:00:42. > :00:45.Morning, folks. Welcome to The Sunday Politics. Watch out,
:00:45. > :00:51.Birmingham, the Tories are coming. Their message to voters - we get it,
:00:51. > :00:53.and we are here to help. The Sunday Politics focus group asks, what do
:00:53. > :01:01.folk really think of the Conservative Party and the Prime
:01:01. > :01:06.Minister? I feel he is not getting down to people's level. He is a bit
:01:06. > :01:10.aloof. What about the party faithful? The grass roots movement
:01:10. > :01:14.urges David Cameron to return to traditional Tory policies, and we
:01:14. > :01:17.will ask Defence Secretary Philip Hammond about the state of the body.
:01:17. > :01:22.And the Ed Miliband made his par Diaby this week, but what about the
:01:22. > :01:26.voters? Can the new, improved ever really refresh the parts the old Ed
:01:26. > :01:30.could not reach? We will ask Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander
:01:30. > :01:34.in the Sunday interview. In London, what are we to make of
:01:34. > :01:44.the tension between prime minister and mayor? We will hear from the PM
:01:44. > :01:49.
:01:49. > :01:54.on Boris Johnson's recent critical And with me as always, the best and
:01:54. > :01:58.brightest political panel in the business. Isabel Oakeshott, Janan
:01:58. > :02:03.Ganesh and Nick Watt, with more with it, was the man frenetic
:02:03. > :02:07.tweeting than one can safely holed in a single studio -- with more wit,
:02:07. > :02:12.wisdom and tweeting. Now, David Cameron is already in Birmingham -
:02:12. > :02:14.lucky Dave, lucky Brum - and he has been busy. The man who claimed the
:02:14. > :02:22.risk of social networking site Twitter was that you might look
:02:22. > :02:26.like a twit is clearly no longer worried about that. The big news of
:02:26. > :02:30.this morning is that the Prime Minister is now a tweeter, and he
:02:30. > :02:33.has done it three times now. I know you are interested, so we will keep
:02:33. > :02:38.you informed if there are further developments in the cause of
:02:38. > :02:42.today's show. Meanwhile, back on the old media, us, the Prime
:02:42. > :02:48.Minister was talking to Andrew Marr about whether the rich are baring
:02:48. > :02:53.their fair share of the burden of pain. You have to make sure you are
:02:53. > :02:57.fair and seen to be fair. Under this government, we have always
:02:57. > :03:02.done that. The top ten % in this country have paid ten times more
:03:02. > :03:06.towards reducing the deficit than the bottom 10%. People who are the
:03:06. > :03:10.wealthiest, those with the broadest shoulders, will pay more tax under
:03:10. > :03:15.this Government, and it will happen before the next general election -
:03:15. > :03:19.yes or no? Yes, and it is happening already. The richest 10% in our
:03:19. > :03:22.country are not only paying more income tax, they are paying a
:03:22. > :03:27.greater percentage of the total income tax take than they ever did
:03:27. > :03:31.under Labour. The Prime Minister, speaking
:03:31. > :03:35.earlier this morning. Nick, the Prime Minister did not seem like he
:03:35. > :03:40.was going to introduce any new taxes on the better off. He said
:03:40. > :03:44.they are already paying more than they did under Labour. And by the
:03:44. > :03:49.way, I have ruled out a mansion tax. Where does that leave the Lib Dems?
:03:49. > :03:52.It does not look too good. Nick Clegg kicked his off when I did an
:03:52. > :03:58.interview with him in August. He said we need to find an extra �10
:03:58. > :04:02.billion of cuts. It can't just be the poor that are paying. He talked
:04:03. > :04:06.about a wealth tax. So it looks bad, but when you look at what he said,
:04:06. > :04:11.he said yes, we have the mansion tax, but he was mainly focusing on
:04:11. > :04:18.other areas of taxing the wealth, things like closing down on tax
:04:18. > :04:21.loopholes. They always talk about that. But in terms of managing
:04:21. > :04:26.relations within the coalition, you might find a way through this.
:04:26. > :04:30.Don't forget, the mansion tax went off the table when George Osborne
:04:30. > :04:35.said yes to a mansion tax in the budget negotiations, but only if
:04:35. > :04:39.the top rate of tax went down to 40p. David Cameron said no to the
:04:39. > :04:48.mansion tax on the top rate went to 40p. He was vague about new wealth
:04:48. > :04:53.taxes. But he was explicit and clear that he has to find �16
:04:53. > :04:59.billion more in the cuts for the year 2015-16, because it starts
:04:59. > :05:02.before the election. He was clear that those cuts will have to be
:05:02. > :05:08.announced, and the process must begin before the election. Somebody
:05:09. > :05:17.has tweeted here, game over for limp Dems, saying he has ruled out
:05:17. > :05:22.wealth tax and mansion tax, so where will these savings come from?
:05:22. > :05:29.It is not the Prime Minister twitchy you? Sadly not. He is only
:05:29. > :05:33.following four people. And neither is Nick Clegg one of them. So the
:05:33. > :05:37.Prime Minister says, I need 16 billion more in cuts the 2015. I am
:05:37. > :05:41.looking at the welfare budget. He implies it is low hanging fruit.
:05:41. > :05:47.But he says to the Lib Dems, you will not get any of the taxes you
:05:47. > :05:51.want. The Tory message is closest to being that taxing the rich is
:05:51. > :05:56.bad for growth, and by the way, we are taxing the rich. They will
:05:56. > :05:59.defend cutting the rate from 50p to 45p by pointing to reasons of
:05:59. > :06:03.enterprise and supporting business, while at the same time renouncing
:06:03. > :06:08.the prospect of other forms of taxing the rich. What is left? How
:06:08. > :06:16.do you get more money from the rich without going for property? Maybe
:06:16. > :06:20.capital-gains tax? Well, don't go away. Anyway, you have nowhere else
:06:20. > :06:24.to go. And however tough times have been for the government recently,
:06:24. > :06:29.they have been able to comfort themselves its privately that they
:06:29. > :06:33.have a secret weapon, and what is this weapon's name? Ed Miliband.
:06:33. > :06:36.But his speech in Manchester last week seems to have changed that.
:06:36. > :06:40.But with that success comes more scrutiny of the Labour leader and
:06:40. > :06:46.his party. When Ed Miliband arrived at his
:06:46. > :06:49.party conference a week ago, he may have wondered whether his portrait
:06:49. > :06:53.would ever hang in Downing Street. There were questions over his
:06:53. > :06:58.leadership and low personal ratings in the polls. But his speech won
:06:58. > :07:04.praise from commentators across the spectrum. His vision hung on one
:07:04. > :07:09.phrase. One nation, a country where everyone has a stake. One nation, a
:07:09. > :07:15.country where prosperity is fairly shared. One nation, where we have a
:07:15. > :07:20.shared destiny, a sense of shared and ever and a common life that we
:07:20. > :07:25.lead together. That is my vision of one nation. That is my vision of
:07:25. > :07:28.Britain. The Miliband is not the first to invoke the spirit of
:07:28. > :07:33.nineteenth-century Tory prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. Tony
:07:34. > :07:38.Blair and Gordon Brown have also done it. "one nation" was also
:07:38. > :07:43.tried on for size by David Cameron. I understand why you voted for him.
:07:43. > :07:48.I understand why you turned away from the last Labour government.
:07:48. > :07:54.This government took power in difficult economic times. It was a
:07:54. > :07:57.country still coming to terms with the financial crisis. Mr Miliband's
:07:58. > :08:01.speech has won him a hearing, but it is not clear what he tried to
:08:01. > :08:06.say, or whether his "one nation" rhetoric can win over voters Labour
:08:06. > :08:16.lost because of their handling of the economy. For the shadow Foreign
:08:16. > :08:18.
:08:18. > :08:24.Secretary Douglas Alexander joins me now for the Sunday interview.
:08:24. > :08:27.Good to see you again in the flesh, rather than down the line. I think
:08:27. > :08:31.nearly everybody can agree that Mr Miliband showed that he can give a
:08:31. > :08:36.good speech last week. But what evidence is there that voters will
:08:36. > :08:43.see him as more prime-ministerial? That is a judgment that people
:08:43. > :08:46.reach over a parliament, rather than over a speech. But whether it
:08:46. > :08:50.was the response of the broadcasters or of the journalists
:08:50. > :08:55.in the hall, there is a sense that the speech represented a step
:08:55. > :09:00.forward. It is not a victory lap. There is a long way to go for
:09:00. > :09:04.Labour. Ed would be the first to recognise that, even after a
:09:04. > :09:10.successful conference. We spoke to a group of floating voters in these
:09:10. > :09:20.famous focus groups. Very New Labour. The Tories do them, too.
:09:20. > :09:21.
:09:22. > :09:26.Among many things, we asked them what they thought of Ed Miliband.
:09:26. > :09:30.He does not come across with the strength he needs to lead the party.
:09:30. > :09:39.I don't think he could be prime minister. I did think he has the
:09:39. > :09:49.charisma. He is not a leader. driven. Immature. He is young, and
:09:49. > :09:51.
:09:51. > :09:59.he gives the impression that he is in experienced. In experienced.
:09:59. > :10:03.these are ordinary floating voters. Why do you think they still have
:10:03. > :10:06.trouble imagining your leader in Downing Street? We did this after
:10:06. > :10:12.the speech. It is always a challenge for the leader of the
:10:12. > :10:15.opposition. Tony Blair assumed leadership of the Labour Party in
:10:15. > :10:21.different circumstances. For Ed Miliband, we have had our worst
:10:21. > :10:25.results since universal suffrage in terms of share of the vote. In 1994,
:10:25. > :10:29.the assumption was that whoever became Labour leader was likely to
:10:29. > :10:32.become Prime Minister. Over the last couple of years, even if Ed
:10:32. > :10:36.was out there making speeches and giving interviews, there was a
:10:36. > :10:41.section of the population who felt it was academic and there was no
:10:41. > :10:46.prospect of Labour coming back. There is now a growing sense that
:10:46. > :10:50.actually, Labour are seriously contesting for power. And there are
:10:50. > :10:55.voters who are not yet willing to give us their support, but will be
:10:55. > :10:59.willing to give us a hearing. That is the responsibility that we face
:10:59. > :11:04.in the Shadow Cabinet. Part of it is understanding what went wrong
:11:04. > :11:08.for your party. Mr Miliband told your conference that he understood
:11:08. > :11:13.why people "turned away from the last Labour government" and voted
:11:13. > :11:22.for Mr Cameron's party. But why did the voters turn away? He did not
:11:22. > :11:26.explain that. There is a range of factors. The assertion that we had
:11:26. > :11:30.ended boom-and-bust, and then experienced the financial crisis,
:11:30. > :11:35.of course impacted on people's confidence in our economic
:11:35. > :11:39.management. The failure to effectively regulates the banks, a
:11:39. > :11:42.problem we shared with many other governments, and incidentally, the
:11:42. > :11:47.Conservatives were saying we regulated too much, but that was
:11:47. > :11:54.part of it. The backwash of the expenses crisis impacted on the
:11:54. > :11:58.politics generally, but also on the government of the day. Let's move
:11:58. > :12:04.on to some of these issues. Let's part of the regulation of the backs.
:12:04. > :12:08.There is a general agreement that nobody got that right. But isn't it
:12:08. > :12:13.also likely that voters turned away from Labour because they thought
:12:13. > :12:20.you had not been careful enough with the public finances? They
:12:20. > :12:23.thought you spent too much. I don't believe that most people believe
:12:23. > :12:28.Lehman Brothers collapsed because Gordon Brown built too many schools
:12:28. > :12:32.and hospitals. No one has claimed that. That is an answer that you
:12:32. > :12:41.have set up. No one is saying that the schools and hospitals brought
:12:41. > :12:45.the crash. George Osborne says the Eurozone is having a chilling
:12:45. > :12:52.effect, when he said it was a downturn made in Downing Street
:12:52. > :12:55.originally. For a lot of people, you did not put enough a way in the
:12:55. > :13:05.good years so that we would have been in better shape, come the bad
:13:05. > :13:13.years. The deficit rose after the steps we took in the teeth of the
:13:13. > :13:16.crisis. But more people were kept in their homes and jobs as the
:13:16. > :13:20.result of a conscious choice to spend public money at a point at
:13:20. > :13:24.which otherwise, we felt there was a real risk of a genuine depression
:13:24. > :13:29.rather than simply a recession. you were addicted to spending and
:13:29. > :13:33.living permanently beyond our means. Even when the economy was growing
:13:33. > :13:38.strongly and generating huge tax revenues, you continued to borrow
:13:38. > :13:42.and borrow. You never put the money away for in rainy-day. I am sure
:13:42. > :13:51.you have the figures in front of you, but we had the second lowest
:13:51. > :13:58.debt to GDP ratio in the G7. even good Keynesians realise that
:13:59. > :14:02.after you have had a lot of growth, you should put some away.
:14:02. > :14:11.welcomed the acknowledgement of the ten years of sustained economic
:14:11. > :14:15.growth. Let me put it this way. I suspect that people do not trust
:14:15. > :14:19.you on the economy and to you come clean. Never mind the bank
:14:20. > :14:25.regulation. You should say, look, we did spend too much in the good
:14:25. > :14:30.years and we should have put some way for the bad years. It was a
:14:30. > :14:34.nonsense. I apologise. I don't accept that whether it is employing
:14:34. > :14:38.more doctors and nurses or building more schools, that Britain didn't
:14:38. > :14:43.need catch up expenditure in these years following our election in
:14:43. > :14:48.1997. Secondly, my argument would be that of course, the character of
:14:48. > :14:52.this crisis was global. The clue is in the title - the global financial
:14:52. > :14:57.crisis. The political debate on this has shifted. A few years ago,
:14:57. > :14:59.it was right to recognise that the Conservatives were prevailing in an
:14:59. > :15:03.argument that some have suggested that Labour were uniquely
:15:03. > :15:09.responsible for the character of the crisis. The self-same
:15:09. > :15:13.Conservatives are now, as an excuse, saying that the character of this
:15:13. > :15:23.crisis is European. The understanding of the crisis has
:15:23. > :15:32.
:15:32. > :15:39.This is a recent opinion poll. 64% said they did not Trust Ed Miliband
:15:39. > :15:44.and Ed balls to make the right decisions on the economy. You are
:15:44. > :15:50.still not trusted on the economy. Well that is a judgment that will
:15:50. > :15:54.be reached over a parliament. I think it is fair to recognise that
:15:54. > :16:02.many people in the country have decided to give the Conservatives
:16:02. > :16:07.ago. First of all they said at the time for the circumstances of the
:16:07. > :16:13.United Kingdom and Greece were on a parallel. And that he could cut
:16:13. > :16:18.ABBA great demand from the economy. Many of the people will came around
:16:18. > :16:23.that near consensus are now having real doubts and concerns that
:16:23. > :16:27.George Osborne's plant is just not working. For that is not what I was
:16:27. > :16:34.asking. I want to move on to another issue involving coming
:16:34. > :16:37.clean with the public. I spoke about it on a Daily Politics
:16:37. > :16:45.earlier this week. Do you understand what is meant by the
:16:45. > :16:49.word millionaire? The definition of we were using this week was someone
:16:49. > :16:53.with an income in excess of �1 million per year. The dictionary
:16:53. > :17:03.definition says a person whose assets are worth at least �1
:17:03. > :17:06.
:17:06. > :17:11.million. Let us just put that up so you can see that. Ed Miliband said
:17:11. > :17:16.in his speech that David Cameron will be writing a cheque for
:17:16. > :17:21.�14,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. You know
:17:21. > :17:27.that is not true. Look at the figures. On Wednesday, no, on
:17:27. > :17:37.Tuesday, you said there were 6000 people but in fact they are a 1000
:17:37. > :17:37.
:17:37. > :17:43.people earning more than �1 million. -- 80 million people. In terms of
:17:43. > :17:49.income... The definition is the person whose assets were worth at
:17:49. > :17:55.least �1 million. It was clear that income tax is levied on income.
:17:55. > :18:05.Last week you said there were 6000 people with income in excess of �1
:18:05. > :18:08.
:18:08. > :18:17.million. In fact there are 8000. You whether one person who did not
:18:17. > :18:26.know the figures. 619,000 millionaires. Do you accept that
:18:26. > :18:31.the vast majority of them will not get that cheque. Not many people
:18:31. > :18:36.earning in excess of �50,000 per year. But you only get that check
:18:36. > :18:43.if you earn �1 million was a pub but everyone earning over �50,000
:18:43. > :18:50.will receive a tax cut. Those statements are not in contradiction.
:18:50. > :18:57.There are 305,000 people could earn �150,000 or more. Do you accept it
:18:57. > :19:02.will be just to the 8000 people who earn �1 million this year who will
:19:02. > :19:06.get �40,000 more in tax cuts. many people are what he called
:19:06. > :19:10.Asset millionaires who will get a cheque of less than �40,000 but
:19:10. > :19:16.will receive a tax cut because of the choices the Conservatives have
:19:16. > :19:24.made for stock Ed Miliband was talking about that 40,000 and he
:19:24. > :19:30.included David Cameron. And he said the worst part is David Cameron it
:19:30. > :19:35.is just not writing cheques but he is receiving one. He will be
:19:35. > :19:40.getting the millionaire's tax cut. Implying that David Cameron is
:19:40. > :19:43.going to be �40,000 better off. You know that is not true for us up at
:19:43. > :19:48.Downing Street statement came out this week from a spokesman
:19:48. > :19:54.confirmed that the income of David Cameron is in excess of 150 dozen
:19:54. > :20:03.pounds per year. Therefore he will be receiving a tax cut next April.
:20:03. > :20:08.He said he would be receiving a cheque. He said, at the worst part
:20:08. > :20:12.is David Cameron it is going to receive a cheque himself. A Downing
:20:12. > :20:19.Street spokesman has confirmed that he will be receiving a tax cut next
:20:19. > :20:25.April. I'm asking you where the evidence is that he will be getting
:20:25. > :20:28.a �40,000 tax cut. The Downing Street spokesman just this week
:20:28. > :20:33.confirmed that David Cameron would be a beneficiary of the tax cut
:20:33. > :20:39.that will be introduced next April. 305,000 people across the country
:20:39. > :20:43.with incomes in excess of �150,000 will be receiving those checks and
:20:44. > :20:47.David Cameron will be one of them. If your definition is correct, Ed
:20:47. > :20:53.Miliband himself would be getting a cheque for �40,000. He is a
:20:53. > :21:03.millionaire. Were the statement that he made was on the basis of
:21:03. > :21:04.
:21:04. > :21:10.having in income in excess of �150,000. It is clear there are
:21:10. > :21:15.305,000 people with an income in excess of �150,000. One of those is
:21:15. > :21:19.the prime minister. Can you confirm that Ed Miliband is a millionaire
:21:19. > :21:24.and will not be getting that check? His income is a matter of public
:21:24. > :21:29.record. Is he a millionaire could MAC Armalite David Cameron he does
:21:29. > :21:35.not have an additional income that would take him into that category.
:21:35. > :21:40.He does not have an income in excess of �1 million. I will send
:21:40. > :21:49.you the dictionary definition. I will send you the Red Book.
:21:49. > :21:56.think you should read it first! Now our focus group has been asked
:21:56. > :22:06.how punters see David Cameron and his party. Here is the Sunday
:22:06. > :22:07.
:22:07. > :22:10.politics focus group. Let me explain how this works. We're going
:22:10. > :22:12.to get a group of people in this room and get them to discuss a
:22:12. > :22:14.current political news story and recent politics behind this mirror
:22:14. > :22:16.are tow Conservative backbench MPs. And we'll hear what they have to
:22:16. > :22:18.say about the reactions of the group.
:22:18. > :22:23.Polling company Populous run the session, and gather seven floating
:22:23. > :22:25.voters. They are all from London, and as the moderator introduces
:22:25. > :22:33.topics covering all three main parties, we learn impressions of
:22:33. > :22:40.Nick Clegg. Initially I would have said that he
:22:40. > :22:47.had a little bit of an edge in terms of being dynamic. But now I
:22:47. > :22:50.put him in the category of a dogsbody for a stock dead. Of the
:22:50. > :22:58.state of the economy. On the former Prime Minister and
:22:58. > :23:01.what Labour should say now about that period.
:23:01. > :23:03.Just to a knowledge were Gordon Brown went wrong.
:23:03. > :23:05.We'll hear more from them on Labour's position later in the
:23:05. > :23:11.program. But as the Party Conference opens in Birmingham, the
:23:11. > :23:17.group focus in on the Conservatives and their leader, David Cameron.
:23:17. > :23:23.Not very decisive. He seems to dither about some issues.
:23:23. > :23:28.I think he wants to be Prime Minister of more so than it
:23:28. > :23:33.actually putting anything in to the economy. He is more driven by his
:23:33. > :23:38.own ambitions. I feel he's not getting down to the
:23:38. > :23:44.level of the people. He is a bit aloof. Everything is scripted, it
:23:44. > :23:48.does not come from the heart. Boris Johnson, like him or hate him, it
:23:48. > :23:55.comes from the heart. What does Boris Johnson have that David
:23:55. > :24:00.Cameron does not? He is passionate, that comes across. And he delivers.
:24:00. > :24:08.Whether it is scripted or not, he comes across as someone who is not
:24:08. > :24:15.afraid of saying what he means. But he could also be a puppet, I do
:24:15. > :24:23.not know. You're not a fan of Boris Johnson.
:24:23. > :24:27.But I do think he has got something. Part of that is about personality.
:24:27. > :24:33.But there is also something in it that says that we have to be our
:24:33. > :24:38.own people in Parliament. Boris Johnson is not on the
:24:38. > :24:43.doorstep, he is not a member of parliament. They want the Prime
:24:43. > :24:49.Minister to remorselessly deliver the promises we have made. Up until
:24:49. > :24:59.this point, the Andrew Mitchell affair had not been raised, however
:24:59. > :25:03.
:25:03. > :25:05.they do know about it. They're then shown three phrases
:25:05. > :25:07.that Mr Mitchell denies, but is reported to have used to policemen
:25:07. > :25:17.outside Downing Street. But it becomes clear swearing and the word
:25:17. > :25:19.
:25:19. > :25:29.pleb are not what bothers them most. Which is the most insulting? Know
:25:29. > :25:32.
:25:32. > :25:35.your place. That has been marked by everybody. They're shown his
:25:35. > :25:41.apology and rejection of the words attributed to him and then one of
:25:41. > :25:46.the group reveals a unique perspective. I was actually a
:25:46. > :25:50.police officer and I am disgusted by it. He should not be speaking
:25:50. > :25:55.like that to people who were there to protect him and his life. It
:25:55. > :26:03.does not bode well for the Conservatives. It also reinforces
:26:03. > :26:09.our view on what the Conservatives are about. Fairly or unfairly, it
:26:09. > :26:16.just does. You cannot blame the entire party
:26:16. > :26:20.for one person. In the 1980s the Conservative Party gave people the
:26:20. > :26:27.chance to buy their own home, have to buy shares in a company. What
:26:27. > :26:31.married -- what mattered was merit. We are a party of meritocracy, of
:26:31. > :26:38.choice and opportunity and diversity. We show that in
:26:38. > :26:44.everything we say and do. A chief whip is there to make sure
:26:44. > :26:54.backbenchers tow the line. Has that made Mr Mitchell's mission
:26:54. > :26:58.
:26:58. > :27:03.impossible? We are a diverse group. We do what we think is right.
:27:03. > :27:06.Well listening to that is Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary. We
:27:06. > :27:12.hoped to speak to you earlier and for longer so we have to rattle
:27:12. > :27:15.through the ground I want to cover. You heard people talking about the
:27:15. > :27:20.Andrew Mitchell affair. For many ordinary people this has been very
:27:20. > :27:25.damaging for your party will stop well of course Andrew Mitchell's
:27:25. > :27:28.conduct was not excusable and he has apologised for it to the people
:27:28. > :27:32.involved. They do not want to take it any
:27:32. > :27:37.further and we have to draw a line under it. But we all understand
:27:37. > :27:41.well that however frustrated you may be, you absolutely cannot
:27:41. > :27:46.launch in that way at people going about doing their job, minding
:27:46. > :27:52.their in business. I understand all that, I was asking about the damage
:27:52. > :27:57.to your party. And I suggest it is damage because there is the
:27:57. > :28:02.perception of your party has privileged, rich and out of touch.
:28:02. > :28:07.Every time any individual slips up, steps out of line and does
:28:07. > :28:12.something they should not have done, and they are a member of a party or
:28:12. > :28:17.organisation, that is bound to reflect on that organisation. We
:28:17. > :28:20.have to accept that. It is very unfortunate. Nobody is defending
:28:21. > :28:27.Andrew Mitchell's conduct. But eyeline now has to be drawn under
:28:27. > :28:32.it. Ed Miliband is now claiming the mantle of one nation. You Chief
:28:32. > :28:37.Whip tells people that plebs should know their place. Andrew Mitchell
:28:37. > :28:41.of course denies that he said the words attributed to him. But I
:28:41. > :28:47.haven't a acknowledged that this has been a damaging affair. -- I
:28:47. > :28:51.have acknowledged. The One nation it is a great Tory slogan. Ed
:28:51. > :28:58.Miliband hijack did last week but I'm not convinced that the Labour
:28:58. > :29:02.Party really understand what that agenda actually means. But the
:29:02. > :29:07.whole David Cameron strategy is now on the rocks, a new opinion poll
:29:07. > :29:12.this morning shows that just to present think that the Tories are
:29:12. > :29:16.anti-women or anti-gay, 40% think you were the party of the rich.
:29:16. > :29:22.Large numbers think you do not care about the poor of, the vulnerable
:29:23. > :29:28.or the NHS. That is where your weakest. Well it is simply not true
:29:28. > :29:32.as a matter of fact. That is what they're saying. If that is what is
:29:32. > :29:36.being shown them we have work to do on our presentation. We have a
:29:36. > :29:41.party of aspiration. We want a society where everyone has the
:29:41. > :29:45.ability to get on through hard work and diligence to improve their lot
:29:45. > :29:55.and their family's lot. That has always been the approach of the
:29:55. > :29:56.
:29:56. > :30:05.Conservatives. So why do you care so much, going on about hugging
:30:05. > :30:10.hoodies? We're also about the environment, we have introduced
:30:10. > :30:15.policies that dramatically advance our environmental agenda. But we
:30:15. > :30:19.are in economically hard times. The one trying to manage, they're
:30:19. > :30:22.looking to the future and want to do the best they can for themselves
:30:22. > :30:26.and their families. I believe the Conservative Party is at its best
:30:26. > :30:31.when it is pitching its message to those people who work hard, who do
:30:31. > :30:36.the right thing, who want to get on, to see society supporting those who
:30:36. > :30:46.really need support, but to expect the cards to be stacked in favour
:30:46. > :30:53.
:30:53. > :31:02.of those who do the right thing. What about the West Coast railway
:31:02. > :31:05.do battle? As I understand it, the problems that arose, the
:31:05. > :31:09.miscalculations and errors that happened were in evaluating the
:31:09. > :31:14.tender bids that Quercus -- submitted by the companies bidding
:31:14. > :31:18.for the franchise. In my experience at the Department for Transport,
:31:18. > :31:23.ministers do not get to see those bids submitted. It is regarded as
:31:23. > :31:30.inappropriate for ministers to look at them. Civil servants process
:31:30. > :31:35.them. They standardise them so that ministers can be presented, usually
:31:36. > :31:40.with code words substituted for the names of the bidders. Would you
:31:40. > :31:46.have checked the workings or not? would certainly have checked what I
:31:46. > :31:54.was presented with. But ministers are not, in my experience, able to
:31:54. > :31:59.see the original bids submitted. you are allowed to see the bids,
:32:00. > :32:03.they just don't have the names on them. This shambles would probably
:32:03. > :32:08.have happened even if you had stayed as she Transport Secretary.
:32:08. > :32:15.It would be easy for me to say absolutely not. I would like to
:32:15. > :32:19.think I was always on top of the figures. I know the people who were
:32:19. > :32:27.running the rail franchise team when I was at the Department for
:32:27. > :32:32.Transport, and I spent a great deal of time with them. I did the result
:32:32. > :32:37.of one big tender, the sale of high-speed one. But I do know that
:32:37. > :32:41.ministers are not able to get into the detail of the analysis of
:32:41. > :32:45.tenders. That would be wrong. that was not what I was asking, I
:32:45. > :32:50.was asking about the arithmetic and the workings. You changed the
:32:50. > :32:54.franchise system in August 2011. I was told by your department at your
:32:54. > :32:58.personal imprint was on the new franchise system. It is now
:32:59. > :33:03.discredited, which reflects badly on you. I don't think it is
:33:03. > :33:08.discredited. The new franchise system is intended to create
:33:08. > :33:15.greater flexibility for bidders to structure the pattern of service on
:33:15. > :33:19.the basis of what passengers need it. If it is not discredited, why
:33:19. > :33:24.were two reviews into it announced by your transport minister? In the
:33:24. > :33:28.old days, we had it civil servants determining every detail of the
:33:29. > :33:34.timetable. That is an absurd way to proceed, so we opened up the
:33:34. > :33:38.franchise system so that the bidders had more flexibility to bid
:33:39. > :33:43.the service that they believed passengers would want. The problems
:33:43. > :33:46.that have arisen are not in the design of the franchise
:33:46. > :33:51.specification, they are in the evaluation of the bids that were
:33:51. > :33:58.submitted by the bidders. You have not answered the question I asked,
:33:58. > :34:03.but isn't it time... The question is, if the franchise system is not
:34:03. > :34:06.discredited, why are there two investigations into it, and why
:34:07. > :34:13.will the three other franchises coming up most likely have to be
:34:13. > :34:17.postponed? The investigations are into the process that was used, the
:34:17. > :34:22.methodology and models used to evaluate the bids that were
:34:22. > :34:29.submitted. I have not heard anything to suggest that the change
:34:29. > :34:32.in the front tyre specification has been challenged -- the franchise
:34:33. > :34:38.specification. The former director of the Association of Train
:34:38. > :34:42.Operating Companies - to put it down to white hall ineptitude is a
:34:42. > :34:50.shame for line. Would you now like ministers to take some
:34:50. > :34:54.responsibility for a shambles? ministers obviously have to take
:34:54. > :34:57.overall responsibility for what happens in their department, but we
:34:57. > :35:05.have long moved on from the days when ministers were expected to
:35:05. > :35:09.manage every detail of the work that goes on in the department.
:35:09. > :35:13.Ministers have to hold their civil servants to account, of course. But
:35:14. > :35:20.they can't be involved in the detail of every aspect of a �14
:35:20. > :35:30.billion department. I wanted to ask you about the BAE deal, but we have
:35:30. > :35:32.
:35:33. > :35:36.not got time. Thank you. What do you make of that? That will
:35:37. > :35:41.not make comfortable listening for Justine Greening. Philip Hammond is
:35:41. > :35:45.a numbers man, a businessman. And he said, I would not know the
:35:45. > :35:49.details of the specific companies for the bids, but I would have been
:35:50. > :35:52.shown the figures anonymously. He did not complete the sentence -
:35:52. > :35:56.unlike my successor Justine Greening, who did not keep as close
:35:56. > :36:01.an eye as he would have done. glad you gave him a grilling on
:36:01. > :36:04.this issue, because it plays into what Tory MPs are privately saying,
:36:04. > :36:09.which is that an impression of incompetence has been created by
:36:09. > :36:14.this government. Over and again, we are getting these types of major
:36:14. > :36:17.failures. The Tories can do about whatever they want at their
:36:17. > :36:21.conference, but unless they can repair this impression of
:36:21. > :36:24.incompetence over policy, they will not get any votes. The star Hammond
:36:24. > :36:29.was responsible for the new franchise system, and it hasn't
:36:30. > :36:33.worked. As Nick said, Justine Greening is in an even worse
:36:33. > :36:37.position than he is regarding this story. I personally have no trouble
:36:37. > :36:42.believing that civil servants were partly culpable. I have never
:36:42. > :36:44.bought the idea that civil servants are beyond public criticism. But it
:36:44. > :36:50.is impossible to conceive of this situation occurring without
:36:50. > :36:56.ministerial involvement. You are watching The Sunday
:36:56. > :37:01.Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be looking to the
:37:01. > :37:11.week ahead with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics
:37:11. > :37:12.
:37:12. > :37:16.across the UK. Hello and welcome to the London
:37:16. > :37:20.section of Sunday Politics. Coming up, inside the mayor's diary. After
:37:20. > :37:25.something of a tussle, we finally get to see how he spends his days,
:37:25. > :37:30.and who he does and doesn't meet. Here with us this week our Home
:37:30. > :37:34.Office minister James Brokenshire and Karen Buck, shadow education
:37:34. > :37:38.spokesman. First, Boris Johnson's appearance at this week's car --
:37:38. > :37:42.party conference will be eagerly awaited by the party faithful. As
:37:42. > :37:46.for the leadership, they never know what to expect. But it has of
:37:46. > :37:49.course been an "Olympotastic" year, and returned for a second mayoral
:37:49. > :37:53.term, he is at least in the Conservative firmament and has a
:37:53. > :37:57.whiff of victory about him at the moment. But in recent weeks, he has
:37:57. > :38:01.launched an outspoken attack on the government's aviation policy. Is it
:38:01. > :38:05.just about planes and runways? The mayor's appearance alongside
:38:05. > :38:09.the prime minister at the Olympic victory parade only highlighted the
:38:09. > :38:14.contrast in styles of the two men. You have given hope for the future.
:38:14. > :38:19.On behalf of all the people of London, I say thank you with all my
:38:19. > :38:22.heart. That Olympic high was quickly followed by the September
:38:22. > :38:27.reshuffle that gave the mayor another chance to oppose his leader.
:38:27. > :38:31.When the Prime Minister announced an Aviation Review, it reopened the
:38:31. > :38:35.issue of Heathrow expansion of and revealed a major seam of discontent
:38:35. > :38:39.with a number of London Tories. Richmond council immediately voted
:38:39. > :38:44.for a referendum, and voted to oppose. Hillingdon is taking a
:38:44. > :38:47.similar line. The League of Richmond council said "I regret
:38:47. > :38:52.that the nightmare vision of Heathrow expansion has been
:38:52. > :38:55.resurrected". The unrest is not just at council level. Conservative
:38:55. > :39:00.MP and environmentalists Zac Goldsmith has warned that he may
:39:00. > :39:03.resign his seat over Heathrow. And the mare returned to the subject of
:39:03. > :39:06.Heathrow this week, telling business leaders that the
:39:06. > :39:11.Government was risking economic disaster with an approach that was
:39:11. > :39:15.blind and complacent. It is not just Heathrow. With some Tory
:39:15. > :39:19.councils openly rebelling against the government's plans to relax the
:39:19. > :39:23.planning laws. Of 11 Conservative controlled councils in London that
:39:23. > :39:27.we contacted, eight did not support the plans and three want more
:39:27. > :39:30.information. Earlier this week, I had a few
:39:30. > :39:34.minutes were the prime minister. I asked him whether it had been
:39:34. > :39:38.acceptable for Boris Johnson to be so openly critical of him over
:39:38. > :39:43.aviation overshadowing his reshuffle. Boris has a strong view
:39:43. > :39:48.about this issue. He is entitled to speak out about it. I want us as a
:39:48. > :39:52.country to maintain our hub status. I want us to have a first-class
:39:52. > :39:56.infrastructure and first class airports. It is important to get
:39:56. > :40:00.this decision right. That is what the commission will do. In the
:40:00. > :40:04.meantime, let's not talk down what we have got. Heathrow has more
:40:04. > :40:11.planes taking off and landing with two runways than John F Kennedy
:40:11. > :40:15.airport with six. But Boris was being critical about the way you
:40:15. > :40:21.run government. Not at all. He has a strong view. He must speak out as
:40:21. > :40:26.he sees fit. Breaking promises, fudge, dither. We are not breaking
:40:26. > :40:29.promises. We made a promise about a third runway, and we are keeping it.
:40:29. > :40:35.But we need a review to see what the right answer is for the future
:40:35. > :40:39.of this country on a decision we will have to live with for decades.
:40:39. > :40:43.At what point does this become a problem for Londoners, that Boris
:40:43. > :40:49.Johnson has his eye on another job, and you look less favourably at him
:40:49. > :40:54.because of what is going on? We get on well. He does a fantastic job as
:40:55. > :40:59.mayor of London. It is right that we work together. We have delivered
:40:59. > :41:03.the things London needs. We work together over the Olympics. Of
:41:03. > :41:08.course there will be occasions when he wants to speak out. Is his
:41:08. > :41:12.supportive enough of you at serious times? We have been supportive of
:41:12. > :41:17.each other? I campaigned for him as mayor of London. He campaigned for
:41:17. > :41:23.me as prime minister. But because we were together, we also have
:41:23. > :41:27.different jobs. We will not always agree. Is he a team player? Yes. He
:41:27. > :41:32.is an important part of the Conservative team. Frankly, we are
:41:32. > :41:36.lucky to have bigger figures like Boris, as part of the team. Should
:41:36. > :41:42.he seek to come back into Parliament for he has served this
:41:42. > :41:46.term? Boris has an important job to do as mayor of London. It is a job
:41:46. > :41:50.he does exceptionally well. When he has done that job, his future is
:41:50. > :41:53.for him to determine. He has a lot to offer the Conservative Party,
:41:53. > :41:59.London and the country. You should not put limits on people's
:42:00. > :42:05.ambitions. Would you expect him to serve out his term to 2016? I am
:42:05. > :42:10.sure everyone wants Boris to do his job as mayor of London. That is
:42:10. > :42:15.what he said he will do. Has he said he will not sit to come back
:42:15. > :42:19.into Parliament before 2016? How I have not had a discussion with him.
:42:19. > :42:23.I have always said to Boris, you do a fantastic job. After you have
:42:24. > :42:29.done it, of course you will have more to offer the party and the
:42:29. > :42:35.country. I will always support you. James, do you think he offers
:42:35. > :42:42.enough public support? I think the mayor does a really good job in
:42:42. > :42:46.selling London. But he is also a really good conservative. During
:42:46. > :42:51.this conference, I think you will see him doing that job effectively.
:42:51. > :42:55.When can you remember him recently outwardly coming out of his own
:42:55. > :42:58.back and saying David Cameron is doing well? I spent a lot of the
:42:58. > :43:03.summer working alongside both the mayor and the Prime Minister,
:43:03. > :43:12.dealing with the Olympics. They were a strong team. It was a
:43:12. > :43:15.privilege to work alongside them. That was a big event for London.
:43:15. > :43:19.The mayor is getting on with the job. He was making announcements
:43:19. > :43:23.this week in relation to policing in London, setting out his new
:43:23. > :43:28.priorities of cutting neighbourhood crime by 20% over the next four
:43:28. > :43:34.years. We are seeing Boris as a strong advocate for London, but
:43:34. > :43:38.also a good Conservative. Don't you think he appears on a great fall?
:43:38. > :43:43.What did you think about the level of the rhetoric and the timing
:43:43. > :43:49.about his attack on aviation? announcement on aviation that he
:43:49. > :43:54.made earlier this week was... reshuffle became completely
:43:54. > :43:58.overshadowed. Boris has strong views. Couldn't he expressed them
:43:58. > :44:04.privately? He is the mayor of London. He should be able to
:44:04. > :44:12.express his views publicly. Boris and the Prime Minister have their
:44:12. > :44:15.own views. So that is there any disagreement, and I are in perfect
:44:15. > :44:19.harmony other was? I am sure that from time to time, there will be
:44:19. > :44:23.issues where the prime minister and Boris take a different view. It is
:44:23. > :44:27.healthy that they can have that debate. Karen Buck, if Boris
:44:27. > :44:31.Johnson was the Conservative leader, with the chances of Ed Miliband
:44:31. > :44:35.becoming prime minister within the next election become even less?
:44:35. > :44:45.Eyes do not think there is the remotest chance of Boris Johnson
:44:45. > :44:46.
:44:46. > :44:51.becoming leader. I absolutely don't think so. It is not simply a
:44:51. > :44:56.question of leadership. Ed has demonstrated leadership qualities
:44:56. > :45:00.this week which have surprised everyone. The polls are saying it
:45:00. > :45:04.is Boris Johnson, David Cameron and then Ed Miliband. It is always a
:45:04. > :45:07.difficult job in opposition. Ed Miliband has come surging through
:45:07. > :45:10.to demonstrate his leadership capacity. When we have Boris
:45:10. > :45:14.Johnson as the leader of the Conservative Party and we are
:45:14. > :45:20.coming up to the election, I will answer that question. I do not
:45:20. > :45:27.think there is the remotest chance of it happening. But it is a living
:45:27. > :45:30.nightmare, because the hand that wields the night is rarely the one
:45:30. > :45:34.that sits on the throne. The Conservative Party is divided about
:45:34. > :45:37.all of this. They are clearly terrified about the prospects of
:45:38. > :45:47.going into the next election with their unpopularity. Some would love
:45:48. > :45:53.
:45:53. > :46:00.Labour are silent about what they believe. Do you think we should
:46:00. > :46:04.have Heathrow expansion? opposition you one that, we have
:46:04. > :46:08.been sceptical about whether he'd road would be the best solution.
:46:08. > :46:15.Not long ago up the aviation minister was pushing through that
:46:15. > :46:23.policy. That was you! It was and into a dozen and five that was the
:46:23. > :46:29.Labour Party policy. There is an issue. If you look at West London,
:46:29. > :46:34.you look at the context of that residential community and the
:46:34. > :46:37.pressure on that community from noise. Whether we can expand and
:46:37. > :46:43.whether there is the infrastructure to cope with an expanded airport at
:46:43. > :46:49.Heathrow. I think we should absolutely redeem these things and
:46:49. > :46:53.it is essential that we do have a hub airport. Bob are there other
:46:53. > :46:57.ways? Now, how much should we be allowed
:46:57. > :47:00.to know about what the mayor gets up to? He says he prides himself on
:47:00. > :47:03.the transparency of his administration at City Hall. But
:47:03. > :47:06.Sunday Politics has spent more than a year trying to get hold of his
:47:06. > :47:08.official diary. We've finally managed it, only after the
:47:08. > :47:12.intervention of the Information Commissioner. It has 7,000 entries,
:47:12. > :47:20.reflecting a varied and busy schedule. And it's also revealing.
:47:20. > :47:24.Here's Andrew Cryan. The best clue for how the mayor
:47:24. > :47:28.Spence's time has also been the list of key engagement presented
:47:28. > :47:32.every month to the London Assembly. But that only gives part of the
:47:32. > :47:37.picture. The release of the full diary lets us build a more detailed
:47:37. > :47:42.account. At dinner with David Cameron at Number 10 did not make
:47:42. > :47:47.it into that declaration to the Assembly. A lack of transparency
:47:47. > :47:51.that angers opposition groups at city hall. He was elected on the
:47:51. > :47:55.basis of transparency and to discover that is published monthly
:47:55. > :48:00.engagement do not reflect his diary is extraordinary. You must question
:48:00. > :48:05.why he has to hide some key engagements? The Diary is mostly
:48:05. > :48:10.full of meetings with movers and shakers in the capital. But the
:48:10. > :48:15.trade unions get short shrift. All the more surprising as strikes have
:48:15. > :48:22.increased threefold under Boris Johnson. And they are not going
:48:22. > :48:26.unnoticed. Strike days are marked in the diary. We spoke to all the
:48:26. > :48:29.unions will have gone on strike over City or policy and they
:48:29. > :48:33.confirmed that no face-to-face meetings have taken place. He spent
:48:33. > :48:38.more time meeting the media to brief against the strikes than
:48:38. > :48:43.meeting with the unions to try to resolve them. I think London will
:48:43. > :48:49.look hard at the mayor and asking what he is doing to stop this.
:48:49. > :48:54.written statement, City Hall point out that the mayor has met two of
:48:54. > :49:04.those unions as part of a monthly round table with the Trade Union
:49:04. > :49:04.
:49:04. > :49:07.Congress. Adding: the diary also sheds light on the relationship
:49:07. > :49:10.between the mayor and News International.
:49:11. > :49:15.Last year of freedom of information request listed meetings between
:49:15. > :49:20.them and the mayor. But the full diary discloses meetings with
:49:21. > :49:27.contracts that have not been known about before. In May of last year
:49:27. > :49:32.the mayor met News International lobbyists at city hall. And there
:49:32. > :49:38.was a previously undisclosed telephone conversation with James
:49:38. > :49:41.Murdoch and another with Rebekah Brooks. City Hall told us these
:49:41. > :49:45.discussions were not revealed in the Freedom of Information request
:49:45. > :49:49.last year because they were commercially sensitive, relating to
:49:49. > :49:56.an investment and sponsorship deal. They say telephone calls were not
:49:56. > :49:59.covered by the terms of the original inquiry.
:49:59. > :50:03.Labour say this is information that should have been made public before
:50:03. > :50:10.the mayor's previous declarations as the time of the compositions was
:50:10. > :50:15.significant. There is nothing wrong in normal circumstances. But there
:50:15. > :50:20.is this pattern of contact at a time when News International was
:50:20. > :50:24.being investigated. City Hall told us in a statement that at no point
:50:24. > :50:29.during these meetings are conversations did the mayor discuss
:50:29. > :50:38.the operation. The police investigation into phone hacking.
:50:38. > :50:40.More questions may be asked about specific meetings, and perhaps the
:50:40. > :50:43.question of transparency will again arise.
:50:43. > :50:45.We invited City hall to put someone up to discuss this, but no-one was
:50:45. > :50:52.available. But I am joined by Maurice Frankel, from the Campaign
:50:52. > :50:55.for Freedom of Information. It is understandable that City Hall
:50:55. > :50:58.may feel that there is information but the mayor does not what the
:50:58. > :51:02.public to have? It is understandable that they do not
:51:02. > :51:05.want the public to have it. But less understandable that they
:51:05. > :51:13.should be allowed to withhold it from the public. If you look at
:51:13. > :51:19.what ministers now have to disclose, this kind of information, you can
:51:19. > :51:22.read online whom the Prime Minister has been meeting including named
:51:22. > :51:26.journalists and representatives of companies that he is discussing
:51:26. > :51:31.matters with. Also lobbyists. So the mayor should be disclosing the
:51:31. > :51:36.same information. The information commissioner, it had been agreed
:51:36. > :51:41.that certain personal information should not have to be disclosed.
:51:41. > :51:46.And certain information about his movements, in case someone could do
:51:46. > :51:50.him harm. But on the question about whether it was information that we
:51:50. > :51:54.should be entitled to see, to be disclosed, about the individuals
:51:54. > :51:59.who could influence policy for instance, the information
:51:59. > :52:04.commissioner said he did have to disclose that. Will the key factor
:52:04. > :52:08.was it was important to know who was exercising influence, who had
:52:08. > :52:13.access and exercised considerable influence as a result of that
:52:13. > :52:17.access. I think that is perfectly right. Is that quite an important
:52:18. > :52:23.development, to be in favour of access to public information, but
:52:23. > :52:27.we can see who he was meeting and trawl our own conclusions? It is an
:52:27. > :52:31.important principle but not the new one. So it is surprising there has
:52:31. > :52:35.been a fight over this. It has been established by previous decisions
:52:35. > :52:41.and by the practice of ministers that this type of information is
:52:41. > :52:46.disclosed. The situation of City Hall, does it reflect the fact that
:52:46. > :52:51.it is a relatively recent body? He's supposed to give an account of
:52:51. > :52:56.meetings, and there is a declaration of interest. Then there
:52:56. > :53:02.are other meetings as well. So journalists and the public just get
:53:02. > :53:08.the kind of partial picture. Is that transparent government?
:53:08. > :53:12.It is not enough. It is not enough to have to spend one year trying to
:53:12. > :53:16.get hold of information in this way. Hopefully as result of this
:53:16. > :53:19.decision the mayor's regular pro after publication of information it
:53:19. > :53:25.will now extend to the additional information that has come out as a
:53:25. > :53:31.result of this. Well with Ken Livingstone before he had given
:53:31. > :53:37.that information, but that does not set a precedent.
:53:37. > :53:41.Well, what the commissioner said is that you never know, if there are
:53:41. > :53:46.particular kinds of meetings taking place which are genuinely of high
:53:46. > :53:51.sensitivity. It may be that if the minister is meeting chiefs of staff
:53:51. > :53:55.to discuss invading the country, you may not want to advertise the
:53:55. > :54:02.frequency of the fact that those meetings take place at all. It is
:54:02. > :54:06.not likely that that kind of factor will be in play here. Not to go
:54:06. > :54:10.into the details of any rights or wrongs about any judgment about the
:54:10. > :54:16.Murdoch case for example. But as a principal do you think this shows
:54:16. > :54:21.enough transparency? I think the mayor has provided information.
:54:21. > :54:25.Some of the information that was not disclosed was on the basis that
:54:25. > :54:29.it was regarded as commercially sensitive. Sometimes I see this
:54:29. > :54:33.myself as a minister, you have to make judgments on commercial
:54:33. > :54:38.sensitivity. If the disclosure of something might inhibit the proper
:54:38. > :54:45.free discussion of policy. So I think you will always have some
:54:45. > :54:49.challenges that will arise from time to time. But really in terms
:54:50. > :54:55.of meeting people, that is not in itself a discussion of sensitive
:54:55. > :55:00.information. We should simply know that they are meeting. Well as
:55:00. > :55:04.ministers were doomed disclose external meetings. And there is a
:55:04. > :55:08.regular update provided. And clearly the mayor has disclosed
:55:08. > :55:14.this information now and I'm sure will continue to provide
:55:14. > :55:18.information. One thing that on -- that is unfortunate, the effect of
:55:18. > :55:21.the time delay is that the full picture of and the sort did not go
:55:21. > :55:25.before the electorate. It has come out now and to knows what
:55:25. > :55:30.difference it could have made. But we did not get a full picture of
:55:30. > :55:35.film he had seen and especially around the scandal over phone
:55:35. > :55:40.hacking. There has been disclosure of some information. And on the
:55:40. > :55:43.second issued it is the nature of the information provided. I
:55:44. > :55:47.appreciate what you say about the timing but that was principally
:55:47. > :55:52.down to legal issues as to whether something should be disclosed or
:55:52. > :55:58.not. If ever again there is a Labour mayor of London, what would
:55:58. > :56:02.you sign up to? What should happen? What you should not have is a
:56:02. > :56:07.piecemeal type of information with things troubling out from a few
:56:07. > :56:12.different sources. It needs to be clear. And of course it is right
:56:12. > :56:16.that the contents of meetings can be highly confidential. And there
:56:16. > :56:19.needs to be some protection of that. But what we should not have to do
:56:19. > :56:23.is to scrabble around trying to piece things together from
:56:23. > :56:26.different sources. Now forget James Bond's new
:56:26. > :56:36.thriller. We have the best action sequence in town. The week in 60
:56:36. > :56:39.
:56:39. > :56:44.seconds! The Met's stay out of Julian
:56:44. > :56:47.Assange as cost �1 million. Police officers have been on 24 hour watch
:56:47. > :56:55.at the embassy in Knightsbridge since he took refuge there in June
:56:55. > :56:59.fighting extradition to Sweden. Hammersmith and Fulham council have
:56:59. > :57:04.introduced fixed terms for some council tenants. Households earning
:57:04. > :57:08.�40,000 from next April will not be able to apply for housing benefit.
:57:08. > :57:12.War veterans announced they are facing �500,000 of a shortfall
:57:12. > :57:17.after the unveiling of the new Bomber Command memorial at Green
:57:17. > :57:27.Park. The �6 million memorial is dedicated to MN who gave their
:57:27. > :57:27.
:57:27. > :57:32.lives in the Second World War. Boris Johnson and Mo Farah, they
:57:32. > :57:42.joined together in a campaign to encourage children to take up sport.
:57:42. > :57:42.
:57:42. > :58:56.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 74 seconds
:58:56. > :59:00.They warned of an epidemic of What about the cost of his memorial
:59:00. > :59:04.for Bomber Command? The Prime Minister is looking at this. He
:59:04. > :59:08.says he will see what can be done about this. I think it is a
:59:08. > :59:13.wonderful memorial. The money was provided for the memorial and the
:59:13. > :59:18.ceremony itself. But we do want to reflect carefully on this issue of
:59:18. > :59:22.payments outstanding. Given the amazing number of people that were
:59:22. > :59:26.behind this and the debts that seemed to be there now. And on
:59:26. > :59:30.Julian Assange Common will the Metropolitan Police get that cost
:59:30. > :59:34.back from government? That is something that will be subject to
:59:34. > :59:42.discussions. If there's some kind of exceptional case that a police
:59:42. > :59:46.force has, they can put in for that. It is what it means in terms of
:59:46. > :59:52.overall budgeting and that there is an established procedure that
:59:52. > :59:55.police have. It is open for them to decide if that is appropriate. It
:59:55. > :00:05.is a question of the application coming in and that would be
:00:05. > :00:21.
:00:21. > :00:26.considered if one is forthcoming. Now, the news at noon.
:00:26. > :00:30.A jet service has taken place in Machynlleth this morning to
:00:30. > :00:34.remember the missing five-year-old, April Jones. She was about to close
:00:34. > :00:43.to her family's home on Monday. Yesterday, police charged a 46-
:00:43. > :00:48.year-old man, Mark Bridger, with her abduction and murder.
:00:48. > :00:58.In the warm October sunshine, they came in their hundreds. Virtually a
:00:58. > :01:00.
:01:00. > :01:07.whole town, walking quietly, deep in thought. Then into the church
:01:07. > :01:17.for a special service for April. A poem for her mother, coral, in
:01:17. > :01:17.
:01:17. > :01:27.praise of motherhood. Mum. She is a sadness dealer, a cut and the
:01:27. > :01:34.healer, had me tighter, wrongness writer, carer, chocolate share.
:01:34. > :01:44.Well, sometimes. Then, in the heart of this Welsh-speaking community,
:01:44. > :01:50.the Lord's Prayer in two languages, but with one message. The service
:01:50. > :01:59.was relayed via speakers to those outside. Deep down, they know April
:01:59. > :02:01.is not coming back, but many here are still praying for a miracle.
:02:01. > :02:04.As the Conservative Party conference gets under way in
:02:04. > :02:07.Birmingham this afternoon, the Prime Minister has confirmed that
:02:07. > :02:10.the government needs to find more in welfare cuts by the next
:02:10. > :02:15.election. David Cameron has said the rich will also have to pay more
:02:15. > :02:20.to help reduce the deficit. But he has rejected Lib Dem demands for a
:02:20. > :02:25.mansion tax on properties over �2 million. I don't believe we should
:02:25. > :02:31.be a country where if you work hard, you save, you buy yourself a house,
:02:31. > :02:40.you pay down the mortgage, I don't want to be a country that comes at
:02:40. > :02:42.you every year with a massive tax. That will not happen. We can talk
:02:42. > :02:47.now to our political correspondent at the Conservative conference in
:02:47. > :02:53.Birmingham. The prime minister was clear there that there is still a
:02:53. > :02:56.lot to be done to reduce the deficit? Yes, he made it clear
:02:56. > :03:02.several times that he wants the which to pay their fair share,
:03:02. > :03:06.although he did not spell out exactly what that would mean. He
:03:06. > :03:11.will not take up the Lib Dem idea of a mansion tax. He does not like
:03:11. > :03:15.the idea of new council tax bands either. We have had a flurry of
:03:15. > :03:19.announcements today, extending the freeze on council tax, tapping some
:03:19. > :03:23.rail fares. That begs the question of where he will find the money. He
:03:23. > :03:27.has made it clear that the big target is the welfare budget. That
:03:27. > :03:33.will mean more cuts to benefits, something that will be difficult
:03:33. > :03:43.and controversial when people are already struggling.
:03:43. > :03:47.
:03:47. > :03:52.That is all the News for now. There Now, if ever was last week's big
:03:52. > :03:56.winner, who will walk away with the prize this week? Call me dead, Big
:03:56. > :04:06.Bad Boris or even Boy George? They are all questions for the week
:04:06. > :04:07.
:04:08. > :04:13.ahead. The Conservatives have attempted to
:04:13. > :04:19.rebrand themselves, largely in the eyes of a metropolitan elite. It
:04:19. > :04:23.was her day hoody, sharing the proceeds of growth. All of that.
:04:23. > :04:26.Most ordinary voters did not care about that. They have not got the
:04:26. > :04:32.metropolitan elite, they haven't got the ordinary voters. Now we are
:04:32. > :04:36.back to talk of strivers. problem for David Cameron was that
:04:36. > :04:40.he was trying to be the real Tony Blair, who was shackled by Gordon
:04:40. > :04:43.Brown. Charles Moore put this well in the Daily Telegraph yesterday,
:04:43. > :04:46.saying that David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party
:04:46. > :04:50.when the sun was shining, and he was trying to be that shiny
:04:50. > :04:53.candidate. Then the crash came along. The economy is in a
:04:53. > :04:58.difficult position and they are having to rebrand themselves as the
:04:58. > :05:03.strivers. The problem is, it looks like a zig-zagged. Secondly, surely
:05:03. > :05:08.you should have said on day one that you were in favour of strivers.
:05:08. > :05:12.There is a grassroots movement. The Conservative Home are pursuing this
:05:12. > :05:20.line of a change of branding and emphasis. This is a clip from a
:05:20. > :05:24.video they produced. With small steps, to the top of the electoral
:05:24. > :05:29.mountain we must climb. We must take bold steps to build a party as
:05:29. > :05:35.strong as it is compassionate. Build a party that loves Britain's
:05:35. > :05:45.future as much as Britain's past. Build a party that is strong.
:05:45. > :06:00.
:06:00. > :06:05.There is a clear recognition by people like at that that on current
:06:05. > :06:09.strategy, the Tories will not win the next election. They often use
:06:09. > :06:14.the phrase game-changer, and argued that David Cameron needs one more
:06:14. > :06:20.than Ed Miliband does. I also think Conservative Home are right to say
:06:20. > :06:24.that the party's problem is that they are seen as being biased in
:06:24. > :06:29.favour of the rich. But if David Cameron were here, he would say, I
:06:29. > :06:33.can only get a hearing on issues of Economics and living standards, had
:06:33. > :06:38.I first taken care of the questions of our cultural indifference to
:06:38. > :06:41.women or ethnic minorities or gay people five or six years ago. I had
:06:41. > :06:46.to tick that box first, before moving on to the heavier duty
:06:46. > :06:50.business of politics. Do you buy that? You use the words tick boxes,
:06:50. > :06:55.and that touches on one of the problems the party has. This new
:06:55. > :07:00.group they are trying to appeal to, the so-called strivers, as all the
:07:00. > :07:04.hallmarks of a voter group that has been identified by a computer
:07:04. > :07:07.through some sort of sophisticated voter profiling system. There is a
:07:07. > :07:12.feeling that the Tories are suffering from an identity crisis.
:07:12. > :07:16.If you look at their simple, that oak tree, what does it mean? Maybe
:07:16. > :07:22.it needs some green shoots on it. What does David Cameron really
:07:22. > :07:28.believe? Tony Blair talked about his irreducible core of aspiration.
:07:28. > :07:34.You knew Margaret Thatcher was about liberty. With David Cameron,
:07:34. > :07:38.you sense that he wants to be Prime Minister. The reason why we should
:07:38. > :07:43.take this group seriously is that one of the brains behind it is Lord
:07:43. > :07:47.Ashcroft. It may not be fashionable, but you should listen to him with
:07:47. > :07:52.great care, because after the general election in 2005, he wrote
:07:52. > :07:58.a report saying smell the coffee, wake up. Now he says to back the
:07:58. > :08:05.strivers. But in the run-up to the general election in 2010, they had
:08:05. > :08:10.no message for the strivers. 2010, they had no message at all, I
:08:10. > :08:15.would suggest. That comes down to Cameron's inability to settle on
:08:15. > :08:18.one defining issue or thing that his government. If you talk to
:08:18. > :08:21.civil servants, they say one of the biggest problems when it comes to
:08:21. > :08:26.administering government is that people are ambivalent about what
:08:26. > :08:32.the Prime Minister thinks about a given issue. Under Blair, when
:08:32. > :08:38.people said "Tony wants", there was no ambiguity. Tell us where Boris
:08:38. > :08:42.fits into all this. The fact that we only use his first name shows us
:08:43. > :08:47.how important he is. Boris is flying in for a carefully
:08:47. > :08:50.controlled 24 hours in the conference. What could go wrong?
:08:50. > :08:56.and intrigue is keeping a close eye on what he will be saying. But the
:08:56. > :09:03.trouble with Boris is of that it is always the it unrehearsed big where
:09:04. > :09:08.he will say something fun. beauty with Boris is that what you
:09:08. > :09:12.see is what you get. For him to be a centre-right candidate in a
:09:12. > :09:16.Labour city is quite something. would suggest that a lot of the
:09:16. > :09:19.Tory grassroots are fed up with weasel words on the referendum and
:09:19. > :09:23.the attitude to Europe, and yet a lot of them, having seen the Prime
:09:23. > :09:28.Minister this morning, will think, all we got was more weasel words.
:09:28. > :09:33.There will be no settlement until after 2015. Then we will need fresh
:09:33. > :09:38.consent, whatever that means. It may just mean a vote in the next
:09:38. > :09:43.general election in 2020 rather than a referendum. If Boris plays
:09:43. > :09:47.the Europe card, that will go down very badly. There will be a gap
:09:48. > :09:51.between David Cameron's weaselly position, in your words, and Boris.
:09:51. > :09:55.The most interesting thing Cameron said today was the hint that he
:09:55. > :09:59.might water down freedom of movement within the EU. He has no
:09:59. > :10:06.chance of securing that from Brussels. George Osborne is
:10:06. > :10:16.speaking on Monday or Tuesday. Monday, tomorrow. He has gone from
:10:16. > :10:26.
:10:26. > :10:30.hero to zero. Let's look at him over the past couple of years.
:10:30. > :10:40.The next Conservative Government will raise the inheritance tax
:10:40. > :10:49.
:10:49. > :10:55.# Where have all my friends gone? # They have all disappeared.
:10:55. > :10:58.from April next year, the top rate of tax will be 45p. I can't
:10:58. > :11:04.remember the last time I bought a pasty in Greggs.
:11:04. > :11:09.The fire had some magic wand, I could wave and the British economy
:11:09. > :11:19.would suddenly spurt into growth, of course I would wave it. He has
:11:19. > :11:24.
:11:24. > :11:28.George Osborne. You can see that support for the Tories was going
:11:28. > :11:32.well. Then came the Budget, and it fell off a cliff and has not
:11:32. > :11:36.recovered. Is he now going to the grassroots by saying, I will not
:11:36. > :11:42.give you a mansion tax aura of wealth tax or even a higher council
:11:42. > :11:46.tax band? Yes, and being clear about it. George Osborne's fate is
:11:46. > :11:51.linked to the economy. He bet that there would be a private sector
:11:51. > :11:55.recovery that would make up for the public sector cuts. Now he has a
:11:55. > :11:59.double-dip recession. The buzz word of the day now from the economies
:11:59. > :12:04.is that the economy is healing. They are not saying green shoots of
:12:04. > :12:11.recovery. And there is evidence that it is healing, because
:12:11. > :12:15.employment is looking good. 50 economy does heal, then you will
:12:15. > :12:20.watch George Osborne's fortunes do that. If you were to end George
:12:20. > :12:24.Osborne's book now, it would not have had a happy ending. If it had
:12:24. > :12:29.come out last year, it would have been a hagiography. But this year
:12:29. > :12:32.has been the worst of his career. Nick is right at the fact of the
:12:32. > :12:37.economy slumping into a second recession has deteriorated his
:12:37. > :12:42.popularity and the government's popularity. His dilemma now is, how
:12:42. > :12:45.does he talk about these tentative signs of a recovery without seeming
:12:45. > :12:49.complacent? His mistake was in 2010 when he did not have a tough
:12:49. > :12:53.conversation with the public and say look, the next couple of years
:12:53. > :12:57.may be rough and we may slip back into recession. There was not that
:12:57. > :13:01.fireside moment with the public. The air is also Osborne's
:13:02. > :13:06.relationship with Tory MPs. I detect a huge amount of hostility
:13:06. > :13:09.towards George among Tory MPs I talked to. In a sense, this
:13:09. > :13:18.conference is more important for George and the Prime Minister. He
:13:18. > :13:25.has to rebuild his relationship within the party. When will we hear
:13:25. > :13:28.Isabel's namesake from the Lib Dems? He has already taken to the
:13:28. > :13:32.Twittersphere, not happy that his mansion tax appears to be in the
:13:32. > :13:36.bin. What will happen with this coalition? In his hard to see where
:13:36. > :13:39.it goes from here, because the central purpose of it on the
:13:39. > :13:44.deficit, they have to find their cuts, and yet neither side can
:13:44. > :13:48.agree how to do it. When I had that interview with Nick Clegg and he
:13:48. > :13:53.put the wealth tax on the agenda, he almost didn't mention the
:13:53. > :13:58.mansion tax. He was talking about capital gains tax and cracking down
:13:58. > :14:03.on tax avoidance. I still think a deal can be done. Is anyone in
:14:03. > :14:07.favour of tax avoidance? Except the avoiders? The Tories also need to
:14:07. > :14:12.settle on a definition of the rich. Who are the rich they are talking
:14:12. > :14:16.about? We will contemplate that afterwards. That is all for today.
:14:16. > :14:19.Jo Coburn and I will be back on the Daily Politics on BBC Two
:14:19. > :14:24.throughout the week, with all the news and speeches from Birmingham,
:14:24. > :14:28.starting tomorrow morning. I will be back here next week at the later