether

Ministerial rules were broken. things stand, I don't believe

Jeremy Hunt breached the Ministerial Code. If evidence comes

out through this exhaustive inquiry, where you are giving evidence under

oath f he does breach the code, clearly that's a different issue

and I would act. Jeremy Hunt isn't due to appear before the Leveson

Inquiry until mid-May. But a trawl of the Culture Secretary's e-mails

and text messages is already under way.

Police in Leeds have arrested a 36- year-old man in connection with two

murders in the North East of England. James Allen is being held

on suspicion of killing an 81-year- old man in Middlesbrough and a 50-

year-old woman in Whitby. Residents in a block of flats in

East London have been told that surface-to-air missiles could be

placed on their roof during the Olympics. People living there have

received a leaflet telling them soldiers could be based there over

the summer. Ministers revealed last year that the military might deploy

missiles in the capital to defend the Games. Flood alerts have been

issued across England and Wales for the next 48 hours. Up to 40

milimetres of rain is predicted to fall in places - more than the UK's

average rainfall last month. At Burnham-on-Sea in Somerset the bad

weather has brought down a number of trees, causing delays on the

roads. Engineers are also working to secure electricity cables which

fell down overnight in gales of up to 60mph. That's it for the moment.

The next news on BBC1 is at 6.00pm. Thank you. Good to see the drought

is still going well! Another day, another set of grim

headlines for the Government. After ricocheting from tax trouble to tax

trouble post-Budget, the Government is now reeling from complaints that

it got too close the the Murdochs, especially Culture Secretary Jeremy

Hunt, who's now fighting for his political life, with only

conditional support this morning from the Prime Minister. More

important, the economy is back in recession. It wasn't meant to be

like this and it's taking its toll. One poll today has the

Conservatives on their lowest rating for eight years at 29%. So,

how might the Tories and the Coalition Government, more

generally, recover? Giles Dilnot's been asking around.

The PM has admitted it's been a bad day for a month ahead of the local

elections. An omni-shambles Budget. If it

starts to look incompetent, it's in trouble.

Two arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk.

Forget milk or indeed the price of it, there is a bewildering awry of

suggestions across Westminster for what the PM could grab off the

political shelf to reseize the initiative. Could it be tax cuts or

public spending cuts? More of them. Is it getting the policy focus

right? Or is it indeed just renosing the message? Could it be a

range of new political people in Downing Street? Or does it just

boil down to a few treats for those backbenchers who still feel he is a

bit aloof? I am not bothered whether he has - what I am

interested in is whether escapable of doing it, what we need are

solutions at the moment. And not some, to be honest, people are

being rude at each other. We don't need to have Ministers inviting us

in for cups of tea and glasses of wine. What we need is for them to

be delivering stuff that we can talk about in our constituencies

and actually see that it's making a difference. That's all very well,

but they may be expecting too much of this coalition. The base

position for the Government is very difficult. The Conservatives don't

have a majority. They're in a coalition with a party with which

they don't have that much in common. They don't have any money. I think

one of the things that's happened is MPs, journalists, the Government

itself, doesn't accept this is a Government with real limitations.

Another limitation may be the very structure of the Downing Street

operation. I think the root of the problems lie in absence of

political nous inside Number 10. Coalition has given huge power to

civil servants. The policy unit is entirely staffed by civil servants.

The idea that by moving the press office from one room to another and

making sure that someone in the policy unit has a political

background rather than a civil service one, the idea that that

standing against billions of pounds of public spending reductions is

going to make a difference is fanciful.

Hence, in the short-term to draw a line the PM needs a Boris Johnson

victory in London this week. There's no doubt that for a Tory to

win in mid-term in austerity driven Government with all this t would be

wonderful blast of good news, a shot in the arm for David Cameron t

might even tip his fortune from bad to good. In the long-term, everyone

we spoke to knew the Government's fortunes hinge on the economy.

policies that we have announced and that are all about getting the

economy growing again, rebalancing it away from the public sector,

away from financial services, that actually starts happening and

starts happening visibly in people's lives. I think that when

that does happen, and I am confident it will, and can, then I

think that people will start ignoring the sort of froth that

otherwise with dominate. Dominate it has, but in a week that

saw us enter a double dip recession, the men at the top know that

confidence has certainly yet to spread to the wider public.

For the latest on Government's big problem this weekend, the the skapt

hunt affair, we are joined by Adam Fleming. We have had the Sunday

papers and the Andrew Marr show, is Mr Hunt in a better or worse place?

Afternoon, well it looks like the interpretation that's been put on

this is that David Cameron has put his Culture Secretary on probation.

That's because we have now got a timeline for the process by which

it will be judged whether Jeremy Hunt has broken the rule book for

Cabinet Ministers, the Ministerial Code and this looks like this, in

the middle of next month Mr Hunt will go to the Leveson Inquiry and

give evidence under oath, like all witnesses there, although he is not

going earlier than planned because Lord Justice Leveson refused to

change the timetable for political reasons. David Cameron will look at

that evidence as it's published and will decide whether any new facts

have come out that cast doubt on Jeremy Hunt's version of events. He

will judge on the Ministerial Code, with Alex Allen, whether there's

been any breach of that code. What deck's done is neutralise two

criticisms levelled at him. One that the inquiry was going to take

too long to sort this out and it's not Lord Justice Leveson's job to

judge Ministers. The Prime Minister anxious to let us know this morning

he did no deals with Rupert Murdoch. David Cameron spent a long time in

that interview with Andrew Marr and said over and over again there was

no grand bargain with Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch or News

News Corporation or News International. David Cameron says

there was no no tweaks to Conservative policy to get the

support of those newspapers. In fact, Mr Cameron pointed out where

they disagreed on things. For example, detention without charge

for terror suspects for 42 days. Although David Cameron said

something that he said a few times, which is that he and all Prime

Ministers had got too close to newspaper proprietors and newspaper

editors, although Mr Cameron pointed out that Tony Blair and

Gordon Brown had met Rupert Murdoch far more times in the first few

years in office than he had. We got that infamous pre-Christmas Daner a

couple -- dinner a couple of years ago, much speculation about what

was said at that. David Cameron says the conversation was entirely

appropriate. It was all about how from now on the Government was

going to handle the merger talks over BSkyB properly after Vince

Cable got caught out. Thank you for that.

Where do David Cameron's coalition partners stand on this? We are

joined by Don Foster, a man who has been covering the culture brief for

the Liberal Democrats since most of us were in short trousers.

The chairman of the committee on public standards agrees, even

senior Tory backbenchers want this to happen. The Prime Minister says

wait. Where do you stand? I think everybody's agreed that we have got

to have that investigation as to whether Jeremy Hunt breached the

Ministerial Code, the public want that. The real question is how is

the best way of going about that. Is it by having some sort of behind

the scenes investigation into what is after all an investigation into

alleged behind the scenes deals anyway? Or should we have the

opportunity that is provided of Jeremy Hunt having to give evidence

in front of a judge, under oath, with some of the most forensic

examination team available to ask him questions? I think the public

would prefer that, and the minute we have seen that then if there is

anything untoward, then I have no doubt whatsoever that there has to

be an immediate investigation into the Ministerial Code. Justice

Leveson says he is not competent to rule on breaches of the code,

that's not his job. Nor should it be. But the job of Lord Justice

Leveson is clear in his remit, it's to investigate the relationship

between politicians and the media and that's what he will do and this

is part of it. After all, if you have a big deal, politicians

agreeing who can own the media, there can't be much of a bigger

deal going on. Incidentally, it's sort of deal that I don't think

politicians should ever be be deciding on anyway. I said on a

number of occasions that should be done independently. But what's the

point of Alex Allen? We the taxpayer pay him to police the

Ministerial Code. Why do we bother if we are never referring anything

to him? If we didn't have Leveson going on, with all of the benefits

of Leveson, I would be the first to be saying that this should

immediately go to Alex Allen. All I am saying is that given we have the

opportunity to have a public evidence-giving session, a public

inquiry with some really forensic questioning that we can all observe,

in about two weeks' time, let's have that and then immediately

after we have all seen what emerges from that, then you ask Alex Allen

to have a look and make it a recommendation to the Prime

Minister. Surely there is already enough grounds for referring this

to the Ministerial Code. Sir Michael Lyons had to deal with

Jeremy Hunt a lot of the time and with his special advisor. He says

Adam Smith did nothing without Mr Hunt knowing and condoning it.

Michael Lyons is entitled to his view and may or may not be right. I

don't know. The public don't know. We have an opportunity... Did you

meet Mr Smith? On many occasions. Did you see him as a maverick?

Someone who would do all this on his own without his master

I think he was a guy of great integrity who went beyond what was

appropriate, and that is what he has admitted. You do not think he

would have checked? The honest answer is I genuinely do not know.

Let's put it to the ministerial code! Adam Smith's relationship

with Jeremy Hunt will be best investigated by getting all of the

data which Jeremy Hunt has agreed to provide, or of the text messages,

the e-mails, provide that and then have questioning under oath.

Everybody wants an answer to this. All I am suggesting is getting it

done under a judge-led inquiry first of all, then, in the light of

that, going and doing the other investigation. Thank you for

joining us. Now, what is that you hear? Could it be the sound of

Harriet Harman rubbing her hands together with glee as Jeremy Hunt

twists in the wind? It has been good sport for Labour, but back in

the real world, there is a big electoral test coming for a party.

Labour going to Thursday's local elections expected to pick up large

numbers of seats, but they start from a low base, and they are big

test for Ed Miliband's party in London, where polls say that Boris

Johnson will beat Ken Livingstone. And in Glasgow, the SNP have high

hopes of success in city council elections. Earlier this week,

deputy leader Harriet Harman targeted Liberal Democrat voters in

the South in an attempt to win back the sort of seats that Tony Blair

used to win in the 1990s and early 2000s. But when mere mention of the

former Labour leader guess this reaction at Labour conference...

And not Tony Blair. His Ed Miliband's Labour likely to win in

the south again when they are desperate to shake of the legacy of

New Labour? And Harriet Harman Harriet Harman, the Prime Minister

says Jeremy Hunt will have to testify under oath, he will be

interrogated by a QC, and all communications that are relevant

will be published. Then you will decide his future, what is wrong

with that? It is already evidence that Jeremy Hunt has breached the

ministerial code. The ministerial code says that you must not, a

Secretary of State must not mislead Parliament. He has. He said on the

3rd March that he had published all the exchanges between his

department and News Corp, and evidently he had not published all

those exchanges, because he is now offering to do that some months

later. Also, the ministerial code says your special adviser, your

political appointee must act appropriately, and you must be

responsible for and control your political adviser. Well, the Prime

Minister and Jeremy Hunt have acknowledged that he did not. That

is a breach of the code, they have acknowledged that. There is really

no point in referring to the ministerial code, because you have

called for his resignation. You have already convicted him without

a hearing. He is evidently that not only has he breached the

ministerial code in many ways, but even more seriously than that, when

he was responsible for acting in a quasi-judicial manner on a hugely

important take over bid of �8 billion, he did not act impartially.

So you have decided he is guilty. Absolutely. So what is the point of

a hearing? It says everything about David Cameron that he is refusing

to refer him to Sir Alex Allan to investigate all these breaches of

the ministerial code, and there is one thing which I would like to

point out, which is that the ministerial code says that if a

matter warrants further investigation in the view of the

Prime Minister, then he will refer it to the independent adviser. He

does not have a discretion to say, oh, somebody else can look at it.

The Prime Minister himself was now in breach of the ministerial code.

I have read that bit of the code, it says the Prime Minister himself

feels there has been a breach. You called for his resignation within

25 minutes of the publication of crucial correspondence between

Jeremy Hunt's office and the Murdoch empire. Had he read it all?

No, in fact, I had already formed a view that Jeremy Hunt had acted

totally inappropriately even before those e-mails were published, and I

went to the House of Commons. When I saw James Murdoch's evidence

to Leveson, it was quite clear that the Culture Secretary had given

James Murdoch to understand that he was not impartial in the bid, that

he was on his side. So you believes James Murdoch? What you have got to

do... Let me explain this, what you have got to do when you act in a

quasi-judicial fashion is that you have got to be impartial, and you

have got to make it clear that everybody understands you are

impartial, so you have got to create the perception that of

impartiality, and clearly one... Clearly James Murdoch had the

perception and had been given to believe that Jeremy Hunt was on his

side. That is hopeless. But rather than studying the 163 pages of

evidence, within 25 minutes, on the basis of testimony from James

Murdoch, he decided he had to resign, even though there's plenty

other bits of testimony you do not agree with. Well, the point is...

Correct? It was before the e-mails were published that I formed the

view that Jeremy Hunt had made a major... On the basis of James

Murdoch saying, I had nothing to do with the hacking, do you believe

him on that? Do you believe him on that? Either he knew about the

hacking or he should have known about the hacking. So you do not

believe him on that, but you believe them on the basis of his

testimony, on evidence that had not been published and you have not

read. What he had done is said that the Secretary of State had given

him to understand that, actually, he was on his side. Actually,

Andrew, the e-mails have only borne that out, so the idea that

somehow... Which you had not read, you condemned the man before you

had read the evidence. I formed the view, before the e-mails were

published, that he had acted so wrongly and so out with the

obligations to be quasi-judicial and impartial, that he could no

longer carry on in his office. And every minute of every day brings

more evidence that my judgment was right and he should go all start do

you believe David Cameron when he says there was no grand bargain,

you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, with Rupert Murdoch?

I think the more that David Cameron refuses to refer the matter...

you believe them? Well, I do not have any specific evidence that he

did, although I think it was unwise of David Cameron, when the

government was considering his �8 billion deal, to be at a dinner

with one side of the deal. Remember, there was a lot of people against

this bird, and the Government was opposed the even-handed. Let's move

on to the wider political scene now. The government is in the middle of

almost a self-styled omni-shambles at the moment, and David Cameron

has become considerably less popular, it is clear in all polls,

the budget and the things we are talking about, the economy taking

its toll. Given that has happened, why does he remain more popular

than your leader? Well, let's see what happens at elections this

Thursday. Currently, people are already filling in their postal

vote ballot forms... Your party is more popular, I accept that in the

polls, I've seen the Tories are down to 29%. But in terms of

performance, Your leader is less popular than David Cameron. Why?

terms of performance, Ed Miliband is leading the team of Labour

candidate in an election on Thursday. It is his job to lead a

great team of Labour candidates to make sure we have Labour

councillors who can stand up for people at local level. The wheels

have for Mark the coalition economic policy, that is clear to

see, it is back in recession. -- have fallen off. Your party has a

comfortable lead in the polls. I want to show you these figures.

Given the state of the economy, quite remarkably, people are still

more inclined to trust Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne on the economy than

Mr Miliband and Mr Balls. Why? you know, we will see... You can

see the figures there, 36%, more people trust Mr Osborne and Mr

Cameron on the economy than are prepared to vote for them! We are

making an argument which we believe is right, which is that

unfortunately the Government have got it completely wrong. They

promised that they would bring the deficit down, that the economy

would grow and that unemployment would fall. Actually, what is

happening is it is becoming evidence that they are borrowing

much more than a plant, �150 billion more, the economy is

stagnating... Why do people trust them more? You are not winning the

argument. I think people will say that the argument being made by the

shadow chancellor and by Ed Miliband is actually, unfortunately,

coming true, and the Government's need to go to Plan B, because

people are really suffering because of their mistakes. Isn't there

something wrong with the Labour leadership? Ken Livingstone is less

popular than the Labour Party in London, much less popular. Ed

Miliband is less popular than the Labour Party in the country. This

is a quote from your deputy- chairman, Tom Watson, let's get

that onto the screen. This is what he said to London supporters, hold

your nose, vote for Ken. Hold your nose! Hardly a rallying cry, is it?

Well, I am strongly supporting Ken, and he would be saying to make...

Why did he say, hold your nose? have put it to me that, if Ken were

more popular than the party, you would be saying, why is the party

so unpopular? There is often a differential. The point is that Ken

is putting forward a lot of key points which are really important

for Londoners. Will you hold your nose when you vote for Ken? No.

is Tom Watson? I had not seen that quote. You have now! I have seen it

and your assurances that is what he said. I do not agree with it, Ken

is the best mayor for London. is another quote from a Labour pier,

he was characteristically forthright. I do not care if Ed

Miliband is backing Ken Livingstone, I suggest no-one votes for Ken

Livingstone. When you have a word with him? If you want to lower

fares, more police, the restoration of the Education Maintenance

Allowance, low energy costs, vote for Ken Livingstone. This is about

policy, not about what people say about 10, it is about policy and

the difference it will make for Londoners. Will you withdraw the

whip from Lord Sugar? They are all sorts of different views in the

party. So you will not say to Alan Sugar, you are fired! We are saying

to voters, vote for Ken, vote Labour, do not have Tory Boris

Johnson who wanted the top rate of tax cuts by 10%. So Alan Sugar's

job is safe in the House of Lords. He is a peer, once you are

pointed... Oh, well, it is really not the issue. People are not

voting on Alan Sugar. He has got 2 million followers on Twitter! You

have a particular problem in the south, problems in Glasgow against

the nationalists, in London against Ken, and even at a time when you're

doing well nationally, you have a problem in the south. Let me ask,

why should people in the South vote for a party that brews Tony Blair?

The party did not boo Tony Blair. There was a tiny fraction of the

audience. I was there, it was more than a tiny fraction. So was I.

Your leader did not slap them down, he did not say a word about it.

tiny fraction of the audience, quite wrongly in my view, and in

the view of the rest of conference, jeered the reference to Tony Blair,

and for the rest of the conference, anybody who said, and we don't

believe that Tony Blair should have been jeered, the conference

actually erupted in support. Do not misrepresent that. Viewers will

make up their minds. Let me bring you back for circle and as a simple

question. His Rupert Murdoch a fit and proper person to hold a

broadcasting licence in the United Kingdom? Well, I would say that

should be examined... What is your view? If I were examining it

independently, of course I would say no, because... So we should

lose the 40% of BSkyB that he currently owns? If the test were to

be applied and you asked, what has gone on in this organisation...

Should he lose it? Yes, he is not a fit and proper person because of

what went on in his organisation, widespread criminality. Thank you

for being with us on the Sunday Politics. It is approaching 12:30pm,

you are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes,

I will be back to look at the week ahead with the best political panel

in the business! Until then, the There are four days to go and the

mayoral campaign now enters its final crucial stage. While Boris

Johnson is - according to the polls - personally ahead so far, his

Conservative Party is beset by economic woes and yet more fall-out

from the phone-hacking scandal. In the last of our series of

interviews we were hoping to talk to Boris Johnson today, but he was

unable to be with us. Joining me instead is Kit Malthouse, who has

been one of his deputies for the last four years. Welcome. Did he

not want to do this? As you were told in March bore his a long-

standing -- bore his a long- standing engagement this morning.

What is he doing, campaigning? has a private engagement this

morning. He didn't want to defendant his record in -- defend

his record in person? You were told in March. You can make an issue of

it or ask information. OK, you are here. Let's put to you the

questions we would have asked him. Is Boris Johnson pleased with the

Government's economic plans, their progress, the us a terality

measures and -- austerity measures? Boris recognises the Government has

done London a good deal. He's been on the phone badgering to get

London the deal it needs. He has a philosophy which is this, London is

the heart of the UK economy. It's the beating heart often of the

European economy and it needs investment. So, he has over the

last four years extracted billions of pounds for investment in the

basic infrastructure of London to produce an economic machine, if you

like, that will be the rival of the world and in those circumstances I

think he does think the Government's done the City well.

Was he pleased for instance that the Chancellor bowed to what he had

been asking for repeatedly? Lowering the top rate of tax for

the rerich? What Boris has done over the last four years is take a

lot of flack, if you like, for standing up for London's

competitiveness across the world. The Chancellor obviously - listened

to him and said reduce the top rate. Can I tput in context. We have been

dealing with the biggest financial crash for the last whatever years,

the financial services industry was in a very bad odour with lots of

people. Boris recognised early on and he called it right, I think t

would be a mistake to jump on the band wagon of trashing that

industry. I am just saying he is happy that's happened and happy

with what we have to do to pay for that, like, for instance freezing

tax relief for pensioners, the granny tax, if you like? I don't

think he necessarily backs the entire balance of things that were

in the Budget. A number of things that he has some question marks

over. But at the same time... Because they're harmful? His view

was that for London to remain competitive to attract the best and

the brightest here, and to attract the headquarters of huge financial

institutions, we had to be tax competitive. Having a higher rate

tax rate at 50% didn't put us in that position. It was putting

people off coming. When those high paid people come, didn't give them

unqualified support, when they come they bring wealth throughout the

City, they bring with them jobs, rents for landlords, in buildings,

they bring cleaning jobs, supply jobs, middle management,

accountants, lawyers, all those people benefit from that wealth.

One last part on this section, happy with the benefit changes and

the cap which we are seeing already are forcing hundreds and will force

hundreds of Londoners to move from their homes? Boris wasn't happy

with that and he berated the Government and managed to extract

three things from them. A transitional arrangement, he

extracted 100 million for the boroughs, and he extracted a number

of landlord incentives to try and make housing cheaper so that people

who are at benefit levels could stay in their homes. There is no

need, we believe, for people to export people out of London. We

think the arrangements put in place to soften, if you like... Three or

four years down the line, but it will happen and you won't be able

to do anything about it. housing - something knees to be

done -- needs to be done about that, in a gradual way so people are not

damaged or affected significantly in any way. Boris personally

extracted those concessions from the Government for the people of

London. Let's look at the flagship policies which - the cycle hire

scheme to begin with. Is he disappointed this hasn't made the

money? It's not self-financing, it's a drain on public resources,

contrary to what he said? overall view of the scheme is a

great one. That's why we are expanding it. It's going east to

the Olympics, west in the next couple of years and once it's

expanded and there is wider use there will be greater recovery of

the underlining costs and it may over time, hopefully... Costs?

Fundamentally when you are providing public transport

infrastructure often it's not done at full cost recovery. The buses

get a subsidy, the tube. People understand that. But disappointed,

he promised that and it hasn't happened. It was self-financing.

is pleased with the amount of private sponsorship. We would like

it to be making more money than it is. We recognise this is a public

good. This is something that is trying to get a shift in the

mindset of Londoners about how they travel around the capital. I wanted

to check... Can I finish. He said he is pleased with that. Is he

pleased with up to to �25 million from Barclays Bank whose chairman,

Bob Diamond made �17 million in one year? He would have liked to have

got more, �25 million was the best bid at the time. The expansion

hopefully will extract more and the west even more again. These are one

of the new things Boris has brought. Never before had a mayor extracted

tens of millions of pounds of private sponsorship into public

works. This is money that's given for public public good and he got

that personly himself. That's I think an achievement. What about

the other flagship measure, tackle the underlining causes of youth

crime. The civil servant, if you like, that designed the time for

action, said virtually nothing had been done. How does the mayor react

to that? Obviously, as you know that was part of my remit as well,

and I react very badly to that, that's a slur on the work of many

people who were in that man's team. A slur? He is just saying it didn't

work. Tim, you have been down to Feltham and seen the prison unit

there, that is a sign of what we have been doing f you bothered we

could have taken to you see the thousands of extra cadets across

the now... You haven't done anything to tackle the underlining

causes of youth crime particularly as it affects young black people.

At some stage in this interview you have to allow me to finish an

answer. You are getting plenty of time to finish. Go ahead. We have

put together a comprehensive plan working backwards from young

offenders institutions through young people's lives looking at

where things are going wrong and they're getting into crime. That's

dealing with difficult issues and difficult young people. These are

young people who were neglected for many, many years before. This is

new work - Ken said... Are you disappointed at the progress?

not. I am pleased with the progress. Is the mayor disappointed? He is

not. One of the critical things here, Tim, this is one of the

things BBC London always goes for Boris on. Boris is somebody who

sets ambitious targets. We don't resile from that. Reset ambitious

targets because we are driving a machine here, TFL, the Met police,

we set hard targets and if we fall short that doesn't mean we failed.

It means that we made progress, but we haven't done p... Does he regret

misleading people about the effectiveness of the Feltham unit

and that programme as you said with his giving of false statistics

about how it was impacting on re- offending? You are misleading

people. He gave the best statistics that he had been given at the time.

They were unreliable statistics which the officials had expressly

said to Boris Johnson and presumably you, should not use

publicly about the re-offending rates, claiming great things for

this unit which were not imperically proven? They were early

statistics. They were always in the framework of going to be an

independent evaluation. You have had a session with this scheme

over... The Howard league for penal reform said why are they making

these claims, you know it is not possible to make claims? One guy

from the Howard League who you repeated go to for quotes. Can I

just... Can I give you. You tput in every report you do. The paragraph

from the official evaluation. can talk more in the interview than

me. A small number of people released, their potential

motivation to change their - and lack of adequate matched control

group, mean no firm conclusions can be drawn. You picked a group of

people where you can't tell that Feltham made the difference, they

were going to not reoffend anyway, if they haven't been retpaefding.

That's not true. There is much about that scheme that is good. We

have had fantastic stories, young people coming out of Feltham who

have gone straight to university. We are trying to turn lives around

but I am not going to pretend this is not difficult and because you

and your pals at BBC London decide to have a go at the scheme doesn't

mean... Professor Gus John an educationalist said the policy was

a sham. You have done not enough, nothing to understand the

underlying causes of black youth crime. Can I speak now? OK. Tim, we

started out on a very, very difficult job four years ago. The

gangs, the knives, all of them had been left unattended for eight

years under Ken Livingstone. These were deep-seated problems that had

infected the minds of young people and communities over a number of

years. Turning that around is a very difficult job and is going to

take a lot longer than four years. If I can finish, please. What we

try to do was address the issue through policing, to look at the

enforcement side and if we can improve that and at the same time

do some of that longer-term work. The critical word is longer-term

and we learn as we go. The proof of the pudding is the numbers.

Teenager killings are half what they were in... Serious youth crime

going up every year. That's not true, either. You are promoting

falsities here. Let's not get involved in a dispute about the

numbers. The wider picture, it was his main pledge, very reasonant to

hold the Metropolitan Police to account during his term. Yes.

badly does he feel about how he failed over the phone hacking

scandal which brought the Metropolitan Police to their knees

last year? Holding the Metropolitan Police to account, to investigate

News International, they didn't do their job, did they? Tim Tim, I

find it very odd that you are posing this in a sort of framework

of some failure of Boris. Boris was briefed on a regular basis by the

third most senior police officer in the land about the progress of the

hacking investigation. He was given - he was given briefings from John

Yates that led him to make certain public statements. Subsequently...

Didn't ask the questions. There are all these people apparently

emerging who have had their phones hacked and he didn't ask questions.

He received a letter of apology from John Yates to say the

information given was not necessarily correct and after that

he has put... People knew that. I am saying at the time the

importance of this constitutional role holding the police to account,

was it right for instance for him to be pursuing commercial

arrangements, deals with News International when they were under

suspicious, their staff over phone hacking? What commercial deal as

soon as. A partnership to open a new mayoral academy in east London.

Interesting them in cable car. There were regular regular

discussions, did you not know about that? You have to put two parts of

the equation together. He is being told by the - on the other side, he

has this large employer in London who is willing to put private money

into academies or whatever. Isn't that the iraou -- issue? There was

a conflict of interest here. He was the person constitutionallily in

charge of the police and he was embarking on these dealings and

there were lunches and dinners, we can put those aside, seeking

commercial partnerships with News International? Was that right?

is a rather crafty kind of smear attempt which is frankly a bit

beneath you. A conflict of interest. Throwing in that little line about

lunches and dinners, we will forget that. This is a straight smear and

you should stop it, it's not fair. It's not right. Would it have been

right when there was an ongoing, concerns raised by parliamentary

committees. Boris was a victim of phone hacking himself. He relied on

information that he was given by extremely senior police officers

and indeed I might say by the Commissioner of the Police himself

and that's a perfectly legitimate and fair... I haven't suggested,

you will know other politicians are being accused of trying to tury

favour with News -- curry favour with News International. Was this

an appropriate way, did it lead to this hacking scanned al, not

emerging as it might have done through Boris Johnson who has

constitutional responsibility? Was it an error of judgment to have

been so close to News International during his mayoralty? Tim, I have

to say this is pretty disgraceful. Boris has behaved with complete

probity throughout this issue. He was a victim of phone hacking

himself. If we are talking about judgment, maybe we should talk

about Ken Livingstone, who was at the employ of Mr Murdoch writing

for The Sun. Now suddenly seems to have forgotten that. We are talking

about partnerships, talking about public money. Two things happening

at the same time. A guarantee, hacking victims may well have

suggested of wanting to know the extent of phone hacking. He was the

person that could put pressure, ask the right questions of the

Metropolitan Police, as we see that didn't happen. No, no. At the same

time,... You are making massive leaps and assumptions which are

unwarranted. Boris was briefed and asked questions in those briefings

about phone hacking. He got reassurances from the most senior

police officers in the land that everything was fine, that there was

no requirement to reopen the investigation and he relied on that

information. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If he had

done anything different, if he had put pressure on the police to

reopen the investigation, that would have been equally as improper.

Stay with us. Given the economic dip, austerity and other problems,

was there ever a better time for a Labour candidate? Boris Johnson

remains the bookies' favourite but could there be a Labour resurgence

on the ground which springs a Boris Johnson is consistently shown

as more popular than his party, Ken Livingstone dragging behind his. So

why is the race falsity of different? It isn't really about

the parties, although that is part of it. It is just as much about the

character of the two men, and Ken Livingstone seems a bit tired,

Boris is seen as amusing, he is a character, and as a result he

appears to be well ahead in the polls. Boris provides a few laughs

every now and then. For me, everyone I know sides with Boris,

really. Why is that? Ken has had his time. But is the fact that he

tickles funny Bones enough to explain why the former Etonian who

acts and sounds just like a traditional Tory is not as

unpopular in the polls as the Conservative Party? He does appear

like a conventional Conservative if you look from outside. His image is

one that you could associate with a certain part of the Conservative

Party, but actually, in office, he has sustained many of the policies

that Ken Livingstone had, he is relatively young and a social

liberal. He does not believe in what Theresa May called the nasty

party things that the Conservative Party used to be associated with.

He has run London in a tolerant and relatively liberal way. He is a

modern conservative in that sense. Perhaps an attempt to contaminate

Boris with the Tory brand, Ken Livingstone is fond of reminding

people of his opponent's affiliation. He refers to Boris

Johnson part in the manifesto... But do people really need

reminding? I think most people have got that Boris Johnson is posh and

a Tory. Trying to remind... There is no need to remind them of that,

the man appears on Have I Got News For You and remind them of that. He

has been an mayor since 2008, and therefore it does not particularly

help. Secondly, he has done quite a few things to distance himself from

the Conservative Party. Perhaps in contrast, Ken Livingstone seems to

be making the most of his association with Labour. He says he

enjoys the closest relationship with the party leader and key

figures often accompany him on the campaign trail. But if the last

election is anything to go by, one group of traditional Labour voters

are keener on the party than the man, the white working class.

matter what the social class was of the people living in a White Awards,

they voted Boris. The more diverse the ward, the more likely they were

too vote for Ken, but the challenge for Ken is that although London is

an extremely diverse city, only a minority of voters were get out to

vote. No normal I am not a floating voter. I have voted Labour my

entire life. I'm just not convinced that Ken is the right candidate for

Labour this year. Rather than remind people he is Labour, much of

the campaign has been spent reminding the public that Ken is,

well, Ken. Indeed, a challenge for Ken Livingstone is that some in his

own party do not seem too keen on him. People like Alan Sugar, a

long-time Labour supporter, saying not can again! That has become a

real problem. One of the tests offer wins an election is how

committed supporters are and what they think is going to happen. The

Conservatives have more support in their car -- called base for Boris

that Labour does for Ken. Whatever the polls are showing, they can be

wrong. There's no guarantee that on Thursday Londoners will not vote on

something more like the traditional party lines.

A final few words, does he feel he has it in the bag? No, I think it

is very close. As we get nearer the time, people are recognising they

want a mayor who will bring the city together, who recognises the

need to grow the economy, but I think it is very close. All to play

for. Kit Malthouse, thanks very much indeed. There is a list of all

the male candidates on screen. With What have we got? A Cabinet

minister struggling to hold on to his job, and economy back in

recession, polls plummeting for the Prime Minister, and elections

across the UK on May 3rd. David Cameron must need them like a hole

in the head, but there could also be problems for Ed Miliband, plenty

to talk about in the weekend! -- week ahead!

We are back in recession, although Goldman Sachs has come out to say

that they do not think we are, but the damage is done. Even if we are

not, we are bouncing along the bottom. The coalition must be

worried of the timing of this. If it stays like this for much longer,

even 2015 will be trouble. whole election strategy for 2015

assumed the economy would be going at a healthy clip and that the

fiscal deficit would be more or less taken care of, and neither of

those things look quite as likely. Even more worrying is that the

economy is likely to get worse, because whether you believe the

economy is suffering because of cuts or because of the eurozone,

both of those things are likely to worsen over the next year. Most of

the cuts have not picked in, and the eurozone crisis is now

ensnaring Spain and potentially even France, countries which are

too big. Ed Balls is talking about a lost decade in one of the papers.

We have already had a lost half a decade. This economy is 4% smaller

than it was in 2007, half a decade has already been lost. That is true,

but Labour are still worried about this, because the Conservatives

could still preside over five years of economic decline, but if there

is a tiny bounce towards the end, they will say at the beginning of

the next election, we are vindicated, so the real problem

Labour has is, how do we prove the opportunity cost? How do we prove

things would have been different? Also, particularly, what they try

to do is shift the debate on not just what growth is there but what

type of growth, is it in the private sector as well as public,

in the north as well as the South, in terms of wages rather than

profits? We certainly would not want the wrong sort of growth!

Before I come to you, let's just see what the Prime Minister, asked

about the economy, had to tell Andrew Marr this morning. I will

strain every sinew to make sure we get our economy growing and get

people back to work and get ourselves out of the mess that we

were left by the last government. The figures this week were, you

know, extremely disappointing. You know, the economy did not grow in

the first three months of this year. Strain every sinew? One would hope

he has been doing that already. It reminded me of Gordon Brown. You

used to think, if only he worked harder, 22 hours a day, if he

worked a wee bit harder, everything would be fine! I think people

believe the government is working as hard as they can to make things

better. The political question is whether the Tory leadership in

particular I seem to understand what people who are struggling are

really going through. I think you are in a good job in London and you

have that kind of background, You are quite insulated from what it

really feels like. Strain every sinew is not an effective message,

is it? I don't think so. I think people would like to see George

Osborne doing a live swap for a week, let's see how he gets on in a

council house living on the minimum wage on no wage at all, and then we

will feel the Chancellor is somebody who really understands

what people are going through. Maybe he would think twice about

putting 20% on pasties if he had to do that! Coming to May 3rd, and

actions across the UK, it seems pretty clear it will be grim for

the Tories. Just how good they will be Paul Labour is not so clear, but

they will be grim for the Tories. But if things go badly in London

for Labour and in Glasgow, we may end up still talking about Ed

Miliband on Friday. I'm certain we will be if that is what happens.

You could have a situation where the Tories lose 400 council seats

and still end up being seen as symbolic winners, because London

and Glasgow will attract so much attention. I wonder if we would be

right to do that. London gets covered too much already, Glasgow

is symbolic as the home of Red Clydeside, and it would show the

nationalists on the move if they do win, which is not a foregone

conclusion. In between, the country matters as well. Of course. Labour

may do very well in between. interesting thing for me is that

the turnout in the last election was 35%, phenomenally low, and we

are living in a time when it is not even an delayed and anti-

Conservatives, it is anti-politics. I think we are going to see the

turnout go down again, and that is a massive challenge for Labour and

the Tories. If I can come back on Ed Miliband, one thing I will say

is that it will only go on so long, to sustain this kind of lead for a

long time, to keep making us points and hammering them home on Leveson,

the economy, the NHS. I think the tide will start to change, and it

is going to take time. He is not actually a great leader. He is only

11 points ahead, Labour across the UK, which is pretty woeful when the

Tories are on 29. You would expect Labour to be picking up more.

are on 10, nip and tuck with the Lib Dems! A lot of joy is expected

to be 20% behind in the polls by midterm. -- a lot of Tories. Yes,

they thought the cuts would be hurting, going through the hair

shirt, doing the right thing, but the sunshine in the distance would

be visible. It is not. It is not at the moment. The did not expect to

be down in the polls because of the perception of omni-shambles. And

number of entirely avoidable fiascos. Labour have been good at

downplaying expectations for Thursday. They have not been

boasting about making 700 seats, which is a feasible target.

Perversely, because of expectations management, we might not even be

talking about Boris. We have got the Select Committee on the whole

hacking scandal coming out on Tuesday morning, and Harriet Harman

has just of this programme that she does not think that the Murdochs

are fit and proper people to own a TV licence, to have a 40% of BSkyB

that they have. This makes it... If this report is highly critical of

James Murdoch, that as to the clamour. I am not so sure it really

does. I think people are getting very confused, because the Leveson

Inquiry has come on for long time now, and we have got a select

committee inquiry as well. That seems to be a little bit irrelevant

at his point. The big game is Leveson. He is taking his time,

going through things forensically. I do not think there will be huge

amount of excitement from the select committee report. Remind Me

Who owns the Sunday Times. well! I understand the committee

has been arguing down to the wire. They cannot be tough about those

who have been arrested, because it is sub judice. And contempt. But

James Murdoch has not been arrested. If the what Harriet Harman says, if

the report is book about James Murdoch, that whole issue, and

Ofcom is investigating whether they are fit and proper, it becomes an

issue. I am surprised that whether the question of whether Murdoch

should be able to hold on to BSkyB has not taken up in the way I

thought it would. I think it is right that he is allowed to retain

40%. It would not exist if he did not started. We would have an

extraordinary monopolistic media market were it not for what he did

with Sky. The political question of whether Jeremy Hunt hands on on not,

on top of that there is David Cameron's own appearance before

Leveson in June. Fit and proper, 20 seconds. There la two big questions

coming out of this, bigger than the personalities involved. 10 seconds!

Can you have an independent investigation into what is going on

when it is only cold for by Cameron? The second one I will have

to tweet! We will look forward to that. That is all for today. You

can follow the twists and turns of the huge political week on the

Daily Politics over on BBC Two at noon from tomorrow and every day.

Just imagine, this time next week we will know if it is 10 or Boris