07/10/2012 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to The Sunday Politics. Watch out,

Birmingham, the Tories are coming. Their message to voters - we get it,

and we are here to help. The Sunday Politics focus group asks, what do

folk really think of the Conservative Party and the Prime

Minister? I feel he is not getting down to people's level. He is a bit

aloof. What about the party faithful? The grass roots movement

urges David Cameron to return to traditional Tory policies, and we

will ask Defence Secretary Philip Hammond about the state of the body.

And the Ed Miliband made his par Diaby this week, but what about the

voters? Can the new, improved ever really refresh the parts the old Ed

could not reach? We will ask Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander

in the Sunday interview. In London, what are we to make of

the tension between prime minister and mayor? We will hear from the PM

on Boris Johnson's recent critical And with me as always, the best and

brightest political panel in the business. Isabel Oakeshott, Janan

Ganesh and Nick Watt, with more with it, was the man frenetic

tweeting than one can safely holed in a single studio -- with more wit,

wisdom and tweeting. Now, David Cameron is already in Birmingham -

lucky Dave, lucky Brum - and he has been busy. The man who claimed the

risk of social networking site Twitter was that you might look

like a twit is clearly no longer worried about that. The big news of

this morning is that the Prime Minister is now a tweeter, and he

has done it three times now. I know you are interested, so we will keep

you informed if there are further developments in the cause of

today's show. Meanwhile, back on the old media, us, the Prime

Minister was talking to Andrew Marr about whether the rich are baring

their fair share of the burden of pain. You have to make sure you are

fair and seen to be fair. Under this government, we have always

done that. The top ten % in this country have paid ten times more

towards reducing the deficit than the bottom 10%. People who are the

wealthiest, those with the broadest shoulders, will pay more tax under

this Government, and it will happen before the next general election -

yes or no? Yes, and it is happening already. The richest 10% in our

country are not only paying more income tax, they are paying a

greater percentage of the total income tax take than they ever did

under Labour. The Prime Minister, speaking

earlier this morning. Nick, the Prime Minister did not seem like he

was going to introduce any new taxes on the better off. He said

they are already paying more than they did under Labour. And by the

way, I have ruled out a mansion tax. Where does that leave the Lib Dems?

It does not look too good. Nick Clegg kicked his off when I did an

interview with him in August. He said we need to find an extra �10

billion of cuts. It can't just be the poor that are paying. He talked

about a wealth tax. So it looks bad, but when you look at what he said,

he said yes, we have the mansion tax, but he was mainly focusing on

other areas of taxing the wealth, things like closing down on tax

loopholes. They always talk about that. But in terms of managing

relations within the coalition, you might find a way through this.

Don't forget, the mansion tax went off the table when George Osborne

said yes to a mansion tax in the budget negotiations, but only if

the top rate of tax went down to 40p. David Cameron said no to the

mansion tax on the top rate went to 40p. He was vague about new wealth

taxes. But he was explicit and clear that he has to find �16

billion more in the cuts for the year 2015-16, because it starts

before the election. He was clear that those cuts will have to be

announced, and the process must begin before the election. Somebody

has tweeted here, game over for limp Dems, saying he has ruled out

wealth tax and mansion tax, so where will these savings come from?

It is not the Prime Minister twitchy you? Sadly not. He is only

following four people. And neither is Nick Clegg one of them. So the

Prime Minister says, I need 16 billion more in cuts the 2015. I am

looking at the welfare budget. He implies it is low hanging fruit.

But he says to the Lib Dems, you will not get any of the taxes you

want. The Tory message is closest to being that taxing the rich is

bad for growth, and by the way, we are taxing the rich. They will

defend cutting the rate from 50p to 45p by pointing to reasons of

enterprise and supporting business, while at the same time renouncing

the prospect of other forms of taxing the rich. What is left? How

do you get more money from the rich without going for property? Maybe

capital-gains tax? Well, don't go away. Anyway, you have nowhere else

to go. And however tough times have been for the government recently,

they have been able to comfort themselves its privately that they

have a secret weapon, and what is this weapon's name? Ed Miliband.

But his speech in Manchester last week seems to have changed that.

But with that success comes more scrutiny of the Labour leader and

his party. When Ed Miliband arrived at his

party conference a week ago, he may have wondered whether his portrait

would ever hang in Downing Street. There were questions over his

leadership and low personal ratings in the polls. But his speech won

praise from commentators across the spectrum. His vision hung on one

phrase. One nation, a country where everyone has a stake. One nation, a

country where prosperity is fairly shared. One nation, where we have a

shared destiny, a sense of shared and ever and a common life that we

lead together. That is my vision of one nation. That is my vision of

Britain. The Miliband is not the first to invoke the spirit of

nineteenth-century Tory prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. Tony

Blair and Gordon Brown have also done it. "one nation" was also

tried on for size by David Cameron. I understand why you voted for him.

I understand why you turned away from the last Labour government.

This government took power in difficult economic times. It was a

country still coming to terms with the financial crisis. Mr Miliband's

speech has won him a hearing, but it is not clear what he tried to

say, or whether his "one nation" rhetoric can win over voters Labour

lost because of their handling of the economy. For the shadow Foreign

Secretary Douglas Alexander joins me now for the Sunday interview.

Good to see you again in the flesh, rather than down the line. I think

nearly everybody can agree that Mr Miliband showed that he can give a

good speech last week. But what evidence is there that voters will

see him as more prime-ministerial? That is a judgment that people

reach over a parliament, rather than over a speech. But whether it

was the response of the broadcasters or of the journalists

in the hall, there is a sense that the speech represented a step

forward. It is not a victory lap. There is a long way to go for

Labour. Ed would be the first to recognise that, even after a

successful conference. We spoke to a group of floating voters in these

famous focus groups. Very New Labour. The Tories do them, too.

Among many things, we asked them what they thought of Ed Miliband.

He does not come across with the strength he needs to lead the party.

I don't think he could be prime minister. I did think he has the

charisma. He is not a leader. driven. Immature. He is young, and

he gives the impression that he is in experienced. In experienced.

these are ordinary floating voters. Why do you think they still have

trouble imagining your leader in Downing Street? We did this after

the speech. It is always a challenge for the leader of the

opposition. Tony Blair assumed leadership of the Labour Party in

different circumstances. For Ed Miliband, we have had our worst

results since universal suffrage in terms of share of the vote. In 1994,

the assumption was that whoever became Labour leader was likely to

become Prime Minister. Over the last couple of years, even if Ed

was out there making speeches and giving interviews, there was a

section of the population who felt it was academic and there was no

prospect of Labour coming back. There is now a growing sense that

actually, Labour are seriously contesting for power. And there are

voters who are not yet willing to give us their support, but will be

willing to give us a hearing. That is the responsibility that we face

in the Shadow Cabinet. Part of it is understanding what went wrong

for your party. Mr Miliband told your conference that he understood

why people "turned away from the last Labour government" and voted

for Mr Cameron's party. But why did the voters turn away? He did not

explain that. There is a range of factors. The assertion that we had

ended boom-and-bust, and then experienced the financial crisis,

of course impacted on people's confidence in our economic

management. The failure to effectively regulates the banks, a

problem we shared with many other governments, and incidentally, the

Conservatives were saying we regulated too much, but that was

part of it. The backwash of the expenses crisis impacted on the

politics generally, but also on the government of the day. Let's move

on to some of these issues. Let's part of the regulation of the backs.

There is a general agreement that nobody got that right. But isn't it

also likely that voters turned away from Labour because they thought

you had not been careful enough with the public finances? They

thought you spent too much. I don't believe that most people believe

Lehman Brothers collapsed because Gordon Brown built too many schools

and hospitals. No one has claimed that. That is an answer that you

have set up. No one is saying that the schools and hospitals brought

the crash. George Osborne says the Eurozone is having a chilling

effect, when he said it was a downturn made in Downing Street

originally. For a lot of people, you did not put enough a way in the

good years so that we would have been in better shape, come the bad

years. The deficit rose after the steps we took in the teeth of the

crisis. But more people were kept in their homes and jobs as the

result of a conscious choice to spend public money at a point at

which otherwise, we felt there was a real risk of a genuine depression

rather than simply a recession. you were addicted to spending and

living permanently beyond our means. Even when the economy was growing

strongly and generating huge tax revenues, you continued to borrow

and borrow. You never put the money away for in rainy-day. I am sure

you have the figures in front of you, but we had the second lowest

debt to GDP ratio in the G7. even good Keynesians realise that

after you have had a lot of growth, you should put some away.

welcomed the acknowledgement of the ten years of sustained economic

growth. Let me put it this way. I suspect that people do not trust

you on the economy and to you come clean. Never mind the bank

regulation. You should say, look, we did spend too much in the good

years and we should have put some way for the bad years. It was a

nonsense. I apologise. I don't accept that whether it is employing

more doctors and nurses or building more schools, that Britain didn't

need catch up expenditure in these years following our election in

1997. Secondly, my argument would be that of course, the character of

this crisis was global. The clue is in the title - the global financial

crisis. The political debate on this has shifted. A few years ago,

it was right to recognise that the Conservatives were prevailing in an

argument that some have suggested that Labour were uniquely

responsible for the character of the crisis. The self-same

Conservatives are now, as an excuse, saying that the character of this

crisis is European. The understanding of the crisis has

This is a recent opinion poll. 64% said they did not Trust Ed Miliband

and Ed balls to make the right decisions on the economy. You are

still not trusted on the economy. Well that is a judgment that will

be reached over a parliament. I think it is fair to recognise that

many people in the country have decided to give the Conservatives

ago. First of all they said at the time for the circumstances of the

United Kingdom and Greece were on a parallel. And that he could cut

ABBA great demand from the economy. Many of the people will came around

that near consensus are now having real doubts and concerns that

George Osborne's plant is just not working. For that is not what I was

asking. I want to move on to another issue involving coming

clean with the public. I spoke about it on a Daily Politics

earlier this week. Do you understand what is meant by the

word millionaire? The definition of we were using this week was someone

with an income in excess of �1 million per year. The dictionary

definition says a person whose assets are worth at least �1

million. Let us just put that up so you can see that. Ed Miliband said

in his speech that David Cameron will be writing a cheque for

�14,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. You know

that is not true. Look at the figures. On Wednesday, no, on

Tuesday, you said there were 6000 people but in fact they are a 1000

people earning more than �1 million. -- 80 million people. In terms of

income... The definition is the person whose assets were worth at

least �1 million. It was clear that income tax is levied on income.

Last week you said there were 6000 people with income in excess of �1

million. In fact there are 8000. You whether one person who did not

know the figures. 619,000 millionaires. Do you accept that

the vast majority of them will not get that cheque. Not many people

earning in excess of �50,000 per year. But you only get that check

if you earn �1 million was a pub but everyone earning over �50,000

will receive a tax cut. Those statements are not in contradiction.

There are 305,000 people could earn �150,000 or more. Do you accept it

will be just to the 8000 people who earn �1 million this year who will

get �40,000 more in tax cuts. many people are what he called

Asset millionaires who will get a cheque of less than �40,000 but

will receive a tax cut because of the choices the Conservatives have

made for stock Ed Miliband was talking about that 40,000 and he

included David Cameron. And he said the worst part is David Cameron it

is just not writing cheques but he is receiving one. He will be

getting the millionaire's tax cut. Implying that David Cameron is

going to be �40,000 better off. You know that is not true for us up at

Downing Street statement came out this week from a spokesman

confirmed that the income of David Cameron is in excess of 150 dozen

pounds per year. Therefore he will be receiving a tax cut next April.

He said he would be receiving a cheque. He said, at the worst part

is David Cameron it is going to receive a cheque himself. A Downing

Street spokesman has confirmed that he will be receiving a tax cut next

April. I'm asking you where the evidence is that he will be getting

a �40,000 tax cut. The Downing Street spokesman just this week

confirmed that David Cameron would be a beneficiary of the tax cut

that will be introduced next April. 305,000 people across the country

with incomes in excess of �150,000 will be receiving those checks and

David Cameron will be one of them. If your definition is correct, Ed

Miliband himself would be getting a cheque for �40,000. He is a

millionaire. Were the statement that he made was on the basis of

having in income in excess of �150,000. It is clear there are

305,000 people with an income in excess of �150,000. One of those is

the prime minister. Can you confirm that Ed Miliband is a millionaire

and will not be getting that check? His income is a matter of public

record. Is he a millionaire could MAC Armalite David Cameron he does

not have an additional income that would take him into that category.

He does not have an income in excess of �1 million. I will send

you the dictionary definition. I will send you the Red Book.

think you should read it first! Now our focus group has been asked

how punters see David Cameron and his party. Here is the Sunday

politics focus group. Let me explain how this works. We're going

to get a group of people in this room and get them to discuss a

current political news story and recent politics behind this mirror

are tow Conservative backbench MPs. And we'll hear what they have to

say about the reactions of the group.

Polling company Populous run the session, and gather seven floating

voters. They are all from London, and as the moderator introduces

topics covering all three main parties, we learn impressions of

Nick Clegg. Initially I would have said that he

had a little bit of an edge in terms of being dynamic. But now I

put him in the category of a dogsbody for a stock dead. Of the

state of the economy. On the former Prime Minister and

what Labour should say now about that period.

Just to a knowledge were Gordon Brown went wrong.

We'll hear more from them on Labour's position later in the

program. But as the Party Conference opens in Birmingham, the

group focus in on the Conservatives and their leader, David Cameron.

Not very decisive. He seems to dither about some issues.

I think he wants to be Prime Minister of more so than it

actually putting anything in to the economy. He is more driven by his

own ambitions. I feel he's not getting down to the

level of the people. He is a bit aloof. Everything is scripted, it

does not come from the heart. Boris Johnson, like him or hate him, it

comes from the heart. What does Boris Johnson have that David

Cameron does not? He is passionate, that comes across. And he delivers.

Whether it is scripted or not, he comes across as someone who is not

afraid of saying what he means. But he could also be a puppet, I do

not know. You're not a fan of Boris Johnson.

But I do think he has got something. Part of that is about personality.

But there is also something in it that says that we have to be our

own people in Parliament. Boris Johnson is not on the

doorstep, he is not a member of parliament. They want the Prime

Minister to remorselessly deliver the promises we have made. Up until

this point, the Andrew Mitchell affair had not been raised, however

they do know about it. They're then shown three phrases

that Mr Mitchell denies, but is reported to have used to policemen

outside Downing Street. But it becomes clear swearing and the word

pleb are not what bothers them most. Which is the most insulting? Know

your place. That has been marked by everybody. They're shown his

apology and rejection of the words attributed to him and then one of

the group reveals a unique perspective. I was actually a

police officer and I am disgusted by it. He should not be speaking

like that to people who were there to protect him and his life. It

does not bode well for the Conservatives. It also reinforces

our view on what the Conservatives are about. Fairly or unfairly, it

just does. You cannot blame the entire party

for one person. In the 1980s the Conservative Party gave people the

chance to buy their own home, have to buy shares in a company. What

married -- what mattered was merit. We are a party of meritocracy, of

choice and opportunity and diversity. We show that in

everything we say and do. A chief whip is there to make sure

backbenchers tow the line. Has that made Mr Mitchell's mission

impossible? We are a diverse group. We do what we think is right.

Well listening to that is Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary. We

hoped to speak to you earlier and for longer so we have to rattle

through the ground I want to cover. You heard people talking about the

Andrew Mitchell affair. For many ordinary people this has been very

damaging for your party will stop well of course Andrew Mitchell's

conduct was not excusable and he has apologised for it to the people

involved. They do not want to take it any

further and we have to draw a line under it. But we all understand

well that however frustrated you may be, you absolutely cannot

launch in that way at people going about doing their job, minding

their in business. I understand all that, I was asking about the damage

to your party. And I suggest it is damage because there is the

perception of your party has privileged, rich and out of touch.

Every time any individual slips up, steps out of line and does

something they should not have done, and they are a member of a party or

organisation, that is bound to reflect on that organisation. We

have to accept that. It is very unfortunate. Nobody is defending

Andrew Mitchell's conduct. But eyeline now has to be drawn under

it. Ed Miliband is now claiming the mantle of one nation. You Chief

Whip tells people that plebs should know their place. Andrew Mitchell

of course denies that he said the words attributed to him. But I

haven't a acknowledged that this has been a damaging affair. -- I

have acknowledged. The One nation it is a great Tory slogan. Ed

Miliband hijack did last week but I'm not convinced that the Labour

Party really understand what that agenda actually means. But the

whole David Cameron strategy is now on the rocks, a new opinion poll

this morning shows that just to present think that the Tories are

anti-women or anti-gay, 40% think you were the party of the rich.

Large numbers think you do not care about the poor of, the vulnerable

or the NHS. That is where your weakest. Well it is simply not true

as a matter of fact. That is what they're saying. If that is what is

being shown them we have work to do on our presentation. We have a

party of aspiration. We want a society where everyone has the

ability to get on through hard work and diligence to improve their lot

and their family's lot. That has always been the approach of the

Conservatives. So why do you care so much, going on about hugging

hoodies? We're also about the environment, we have introduced

policies that dramatically advance our environmental agenda. But we

are in economically hard times. The one trying to manage, they're

looking to the future and want to do the best they can for themselves

and their families. I believe the Conservative Party is at its best

when it is pitching its message to those people who work hard, who do

the right thing, who want to get on, to see society supporting those who

really need support, but to expect the cards to be stacked in favour

of those who do the right thing. What about the West Coast railway

do battle? As I understand it, the problems that arose, the

miscalculations and errors that happened were in evaluating the

tender bids that Quercus -- submitted by the companies bidding

for the franchise. In my experience at the Department for Transport,

ministers do not get to see those bids submitted. It is regarded as

inappropriate for ministers to look at them. Civil servants process

them. They standardise them so that ministers can be presented, usually

with code words substituted for the names of the bidders. Would you

have checked the workings or not? would certainly have checked what I

was presented with. But ministers are not, in my experience, able to

see the original bids submitted. you are allowed to see the bids,

they just don't have the names on them. This shambles would probably

have happened even if you had stayed as she Transport Secretary.

It would be easy for me to say absolutely not. I would like to

think I was always on top of the figures. I know the people who were

running the rail franchise team when I was at the Department for

Transport, and I spent a great deal of time with them. I did the result

of one big tender, the sale of high-speed one. But I do know that

ministers are not able to get into the detail of the analysis of

tenders. That would be wrong. that was not what I was asking, I

was asking about the arithmetic and the workings. You changed the

franchise system in August 2011. I was told by your department at your

personal imprint was on the new franchise system. It is now

discredited, which reflects badly on you. I don't think it is

discredited. The new franchise system is intended to create

greater flexibility for bidders to structure the pattern of service on

the basis of what passengers need it. If it is not discredited, why

were two reviews into it announced by your transport minister? In the

old days, we had it civil servants determining every detail of the

timetable. That is an absurd way to proceed, so we opened up the

franchise system so that the bidders had more flexibility to bid

the service that they believed passengers would want. The problems

that have arisen are not in the design of the franchise

specification, they are in the evaluation of the bids that were

submitted by the bidders. You have not answered the question I asked,

but isn't it time... The question is, if the franchise system is not

discredited, why are there two investigations into it, and why

will the three other franchises coming up most likely have to be

postponed? The investigations are into the process that was used, the

methodology and models used to evaluate the bids that were

submitted. I have not heard anything to suggest that the change

in the front tyre specification has been challenged -- the franchise

specification. The former director of the Association of Train

Operating Companies - to put it down to white hall ineptitude is a

shame for line. Would you now like ministers to take some

responsibility for a shambles? ministers obviously have to take

overall responsibility for what happens in their department, but we

have long moved on from the days when ministers were expected to

manage every detail of the work that goes on in the department.

Ministers have to hold their civil servants to account, of course. But

they can't be involved in the detail of every aspect of a �14

billion department. I wanted to ask you about the BAE deal, but we have

not got time. Thank you. What do you make of that? That will

not make comfortable listening for Justine Greening. Philip Hammond is

a numbers man, a businessman. And he said, I would not know the

details of the specific companies for the bids, but I would have been

shown the figures anonymously. He did not complete the sentence -

unlike my successor Justine Greening, who did not keep as close

an eye as he would have done. glad you gave him a grilling on

this issue, because it plays into what Tory MPs are privately saying,

which is that an impression of incompetence has been created by

this government. Over and again, we are getting these types of major

failures. The Tories can do about whatever they want at their

conference, but unless they can repair this impression of

incompetence over policy, they will not get any votes. The star Hammond

was responsible for the new franchise system, and it hasn't

worked. As Nick said, Justine Greening is in an even worse

position than he is regarding this story. I personally have no trouble

believing that civil servants were partly culpable. I have never

bought the idea that civil servants are beyond public criticism. But it

is impossible to conceive of this situation occurring without

ministerial involvement. You are watching The Sunday

Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be looking to the

week ahead with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics

across the UK. Hello and welcome to the London

section of Sunday Politics. Coming up, inside the mayor's diary. After

something of a tussle, we finally get to see how he spends his days,

and who he does and doesn't meet. Here with us this week our Home

Office minister James Brokenshire and Karen Buck, shadow education

spokesman. First, Boris Johnson's appearance at this week's car --

party conference will be eagerly awaited by the party faithful. As

for the leadership, they never know what to expect. But it has of

course been an "Olympotastic" year, and returned for a second mayoral

term, he is at least in the Conservative firmament and has a

whiff of victory about him at the moment. But in recent weeks, he has

launched an outspoken attack on the government's aviation policy. Is it

just about planes and runways? The mayor's appearance alongside

the prime minister at the Olympic victory parade only highlighted the

contrast in styles of the two men. You have given hope for the future.

On behalf of all the people of London, I say thank you with all my

heart. That Olympic high was quickly followed by the September

reshuffle that gave the mayor another chance to oppose his leader.

When the Prime Minister announced an Aviation Review, it reopened the

issue of Heathrow expansion of and revealed a major seam of discontent

with a number of London Tories. Richmond council immediately voted

for a referendum, and voted to oppose. Hillingdon is taking a

similar line. The League of Richmond council said "I regret

that the nightmare vision of Heathrow expansion has been

resurrected". The unrest is not just at council level. Conservative

MP and environmentalists Zac Goldsmith has warned that he may

resign his seat over Heathrow. And the mare returned to the subject of

Heathrow this week, telling business leaders that the

Government was risking economic disaster with an approach that was

blind and complacent. It is not just Heathrow. With some Tory

councils openly rebelling against the government's plans to relax the

planning laws. Of 11 Conservative controlled councils in London that

we contacted, eight did not support the plans and three want more

information. Earlier this week, I had a few

minutes were the prime minister. I asked him whether it had been

acceptable for Boris Johnson to be so openly critical of him over

aviation overshadowing his reshuffle. Boris has a strong view

about this issue. He is entitled to speak out about it. I want us as a

country to maintain our hub status. I want us to have a first-class

infrastructure and first class airports. It is important to get

this decision right. That is what the commission will do. In the

meantime, let's not talk down what we have got. Heathrow has more

planes taking off and landing with two runways than John F Kennedy

airport with six. But Boris was being critical about the way you

run government. Not at all. He has a strong view. He must speak out as

he sees fit. Breaking promises, fudge, dither. We are not breaking

promises. We made a promise about a third runway, and we are keeping it.

But we need a review to see what the right answer is for the future

of this country on a decision we will have to live with for decades.

At what point does this become a problem for Londoners, that Boris

Johnson has his eye on another job, and you look less favourably at him

because of what is going on? We get on well. He does a fantastic job as

mayor of London. It is right that we work together. We have delivered

the things London needs. We work together over the Olympics. Of

course there will be occasions when he wants to speak out. Is his

supportive enough of you at serious times? We have been supportive of

each other? I campaigned for him as mayor of London. He campaigned for

me as prime minister. But because we were together, we also have

different jobs. We will not always agree. Is he a team player? Yes. He

is an important part of the Conservative team. Frankly, we are

lucky to have bigger figures like Boris, as part of the team. Should

he seek to come back into Parliament for he has served this

term? Boris has an important job to do as mayor of London. It is a job

he does exceptionally well. When he has done that job, his future is

for him to determine. He has a lot to offer the Conservative Party,

London and the country. You should not put limits on people's

ambitions. Would you expect him to serve out his term to 2016? I am

sure everyone wants Boris to do his job as mayor of London. That is

what he said he will do. Has he said he will not sit to come back

into Parliament before 2016? How I have not had a discussion with him.

I have always said to Boris, you do a fantastic job. After you have

done it, of course you will have more to offer the party and the

country. I will always support you. James, do you think he offers

enough public support? I think the mayor does a really good job in

selling London. But he is also a really good conservative. During

this conference, I think you will see him doing that job effectively.

When can you remember him recently outwardly coming out of his own

back and saying David Cameron is doing well? I spent a lot of the

summer working alongside both the mayor and the Prime Minister,

dealing with the Olympics. They were a strong team. It was a

privilege to work alongside them. That was a big event for London.

The mayor is getting on with the job. He was making announcements

this week in relation to policing in London, setting out his new

priorities of cutting neighbourhood crime by 20% over the next four

years. We are seeing Boris as a strong advocate for London, but

also a good Conservative. Don't you think he appears on a great fall?

What did you think about the level of the rhetoric and the timing

about his attack on aviation? announcement on aviation that he

made earlier this week was... reshuffle became completely

overshadowed. Boris has strong views. Couldn't he expressed them

privately? He is the mayor of London. He should be able to

express his views publicly. Boris and the Prime Minister have their

own views. So that is there any disagreement, and I are in perfect

harmony other was? I am sure that from time to time, there will be

issues where the prime minister and Boris take a different view. It is

healthy that they can have that debate. Karen Buck, if Boris

Johnson was the Conservative leader, with the chances of Ed Miliband

becoming prime minister within the next election become even less?

Eyes do not think there is the remotest chance of Boris Johnson

becoming leader. I absolutely don't think so. It is not simply a

question of leadership. Ed has demonstrated leadership qualities

this week which have surprised everyone. The polls are saying it

is Boris Johnson, David Cameron and then Ed Miliband. It is always a

difficult job in opposition. Ed Miliband has come surging through

to demonstrate his leadership capacity. When we have Boris

Johnson as the leader of the Conservative Party and we are

coming up to the election, I will answer that question. I do not

think there is the remotest chance of it happening. But it is a living

nightmare, because the hand that wields the night is rarely the one

that sits on the throne. The Conservative Party is divided about

all of this. They are clearly terrified about the prospects of

going into the next election with their unpopularity. Some would love

Labour are silent about what they believe. Do you think we should

have Heathrow expansion? opposition you one that, we have

been sceptical about whether he'd road would be the best solution.

Not long ago up the aviation minister was pushing through that

policy. That was you! It was and into a dozen and five that was the

Labour Party policy. There is an issue. If you look at West London,

you look at the context of that residential community and the

pressure on that community from noise. Whether we can expand and

whether there is the infrastructure to cope with an expanded airport at

Heathrow. I think we should absolutely redeem these things and

it is essential that we do have a hub airport. Bob are there other

ways? Now, how much should we be allowed

to know about what the mayor gets up to? He says he prides himself on

the transparency of his administration at City Hall. But

Sunday Politics has spent more than a year trying to get hold of his

official diary. We've finally managed it, only after the

intervention of the Information Commissioner. It has 7,000 entries,

reflecting a varied and busy schedule. And it's also revealing.

Here's Andrew Cryan. The best clue for how the mayor

Spence's time has also been the list of key engagement presented

every month to the London Assembly. But that only gives part of the

picture. The release of the full diary lets us build a more detailed

account. At dinner with David Cameron at Number 10 did not make

it into that declaration to the Assembly. A lack of transparency

that angers opposition groups at city hall. He was elected on the

basis of transparency and to discover that is published monthly

engagement do not reflect his diary is extraordinary. You must question

why he has to hide some key engagements? The Diary is mostly

full of meetings with movers and shakers in the capital. But the

trade unions get short shrift. All the more surprising as strikes have

increased threefold under Boris Johnson. And they are not going

unnoticed. Strike days are marked in the diary. We spoke to all the

unions will have gone on strike over City or policy and they

confirmed that no face-to-face meetings have taken place. He spent

more time meeting the media to brief against the strikes than

meeting with the unions to try to resolve them. I think London will

look hard at the mayor and asking what he is doing to stop this.

written statement, City Hall point out that the mayor has met two of

those unions as part of a monthly round table with the Trade Union

Congress. Adding: the diary also sheds light on the relationship

between the mayor and News International.

Last year of freedom of information request listed meetings between

them and the mayor. But the full diary discloses meetings with

contracts that have not been known about before. In May of last year

the mayor met News International lobbyists at city hall. And there

was a previously undisclosed telephone conversation with James

Murdoch and another with Rebekah Brooks. City Hall told us these

discussions were not revealed in the Freedom of Information request

last year because they were commercially sensitive, relating to

an investment and sponsorship deal. They say telephone calls were not

covered by the terms of the original inquiry.

Labour say this is information that should have been made public before

the mayor's previous declarations as the time of the compositions was

significant. There is nothing wrong in normal circumstances. But there

is this pattern of contact at a time when News International was

being investigated. City Hall told us in a statement that at no point

during these meetings are conversations did the mayor discuss

the operation. The police investigation into phone hacking.

More questions may be asked about specific meetings, and perhaps the

question of transparency will again arise.

We invited City hall to put someone up to discuss this, but no-one was

available. But I am joined by Maurice Frankel, from the Campaign

for Freedom of Information. It is understandable that City Hall

may feel that there is information but the mayor does not what the

public to have? It is understandable that they do not

want the public to have it. But less understandable that they

should be allowed to withhold it from the public. If you look at

what ministers now have to disclose, this kind of information, you can

read online whom the Prime Minister has been meeting including named

journalists and representatives of companies that he is discussing

matters with. Also lobbyists. So the mayor should be disclosing the

same information. The information commissioner, it had been agreed

that certain personal information should not have to be disclosed.

And certain information about his movements, in case someone could do

him harm. But on the question about whether it was information that we

should be entitled to see, to be disclosed, about the individuals

who could influence policy for instance, the information

commissioner said he did have to disclose that. Will the key factor

was it was important to know who was exercising influence, who had

access and exercised considerable influence as a result of that

access. I think that is perfectly right. Is that quite an important

development, to be in favour of access to public information, but

we can see who he was meeting and trawl our own conclusions? It is an

important principle but not the new one. So it is surprising there has

been a fight over this. It has been established by previous decisions

and by the practice of ministers that this type of information is

disclosed. The situation of City Hall, does it reflect the fact that

it is a relatively recent body? He's supposed to give an account of

meetings, and there is a declaration of interest. Then there

are other meetings as well. So journalists and the public just get

the kind of partial picture. Is that transparent government?

It is not enough. It is not enough to have to spend one year trying to

get hold of information in this way. Hopefully as result of this

decision the mayor's regular pro after publication of information it

will now extend to the additional information that has come out as a

result of this. Well with Ken Livingstone before he had given

that information, but that does not set a precedent.

Well, what the commissioner said is that you never know, if there are

particular kinds of meetings taking place which are genuinely of high

sensitivity. It may be that if the minister is meeting chiefs of staff

to discuss invading the country, you may not want to advertise the

frequency of the fact that those meetings take place at all. It is

not likely that that kind of factor will be in play here. Not to go

into the details of any rights or wrongs about any judgment about the

Murdoch case for example. But as a principal do you think this shows

enough transparency? I think the mayor has provided information.

Some of the information that was not disclosed was on the basis that

it was regarded as commercially sensitive. Sometimes I see this

myself as a minister, you have to make judgments on commercial

sensitivity. If the disclosure of something might inhibit the proper

free discussion of policy. So I think you will always have some

challenges that will arise from time to time. But really in terms

of meeting people, that is not in itself a discussion of sensitive

information. We should simply know that they are meeting. Well as

ministers were doomed disclose external meetings. And there is a

regular update provided. And clearly the mayor has disclosed

this information now and I'm sure will continue to provide

information. One thing that on -- that is unfortunate, the effect of

the time delay is that the full picture of and the sort did not go

before the electorate. It has come out now and to knows what

difference it could have made. But we did not get a full picture of

film he had seen and especially around the scandal over phone

hacking. There has been disclosure of some information. And on the

second issued it is the nature of the information provided. I

appreciate what you say about the timing but that was principally

down to legal issues as to whether something should be disclosed or

not. If ever again there is a Labour mayor of London, what would

you sign up to? What should happen? What you should not have is a

piecemeal type of information with things troubling out from a few

different sources. It needs to be clear. And of course it is right

that the contents of meetings can be highly confidential. And there

needs to be some protection of that. But what we should not have to do

is to scrabble around trying to piece things together from

different sources. Now forget James Bond's new

thriller. We have the best action sequence in town. The week in 60

seconds! The Met's stay out of Julian

Assange as cost �1 million. Police officers have been on 24 hour watch

at the embassy in Knightsbridge since he took refuge there in June

fighting extradition to Sweden. Hammersmith and Fulham council have

introduced fixed terms for some council tenants. Households earning

�40,000 from next April will not be able to apply for housing benefit.

War veterans announced they are facing �500,000 of a shortfall

after the unveiling of the new Bomber Command memorial at Green

Park. The �6 million memorial is dedicated to MN who gave their

lives in the Second World War. Boris Johnson and Mo Farah, they

joined together in a campaign to encourage children to take up sport.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 74 seconds

They warned of an epidemic of What about the cost of his memorial

for Bomber Command? The Prime Minister is looking at this. He

says he will see what can be done about this. I think it is a

wonderful memorial. The money was provided for the memorial and the

ceremony itself. But we do want to reflect carefully on this issue of

payments outstanding. Given the amazing number of people that were

behind this and the debts that seemed to be there now. And on

Julian Assange Common will the Metropolitan Police get that cost

back from government? That is something that will be subject to

discussions. If there's some kind of exceptional case that a police

force has, they can put in for that. It is what it means in terms of

overall budgeting and that there is an established procedure that

police have. It is open for them to decide if that is appropriate. It

is a question of the application coming in and that would be

considered if one is forthcoming. Now, the news at noon.

A jet service has taken place in Machynlleth this morning to

remember the missing five-year-old, April Jones. She was about to close

to her family's home on Monday. Yesterday, police charged a 46-

year-old man, Mark Bridger, with her abduction and murder.

In the warm October sunshine, they came in their hundreds. Virtually a

whole town, walking quietly, deep in thought. Then into the church

for a special service for April. A poem for her mother, coral, in

praise of motherhood. Mum. She is a sadness dealer, a cut and the

healer, had me tighter, wrongness writer, carer, chocolate share.

Well, sometimes. Then, in the heart of this Welsh-speaking community,

the Lord's Prayer in two languages, but with one message. The service

was relayed via speakers to those outside. Deep down, they know April

is not coming back, but many here are still praying for a miracle.

As the Conservative Party conference gets under way in

Birmingham this afternoon, the Prime Minister has confirmed that

the government needs to find more in welfare cuts by the next

election. David Cameron has said the rich will also have to pay more

to help reduce the deficit. But he has rejected Lib Dem demands for a

mansion tax on properties over �2 million. I don't believe we should

be a country where if you work hard, you save, you buy yourself a house,

you pay down the mortgage, I don't want to be a country that comes at

you every year with a massive tax. That will not happen. We can talk

now to our political correspondent at the Conservative conference in

Birmingham. The prime minister was clear there that there is still a

lot to be done to reduce the deficit? Yes, he made it clear

several times that he wants the which to pay their fair share,

although he did not spell out exactly what that would mean. He

will not take up the Lib Dem idea of a mansion tax. He does not like

the idea of new council tax bands either. We have had a flurry of

announcements today, extending the freeze on council tax, tapping some

rail fares. That begs the question of where he will find the money. He

has made it clear that the big target is the welfare budget. That

will mean more cuts to benefits, something that will be difficult

and controversial when people are already struggling.

That is all the News for now. There Now, if ever was last week's big

winner, who will walk away with the prize this week? Call me dead, Big

Bad Boris or even Boy George? They are all questions for the week

ahead. The Conservatives have attempted to

rebrand themselves, largely in the eyes of a metropolitan elite. It

was her day hoody, sharing the proceeds of growth. All of that.

Most ordinary voters did not care about that. They have not got the

metropolitan elite, they haven't got the ordinary voters. Now we are

back to talk of strivers. problem for David Cameron was that

he was trying to be the real Tony Blair, who was shackled by Gordon

Brown. Charles Moore put this well in the Daily Telegraph yesterday,

saying that David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party

when the sun was shining, and he was trying to be that shiny

candidate. Then the crash came along. The economy is in a

difficult position and they are having to rebrand themselves as the

strivers. The problem is, it looks like a zig-zagged. Secondly, surely

you should have said on day one that you were in favour of strivers.

There is a grassroots movement. The Conservative Home are pursuing this

line of a change of branding and emphasis. This is a clip from a

video they produced. With small steps, to the top of the electoral

mountain we must climb. We must take bold steps to build a party as

strong as it is compassionate. Build a party that loves Britain's

future as much as Britain's past. Build a party that is strong.

There is a clear recognition by people like at that that on current

strategy, the Tories will not win the next election. They often use

the phrase game-changer, and argued that David Cameron needs one more

than Ed Miliband does. I also think Conservative Home are right to say

that the party's problem is that they are seen as being biased in

favour of the rich. But if David Cameron were here, he would say, I

can only get a hearing on issues of Economics and living standards, had

I first taken care of the questions of our cultural indifference to

women or ethnic minorities or gay people five or six years ago. I had

to tick that box first, before moving on to the heavier duty

business of politics. Do you buy that? You use the words tick boxes,

and that touches on one of the problems the party has. This new

group they are trying to appeal to, the so-called strivers, as all the

hallmarks of a voter group that has been identified by a computer

through some sort of sophisticated voter profiling system. There is a

feeling that the Tories are suffering from an identity crisis.

If you look at their simple, that oak tree, what does it mean? Maybe

it needs some green shoots on it. What does David Cameron really

believe? Tony Blair talked about his irreducible core of aspiration.

You knew Margaret Thatcher was about liberty. With David Cameron,

you sense that he wants to be Prime Minister. The reason why we should

take this group seriously is that one of the brains behind it is Lord

Ashcroft. It may not be fashionable, but you should listen to him with

great care, because after the general election in 2005, he wrote

a report saying smell the coffee, wake up. Now he says to back the

strivers. But in the run-up to the general election in 2010, they had

no message for the strivers. 2010, they had no message at all, I

would suggest. That comes down to Cameron's inability to settle on

one defining issue or thing that his government. If you talk to

civil servants, they say one of the biggest problems when it comes to

administering government is that people are ambivalent about what

the Prime Minister thinks about a given issue. Under Blair, when

people said "Tony wants", there was no ambiguity. Tell us where Boris

fits into all this. The fact that we only use his first name shows us

how important he is. Boris is flying in for a carefully

controlled 24 hours in the conference. What could go wrong?

and intrigue is keeping a close eye on what he will be saying. But the

trouble with Boris is of that it is always the it unrehearsed big where

he will say something fun. beauty with Boris is that what you

see is what you get. For him to be a centre-right candidate in a

Labour city is quite something. would suggest that a lot of the

Tory grassroots are fed up with weasel words on the referendum and

the attitude to Europe, and yet a lot of them, having seen the Prime

Minister this morning, will think, all we got was more weasel words.

There will be no settlement until after 2015. Then we will need fresh

consent, whatever that means. It may just mean a vote in the next

general election in 2020 rather than a referendum. If Boris plays

the Europe card, that will go down very badly. There will be a gap

between David Cameron's weaselly position, in your words, and Boris.

The most interesting thing Cameron said today was the hint that he

might water down freedom of movement within the EU. He has no

chance of securing that from Brussels. George Osborne is

speaking on Monday or Tuesday. Monday, tomorrow. He has gone from

hero to zero. Let's look at him over the past couple of years.

The next Conservative Government will raise the inheritance tax

# Where have all my friends gone? # They have all disappeared.

from April next year, the top rate of tax will be 45p. I can't

remember the last time I bought a pasty in Greggs.

The fire had some magic wand, I could wave and the British economy

would suddenly spurt into growth, of course I would wave it. He has

George Osborne. You can see that support for the Tories was going

well. Then came the Budget, and it fell off a cliff and has not

recovered. Is he now going to the grassroots by saying, I will not

give you a mansion tax aura of wealth tax or even a higher council

tax band? Yes, and being clear about it. George Osborne's fate is

linked to the economy. He bet that there would be a private sector

recovery that would make up for the public sector cuts. Now he has a

double-dip recession. The buzz word of the day now from the economies

is that the economy is healing. They are not saying green shoots of

recovery. And there is evidence that it is healing, because

employment is looking good. 50 economy does heal, then you will

watch George Osborne's fortunes do that. If you were to end George

Osborne's book now, it would not have had a happy ending. If it had

come out last year, it would have been a hagiography. But this year

has been the worst of his career. Nick is right at the fact of the

economy slumping into a second recession has deteriorated his

popularity and the government's popularity. His dilemma now is, how

does he talk about these tentative signs of a recovery without seeming

complacent? His mistake was in 2010 when he did not have a tough

conversation with the public and say look, the next couple of years

may be rough and we may slip back into recession. There was not that

fireside moment with the public. The air is also Osborne's

relationship with Tory MPs. I detect a huge amount of hostility

towards George among Tory MPs I talked to. In a sense, this

conference is more important for George and the Prime Minister. He

has to rebuild his relationship within the party. When will we hear

Isabel's namesake from the Lib Dems? He has already taken to the

Twittersphere, not happy that his mansion tax appears to be in the

bin. What will happen with this coalition? In his hard to see where

it goes from here, because the central purpose of it on the

deficit, they have to find their cuts, and yet neither side can

agree how to do it. When I had that interview with Nick Clegg and he

put the wealth tax on the agenda, he almost didn't mention the

mansion tax. He was talking about capital gains tax and cracking down

on tax avoidance. I still think a deal can be done. Is anyone in

favour of tax avoidance? Except the avoiders? The Tories also need to

settle on a definition of the rich. Who are the rich they are talking

about? We will contemplate that afterwards. That is all for today.

Jo Coburn and I will be back on the Daily Politics on BBC Two

throughout the week, with all the news and speeches from Birmingham,

starting tomorrow morning. I will be back here next week at the later