02/12/2012 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The Chancellor

comes clean, sort of. Debt is rising and sorting out the deficit

is taking longer than he hoped. What will that mean for tax and

spend, especially welfare spend? We'll have the latest, and get the

Lib Dem view just three days before the Autumn Statement. As the dust

settles on the Leveson report and Ed Miliband repeats his call for

press regulation by law - is Labour on the wrong side of the argument?

We'll ask Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. And he's the tough new

Justice Secretary intent on making life hell for the criminal classes.

Well that's the rhetoric. But how tough is Chris Grayling, and will

it make the streets safer? In London, revolution in local

government as Barnet council prepares to vote on whether to

roll-out the largest outsourcing of council services in the UK.

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest panel of

political tweeters in the business - Isabel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh

and Nick Watt - and I can assure that all tweets will be fully

So Chancellor George Osborne and his Labour Shadow have been cheek

to cheek on Andrew Marr's sofa this morning. Cosy! But don't worry,

they didn't agree on much. The Chancellor's blunt message - if

you're hoping for a mansion tax next week, don't hold your breath.

It is not going to be a mansion tax and we have made that clear. You

will have to wait until Wednesday. There is the fairness for the

individual who goes out to work and the next-door neighbour is living a

life on benefits. It is also unfair for that individual so we will be

tackling welfare bills. Making rich pay and tackling the welfare system,

which is deeply unfair for working people. It looks like the only

thing left on the table to hit the wealthy will be yet another raid on

pensions. Yes and I'm not sure it is vivid enough to get noticed.

Tories behind the scenes say we are raising taxes on the rich, but the

obvious come back to that is that they don't do it in sufficient me

symbolic ways to grab the public's attention. Whereas the tax cuts for

the rich is incredibly vivid and what they need in this Autumn

Statement is another raid on the rich which gets noticed and I am

not convinced pension tax relief is quite enough. I thought the

Chancellor sounded pretty defensive throughout this interview this

morning, and he might because things are not going to plan and we

are hearing MPs talking about the possibility of the triple dip

recession. There is not really any good news. Well there is the

dripping Rose, isn't it? That is all he has left to cut. Yes, the

polling figures show that people are fed up with people who have

paid tax credits too much on benefits and don't go out to work.

The perception is when people ask what the Labour Party looks like,

it is somebody laying on a sofa, not doing any work. Let's remember

the cuts in the pension, it is not a lot of money. Let's see how this

is going down with the Lib Dems. Joining me now is the former Lib

Dem Treasury spokesman Matthew Oakeshott. Definitely more welfare

cuts on the way but a categorical No to the mansion tax, how do you

feel about that? The tells you all you need to know about

Conservatives and fair tax. If they think this, a tax which is

supported by members of all three parties and voters, they're just

not prepared to go there if it will set their fat-cat donors and really

rich people. We believe that moving from taxing income at the bottom,

which we are trying hard not to do, to taxing wealth is essential.

say we, but it is clear your colleagues in the government,

unlike yourself, have gone along with this and might get another

court in pension privileges. Will that be enough? I carried a motion

at a conference, and called the Lib Dem cabinet ministers have been

fighting for it. It doesn't look like we have got it this time but

it is a Liberal Democrats policy and it just tells you that if the

Conservatives think that is fair, they are showing their true colours.

What about pension cut privileges, will that be enough for you?

looks sensible, it is moving in that direction. Most Liberal

Democrats would agree - why should higher rate taxpayers get more in

their pension, but it is not a very big move and not really making a

serious move towards fairness. What really matters is getting the

economy growing and that is where we are stuck. Do you think that the

welfare system is deeply unfair to working people as the Chancellor

said this morning? I don't. I think it needs more reform but in this

country there are more people in poverty in working families than

other ones and we must not cut benefit there either. The last

thing we need to do at the moment is to actually have the welfare

bill rising. The problem we have got is that the economy outside

London is going backwards. We did start cutting the deficit, but now

it is slipping back again and the Treasury must be more bald in

getting the economy growing, otherwise the welfare bill will get

out of control and the deficit will get out of control. The black holes

are banking and housing. The birth of Scotland is a zombie bank, not

lending to business. That is why the welfare bill is out of control.

I want to ask you - the Lib Dems are spinning that they have managed

to get a 1% rise in welfare rather than a frieze that the Chancellor

was after. Does that please you? It doesn't sound like much. I am not

coming on here to comment about rumours about what might happen.

What happens in the autumn statement, it is important to get

the economy growing. That is why we must fight harder to make sure we

get policies that get it going, and get houses built. It is not about

planning permission, it is about making the banks lend, and letting

the housing associations start building. You came in eight place

in Rotherham, do you think you might come in seventh place with a

new leader? Those results were disastrous and that is why we have

got to be much tougher, everyone from top to bottom, we have got to

raise our game. Otherwise frankly at the next election we are in

serious danger of being relegated from the Premier League. Do you

need a new leader? We need a more vigorous strategy and to fight

harder to get the economy growing. It is yes or no question. We need

to raise our game and changed radically, and start on Thursday.

If the Autumn Statement does not do the things that need to be done to

get the economy growing, I hope Nick Clegg, he has been very

forthright on Leveson, I hope he will say the same on the Autumn

Statement. Now, have you finished reading your

copy of the Leveson report yet? It's only 2,000 pages. Maybe he

needed an editor to sub it down. And for Labour the devil is in the

detail, with doubts being raised about Ed Miliband's decision to

support all Leveson's recommendations just a few hours

after receiving his copy. In a moment we'll discuss the way

forward with Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman but first here's

Giles Dilnot with more. It had the feeling of the Christmas build up,

anticipation and impatience, waiting to one wrap a long awaited

box, but who would the report being offering to? The victims of the

excesses of the press, they give to the campaigners for tougher

regulation, or newspaper editors and journalists? The mass media

doing a story about media regulation might irritate people,

but what might irritate them more is that to a certain extent it may

not matter what Leveson has said because very quickly we saw the

political fault lines. I'm not convinced at this stage that

statute is necessary to achieve the objectives of Leveson. If the prime

minister has been called brave, standing up for centuries of press

freedom... By newspapers. Disappointment from victims has

gone from a word - betrayal - to a petition. Leveson in full is what

they want. Let's be clear about the proposals and why they are

different from the present system and while I believe they should be

accepted in their entirety. To say we're going to do it anyway is a

problem of credibility. Whether it turns out to be a political problem,

in the sense that the voters like you more than the newspapers like

you less, and those things out way each other, that is a different

matter and not easy for me to tell, but I think these easy popularity

hits are already what people suspect about opposition parties.

2000 page report, recommendations about transparency and the role of

Ofcom, the devil is in the detail. I can understand why Ed Miliband

said immediately I accept this report in its entirety, but I

suspect that he will begin to back off. This morning, Ed Miliband

clarifies in a newspaper they are not buying every detail, but the

direction was clear. We should show confidence in the inquiries we

settled and we should see it through, not be blown off course

and not betray the victims of phone hacking. I think what Ed Miliband

is trying to do is to say I am one of you, not one of them, but the

problem with that is he is actually one of them. Being an alternative

Prime Minister is very much to be one of them. Politicians are often

painted in satirical technicolour. At the back of his mind will be the

memory of the terrible times and the very early 90s went in the 1992

general election the Sun put Neil Kinnock's head in a light bulb on

the front page saying they are leaving Britain without the lights

on. That is not where he wants to go. If the press spurns the time

getting its house in order, Leveson risks the ball moving out of his

court. Harriet Harman joins me now. The

current head of Liberty, also a key adviser to the Leveson inquiry, she

says statutory press regulation as lovers and recommends would fall

foul of the European Convention of Human Rights. What do you say to

that? Our I don't think that is right because Leveson proposes

something similar to the Irish system and their passionate

supporters on the European Convention of Human Rights and fair

system, which is backed by law, has not fallen foul from the European

Convention. Article 10 of the Convention says everyone has the

right to freedom of expression, without interference by public of

authority. What Leveson is proposing is interference Bible

because authority. No, we are absolutely not proposing that

public authority should interfere with the freedom of the press. We

are backing the proposal by Leveson that there should be an independent

redress system for complaints for people who say that the editors

have breached their own code, but that that independence system

should be guaranteed by law. would be backed by public authority.

No, the adjudication, the decision- making about whether a complaint is

justified, whether an apology should be written, that would be

nowhere near a public authority. That would be an independent body,

but at least there would be backing in law that the independent body

was operating effectively. We can't go on with the situation that we

have had, where the editors say they will abide by a code and yet

they so grievously breach the code and there is no redress. If you

have a situation where somebody has been a victim of a terrible crime

and there family is hounded by the press and they can do nothing about

it, that is why Leveson says there needs to be changed and that is why

we agree with him. That is why we think that Parliament will one to

back Leveson's proposal for a legal guarantee and that is why we are

drafting a law that Parliament can take forward. It earlier this year

he took the same position as Shami Chakrabarti on the need not to have

law to do it. What changed? haven't changed my position. Let me

remind you what you said in January - you reminded the Oxford media

society that you used to run Of liberty under a different name. You

said I think it would help Leveson if newspaper editors got together

and came forward with a solution. I would like to see them frame the

solution rather than have one imposed upon them. A said the

solution have to be such that it would apply to everybody and it had

to have independence. What the press have come forward with under

the Hunt Black plan, they say OK we can have an independent person

appointed, but actually we, the press, could fire the whole lot of

I issued a challenge to the press and they did not respond to it. We

need that legal guarantee. They could respond to it with their

proposals which are not thought to be inadequate by Leveson. Hunt-

black is the status quo. What would happen if they said next week that

they accept all the Leveson principles? We have been here

before with scandals and everyone saying that something should be

done. The press say they will change their ways but it slips back.

How many more times will we go through this situation? You would

not want to walk one step in the shoes of the Dowler family or the

McCann family. We need to ensure that the code is abided by. It is

the code for editors, it is not inhibiting the freedom of the press.

Here arguing for business as usual. I have asked you if that -- I have

asked you if you signed up to all of Leveson, which you need

statutory code. On Thursday, Ed Miliband told the Commons that he

accepted the Leveson recommendations in their entirety.

Is that still Labour policy? Absolutely. There has been wilful

misquoting of what Ed Miliband said. He said, it is the central

recommendation, the central recommendation been the one that

says you have an independent redress system. It is backed and

guaranteed by law. That is the central proposal of Leveson.

said, let's be clear about the proposals. I believe they should be

accepted in their entirety. He then goes on to say he proposes a

genuinely independent regulator. That is what he was speaking about.

So he does not accept them in their entirety? There are things that are

not central to that thing about having an independent system, but

with a guarantee in law. So he did not mean in their entirety? He said,

what we should unequivocally endorses the principle set out and

his central recommendations. Earlier he said, I believe they

should be accepted in their entirety. Andrew, I am sorry, you

are trying to imply that our position is changing. You may not

agree with our position. We think that Leveson has done an important

job and the status quo should not be allowed to be maintained. Do you

believe that Ofcom play a pivotal role? Leveson said it could either

be of, somebody else regulating. We think Ofcom is a good idea. We

would go along with that, but this is for Parliament to take forward.

If they want the alternative Leveson proposal former, -- the

alternative Leveson proposal, that is fine. What is Labour policy?

think that Ofcom would be fine to do that, but it is not the central

tenant. Someone has to do it, backed by law. We are going to have

to have a parliamentary consensus on implementing the central Tenant

of Leveson. There are some things which Leveson himself says are

optional or alternatives. If you win the next election and you carry

on in the shadow position into the real job, you would be the one who

appointed the head of Ofcom. Who would be suitable? We do not know

who is going to be the independent guarantor of this legal system.

who would be good, Alastair Campbell? You are rushing ahead. We

do not even know if it will be Ofcom. It sounds like many people

think there ought to be an alternative. Would you rule him

out? What, Alastair Campbell? Mandelson? You're going to appoint

the head of Ofcom who will be the person under your scheme who will

be the valid data of a regulatory system. It is reasonable to ask

what kind of person you think should do it. You are rushing ahead

to us winning the next election and me appointing the next chair of

Ofcom. I think Parliament wants action sooner than that. We do not

want to wait until the next general election. There has been a stain

hanging over the fine traditions of our Press. We cannot leave the

press in the last-chance saloon. You said Det Jeremy Hunt has done

something bad and he should be fired because of it. Leveson said,

there is no credible evidence of actual bias in anything that Jeremy

Hunt bid. Time to withdraw what you said? Leveson also said that he did

not have proper control over his special adviser. He did not

supervise him, which is required by the Ministerial Code. That is wise

he makes proposals for greater transparency. The only reason that

Jeremy Hunt was not found guilty of a breach of the Ministerial Code

was that David Cameron did not allow it to be investigated.

Leveson said there was no credible evidence of bias. Do you withdraw

your claims? We are saying about Lord Leveson that we accept his

central proposal for a regulatory system. DU accept that he found no

evidence of bias which Jeremy Hunt was concerned? I accept that he did

not control his special adviser. He went behind the scenes in secret to

one side anyway. I it may have found that there was bias had I

been the Lords sitting there in that inquiry. But that is not

central. Her Harriet Harman, thank you. -- Harriet Harman. Now, Chris

Grayling has been Justice Secretary for almost three months. And he has

delivered rhetoric to gladden the heart of even the most rabid Tory

backbencher. That's you, Peter Bone! But the test will be whether

the rhetoric translates to results. The Justice Secretary has a

reputation as a tough guy. Within weeks of his appointment, he

announced that people who commit the most serious violent or sexual

crimes more than once will face automatic life sentences. A so-

called two strikes and you're out policy. He made it clear that he

does not want to see prisoners sitting in cells watching the

Sunday afternoon match on Sky television. He said that

Westminster would have the final say on whether prisoners get the

vote. He also won applause from his own side when it as he said that

householders would have the right to imply a disproportionate force

when defending their house from burglars. He wants to keep

offenders out of jail. The test will be whether his tough new

measures will be able to restore public confidence, which he thinks

has been lost. And the Justice Secretary Chris

Grayling joins me now for the Sunday Interview.

Good morning. Your predecessor was known as the six Liberal-Democrat

in the Cabinet, Ken Clarke. You are a man of the right. Well

differences in policy now be down to personality or a conviction?

Conviction. Some of the things I inherited from Kenneth Clarke were

good. I think he has got a bad press. There are things I will do

different they, but I do not want people to believe that Kenneth

Clarke was doing the wrong job on criminal justice matters. He made

it pretty clear that he thought Do you agree or disagree? I agree

it is right to send people to prison. The flaw is that people

come back to prison. My philosophy is best to titillated by saying

that I want more of the right people to go to prison, but I want

fewer of them to come back. We send people to prison and do nothing to

turn their lives around. If you come out of the prison gates after

a six-month sentence, he will come out with �40 in your pocket and you

will go back to the same streets you were run before. All too often

you will be back to prison straight afterwards. He completely refutes

that. Do you agree? The debt that is missing is that we're not

rehabilitating prisoners effectively. My view is it is

better to have criminals who have committed serious offences in

prison. If there is a serial burglar in your area behind bars,

burglary rates will fall. But when that person comes out, I want them

to turn their lives around so they do not do it again. Let's look at

projections of the prison population for England and Wales.

It rose substantially under Labour, up to over 85,000. The dotted line

shows what you Department things will happen on the policies that

you inherited. That is the Ken Clarke policy. The numbers fall.

Will that trend be the same or will it be affected by changes you

introduce? I do not intend us to be in a position where the courts feel

that they do not have to send someone to prison at that they want

to send to prison. These are tough times financially but I do not want

an artificial reduction in the prison population. If the work we

put into rehabilitating offenders mean that fewer people come back to

prison, that is great. That line under you is not going to happen,

it is not the continuation of Kenneth Clarke? I am not following

policies that will lead to an artificial reduction of the prison

population. Do you think that would have been an artificial reduction

it we had followed that policy? There are different statistics for

high-level, level and mea Jim Lovell estimates of the numbers to

go to prison. I want the courts to believe that if they want to send

someone to prison, there is no lack of a place to send that person to.

Surely it follows from your approach that there will be more

prison numbers? In a October you spoke about half two strikes and

you're out, automatic life sentences for serious balance or

sexual offences. That surely means higher prisoner numbers?

certainly means a number of prisoners going to prison for

longer and Bamu all in favour of that. It means that someone that

commits a serious offence that would command a sentence of 10

years or more, everyone deserves a second chance. But if they do not

use that chance, they should go to prison. This was David Cameron

Your predecessor watered that statement down. Was that a mistake?

I have commissioned brand-new work on knife crime. From tomorrow, we

are introducing a brand new jail If you're carrying a knife in a

threatening way, you will go to jail. I am also looking at the use

of cautions for a knife crime which and not happy with. Do you accept,

it is completely unacceptable, end of subject. There will be a

presumption you will go to jail. Do you accept you have not delivered

on that promise so far? There have been certain things we have not

been able to introduce. The knife crime element was not in the

coalition agreement. I have not had a detailed discussion on the

proposals yet. I am not aware that they have blocked the issue. I am

revisiting the issue and I feel strongly that it should be dealt

with in the toughest possible way. You mentioned the conscience. Let's

take the second quarter of this year, from a poll -- from April to

June. 4,000 people were arrested for carrying a blade on a similar

offensive weapon, and yet just 951 was sent to prison. 22 were laptop

with a caution. -- 22 % were let off with a caution. Do you want me

to beat back the Prime Minister's Quirk? Can you explain the

difference? I started further work on knife crime to look at this

issue. If the criminal justice system, if the police, believe that

a criminal justice intervention is necessary, it does not apply if you

are bringing a Stanley knife back from B&Q, but if the police think

that the criminal justice intervention is necessary, I have

profound misgivings about that been handled with a caution. What will

the public make of this? The Prime Minister says that carrying a knife

is completely unacceptable. If you are taught you will go to jail,

pretty clear, but 22 % are let off with a caution. That is not what

These are amongst the issues I have started early work on. We are

taking early action on serious crime issues this week with the

introduction of the new offences for knife crime and serious

offenders. The new offence is being introduced for causing serious

injury by Dave just - would grow by dangerous driving. Cautions are not

just used a knife crime, they are used for what people will regard as

much more serious crimes. Let me show you this, your own

department's figures. 268 cautions for people who had sex with an

under 16 year-old. 390 cautions for sexual assault of a female. How can

you support process in which an adult having sex with a child

warrants merely a caution? can't give a broad brush judgment

in every circumstance. There will be occasions when the police need

discretion. If you find somebody who is 16 years and one day

sleeping with their partner who is 15 years and 364 days, there is

technically... The his figures are for over 18 year-olds, we have

allowed for that in our figures. Over 18 year-old assaulting say a

13 year-old girl, and you get a caution. There will always be some

discretion for the circumstances that we can't foresee or understand,

we are not certain about what the situation is. My view is that

cautions for serious offences should be used extremely sparingly

if at all and that is why I have started the work on my crime and

while I am looking at the way in which the criminal justice system

works. I'll stand on their cases at the margin that have to be judged

on their merits, but of the 390 cautions for sexual assault of a

female, many of these people were in their 20s, 30s, 40s, even 50s

and yet they get a caution. Will you tell the British people this

morning that will not happen? will say that I don't want under

will do everything I can to prevent cautions being used in

appropriately rather than being brought before the court. Are these

figures too high? We used cautions too frequently this country, that

is why I commissioned early work on knife crime. Day did Cameron said

prisoners are not getting the vote under this government but you are

going to place options before Parliament, some of which would

give prisoners the vote. Which way will you vote? We haven't got

anything to vote on yet but let's be clear about the legal position,

and my position is different in this because I am the Lord

Chancellor, I have sworn upon an oath to uphold the law and it is

our duty to put through laws from the European Court. Parliament has

the right to overrule the European Court of Human Rights if it

believes it wants to do so. It has to accept there may be a political

consequence of doing that but it has the right to do so, so we have

set up Parliament we are under an obligation to do this, you are not,

I would give you three options, two of which involve giving some

prisoners the vote, one of which will give you the right to exercise

your sovereignty and tees up to you did to decide -- it is up to you to

decide. Are you saying that as Lord Chancellor you can't vote for the

option which is status quo, no votes for prisoners? I will take

appropriate legal advice. My position is different to other

members of parliament on this because of my role as guardian of

the judiciary. I am the only person subject of the oath to uphold the

law. The prime minister will have to decide at the time what he wants

ministers to do. My position is different. I understand that, but

at what I think you're saying is that you may be asking Parliament

to vote for something which you can't vote for yourself or your

Cabinet colleagues can't vote for. Is that true? The Prime Minister's

view on this is clear, but I have legal responsibility and you can't

be Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor and not uphold the law.

I will take appropriate legal advice about what I can and can't

do but fundamentally this is a choice for Parliament and I have

said to parliament it would be easy to accept the ruling but the legal

base is different. It says you as Parliament collectively have a

right to decide to accept this ruling. I am offering you the

choice. The Alex for clarifying that. You are watching the Sunday

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

week ahead without political panel. Until then the Sunday Politics

Hello and welcome. Coming up later, Barnet Council takes the road

proposing the largest-ever out- sourcing of government sources in

the UK. This week we have Rushanara Ali und Richard Ottaway Labour and

Conservative MPs. Firstly today an argument over admission policies

that new Catholic state schools in Twickenham. Vince Cable has

criticised the involvement of the Education Secretary Michael Gove.

It is over proposals to admit as many as 90% of pupils who are

Catholic. He is angry Michael Gove has accepted this, even though it

seems to run against the agreement which seems to suggest for

academies that only 50% of places should be allocated according to

religion. Richard Ottaway, 90%, a new state school funded from the

chosen religion of that school - is that right? It illustrates there is

a big demand for this type of school in Richmond. The law at the

local authority's position about it, there was the the consultation

process which came out overwhelmingly in favour of it and

there is a demand for it. Something like 200 pupils a year are going

out of the borrower looking for this type of education so why are

we driving people away from their local area when there is a facility

and demand for it? What is your instinctive position? The question

is that public money is being used to support these schools and so the

public should have access to these schools, and while I support the

fruit schools being able to establish themselves in my

constituency we have many fate schools across the range, it is

really important that when public money is concerned certain groups

are not excluded so this seems to be problematic if you are going to

spend �10 million of local taxpayers' money. You say the

demand is there for it, I think it is questionable if the demand is

from the people in Richmond borough, but there is a demand for a new

secondary school. Why should it be faith based and the money put into

it, when the admissions are skewed so much in favour of that one

group? Going back to your point, for 30 years they had a chance to

change the law and they didn't, so you can go either way on this and I

think most people would say if you are starting with a blank sheet you

may not put faith schools down there but we are where we are. This

is perfectly lawful activity that people want and I think you should

respect that, rather than driving people out of the local authority

area. Don't forget these schools perform better than most, and to

have high-quality schools dumbed down personally is not a road I

would go down. I think the point 3 is that this discussion is

fundamental to the question of accessible admissions and fair

admissions policy. Why didn't you change it when you have the chance?

We did have a fair admissions policy but your government is

introducing free schools which raises serious questions are up

access to schools and now this will set a precedent were fake schools

can have public money but they don't have the responsibility to

have the appropriate numbers of people from other faith groups, and

that will create tension in local communities. Let's move on. Just up

the road from Richard's seat this week saw Labour retain the seat of

Croydon North after a by-election caused by the death of Malcolm

Wicks. Steve Reed secured an 8% swing to Labour with the

Conservatives' second and UKIP third. The wind and an 8% swing for

Labour. It would have been at all order for anyone to overturn a

16,000 majority left by Malcolm Wicks, whose death led to this by-

election, but some interesting characters emerged. Lee Jasper,

could he do a George Galloway? No. And Winston Mackenzie for UKIP, he

called for gay couples to be banned from adopting children. The

Conservatives will be quietly satisfied, a smaller swing against

them than we have seen in other by- elections. Their choice of

candidate was interesting. Andy Stranack, campaigning hard on his

local roots. A key lesson is that when we select the right candidate

and we campaign on everyday issues - the NHS, jobs, crime - that is

how we will get the best results. Keeping the word Conservative of

the literature. Know, we had that on there, we brought Boris Johnson

down, Iain Duncan-Smith down. I am pleased to say Steve Reed is

with us now. A very solid retention of the seat. Were there are times

when you were worried? We saw a late flurry, the bookmakers were

saying, that we might have seen a repeat of George Galloway. I have

been talking to voters over several weeks and Respect were not gaining

much traction. This was always going to be a two-horse race

between Labour and Conservatives. well-known leader of a London

council, very influential, now replacing that with being a mere

backbencher - why did you want to do it? A There is a lot you can do

for people as a council leader to try to protect citizens and

communities from the worst effects of the cuts and I think you can

take that experience to Parliament and tried to apply at a national

level. A whole lot of councils Lawal are using the co-operative

approach that was pioneered in Lambeth and it has become a

national agenda. I still want to stay engaged with that radical

approach. Would you be one person wanting to say to Ed Balls and the

shadow Treasury team that we really can make these savings - do not

fall into a trap of saying we are cutting too far? The government is

clearly going too far and too fast because we may be heading for a

triple dip recession. Some people think about how we can do things

not just more cheaply but better as well. We would do this before this

government was elected so it has nothing to do with what this

government is doing and I think the cuts are hitting poorest people

hardest of all. The national government were not following your

spending cuts before. We were developing an agenda, but

unfortunately the Conservatives came in and hit national

departments and that was the wrong thing to do. Let's bring Richard in

here because we haven't meet Croydon story. You are standing

down in two years. What is your advice to someone just embarking on

I have would like to welcome him to Croydon. It is a great place.

Malcolm Wicks was a friend of mine, I had a massive respect for him. I

hear he's going to be a worthy successor. What are the days and

don'ts. How do you adapt to this kind of career? I always think that

in politics the faster you go up, the quicker you come down. I would

pace yourself. I have not been sworn in yet. You are more recently

elected. What is it like to be an opposition backbencher, any words

of advice? I want to say how delighted I learned that he has

been elected. We are really proud of the success we have had in by-

elections recently. I look forward to working with him. It is really,

really challenging in opposition. In constituencies like mine, we are

facing massive cuts to local budgets. It is important to have

colleagues like Steve who has experience of running local council

budgets. We need to work together to campaign against the Government

on the kind of cuts that are damaging jobs. Very quickly, what

is your position? You will come from completely different positions.

How do you find Croydon, the place you are now taking over, what are

the problems? Croydon is a great place but it has been badly let

down by the public could authorities. People are speaking to

me about several issues, the state of the economy, jobs and

unemployment. That was a real issue. People blame the Government.

Croydon North has spiralling levels of youth unemployment, far higher

than the other areas. That is an issue. Thank God you are standing

down. Are you are facing the prospect of the election in two

years time with some dread? real challenge is the development

of the infrastructure in Croydon. There are lots of empty buildings

and the origin of this goes back to the previous Labour authority. We

have got to get inward investment which will address the jobs we are

speaking about. There is massive potential for it very bright, very

intelligent constituency. That is the direction we should be going in.

Thank you very much. It has been called the billion pound gamble.

Next week, Barnett council will vote on whether to proceed with the

largest outsourcing of services ever seen in the UK. Two companies

will be responsible for delivering the services.

Getting ready for the big day. Next Thursday, the council will vote on

whether to adopt one of the most controversial policies in the

capital has seen for years. They could be the largest privatisation

that this country has ever seen. Earlier this year, this library was

shot by the council. It was then opened by squatters. Donations have

filled the shelves. It is a hub for protest and campaigning. We have

held a space where people can knead, organise, you can see them painting

banners and other things. We have had discussions and meetings.

the programme is not that popular in this particular corner of the

borough. The people here saviour protecting public services against

the cuts, but ironically, that is what the council would say they are

doing as well. They say they are saving millions of pounds and

making sure that other libraries and other services can stay open.

What ever the banners may say, revolution is a term that is often

replied -- is a term that is often applied to what the council are up

to. Two private companies will be awarded contracts worth a total of

�1 billion to run council services for the next 10 years. The council

expects savings of �20 million. The local campaign group question

whether a day know what they are getting into? We asked about this.

I said, Richard, is this not 800 pages long. He said, no, this

contract is a 1,000 pages long. I said, how long do you have to read

it? He said, no one is going to read it. There are concerns that

one for everything has moved out, the council will not know what is

going on. When a manager is in the building with his staff, he can

monitor what is going on, but you're not going to have that with

a private company. Fans of privatisation are unsure about his

contract. This man, currently suspended from the Tory group on

the council, thinks this is far from healthy free market

competition. We are replacing the monolith of the council with the

monolith of a private company based hundreds of miles away. That is not

the answer to deliver efficiencies for residence. -- for the people

who live here. Other local authorities have tried similar

things and not always had great success. Some authorities have

looked at this and pulled back, like Sussex -- like Suffolk. Essex

pioneered a version of this policy and Cornwall have done something

similar. In Cornwall, it did not work out very well. Contracts had

to be brought back in house. This policy has become more than just a

local issue. It has become national news. With councils all over the

country desperate to save money, some are saying this is the

ultimate test case as to whether privatisation in this way works. He

may not have read the contract will be to us but he is here to defend

and! The Conservatives would have been

right behind efficiency drives by the council before. He says you are

replacing a public sector monopoly with a private one? Not really. It

is a small part of the council's activities that we are replacing

with the private sector. It is the back office things, human resources,

pay well, things like that. What percentage of services? It is 13 %.

In terms of the costs, what percentage? 13 %. Have you got

housing and that? No, housing is run by a separate company.

you're speaking about human resources, legal? It is an all-

embracing programme, it is not ideological. We're bringing the

recycling service back in house. While are you doing it? Why do you

not accept that local services closer to the electorate and with

the length to UN fellow councillors, in showers a more responsive

service? It is more important to keep services going. Reducing the

cost of services will keep other things going. It is very difficult

to shut a library. We do not want to do it. Deceiving -- the saving

we will make is the equivalent of 12 primary schools. It is a big

deal for Barnet. Have you out source children's services? And no.

But you have outsource services for disabled adults? To yes, some of

that is outsourced. Have you had more complaints about services than

before hand? No. So why are you not thinking about a good sourcing

children's services? It has not come up at this stage. We're

looking at things that are easy to out sewers, like the back office.

It is no fun subsidising bureaucrats. It is much better to

reduce the cost of the bureaucracy in order to fund services. Is this

the way of the world, does he have to do something like this? It is

the way of the world. We have got to reduce public expenditure. We

have been spending too much and it started to many years ago. This is

a sensible approach. It was recognised by the last government

that commissioning services out was a trend that started some years ago.

It is not who is doing it, it is the quality of the service. I am

sure that Richard will have done due diligence about the quality of

the service. If it works, it is a sensible idea. Presumably, you

would welcome at those of his private sector efficiency. Tower

Hamlets council are currently run by an independent? Eyes think the

central question is about the quality of service and

accountability to the electorate. This is public money and just

because it goes to the private sector, it does not mean it is a

good thing. There is a massive debate to be had. If you take the

G4S scandal where the Conservative- led government felt they could

trust this private company to deliver employees, that was a

fiasco. But they were fined when they did not deliver, they did not

get the money. The army had to stepping. We have got a review at

three years and six years. We can back away from it and change what

is going on. The G4S scandal was much more ambitious, it was

something that had never been provided before. These services are

well known. How many council staff are going? 197. Do you think this

will provide more efficiency and control? There is full democratic

control wherever the human- resources department is. It does

not matter. It is not seen by the public, it is not public facing.

you think this is a big risk a couple of years away from local

elections? No. Mr Pickles is right. We have got to take money out of

the budgets. It is better to take money out of the budget by cutting

back office services. Richard has much experience social services and

education. Does this said the green light on the much more sensitive

services? That is my worry. Other councils will go much further.

can come back and debated at another time. We're taking

recycling services backing house. have to stop you. This is something

we will return to. Thank you for coming in. Now it is time for a

round-up of the rest of the political news in 60 seconds.

The Mayor of London jetted off to India on a week-long trip promoting

the capital. Immigration, business and the odd game of critic all got

a look-in. -- cricket kit. Mark Carney rode into the Square Mile as

the brand new governor of the Bank of England. The finishing line in

the race to occupy the Olympic Stadium comes into sight as West

Ham are chosen as the preferred tenant. An announcement is expected

next week. A victory for this London MP in her fight against pay-

day loans as the Government agrees to cap the cost of credit. After

defending City Hall's record of the mayor's adviser was this week taken

to task by the London assembly by failing to meet her pledge to

creating partnerships. Disgracefully little has been

achieved in three years. No one says it is easy, but three years

down the line, I key promise seems to have got nowhere and this

mentoring project? It is not a difficult thing to achieve an Boris

Johnson has managed to fail on that. It is scandalous. I have set up a

programme to encourage mentoring. It is working across parties. There

are many other initiatives that can help and organisations that can

partner and their missing the opportunity to do that. Youth

unemployment, youth disengagement, we had the right it's not long ago,

this was supposed to be a key programme? We have got to agree on

this. It is unsatisfactory. It has got to be properly implemented. It

goes back to the debate in Barnet, it is the quality of the service.

They are real launching the project and that is welcomed. We must not

parachute mentors in, we have got to have good local people. We're

running out of time. This is about unemployment. We have dealt with it

before. When you come back, we will politics next week with our

political panel, but first the news The Chancellor George Osborne has

at the rich will have to pay their fair share to help reduce the

deficit. Speaking ahead of his autumn statement this week, he

admitted efforts to reduce the deficit and return the economy to

growth are taking longer than anyone would have hoped.

The economic road ahead is likely to be more bumpy than the

Chancellor has previously suggested, despite his smiles today he has

acknowledged he is set to miss one of his main targets to reduce debt

as a share of national income by the time of the next election.

have to deal with this deficit, it will take longer and it has to be

done fairly. That means the richest have to bear their fair share and

they will. We will also tackle welfare bills, and that is a

reproach, making the rich pay but also tackling the welfare system

which is deeply unfair. Labour has once again accused the Chancellor

of being reckless by failing to change course given the lack of

economic growth. I think the idea of freezing unemployment benefits

whilst giving a tax cut for millionaires of �3 billion is a

question of choices and priorities. The Chancellor says Labour's plans

to spend more would undermine the credibility of the deficit

reduction plan, something he argues would be catastrophic. Instead

there is speculation that George Osborne could hit the world fleet

by limiting tax relief on pensions and freezing some benefits.

Taliban suicide bombers have attacked a US air base in eastern

Afghanistan earlier this morning. They struck at the airfield in

Jalalabad, sparking a two hour gone battle. Our correspondent is in

Kabul - what can you tell us? was a complex co-ordinated attack

involving, we believe, up to nine suicide bombers. They came with

vehicles laden with explosives and on foot. They tried to storm the

perimeter of the base and didn't manage to get through, although

they attacked simultaneously from different directions. They were

fought off at the entrance. The Taliban had come with rocket-

propelled grenades and NATO fought back with attack helicopters which

were quickly in the air. Two civilians were killed and Afghan

officials are investigating whether any of those people could have been

victims of friendly fire. NATO are saying they are co-operating with

the investigation. David Beckham has signed off his days playing

football in America by helping his LA Galaxy team beat Houston Dynamo

in the Cup final. He didn't get on the scoresheet but said afterwards

he had really enjoyed his six years in the States. He is now looking

for another club to finish his career with. That is all the news

now, but there is more at 5:50pm. Will we finally hear a peep from

the newspaper editors this week as they come up with their new tough

form of self regulation? And how will the Chancellor strike a

balance between taxing the rich and cutting welfare? All big questions

for the week ahead. Where are the editors? They run the papers and we

have hardly heard a peep from them. They have not been on to give their

position or say what they intend to do. My suspicion is that newspaper

editors would always make this easy for David Cameron. They would get

their act together, set up some kind of self-regulating institution

at short order to prevent the pressure building on him to go for

the legislation option. Maybe by the new year we you will see

something on that front. When I was a newspaper editor and regularly

got into trouble, I've made myself available either defending or

apologising. Where are they are invisible men, these editors?

are far too busy going through the report closely and properly, unlike

Ed Miliband. Were you told to say that? The eye wasn't! I would say

the editors clearly recognise they have got to hurry up and find a

solution. They're hiding. Star and it had been in decline since you

were the editor of a national newspaper, Andrew. Most of them are

utterly useless on television, but they are not in agreement. Most of

the editors want to sign up to the black Homs proposal which is not

strong enough. You have my editor and others saying you have got to

go further. Until they are in agreement, they are not credible.

think one of the reasons is they are frightened they are on the

wrong end of public opinion and dealing with things like this.

Let's listen to this. David Cameron is of course the Prime Minister and

has made a point of principle which personally I disagree with and I

think the majority will, and this is not about party-political

politics. Let's be clear about this. This is a review which he ordered,

we have had a lot of money spent, a lot of time and a lot of people

have given evidence which wasn't easy to do, and the public expect

the Leveson inquiry to be implemented in full. Since then

over 100,000 people have signed this petition which gives an

indication of public opinion. Given that, I would suggest that whatever

the disagreement between the editors, when they meet next week

they have no alternative but to accept lock, stock and barrel or

the Leveson principles. I think most of the papers have said they

do accept most of what Leveson has said, but I also think one point

that has been forgotten here is that there has been a huge cultural

change in the last few years alone on newspapers and I don't think

people will see a dramatic change compared to how things are now.

People don't go out pursuing children any more. I would say

cultural. People are wanting to see real change, not the culture

changing. Put aside statutory for the moment, they don't just want

the principles to be accepted lock, stock and barrel, they want it to

be done quickly. Not by June as David Hunt is talking about. Their

desire for that only rises when they see testimonies from victims.

If you were being intellectually rigorous about it, you would say

what other area would you allow the grievances of victims alone to

shape responses, but the political reality is different to the

intellectual purity of the arguments and if the voices of

victims to grow in the coming weeks, it becomes harder and harder to

resist that. Lord Hunt, the chairman of the PCC, and Lord Black

found a cheeky way of doing a souped-up BCC there was rejected

out of hand by Leveson and the Prime Minister. It was quite robust

what was suggested, with fines of over �1 million. The Prime Minister

is saying it is still self- regulation, and he has said you

have got to implement the Leveson principles, which is complete

independence over this, over the selection, over the board. If you

are clever enough to do that, maybe you will be able to escape

statutory underpinning. It was a cheeky attempt by them and it is

over. If they can get up to the Leveson principles, the Prime

Minister will be with them and he believes he can then see off

statutory underpinning. Another idea - smack a million pounds on

somebody quickly to show you mean it. Or �1 million of turnover.

the case of the Daily Mirror that wouldn't be much, or the

Independent. Let's move on to the Autumn Statement. I would suggest

that by this stage, what George Osborne had hoped he would be doing

two-and-a-half-year sins of his coalition is to come and say at

this autumn statement it has been hard pounding but we have turned a

corner. Things are getting better. It has been tough, but it has been

worth it. He can say none of that, or if he does he is not backed up

by the figures. The know, and his message for 2015 was always going

to be that we can look forward to looser fiscal policy in the next

Parliament. He will probably have to resort to the message that

things will be even worse under Labour and we have maintained an

even keel so far. I still get the sense that his political stock has

stabilised a little bit in recent months, partly because there was

decent growth in the last quarter but also partly because of the

disappointment of Mark Carney as the governor of Bank of England has

gone down so well. A let me show you the Sunday Times front page.

This was one of the possible leaks in the papers this morning. The tax

raid on the world they refers to cutting the pension privileges, if

I can put it that way. The coverage is more concerned with whether a

deal can be done with the Lib Dems rather than where is the economy

I think it is the wrong time to assess George Osborne's stock,

because before the last Budget it was higher than just afterwards.

What strikes me is the atmosphere in which this has been conducted.

It seems more of a smooth process, it seems they have learnt some

lessons and I think they know there will be no mercy for the type of

political blunder that led to the pasty tax and for presentational

blunders that led to the crummy tax. I think it is important for David

Cameron to speak up for George Osborne. He will not be meeting his

debt target, it seems, on the judgment over the OBR. He could say

I am determined to meet that debt target, and he could do that

through masses of cuts but he will take a flexible approach. Chris

Huhne said you must not be lashed to the mast in the where you deal

with deficit. Clearly George Osborne is not, he is taking a more

flexible approach and avoiding the stringent cuts you would have to

have if you said you were sticking to the fiscal mandate come hell or

high water. There is a thought within Tory circles that the

public's tolerance of austerity is slightly higher than the media

perhaps believes. The proof was in last year's Autumn Statement.

George Osborne gave the bleakest statement we have heard since the

war, and the public reaction against it was more or less zero.

Then the following weeks there was no change in the polls. You are

trying your best to put a positive spin on it because you wrote a book

about him but in the end this was supposed to be the year or fun and

it has not played out that way. That is all for the sweet but don't

forget to join me on Wednesday at 11:30am on BBC Two with Prime

Minister's questions, then straight into the autumn statement from the