30/09/2012 Sunday Politics London

Bolt on. Welcome to the programme. Ed Miliband kicks off the party

conference in Manchester, with his party ahead in the poles, but does

anybody know what his party stands for? We will be joined by aid

Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. The biggest union boss wants to

purge the party of New Labour Blairites, while he and other left-

wing union bosses want the Labour leader to support calls for a

general strike. Union leader Mark Serwotka and for a Blairite insider

Phil Collins go head-to-head. Nick Clegg told the Lib Dems they are

now the third party of government. But can they really claw their way

back into contention for the next election? Mr Clegg's former Chief

of Staff and shiny new Health Minister Norman Lamb joins us. I

will be speaking to Ed Miliband here in London. And with me as

always on a Sunday, a top trio of political journalists, the best

money can buy. Nick Watt of The Guardian, Janan Ganesh of the

Financial Times, and Isabel Oakeshott from the Sunday Times.

They will be tweeting their thoughts throughout the show. You

can join in if you like on Twitter. So, last week, it was the Lib Dems

in Brighton. Today, Labour gets its annual shindig under way in

Manchester, with the slogan Rebuilding Britain. Labour is ahead

in the poles, but Ed Miliband does not score so highly himself. Three-

quarters of people asked in a poll yesterday said they thought the

Labour leader does not have what it takes to be Prime Minister. So, how

can he convince people? This is what he had to say to Andrew Marr

this morning. I think the real question about who is going to be

the next Prime Minister will be, who can stand up to rebuild Britain,

and to make the economy work for everybody, not just for those at

the top? We saw you and your family arriving in this a city yesterday.

It is nice to have my family here. But this is not going to be the

start of the relaunch of Ed Miliband, lots of soft-focus

pictures, interviews on other kinds of sofas? Somebody who is going to

be Prime Minister, people want to know about you. Well, that was the

Labour leader speaking on Andrew Marr. Labour is assuming that the

more we get to know about Ed Miliband, the more we will think he

is prime ministerial material - draw false? Probably false. But the

one thing that the Tories like to cite is their own private polling,

showing that even a third of Labour supporters would rather have David

Cameron as Prime Minister than Ed Miliband. So there is a problem.

But if you speak to shadow ministers, they will say, this is

very much unfinished business. Give us time, and we will show you how

Ed Miliband can connect with the public. I think in some ways, Ed is

held back a bit by wanting to be a bit too true to himself. You never

see him not wearing his suit and not speaking in polity speak. I

think he is haunted by the mistakes Gordon Brown made, when he tried to

pretend he liked The Arctic Monkeys, tried to pretend to be someone he

was not. Shall we concentrate on the positive? Ed Miliband is

absolutely right when he says that in this day and age, people want to

know something about the leaders. He has got a very happy family life.

Another point he made today is that he has been utterly consistent. He

made a speech last year about responsible capitalism. So, you're

seeing a consistent person, unlike David Cameron, who has embarked on

a bit of a zig-zagged journey. The question is, he may be consistent

but do we like what we are seeing at the end of the day? I think the

more we see of him, the more we will realise that he is a nice and

decent man, and someone with a more interesting background than the

Prime Minister, but that is not quite the same thing has been

commanding or authority if or prime ministerial. -- or authoritative.

People have said of David Cameron that he would be nice in calm times,

but not in combustible times, and I think that would be even more true

for Ed Miliband. We are going to see his school report, we're going

to be told what it was like in his north London comprehensive. I think

that is a good thing, but remember, we had Neil Kinnock the Movie,

walking on the gelle peninsula, which brought him to the people in

a personal sense, but then he failed on the substance. -- the

Gower peninsula. We can now speak to Harriet Harman, the Deputy

Leader of the Labour Party. She joins us live from Manchester.

Welcome to the programme. Thank you. The polls suggest Labour could well

form the next government - Howard an Ed Miliband Labour government be

different from the last Labour government? I think it is very

different circumstances, which there will be in 2015. But I think

that this week, following on from your last discussion, this week is

a very big, important opportunity for the public to see Ed Miliband

as he is. And having seen, over the last 30 years, a lot of leaders

from all different parties, up close, I can say, without joining

too much into the psychobabble, but I think the thing about Ed Miliband

is that he is very much in touch with people's concerns. Right away,

he was talking about the squeeze on living standards, and the real fear

that people have got on youth unemployment. So, he is in touch.

He is also very robust. I do not think he will change and blow with

the wind and do phoney photocalls. He is as he is. He recognises, at

the same time, that people need to get to know him better. A lot of

people do not know the Leader of the Opposition, especially only two

years into his role. But you answer a question that I did not ask. I

did not ask about Ed Miliband up the conference. I was joining in

the discussion! I asked to help the next Labour government would differ

from the previous one? Because it will have to deal with making sure

that we have a country which starts to have a growing economy, starts

to be more prosperous again, and starts to be more fair again,

against a background of five years of a coalition government under

which the economy has been in recession, and things have been

getting more unfair. So, there will be a lot of things to put right,

and I think Ed Miliband is clear, we need to do more than just put

right the damage that this government has done - but he also

has a vision for making the country work better in the interests of

everybody, rather than just the vested interests of the elite. So,

he has got a viewpoint which goes back across the Labour government,

as well as previous Tory governments, about making Britain

work better for the people of the country. There are two problems, it

seems to me - one is that nobody knows what your party stands for,

and the second one is that most people cannot see Ed Miliband as

Prime Minister. Well, I think that only two years into being Leader of

the Opposition, especially when you have had a new government, people

do not see that much of the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore,

this is an important week, an important opportunity, for Ed

Miliband, not only to show that he is in touch, which he is, but also

that he is very strong and robust, and very smart and intelligent, as

everybody knows. But what he has done is, he has put together a very

strong team. This is often not remarked upon. One thing about the

leader is that they must do a great deal themselves, but they must also

need a strong team. Whilst you see a shambles in Cameron's Cabinet,

actually, Ed has built a very strong team. If you look at Rachel

Reeves, Chuka Umunna, as well as the more experienced people like

Andy Burnham and Ed Balls, he has got a strong team who can govern

the country well, compared to the current shambles that we have now.

Not all of your own side share this cheerleading approach. The chairman

of one influential Labour think- tank says, you have nothing to say

on public sector reform or welfare or other major reforms - do you?

That's not true. Of course, it is good to have people outside saying,

you have got to do more. That is the role of people outside to be

saying, put your plans forward. And Ed Miliband has been putting

forward very big proposals for change. He proposed this morning

that if the banks do not voluntarily separate out their high

street arm from their casino speculation arm, there will be

legislation to enforce that legislation. And yesterday, he said

that because people are not getting a fair deal with their fuel bills,

Ofgem is don't have to be abolished, we will have to have a new

organisation, which will make sure that energy companies pass on

reductions to consumers. So, basically, he is talking about

changing things. Instead of it being business as usual, with

everybody finding that they always losing out, actually, things will

be re-engineered in a way which is much fairer, and things will work

better. So, I think he is coming back with very big statements.

even Alan Johnson, something of a loyalist, says, Mr Miliband has to

do more to demonstrate that he is a leader. Do you agree, and what more

should he do? I read the Alan Johnson article, and he is

absolutely right, that, coming from the position of a new Leader of the

Opposition, when we have lost out from government, when people did

not vote for us because they wanted change, Ed Miliband has got an

important task to just understand the fact that people thought they

were voting for a government which would help grow the economy and

help the deficit come down, but actually, they are getting a

recession and an increase in the deficit. But also, as Alan Johnson

said, and we all agree, that we need to set forth our plans. People

want to know that Ed Miliband has a strong set of plans, so that the

politics of a future government can make a difference to their life.

And he is very determined to do that. Can you clear-up the party

line on the famous spending plans. You told the Spectator this week

that Labour would not sign up to Tory spending plans at the next

election, but Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, says he wants to keep

his options open - who is right? Well, he is right. The question

fairly put to me by the Spectator was, what are you going to do in

2015? The answer to that is, we have got to be absolutely certain

we do not make promises we cannot keep. The economy is going from bad

to worse. Therefore, we will have to shape our promises and proposals

as to what we can do in the light of the economic circumstances, as

they prevail, as we come up to 2015. We, to -- we cannot actually

predict that now. But what I was answering was what we would do now.

Now, we would not be doing what the government is doing, which is

sending us further into recession. So, I think there was a timing

thing, which was my fault. I'm not sure there was. I have got the full

transcript of the interview. It is quite clear you were asked about

promises for the next election. The question was, do you think the next

election will be hard on spending? The question was clearly about your

spending plans for the next election, so, can we clarify that

when you told the Spectator that you would not stick to Tory

spending plans come the next election, that was not correct?

Well, I did, I'm afraid, do what I did earlier on, which is answer a

question which had not been asked. But in order for me to make it

absolutely clear... And you know, although what we are saying about

what the Government is doing now is wrong for the economy and unfair,

the cuts are stifling of economic growth... That was not what you

were asked. I know, but come 2015, nobody will be in a position to

actually say what we will be putting forward in our manifesto to

2015. I think we had better leave What do you make of that? It is

just a classic model. There is a desperate desire not to cock things

up this time. Just stand back and let the coalition unravel. Harriet

was getting all into a pickle, and that shows why they would prefer a

defensive strategy of saying less rather than more. Has Mr Balls had

a few words with her in a dark room? He would indeed have had

words with her, because she was not speaking from the script. She used

to be the shadow treasury secretary and knew about economics. She said

Ed Balls has set out specific plans on banks, but then said the Labour

Party needs to set out more plans. You have members of the Shadow

Cabinet saying, we are itching to sell our plans, and we are getting

blocked by Ed Balls, who is saying, we should not say a great deal.

the briefing we are getting up their is how Mr Miliband's people

are worried about making him prime- ministerial. They also say

privately that they are worried about Ed Balls. He made a decisive

intervention this week, which was the promise that the next Labour

government, were it to be a letter, would hold a zero based spending

review, which means all spending is up for discussion. She including

international aid and a few other things. I am not sure that is

electorally effective before the next election. Labour and voters

need reassures us now. Hold that thought.

A last week in Brighton, Nick Clegg live to fight another day. The Lib

Dem party faithful were hardly ecstatic about being in bed with

the Tories, but they held their noses and voted to stick with the

coalition and their man, at least for now. But there may still be

troubles ahead. My Clegg tried to rally the party

faithful by promising them a brighter future. But Mr Clegg is

very much on probation. A recent survey of Lib Dem members showed

major dissatisfaction with his leadership. The return of Paddy

Ashdown to run the 2015 election campaign is a popular move and may

well shore up Clegg's support. But what happens post 2015? Vince Cable

gave us his predictions. I don't believe the British people will

want to entrust their future to any one party next time. If Britain

wants sustainable growth, competence with compassion,

fairness with freedom and more equality, not ever greater division,

then that government must have Liberal Democrats at its heart.

does things believe he would be at the heart of the next government?

It is understood that the Business Secretary would not mind being

Chancellor, should there be a coalition with Labour.

And Lib Dem health minister Norman Lamb joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Let me show you what the Shadow

Health minister, Andy Burnham, had to say. He said if I am Health

Secretary after the next election, I will repeal the government's

Health Act and I will restore the latter end in the NHS. Let's stick

to repeal the Health Act. I raise this because at your conference,

Vince Cable said we are heading for another hung parliament. The poll

suggests that if we are, Labour will be the largest party. If there

was a coalition agreement, would you go along with the idea of

repealing the Health Act? I think it would be madness to do that.

From my point of view, anyone who believes in the NHS and wants to

see a sustainable NHS dealing with the challenging problems of an

ageing population should be interested in making this work. To

repeal the Act would be to tell the NHS we are going to go through

another complete restructuring. It would be madness. Mr Miliband and

Mr Burnham seemed to be in some conflict yesterday, because the

Labour leader talked about not reversing everything. They are

saying, we will repeal the bill, because we don't like the

principles or outlines, but there could be give and take on some of

the changes. Could that be the basis of an agreement with Labour

could? I think this is rhetoric. Actually, the reforms are

consistent with much of what Labour did in power. They accepted a role

for the independent sector, on the basis that the patient always get

their care free at the point of need, but recognising that a number

of different providers could play a role in that. That was Labour's

policy. Their policy was also to devolve budgets to GPs. This is

consistent with the approach they took. To unravel all of that and go

through another complete restructuring would drive people in

the service mad. Let's make this work. The focus needs to be on how

we ensure that we managed care effectively, give patients high

quality care when we have an ageing population, which means rising

costs. Every health system has to deal with this. The challenge is to

improve care and make the money go further. You were unhappy with a

lot of the reforms to begin with. Andrew Lansley, the author of the

reforms, has gone from the Health Department. Are you looking at

tweaking or refining some of the plans that are coming down the

pike? At again, I come back to the point about implementation. It is

all very well passing an act of parliament, but the key thing is

about how the service implement it. One thing I was pleased about

through the listening exercise last year was that the government came

down in favour of the concept of integrated care. That means shaping

services around the needs of the patient. When you have an ageing

population, it is about how you provide care to older people. At

the moment, care for older people falls down. There is a ridiculous

divide between social care provided by councils and healthcare provided

by the NHS. From the patient's poised of view, that is madness. We

want to integrate it. We can see the future in places like Torbay,

where they have teams of health and care workers working together. The

focus is on how Pete Reed -- how you keep people fitter and keep

people out of hospital. That is the key to reducing costs and making

this work. The Dilnot report said the costs of these changes was �1.7

billion. Do you agree with the Chancellor that the health budget

should pick up that cost within the existing ring-fenced health budget?

I have concerns about that. The health budget is expected to

deliver, and this goes back to the Mickelson challenge under the last

Labour government, where they said because we have rising costs for

the foreseeable future, we have to find efficiencies. But could you

absorb the costs of the Dilnot report into the health budget in

the way the Treasury wants you to do? Achieving those efficiencies is

a big challenge. To do that as well as to implement the Dilnot report

from a health budgets is a big challenge. Let's have an open

discussion about this. The reform of social care transcends narrow

party politics. We should have discussions across the parties and

come up with a funding model that can deliver a reform of the system

that is so long overdue. Let's come back to the health reforms. There

is still unrest in your party about these. Here is Andrew George, a

Liberal Democrat MP. The act that is now law will cause the biggest

Sounds like a fair chunk of your party would not mind if you sat

down with Labour and took off the Tory edges of these reforms.

have moved from quoting one MP to saying the bulk of our party

believe that. A said a chunk of your party. I don't know if it is

the bulk. I spoke in endless fringe meetings at Brighton. It is wall-

to-wall health stuff at the conference. And I did not find this.

I found a real determination. We have gone through a trauma.

Actually, the Lib Dems in government achieved significant

improvements to the Bill as it went through Parliament. Now, let's just

make it work. Anyone who cares about the NHS who wants to see it

sustainable, you have to recognise that reform is necessary, putting

the patient at the heart and giving them real power. Let's focus on

that and not go back to a sterile debate about public versus private.

Mr Clegg survived quite easily last week. There was no credible attempt

on his leadership. But he is on probation. How long has he got

until things start to turn round for him and your party?

unspoken story of this coalition is the extent to which the Lib Dems,

coming into the Government for the first time in a post war period,

have been disciplined. We have stepped up to the plate. How long

has he got? Who has got through till the election. Even if you fall

behind UKIP in some of the polls? The party is united behind Nick

Clegg. In time, people will see that he did the right thing for the

country. Political stability is a priceless commodity in turbulent

economic times. Nick Clegg has delivered that. So even if you are

way back in the polls and Mr Clegg's personal ratings are in the

dirt, he still takes you into the 2015 election? He is remarkably

resilient, and you can nip around chasing opinion polls. That does

not do any good. Be the right thing for the country, and people might,

in time, reward you. It didn't work for Winston Churchill. Let's see if

it works for you and Mr Clegg. Now, Ed Miliband has the unions to

thank for getting the top job, but the Labour leader and a new breed

of left wing union boss look set to be on a collision course. Union

leaders are increasingly militant and the government's spending cuts

gives them a target. They have even instructed the TUC to look into the

practicalities of organising a general strike. We have not had one

of these since 1926, and that set the unions back for a generation.

So should Ed Miliband stand shoulder to shoulder with his

comrades and financial backers, or is that just a dream from the

Trotskyite fantasy playbook? Susana Mendonca went Manchester to see

whether union activists are still backing Ed.

Their position is clear, but shoot the man who they made King be

shouting as loudly as they do about it? After all, the Labour Party was

born out of the trades union movement, and that is a link that

is celebrated here at the People's History Museum, which is also in

Manchester, where Labour is holding its conference. There are bound to

be some trade unionists there who would like to see Ed Miliband go a

darker shade of red. In the museum's very own co-operative shop,

I meet two trades unionists from the north-west and think the Labour

leader is not doing enough to support their action against

spending cuts. They seem to be being very negative towards unions

at at the moment, bearing in mind that it was the unions who put them

in place and established the Labour Party. Now for some reason, the

Labour Party seems to be distancing itself from the unions. We tried

everything else before we go on shrike. We have on October 20th

demonstration in London again. Ed could make a clear message about

that to the people of the UK. was the big three unions that

tipped the scales in Ed's favour at the Labour leadership contest,

despite his brother David having the party members' favourite. But

when the unions took a day of action, the younger Miliband did

not back them. These airstrikes are wrong. At a time when negotiations

are still going on, these strikes are wrong. We get it. But at the

TUC last year, he felt the unions' wrath. So what to do? Unions are a

fundamental part of the Labour Party. They still control half the

votes at the Labour conference. Four in every �5 given as donations

to the party have come from the unions. They have to embrace some

of the cause of trade unions. Where will do his job and they will be

theirs. The edge of has been to ratchet up the ante. Last year

almost 1.4 million working days were lost to strike action, a 20

year high, but that is lower than in the 1980s, where an average of

7.2 million days were lost every year. Earlier this month, the TUC

conference voted to look at the practicalities of holding a general

strike. We have not had one of those since 1926. But what hand

might Ed Miliband plate? Are I think he will feel the need to

appeal to Middle England and fend off the Conservatives by attacking

the trade unions. If he does that, they will come biting back. They

pay his bills, and they will point that out. As the party to others,

the eternal question remains. Is it time for Labour to modernise and

distance itself from its pay Now, the general secretary of the

Public and Commercial services union, Mark Serwotka, joins me. So,

Mark Serwotka, what's the point of a general strike? Well, the trade

unionists that we represent, more than 6 million people, are facing

an unprecedented onslaught, cuts in living standard on the scale of the

1930s, 1.3 million jobs due to go by the next general election, a

pension age which is now higher than any other country in Western

Europe. In addition, members of our family are seeing the biggest

onslaught on welfare we have ever seen. �30 billion worth of welfare

cuts, while we have �30 billion worth of tax cuts for the rich. The

feeling amongst the unions is that there has never been such a

desperate time as this. We think we are winning the arguments, but

nothing is shifting the Government from its current course. Therefore,

it has got to be legitimate to defend the interests of the members

and their communities. If you're going to do that and take strike

action, it is a fact of life that the more of you do that together,

the more effective it will be. you went down that road, of a

general strike, do you think there is any chance, of Ed Miliband or

any mainstream politician, supporting it? If I listen to what

I have heard this morning, I would say the answer is no. But I think

they would be making a massive mistake. Phil Collins, if there was

a general strike, the only option to Mr Miliband would be to condemn

it, surely? I think it would be. I think Mark Serwotka has already

conceded a point. Let's look at the practicality of a general strike,

and in fact, there is no practical possibility of it. It would have no

impact at all on the Government, who would carry on their course, as

Mark Serwotka has admitted. Ed Miliband would not think it was a

good idea, and even if he did, it would make no sense for him

politically to back it, so it would achieve nothing. I have not

conceded it would have no effect on the Government. What I have said is

that everything we have done up to now has not changed the mind of the

Government. It is my belief that if we get one million people marching

through London in three weeks' time, followed by strike action on a very

large scale, across the professions, in the public and private sector,

which can be done entirely within the law, then it will show the

Government that they have to think again. Ultimately, the reason we

say that is because the people we represent know that if we do not

oppose what is happening, they will regret it for decades to come.

really think the Government would say, OK, then, we're going to stop

this course which we have embarked upon, and all of a sudden, we are

going to have a new plan. It is absolutely inconceivable. If you

had the whole of the public behind you, then it would be feasible, but

in fact, you will not, because there is not the Wellspring of

support for a general strike. There's a lot of sympathy and anger

about particular things. Opposing a general strike does not mean that

you support everything the Government does. But nonetheless,

to simply go out on strike generally, firstly, you will not

get everybody to do so, so it will be a damp squib, and within nine

days, like the last general strike, in 1926, you will be coming back

with nothing achieved. It is an indulgence. You have a very

pessimistic outlook. Let me tell you something about the people I

represent. Most of them are on less than �20,000 a year. Their living

standards have collapsed in the last five years. Their jobs are

going at 4,000 each and every month, in the Civil Service alone. So, why,

when you called a strike earlier in the summer, only 20% even bothered

to vote, and only half of them voted to strike? Why are only 10%

of your members bothering to vote for strike action? That was the

voting, but what happened as a result of the threat to strike was

that 1,100 permanent public sector jobs were at won in the Home Office.

I was saying, if things are so bad, if this bleak, Dickensian picture

you paint is accurate, why do your members not even bother to vote?

One reason why I think there is a problem with turnout is that if you

look at the parties, and Labour is a good example, nobody is offering

any alternative or any help. Many people are affected by the gloom

and despair. I'm convinced that when people understand that 80% of

the cuts are still to come, when they see all the pain and misery is

the tip of the iceberg, not only will they support industrial action,

but I believe it will be popular with members of the public. In fact,

the last time we had a mass strike, a BBC opinion poll showed the

majority of people supported it, even though we would be demonised

in the media. It is unfair to say that nobody else is offering any

hope. I am by no means a spokesman for the Ed Miliband appreciation

society, but this week he will be making a speech all about what he

will call responsible capitalism, and the burden of that will be hell

to get an economy which distribute wealth better, how to get wages up

at the bottom end. It is exactly what he will be talking about.

McCluskey, the leader of the biggest union, has called for purge

of the Blairites in the Labour Party. This morning, Mr Miliband

has said that Len McCluskey is wrong, but Mr McCluskey pays the

bills - how long can the unions' pay for the Labour Party and not

get what they want? Where else would the money go? Of course they

will carry on funding the Labour Party. The task for the Labour

Party is to supplement that money with extra money. As the Labour

Party becomes more and more likely to form at least part of the

government, then more money will be coming in. But the funding question

is a separate one, it is a huge problem. But nonetheless, Mr

Miliband has to resist Mr McCluskey, because his chances of becoming

Prime Minister are hugely diminished if he does not. What is

the point of the unions bankrolling the Labour Party, if, in your view,

and that of Mr McCluskey, they get very little in return? As you know,

my union does not... I understand that. A century ago, the Labour

Party was founded by the unions, to speak up for working people. There

are still some in the trade union movement who believe that that link,

particularly if they can influence the Labour Party to move leftwards,

is worth maintaining. But Ed Miliband has to understand, he does

not enthused or inspire anyone, when his slogan is, we will cut

slightly less, slightly less fast, but it is still going to be painful.

People want to be inspired. For that, we need to say that the

markets dictating social policy in Britain will be challenged, and we

give hope to the millions, not gloom and despair. I understand

that. It was not what I asked, but never mind. In a word, is there any

chance of a general strike, or is it just fantasy? It is fantasy,

there will not be a general strike, and neither should there be.

think there will be mass co- ordinated strike action. Whether it

is every union or not, and I personally think it will be...

it be for more than a day? I think it will become a unless there is

any sign of a change of direction. It is not because people want to do

it, it is because we feel we have to. Coming up in just over 20

minutes - I will be looking at the week ahead with our political panel.

Until then, the programme across Hello and welcome to the London

section of the programme. We will be going in search of some red

shoots of Labour's policy ideas in London. With me for the duration

this week, the Labour MP and the man heading his party's wide-

ranging policy review, Jon Cruddas, as well as the Conservative member

for rise will work, Mary MacLeod. It is inevitable that the effect of

immigration will be featuring. London's migrant population has

grown by half a million in the last seven years. Ed Miliband admitted

over the summer that Labour had got things wrong in the past, and he is

keen to set out a new approach. Here is the background. London is

home to nearly half of the UK's migrants. The capital's total

population grew by 7% between 2004 and 2011. Over the same period, the

number of Londoners who were born in the UK dropped by 3%. That

compares with an increase of 30% in the number of people who were born

outside the UK who now live in the city. Ed Miliband used his speech

in June to say that Labour had got it wrong in 2004, when they chose

not to introduce immigration controls for new countries who had

joined the EU that year. He said, we were too dazzled by

globalisation, too disconnected from the concerns of working people,

and he said that Labour needed to address areas where local talent is

locked out of opportunity. Well, one of the things that Mr Miliband

said he would do in government was to identify companies where

migrants make up more than a quarter of the workforce, so he

could tackle the skills problems which it caused in the UK born work

force. I asked him what that would achieve. I think we need an early

warning system in place, so that we know if local people are not

filling the vacancies, and then we can make sure we get the training

for them. It goes to the theme of the conference, which is about how

to rebuild the economy, so that it works for working people, not just

for a few people at the top of society. That is going to be an

awful lot of companies in London - how much are you going to learn

from that? Those kind of surveys are important, because they inform

Jobcentres and local councils. You cannot make false promises on

immigration. This government has made false promises, pretending

they have a cat which covers everybody, but it does not. -- a

cap. In the past, I believe we have been too relaxed about letting in

and opening up to Eastern Europe too quickly. We should have had

Transitional controls. Also, I think, we did not do enough to make

sure that local workers were trained, and also, really

importantly, cracking down on rogue employers, people paying less than

the minimum wage. Sir, yours is an apology not just about immigration,

it is about skills? Those youngsters were people who were at

school under Labour. I would not put it quite that way. We have a

system in this country where too often employers think, we cannot

fill the vacancies, because we do not quite have the trained

workforce, and so we need people from abroad. Of course, we're not

going to close the borders or anything like that. But I think it

is sensible to look at how we can train local people so that at least

they can compete for the vacancies. I think most people watching this

would think, that makes sense. lot of these jobs are unskilled,

and migrants are doing those jobs because people born here do not

feel they are doing them - do you think they should be doing their

jobs? I certainly think people should be taking the work which is

on offer, absolutely. I think it is important, and I believe in

government getting young people back to work. What about the coffee

shop test? Should some of these young unemployed be taking jobs in

Starbucks, for example? We see a lot of foreign workers apparently

working more flexibly in places like that. Yes, people should take

the jobs which are available, but I do not subscribe to your point of

view, which is that actually there are lots and lots of young people

who do not want to work. I think there are lots of young people who

are desperate for work. They are filling in CV After CV, job

application of the job application, but they cannot find a job. That is

the reality in London today. Having the gap of seven years before

allowing Bulgarians and Romanians in, is that enough? I think we did

open up to early to Poland, when we did that, earlier in the decade,

and I think that was not the right thing to do. So I have said for the

future, we should have Transitional controls. Jon Cruddas first, was it

really mainly the speed at which people came that was the problem,

rather than just the numbers? would say it was a bit of both. Our

Burrow was one of the fastest changing communities in the whole

of Britain. The ferocity of change was extraordinary in Barking &

Dagenham. There was a danger that it became a bit of a free-for-all

around the labour market. That's what we want to get stuck into next

time. We came across countless people being paid under the minimum

wage, really abusive landlords, employers, forms of criminality,

and we have got to confront these things. Have Labour supporters

forgiven you for allowing migration at the rate at which it has

happened? I think we are taking a different approach on this now, and

we have been upfront about some of the problems, in terms of the speed

and the transitional arrangements. For example, in the future, if it

is Turkey or Croatia, Ed has said that we will have maximum

transitional times. On the other side of it, it is about the skills

of local people, as well as the housing allocations. All of this

stuff is central to our policy. People want to hear Ed speaking

honestly about the issues. But his 500,000 extra migrants in this city

over that period of time, is it something you're happy with, at the

same time as many people leaving? city like London can deal with that,

as long as the state support the local authorities which were

disproportionately taking the strain. They were to the west, and

they were obviously -- there were also some of the poorest boroughs.

It needs active support for those authorities. Has Ed Miliband been

right to apologise for what they got wrong? I think he was wrong to

apologise. If you look at that period, the period when they could

have introduced interim restrictions, at that time, we were

facing low levels of unemployment, and employers were finding it very

difficult to recruit. So, when those migrants did come over from

Poland and other eastern European countries, they filled those

vacancies all over the UK. They went to places that had never seen

a migrant before, like the north of Scotland, and work in industries

which are essential for the economy. So, in manufacturing, construction,

retail and hospitality. Had they not been there to feel those

vacancies, we probably would have been in a worse economic situation,

and actually gone into recession earlier. So, how much good is it

going to be to find out from companies who have work forces of

25% migrant, what are they going to learn from that? Will they be able

to deal with the school's problems? We already know the sectors in

which migrants are concentrated. The role of Jobcentres is to ensure

that people have the skills and qualifications for jobs in the

local economy. This is part of a package. We are looking at

extending the gangmasters Licensing, covering different sectors that

have been disproportionately the sector that migrants have moved to.

We want an early warning system so that we know if there is trouble

brewing in certain said -- sectors. We need to know the full picture.

It is difficult for central government to keep abreast of it.

They have a census every ten years, but that is no good in terms of

understanding the tempo of these demographic movements. As a

government, we need to confront some of the concerns. If you are

earning �9 an hour and that goes down to �6.50 an hour, you will

have something to say about it. What do you say about 500,000

coming in over the last seven years. London can absorb them. I think

Labour failed on immigration. need to recognise what economic

migrants can deliver for the country. They made a huge

contribution. There are many entrepreneurs in my constituency of

Hounslow. Many have added real value to this country. That is

important. At the same time, you have to control immigration. Labour

did nothing on the transitional controls from the EU countries.

much of a difference Does your cap make? Or we have spent a lot of

time on the students, because we want the best students here, but we

want to get rid of any abuse of the system. How is the cap working?

few speed to a lot of employers, they would say it is not working.

They have had difficulties filling skilled positions. Why don't we

have the skills in this country? Why aren't the business is working

with the schools, colleges and universities to see what skills

they need to the future and building those? A lot of employers

would say they are doing that already. There are deficiencies in

our training system, and Ed Miliband said in his speech that

there needs to be more government support for employers to train more.

In our research, employers have said they do work with schools, but

there will always be a need to recruit some people in niche

positions when you don't have that particular degree subject or

specialisation. We have always allowed for exceptional talent.

will you be keeping the cap, Jon Cruddas? We are looking at it as

part of our review of that whole area. We have not got a specific

position on it, but it is something we are monitoring.

Let's move on. This may, in the mayoral election, Ken Livingstone

was defeated and that it was the first time Londoners gave their

verdict on a Labour manifesto under Ed Miliband. One London council is

putting some of the ideas into practice, and it is not Labour,

interestingly. Our reporter went to Tower Hamlets to investigate.

The spy being rejected by the electorate, there is one corner of

the capital where key parts of Ken's deal for London are becoming

a reality. In the East End, the local council has adopted three

ideas, bringing back the education maintenance allowance, supported

the Energy co-operative and a London living rent scheme. Tower

Hamlets is not actually a Labour council. People who voted for an

independent mayor. But on the other side of the road, it is a Labour

council, Hackney. And the people there, like every other Labour

borough, are not finding Ken Livingstone's policies are

implemented with the same enthusiasm. It is not as strange as

it seems. The Mayor of Tower Hamlets used to be in the Labour

Party before being expelled and running as an independent.

Nevertheless, Ken supported him in his election campaign, and he

filled key positions in his office with former advisers from City Hall.

What does this version of Ken's London look like on the ground? EMA

was a payment made to 16-19-year- olds in education whose parents

were not well off. Ryan says that when the coalition scrap it, he

considered whether he could continue in education. Did not

expect to be paid to go to school, but it is not possible to go to

school without some funding. You have to pay for books and travel.

Ken promised to bring it back, and Tower Hamlets have brought back

their own version of the scheme, but it comes at a price, which has

been paid for by a raid on the reserves. Some wonder how

sustainable the policy is. The idea of an Energy co-operative is simple

enough. Thousands of people grouped together and try to negotiate a

cheaper deal on their electricity bills, on the basis that companies

will give them a discount for such a big contract. One inspiration for

the Livingstone team was the consumer group Which?, who earlier

this year managed to group together households and save them an average

�200 on the bill. I would say to Tower Hamlets, you have a tough job

on your hands. Involve as many people as you can. The more people

backing the scheme that you can take to the market, the better the

deal you will wind. Tower Hamlets set themselves a target of getting

5000 people signed up. So far, they only have 1500. The London living

rent campaign is based on the idea that hostels should not pay more

than a third of their income on rent. The cancer are about to

commission work to see the how they can make it a reality. Other parts

of Ken's manifesto are being implemented by Labour councils

around the capital, but not on the scale of Tower Hamlets. The

question for the party at is if not these, what ideas will they take to

the future? Ed Miliband would not say during

that campaign that he would restore EMA. Are you having a rethink about

that? Would you like to restore it? We are looking at it. Obviously,

finite money is available, so we have to be tough. But we are

looking at it. But you are unlikely to restore it? Let's not get ahead

of ourselves and see what we will do specifically for young people in

schools. I have seen the effects of it first hand in terms of people

struggling. The DMA was not just for them, it was helping their

families. So how would you address that? We are looking at a package

to support young kids who are struggling. There are no jobs out

there. We have to keep them in education and support them. But I

will not get into specific measures. A survey from 2011 said 40% fewer

students were going into further education. What are you telling

your constituents about that? don't think there are many that

aren't going. In every school and college I visit in my constituency,

I talk about the importance of aspiration. There are many

opportunities out there, and young people have to believe in

themselves to achieve something. But we can't provide you with the

cash? They can still go and study. They can take apprenticeships.

There are lots of opportunities open to them. I encourage them to

take work experience. There are many things they can be doing. If

they want to go into further education, they do not need to

should pay back these loans until they start work. So you are happy

for them to get a job if they can't afford further education?

Apprenticeships are a form of further education. The poorer?

anyone. There are many different choices. It is up to each

individual young person to decide what is right for them. I encourage

them to look for those opportunities, to get the

experience and the skills, to add to their knowledge so that they can

be the best they can be. Living rents as an idea, is that going to

see the idea of day, the idea of rent control, trying to ensure that

people do not pay more than a third of their salary in private rent?

are looking at it. We don't know the solutions to all of London's

housing crisis. We need to look at social housing, living rents. These

are massive failures of the market, and we have to come up with radical

proposals. There is no on-off switch. We have 20,000 on the list

in Barking and Dagenham. These are people struggling to get a roof

over their heads, and the rent for his taking up more and more of

their wage. And people in Chiswick and so on are facing higher rents

in the private sector and are desperate to find affordable

housing, and they will get even less under your proposals. We have

been encouraging housebuilding. In my borough of Hounslow, we are

building more and encouraging local private and social housing. London

does have a housing issue. But it is not going to happen if you are

now going to allow developers not to go for 50% affordable housing.

You have said to forget that target. We have a range of options. We want

to give the power to local councils to make decisions on planning and

what they think is needed for that area. But they will not care for

people with a social need if they have that choice. Councils are very

clear. They are accountable for those decisions for their local

area. They will focus on the local needs of those boroughs.

Cruddas, we saw Ed Miliband and Ken Livingstone during the campaign.

Douglas Alexander said Labour's campaign was wrong this week. He

said Ken Livingstone was dividing London into blocks with his

comments about wealthy Jewish people not being likely to attract

votes. Do you agree? I have not read the New Statesman's -- New

Statesman article that was from. I was proud of the London campaign.

We were against Boris Johnson, a force of nature, almost. Criticisms

were made around the Jewish community and the way we might have

passed and sliced some of the electorate. We stat a deal breaker?

A lot of people were not happy with the language used around that, but

generally, it was a fantastic campaign run by London Labour.

settle down, because the next item is fast and furious. It is the week

in 60 seconds. A year into the job, and on

fighting form, Commissioner Hogan Howe said he hopes not to cut

police numbers, but refused to give guarantees. We will end up more

efficient. A bit Lena, a bit meaner, but effective. Lost at grammar

school in south London was among the schools caught up in the

leasing ripple. They were left owing nearly �2 million after some

schools have paid ten times the going rate on laptops and computers.

CrossRail was given a financial boost by the government in the

shape of a loan guarantee scheme to avoid further delays, so it is a

green light all the way. The end of the UK road, but not

quite for Abu Hamza. The radical Muslim cleric used to preach at

Finsbury Park mosque and has now launched a High Court appeal to

halt his extradition to the US. Water everywhere in the headlines,

but the story for Londoners is that there is not enough. An assembly

report warned of future shortages unless action is taken to flush out

bad habits. In the time we have left, let's

concentrate on the police. Where are you happy to see the policing

budget cut in your area? Certainly, Boris Johnson did a good job on

policing in the last mayoral term. He increased the numbers of police

officers on the street. It is important to have visible policing.

But there is now a �500 million cut. Where should it happen? How I

attended my local police community consultative group this week, and

they said that they will not take from the frontline. They are going

to look at things like, do they need as many management positions?

Father buildings they could rationalise? Are there things they

could do that are not about the visibility of policing? Do you

think there is plenty of scope for cuts? What would you like to see

go? By will at the Berra commander make those decisions. He would not

want to make them if he did not have to. You might want to give him

some guidance? He is the professional on policing, so I am

happy for him to make that decision. But he is dedicated to making sure

that we keep the safety of our residents as paramount. That will

be his first priority. We will make sure he is still focusing on things

we need in Hounslow, like focusing on domestic violence and drug-

related crime. John Cruddas, whatever they do, you will not be

able to reverse, because there is not the money. I actually, I agree

with a lot of what was just said in terms of maintaining support for

the frontline. Over the last ten years, we have transformed policing

in this city and we have to maintain it. I also want to keep

the borough pay based partnership. There are some issues there. I

agree where the savings could be made of �500 million in terms of

those back offices and duplication and the like. The parities have to

be frontline police numbers and secondly the strategic partnership

across the boroughs. This police do a great job in London we have seen

in the Olympics. On that note, we In a moment, we will look ahead to

the big stories which will dominate politics next week, with our panel.

But first, the news. Good afternoon. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, has

said he would stand up to powerful interest groups on behalf of the

hard-working majority. Mr Miliband said he would take on the big banks

and his own trade union supporters, as he seeks to rebuild the British

economy. Our political correspondent reports. The slogan

is Rebuilding Britain, but Labour also has to rebuild the trust which

it lost at the last election, and convince voters that Ed Miliband is

a potential Prime Minister. He was recognised by this voter this

morning, but although his party is ahead in the polls, his ratings

remain poor. He says Labour has to change, but he will remain true to

himself. Am going to do it my own way. I think in the end people

respect somebody who has seriousness of purpose. It is not

just Labour's Conference which is being given a makeover. From now on,

the task is to find policies which are distinctive, but which do not

cost lots of extra cash. He says his party will stand up to powerful

forces, if necessary breaking up the banks to protect high street

customers from risky operations. And he says he would scrap the

income tax cut for the better off. It is a massive difference in

priorities. I will stand up for the people in this country who need the

help of government, who cannot just get by on their own, and a

government which says, let's just cut taxes for the rich. But the

trade unions make a big financial contribution to Labour, and the

giant Unite union wants to use its muscle to influence party policy.

But Ed Miliband says he will not give in to some of his paymasters

on the issue of pay. We put jobs in the public sector ahead of pay

rises. It is a difficult decision, but it is the way to keep jobs.

Miliband has to convince a new generation of voters that they can

trust his party to run the economy, and that they can see him in

Downing Street. The number of American service personnel who have

lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2001 has reached 2000. A US

soldier was shot dead in the Wardak province yesterday, in what appears

to have been an in cyber-attack by a member of the Afghan security

forces. A large fire in Aleppo in Syria has destroyed many valuable

historical sites. Pictures show flames whipping through the Old

City, a UNESCO Heritage Site. It is the final day of play in the Ryder

Cup, which gets under way in a few Cup, which gets under way in a few

hours in Chicago. Despite dramatic late points on Saturday, Europe

will have to equal the biggest comeback in Ryder Cup history, if

they are going to retain the trophy. they are going to retain the trophy.

That's the news for now. So, can Ed Miliband convince the

public he is prime ministerial material? What does he really stand

for? And can David Cameron keep his own side onside when it comes to

Europe? These are all questions for the week ahead. Nick, the

Westminster consensus is that Labour is ahead in the polls, but

they say the leader is soft - what do they mean by that, and is it

true? -- the lead is soft. It means that yes, they are ahead in the

polls, but when you drill down into the specifics, he looks pretty bad.

In a cheeky move this weekend, the Conservatives released some figures

from a private sundeck, which showed that 65% of Labour voters

would prefer David Miliband, and it showed that a huge number of voters

regard Ed Miliband as weak. But the scrutiny has not begun yet. It is

only in 2014-15 that the media and the public turn their guns towards

the opposition. If you look at David Cameron's pour in support in

the last parliament, it fell by half between the beginning of 2009

and 2010. Even Tony Blair, who ended up winning by 13% in the

popular vote had a lead which was twice as big at the beginning of

1996. So, leaders of opposition parties lose support very steeply

in the last year. So, you have to build up a big buffer, and what he

has got at the moment is not enough. Here is an example. One very senior

Labour figure that I spoke to this week had looked through labour's

annual report and look at how many new members they had put on in the

last year, and he claimed it was something like 14 new members. That

should be worrying for the party. Neil Kinnock was sometimes 20

points a head of Margaret Thatcher, and look where that ended up. Seven

or eight months ago, Ed Miliband was looking week after last year's

conference speech, which did not work out. Then, the other party

leaders picked up his theme, Cameron faltered because of the

economy, and everybody thought, Ed Miliband is looking pretty strong.

But you get back to the fundamental point, when you look at the

detailed figures, he is not cutting through. I would say his biggest

achievement is that Labour is by far the most unified of the three

main parties. But has he achieved that unity by not challenging his

party very much ideological? If you think of all of the biggie

interventions he has made, whether it is bashing Murdoch or calling

for a banking inquiry, it is fairly comfortable stuff for his party.

The danger is that you get unified in what Tony Blair described as the

comfort zone. I assume the aim this week will be to give the public,

and the party, a sense of direction, even if we do not get many policies,

a sense of where they are going, and to kind of humanise Ed, can it

be done? I think that could be mission impossible. The other

interesting thing that they are trying to do this week is to show a

different type of opposition politics. We have spoken a bit

about the fact that they do not seem to have very many policies.

But what they are trying to do differently, things like the policy

we had which was announced a couple of days ago, more of an initiative

than a policy, wanting to encourage communities to use their collective

buying power. To buy electricity, for example. But the big problem

that all political parties have is the public saying, you're all the

same, let's just give the coalition another chance, or let's give the

Tories another chance. So what they're trying to do, with this

type of initiative, is to show that even in opposition, we, the Labour

Party, can actually make people's lives better. The Conservatives

clearly think that Mr Gillett and he is the weakest link. Let's look

at this poster that they have been putting up. -- that Mr Miliband is

the weakest link. Is there not a slight sense of desperation, that

for a moment -- for the moment, the Tories think almost the only thing

they have going for them is Ed Miliband? Yes, when you speak to

them, it gets back to the fundamental point, we think our

greatest asset is Ed Miliband. But I think the fundamental problem

that the Labour Party has, and this was highlighted where Harriet

Harman slipped up in that Spectator interview, is that Ed Balls has a

very, very complicated position. That position is that in this

Parliament, we're going to trash this Government for cutting too

quickly. Five seconds before the general election, we, the Labour

Party, are going to say, because this government has done so badly,

we are going to have to accept their spending plans for the next

two years. It is a position which looks great on paper, but in

reality, what they're doing is, not using this time and this Parliament,

not to set out absolutely everything they are going to do,

but to build up their credibility on the economy. What struck me

about that poster was the timing of it. It says to me that the Tories

are worried that their message on the need for austerity is beginning

to fade a little, and that people are losing faith in that as a

strategy. Also, I think those posters are now beginning to look a

little bit outdated, and they are a little bit of an outdated

campaigning tool. I do not know if they resonate. One of you might

like to ask the Tories how many they actually put up. My view is

that they bring 'em on for the TV cameras, and they do not spend any

money to stick them up around the country. Speaking of the Tories,

again, some commentators thought that Mr Cameron - and you were in

Brazil with him - had dangled the idea of a European referendum again

in front of the British people, but I'm not so sure. Let's have a look

at what he actually said. I do not think it is in Britain's interests

to leave the European Union, but I do think that what there is

increasingly coming the time for is a new settlement between Britain

and Europe, and I think that new settlement will require fresh

consent. Why this is happening... So, a new referendum good stead in

the next Parliament, I think there will be opportunities for a fresh

settlement, and for a new consensus. There is a reason why. The euro is

a currency with 17 different currencies. I think increasingly

one currency will mean one economic policy. They are going to change,

which will give us opportunities for changing our relationship with

Europe. He was asked if fresh consent meant a referendum, he

fudged the answer - but I would suggest the British voter is fed up

with Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems promising referendums

that they never get, and this kind of opaque language about fresh

consent cuts no ice whatsoever. think the British people are fed up

with a lack of clarity. David Cameron clearly wants us to think

that he is floating the idea of a referendum, but he does not want to

actually say that, because he does not know how long these

negotiations will take, and he does not want to go into those

negotiations slamming a referendum on the table, because the other

leaders and the European Union will take fright. The problem is, he has

got UKIP breathing down his neck ahead of the 2014 European

parliamentary elections. They may win it. They have a very clear

position - get out. David Cameron clearly does not want to leave the

European Union, but if he does not have a clear position on a

referendum, he's going to struggle with UKIP. I think he does have a

clear position, he just does not want to tell us. I think he will

definitely offer a referendum. I think it is all about the timing of

when they announce that that will be in their manifesto. I thought

the telling words were, next Parliament. He thinks he can delay

a referendum until the next Parliament. I am not so sure. This

month, a Jose Manuel Barroso said he envisages an organisation of --

Federation of nation-states. Federation of nation states, not

United States. There will be a referendum on a treaty negotiation

for fiscal union, which will need our consent, although we will not

be part of it. David Cameron will put some demands on the table to

repatriate powers, which will probably be quite limited social

and employment laws. So he will have a referendum to say, I, David

Cameron, have brought back social and employment laws. If the

federation of nation-states is as substantial as Jose Manuel Barroso

is implying, then unless he secures more than these cosmetic changes,

it will be very difficult for him to advocate staying in without

completely splitting his party. I come back to my original point -

this kind of language, he may be tap dancing on the head of up in,

it may keep his spin doctors happy, but it does not cut with the

British people. I do not think it is sustainable, but he has to

string it out as long as he can, because I think he wants to pledge

that he will put a referendum as one of the main things in the Tory

manifesto for next around. And I think he wants to do that just

before the 2014 European elections. I think it is a lot of day by day,

month by month calculations as to what is prudent and expedient.

Angela Merkel does not want to do anything until next year's election.

That's it for today. I will be back tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock on

BBC Two, for life coverage of Ed Balls' speech to the Labour Party