16/12/2012 Sunday Politics London

Good morning. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

It's supposed to be the Government department getting Britain moving

and growing again, but is transport policy stuck in neutral? We'll ask

the Minister for trains, planes and automobiles, Patrick McLoughlin.

That's the Sunday Interview. UKIP are on the up, riding a wave

of Tory grassroots anger over plans for gay marriage. But is Nigel

Farage's party anything more than a repository for mid-term

malcontents? We'll ask him. And, are you a shirker? No. You

must be a striver then! Well done! After this week's spat over

benefits we debate the future of the welfare state.

And after that very personal, and some might say nasty, Commons

encounter we'll explore the psychology behind Dave and Ed's

difficult relationship. In London, councils profit from the

And with me throughout the programme, a political panel more

festive than a box of mince pies with a sprig of holly on top! Our

very own team of little elves, Isabel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh and

Nick Watt. I guess that makes me Santa?

Now, the Sunday papers this morning continue to be dominated by the

harrowing pictures and testimony emerging from Connecticut where a

gunman murdered 27 people, including 20 children on Friday. As

ever, in the wake of appalling tragedies like this, the debate

over gun control has restarted but it usually results in little action

to limit what many in America regard as the right to bear arms.

But this time might things be different? I suggest it won't be?

suspect you are right. No matter how much we want things to be done,

there is this thing called Congress and public opinion which he has to

get around. There is no evidence there has been an immediate

transformation in those obstacles. What is hard to understand in this

country, in America gun-control is a constitutional issue, not just a

pragmatically one. It is hard for us to grasp because we don't have

rights in the same sense. The debate is alien to us. Many people

argue the second amendment is not a right to bear arms on individuals,

it is to do with the militia and the revolution. But the

constitution says it does mean a right to bear arms? There is a

difference in the wording and the grammar. But there is a difference,

the scale of this tragedy and the number of very, very young children

who were killed. And in Connecticut? Not the South or the

worst. Barack Obama is in control - - in favour of gun control, but has

not been able to do that. He said in his emotional statement, we need

to take meaningful accent. He said there are things we cannot mess

with, gays, guns and guards. The vote has done very badly. If that

had been held in 1992, Mitt Romney would have won. The Democrats want

to tackle Gaze, guns and God. will never get it through the

house? The statistics make an overwhelming case for change. You

look at the facts and figures, 88 guns for every 100 Americans.

were they doing these guns. The schoolteacher had guns? It shows

you how ingrained guns are in American culture. This was nothing

out of the Ordinaries. The fact remains, Barack Obama's hands are

tied in this. It is down to state legislation.

Now, there's good news in the newspapers for UKIP this morning.

One poll has them running the Lib Dems close, two others have them

surging ahead with a whopping 14%. That support looks like it's coming

in large part from Tory voters and coincides with the party's high

profile opposition to plans to allow gay couples to marry. Happy

days for Nigel Farage, the party leader, who joins us. Some good

news the UKIP. Gay marriage is an issue on which you have won some

Tory support. Why are your pose to gay marriage? We are happy with

civil partnerships. If you extend the use of the word marriage, even

in the beginning if you allow it in registry offices, you allow

yourself to open up to the Court of European rights. What is likely to

happen is to finish up with churches and faith groups all over

the country being told they have to conduct gay marriages in their

place of worship. The important thing is, tolerance needs to be a

two way street. And I think the churches have had a rough deal

lately. You have not answer the question, why do you oppose gay

marriage? We are not opposed to civil partnership. I'm asking about

gay marriage? If we go for gay marriage we will force millions of

people in this country, not just Anglicans and Catholics, but many

of the black, evangelical churches, many people in the Muslim community

will be forced into a position where they have to conduct

ceremonies alien to them. It is not a liberal thing to do. You say in

my village in Kent, they are against it. What reason have been

given for opposing it? Conservative Party support which

will suffer the most from this, was not in David Cameron's manifesto.

He is pursuing, headlong, a policy which will damage and split his own

party, particularly in the shires. Gay marriage is an issue where

attitudes in the big metropolitan centres, compared to the suburbs

are different. One of your members of the European Parliament, the UK

Mark -- UKIP member likened gay marriage to incest, is there

homophobia in your party? Using that word was wrong. They may not

like it, but comparing it to incest? Using that word was wrong,

it was a mistake. You are in alliance in the European Parliament

with a number of parties who are home approve -- homophobic. Italy's

Northern League, homosexuals should go to a psychiatrist to feel better.

These are your allies in the European Parliament? You are

talking about one spokesman in the Northern League. When you do

business in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe, if you get into bed

politically and form an alliance in the Parliament with Christian

groups, and in this case, strong Catholic groups, many will have

views on social issues were to won't be the same as yours. In

Europe, you have to deal with former Communists, deal with people

you don't agree with, but it does not mean it is the view of UKIP.

you laid down with dogs, don't you get fleas? Eastern Europe, you

could apply the same argument to the Conservative Party, the Labour

Party and the Lib Dems. Why did you send a message of support to the

Polish priest whose radio station transmits anti-Semitic and

homophobic material. When a gay, Polish MP was elected, he said "the

sodomites are coming". You send him a statement of support. He was

cracking down on press freedom in Poland. 25 people were removed from

a variety of media networks crossing from left to right who are

taking an anti-government positions. I stood up for free speech.

regret supporting anti-Semitic and homophobic words, "the sodomites

are coming". I think it is wrong. I sent a statement supporting the

right of 25 different journalists from across the spectrum who the

Government would try to put out of business. That it must be wrong.

Nigel Farage, thanks very much. I don't want to talk about the views,

but 14% of the polls, the Tories 28% in this poll. It is 42% added

together, which is what David Cameron needs for an overall

majority. But it is suggested it won't happen. That interview with

Nigel Farage shows why he is so popular. You through all sorts of

stuff with him and he brushed it off, and sounded convincing. The

weakness he has got, it is a party that relies on his personality.

They need some other big characters if they will continue to make

progress. At 14%, I would suggest this is more than just mid-term

malcontents. It is given the way David Cameron's Tories are going,

it is a serious problem for the Conservative Party. They do know it

to a greater extent than the Tory right things they know it. There

are strategists who are aware of the threat UKIP pose. The mistake

we made his assuming UKIP only win votes from people who are angry

about Europe. But they win votes from people who are angry about

crime, immigration, welfare dependency and other issues. It

might be possible for the Government to a rope the UKIP vote

by moving on issues other than Europe. If the UKIP support stays

anything like where it is, Mr Cameron's chances of forming an

overall majority Government at the next election, I suggest, are zero?

David Cameron will say, didn't I made a terrible mistake? That would

have dealt with the UKIP problem and the General Election with the

click of a finger. He did not do that. There are many reasons why

people support UKIP. Europe is a big issue and there are areas where

the Conservative Party is moving to the centre ground. But also

politics are changing. They would tend in mid-term to go for the

Liberal Democrats. The protest vote cannot go there. What we are seeing

is a changing flow. Are they a threat to an overall Tory majority?

I am suggesting yes? Not in the sense there will be vast numbers,

they will take the vote away from the Tories. That is why the Lib

Dems are close to Labour. Now, you wait years for a Tory

transport secretary and three come a long at once - or in a little

over two years anyway. Patrick McLoughlin is the third transport

secretary since the election and he holds a brief that's more

controversial than it's been in a while. The Government claim the

development of Britain's transport infrastructure as a crucial factor

in getting the economy moving. But building new transport schemes is

fraught with controversy and delay. David Cameron says the country

needs to be on an economic war footing when it comes to getting

results. That may be easier said than done. Businesses want more

airport runways in the south-east to ease congestion. The question of

where to build extra capacity has been referred to an independent

Commission, which what report is fining until the next General

Election in 2015. The timetable has been criticised for being too slow,

even by Tory heavyweights, Michael Heseltine and Boris Johnson. Then

there is the plan for a new high- speed rail network, again it has

met fierce opposition. Patrick McGrath and has given his backing

to the HS2 scheme. He said it is time to crack on. Only this week

campaigners were in court trying to get the project blocked. On the

roads there has been one piece of good news for drivers. The

Chancellor's decision to scrap the three pence increase in fuel duty

planned for January. What about plans to increase the speed limit

on motorways to 80 mph? Some think the new Transport Secretary's

predecessor said would generate economic benefits worth hundreds of

millions of pounds. And, Transport Secretary, Patrick

McLoughlin, joins me for the Sunday Interview. You heard me interview

Nigel Farage on the issue on whether your Government supports

gay marriage and it is haemorrhaging support to UKIP. Let

me show what your own constituency chairman has been saying. James

Hollingsworth. This was a poll done He is right, isn't he? I do not

think he is. You have to make decisions in Government. You have

to do so in progressive, social legislation. The voters will make

their choice when the time comes. Have you spoken to him about this

issue? Of course I have spoken to James about this. He said he has

received a large mailbag since you signed the letter in the Sunday

Telegraph about gay marriage. took a view about what is being

proposed is right, the right move as far as allowing people the

freedom to marry. You to vote against it? I don't think I have

ever Express... As chief whip you warned Mr Cameron not to take a

lead on this. I have never made it public. We have very good sources

and you did warn the Prime Minister. What changed your mind?

conversations with the Prime Minister are with the Prime

Minister. You are not denying it? I'm not denying that discussions.

This is hurting you with UKIP. It UKIP stays anywhere near there, you

can have a form an overall We have not had this position

before. I will start getting worried about UKIP when they start

doing what the SDP did in 1981, when Shirley Williams took a 23,000

Tory majority. Margaret Thatcher went on to win general elections

but to stick by what you believed Wear is the Davies commissioned

into runway capacity, essential to the economy, why has it taking two

It is important to get a cross- party consensus. Everybody except

that they Commission is made up of good, solid people who will do a

good job and come up with an interim report at the end of next

year and they will come together with a final report in 2015 and if

we get a situation where we can get consensus, that is the way to meet

aviation policy forward in the South East, and when I was lost in

that department 23 years ago, we were discussing airport capacity in

the South East. It is the fact that we can't get consensus. After 23

years, you would think you would be in more than a rush. This is what

the mayor says. Let me show you What is wrong with that? What is

wrong it is asking the commission to do a proper piece of work in

which parties can hopefully at the end of the day get a consensus so

that it can move forward with this issue, whether it is expansion at

Heathrow, Boris Island in the Thames Estuary, something in

between that. That is what the Davies committee have got to look

at and provide something that can provide consensus. Even how would

Davies says it is politics -- how Syrian. Your party had so made up

its mind, you ruled out a third runway! Mr Davies said himself,

politics is dictating the timing. The coalition said they will not

make the decision before the election. In our manifesto, we were

committed not to build a third runway. I do not know what the

commission will come forward with in this parliament... It will not

come forward with anything in this parliament, that is the problem.

are sticking to the manifesto. You often tell us off for not sticking

to it! We are not asking you to do that. You a clearly in the process

of him changing your mind. By bins, no, no. You will not promise...

are going to have an inquiry into the whole situation and hopefully

build consensus. A lot of the big transport issues require consensus

before you can move forward and that is what I want to see on

aviation policy. Just be honest, you are too scared to say yes to

Heathrow and any other proposal because you think it will cost you

at the next election so you kick it into the long grass. Is it not true

that thanks to your decision, no party need tell us it's runway

policy at the next election? What is important... Of is that true?

need to get it consensus on to what aviation policy should be in the

south-east. Aviation provides huge amounts of jobs and opportunities...

We know that, we are asking for a decision, or we you wait until 2020

to get a mandate for what you decide that the next election?

will put forward after we get the report from the commission, that is

how we shall proceed. The ordnance -- Autumn Statement last year

included plans for numerous road building schemes and was trumpeted

as part of a national infrastructure plan. How many have

started? 8 on the completion. A number of others have already been

designed -- 8 of very near completion. They have been built?

None of them have actually started. They have started. Meet A14

challenge hasn't started. Or v Kettering bypass. That has not

started. He announced motorway schemes on the M3 and the M6. That

has not started. I ask again. Which of the schemes he announced a year

ago have actually started? A number of schemes. Which one? Many of the

pinch point schemes will be done within the next 12 months. They

have not started! You cannot safe... None of what you said was announced

in the 2011 Autumn Statement. As far as our research has shown, not

one of the announced projects have started. Having lost the shovel?

Sometimes when you are planning approvals, they can take longer

than you would like. But UN now has it as part of a national

infrastructure plan. -- you announced it. The 2012 plan

announced even more roadworks. When will that start? Hopefully in the

next 12 months. I shall quote what the Prime Minister said. He said we

on an economic war footing. We are not when it comes to roads schemes.

One of the things I will be doing in the new year is launching the

local authority pinch points well they will be able to force schemes

that are ready to go. Let's come on to high-speed rail. One of the

argument this government has given is that the West Coast Main Line is

running out of capacity. Let me the capacity timebomb on the West

Is that still government policy? Yes. So when last week did your

department released figures that showed only half of the seats on

long-distance trains leaving Euston occupied? This is not just about

Euston. It is about are the uses of the West Coast Main Line. We have

not built a new railway line north of London in this country for 100

years. Of course it is few minutes ago you were

complaining we are not run infrastructure planning. It takes a

long time to build in this country and if it was easy to do, it will

have been done a long time ago. one of the reasons you gave was

that the West Coast Main Line was running out of capacity. It is

dominated by long-distance trains coming out of Euston. At peak time,

only 52% of the seats are taken. That is down from 54%. These are

your department's figures. Figures which you suppressed for a long

time. Suppressed? You did not release them in the consultation.

Or all the evidence that I have got, capacity is a problem on the West

Coast Main Line and we are not building this for next year, this

line is for the future, this line is not just about the West Coast

Main Line, it is about connecting large cities with London and beyond.

But one of the main reasons was capacity. Capacity timebomb. What

evidence is there that there is a capacity timebomb or the West Coast

Main Line? Because of the growth we are seeing on railed... If you see

the figures of rail usage, it has grown substantially under

privatisation and it will continue to grow. Your predecessor Philip

Hammond... There are more ex transport secretaries than any

other job in government! He said increasing the motorway speed limit

to 80 mph would generate economic benefits of hundreds of millions of

pounds through shorter journey times. Do you agree? There his work

being done at the moment by the Department on which roads this

could be tried out on in a trial period, but I will not do anything

that puts at risk road-safety. said we will consult later in 2012

on it raising the limit to getting Britain moving and you have not

done that. No. There have been a few other things on my desk over

the past few weeks since I have been at the Department of Transport

and I had be concentrating on those. Let's be honest, as long as you are

Secretary of State for London, the speed limit is not going up. Let's

wait and see. Shall I take that as ain't no? It is as close as I ever

get as no from a politician! Let's wait and see! Thank you very much.

Now, the debate around welfare spending took an interesting turn

this week. George Osborne thinks uprating welfare benefits by only

1%, in effect a real-terms cut, is both right in itself and a

political trap for Labour. But Ed Miliband jumped on the fact the

freeze would hit not just those who don't work but those who do, and

depend on in-work benefits like tax credits. So where does all that

leave the debate over welfare and its future? Adam Fleming, our very

own Little Dorrit, has gone back in time to find out.

What a Christmas treat. A wander through the welfare state at

Dickens World in Kent, the theme park dedicated to the author who

knew all about Hard Times. What brings you here? And It's the ghost

of welfare past! William Beveridge, or working in University College,

has produced a social document of revolutionary importance...

The original idea of the welfare state was born 70 years ago with

the publication of a report by Sir William Beveridge. He proposed a

system of cradle-to-grave social security, funded by national

insurance contributions. Since then expectations of the

welfare state have become very great indeed. So much so that we

spend �200 billion a year on benefits and tax credits, more than

health, education and defence combined. And it doesn't all go on

Tiny Tims. A good chunk of it, about half goes

to pensions, the basic state pension and such. The rest of it,

�100 billion goes to people or working age. The biggest amount of

it goes to the disabled, lone parents and on housing benefit.

Only a very small amount, about �5 billion goes to the unemployed.

To some, it is too far from the Victorian ideal of the deserving

poor, while others think the bill is just too big. Jobseeker's

Allowance! And so recently it has been

announced that the system will be a bit less generous. Income

support...! The government is limiting the annual increases in

those benefits to 1% a year for three years, roughly the same rate

that wages have gone up. They call it a cap, Labour call it a cut.

And that is because the cost of living, the cost of buying stuff,

is going up by more, which means the benefit claimants' shilling is

going to be worth a bit less. The government say it affects the

skivers. Labour say it penalises the strivers because many of the

people affected are actually working. Reforming welfare is hard,

isn't it? I can make out the shape of the ghost of benefits future!

Merry Christmas. The public's view of the benefits

system is becoming distinctly more Scrooge-like. And we all know that

we are not living in the best of times. No-one is contemplating a

return to Dickensian workhouses. But what is the next chapter for

the welfare state? The Merry Christmas, Mr Scrooge. Bah humbug!

That was our producer! Conservative MP Chris Skidmore and

the Huffington Post's Mehdi Hasan join me to go head to head on the

We spend just over �200 billion a year on welfare. More than health,

education, defence combined. Is it sustainable? It is if you talk

about it in terms of GDP. You used a cash figure. If you look at it as

a proportion of GDP, spending on welfare awning over the last decade.

We spend less on a welfare as a proportion of GDP than John Major

did. So this idea that Britain can no longer look after its poor, sick,

elderly and unemployed when we can throw �80 million at a useless war

in Afghanistan, that is unsustainable. What is your

reaction? It is unsustainable. We will have an ageing population, 10

million people over the age of 65. That will increase to 90 million.

We have got to get to grips with the fact we are spending too much

on welfare. This is not Government money, it is hard earned taxpayers'

money. We have got to keep it in proportion. We have too many people

on long-term benefits. It is a situation where it is between

givers and take us. It is the neighbour's money that other people

on benefits of spending. You talk about givers and take us, strivers

and shirker. Ed Miliband raised the point in PMQs, the 1% squeeze this

Government is bringing, 6% will hit a working households. Not workless

households. So mock this idea of the division between a bunch of

lazy, feckless people who hide behind the curtains and then all of

these people who support them. Figures do not support that. Answer

that. 60%, those affected by the 1% on benefits won't be Mr Osborne's

famous people hiding behind the curtains, they will be the people

walking past these curtains going to work? When you look at what the

Government has done with the personal allowance, or raising VAT.

Anyone on minimum wage, this year will be paying 50% less tax than

what they were paying in 2010. benefit squeeze has doubled the

impact of the personal allowance cut. That is what the resolution

Foundation has found out. You take with one hand, then give back a

couple of beans with the other. We are creating a net that is too high.

Too high? It is bringing people into the state. Could you live on

�10 a day? It will need a national minimum. Could you live on �10 a

day? In that situation I would have to his. Would you cut that? It is

taxpayers' money, we have a responsibility for those people...

A lot of people have lost their jobs. 2.5 million people unemployed.

370,000 people who have never worked. That is too high. It must

come down. When this welfare-state was set up, it was never envisaged

we would be spending all this on GDP. We had employment the 35 years

after the Beveridge Report. It was an unemployment of 3%.

employment is 8% now, two years into your Government. We have

defied the forces of welfare Conservatives, who believe the

price of benefits is a price worth paying. Margaret Thatcher spent

more on welfare than we spend now. She did not want to. You want to

come she didn't. Let's be clear, I don't want to spend more on welfare.

I want to reduce welfare. The reason we have a high welfare is

because of low pay, people on low incomes who need support from the

state. Tackle the low wages. minimum wage is worth less in real

terms than it was in 2004. Where is the money coming from? Maybe

inThere is a magic money tree. there is no money in your land.

deficit reduction means we have to deal with debt so urgently. Labour

left �155.8 billion, the largest debt in peacetime history. If it

would be useful if we could get of the party-political point, get back

on to welfare reform. You want to see more means testing, why? It is

unsustainable to have a universal system. When you look at an ageing

population. With this ageing population, it is no longer

sustainable. We cannot have universal benefits and winter fuel

allowance. On the ageing population and remember a common dit -- are,

of -- a comedy Francis Maude it. He had not read the small print in his

own report. They have been lots of reforms to control costs. Get real.

Throughout the Western world there is a Democratic problem of

supporting an ageing population. Can we still afford, throughout the

Western world, to support that ageing population with universal

benefits, or do we need some kind of means testing? I think we can

afford it. Without means testing? Means-testing puts the cost up.

Without means testing it lowers the uptake of benefit uptake. It has to

the first. It costs more. In the longer term it with his ageing

population it it won't cost more. It is not fair, and you must agree,

an MP on a final salary of �65,000 a year, should be claiming winter

fuel allowance. On that basis you shouldn't get a free health care.

People pay in and then get out. You want an American-style safety nets

for the poor people. Services for the poor always turn out to be poor

services. That is what you want. How are you going to pay for it?

More taxation? You want to slap a more tax on the poorest? We spend

hundreds of pounds on PFI, we about to spend billions on Trident. There

is money around for those things, but none for the poor, the elderly

and the disabled. For them it is unsustainable. PFI has been

protected. Disability have been hit by the 1% squeeze. They are on

housing benefit. Thanks very much. It's a little after 11:35am. You're

watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes:

I'll be looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until

then, the Sunday Politics across Coming up: A London's councils are

profiting from selling our personal details from the electoral register

to churches, banks and estate agents. What is the problem?

With me for the duration we have a West London bias, and she break is

for Ealing Central and Acton. Seema Malhotra is for Feltham and Heston.

Welcome to you both. What are your observations on the fact the deputy

mayor for policing, Stephen Greenhalgh is at the centre of

claims he acted inappropriately towards a junior city hall

officials. I wonder in particular, given it has emerged the concern

has not wanted to pursue a formal complaint or be part of the story.

Whether it is right for journalists like me to be covering it? I think

it is unfortunate that what ever happened, and nobody knows what

happened, except for the woman herself and presumably Stephen

Greenhalgh. Although he says he does not remember the incident. I

do think there has been a lot going around. It is unfortunate for the

woman in question, he did not want to be identified and did not want

it to go anywhere. She did not make a formal complaint. It is

politicians doing a bit of stirring, and the press have been quick to

jump on board. It has got to be taken seriously. Boris Johnson has

to get to the bottom of it. We know there has been an increasing focus

on sexual assault in the workplace. It is important we get to the

bottom of that. The Jimmy Savile case, and what it has raised about

sexual assaults in the workplace, even small assaults. But the issue

is have somebody in great power could be affecting those much more

junior staff in the workplace and what are says about their

confidence, working and being treated as they should be. She did

not want this to be raised. That is an interesting point, whether or

not she does for her own reasons, whether it something has happened,

were there is a perception and different arguments about what

happened, whether that should be done independently? That is why,

probably the mayor is right to get the officer to conduct a review.

After Labour asked him to do so. felt, because she had been

identified after she did not want to be, the allegations going around,

he had to clear the air. He has called for a review, and it is the

right thing to do so. It is no point going on speculating, we have

to respect the process that has been set in place. The other issue

that is serious, is that Stephen Greenhalgh is in church of the

police come and that overseas violence against women. There's

something about perception of behaviour. The latest census data

has revered London's population has grown more quickly in the last few

years than anyone predicted. Now standing at 8.2 million. Has it

caught all tears of Government on the hop? Pressures are apparent on

housing, schools and transport. # I count slowly, slowly...

Much in the last decade, politicians have had a problem.

Nobody was sure how many people were in London. This week's

publication of the census data has confirmed what many suspected.

change in London's population in the most recent decade is without

precedent. Of course there was immigration in the late 40s, 50s,

60s and in the 70s. But nothing on this scale. The changing face of

London was anticipated, but not at the rate it happen. Now we find

just 45% of Londoners consider themselves white British, concurred

to 60% a decade ago. We are living longer, and immigration has pushed

the population to a 0.2 million in London. 8,500 more people than we

had 10 years ago. In the early days of New Labour, the official

prediction was London's prediction by 2012 would be 7.5 million people.

We know that figure was up by 700,000. Another way, it is a city

the size of Leeds, added on to London, but nobody saw it coming.

This has been the result. Portakabin is turned into

classrooms due to a shortage of places. Increased demand for

housing has pushed prices up. Congestion on the roads,

infrastructure lagging behind. If you could not keep up in the age of

plenty, where is it going to come from now money is tight? Current

projections suggest the population will grow by another city the size

of Leeds by 2020 and another Birmingham by 2030. We have little

public money, and the only way the rapid development of London's

infrastructure can continue is either if London gets more money

from the UK, which is not likely. Or, if private capital can

increasingly find its way to building what is now seen as public

infrastructure. Key infrastructure is funded by private money. The

CrossRail budget, two-thirds came from private business. Beyond is

building more stuff, do we also have to look at the way you manage

what we have? For example, rather than waiting for new homes to be

built to lower prices, can more regulation help? There is no point

in building more and more luxury units, while people in London,

ordinary Londoners in doing the essential work we need across the

capital, simply cannot afford to rent, let alone buy. We need to

properly regulate the private rented sector, give more security

to private tenants and also ensure there is a cap on rents. They are

not rising astronomically. So they should be inflation-linked as they

are in France and Germany. But the difficulty is this - the next

answers is another nine years away. Between then and now, policy makers

will find themselves making decisions on London based on a

guess, rather than hard data. David Skelton has joined us. He is

the director of the think tank, Policy Exchange. What has gone

wrong? As the Government being caught on the hop? We have three

issues. The issues that affect affordable housing. We have an

emerging primary school places crisis. On something that is

obvious from the census, growing up in London and the rest of the

country, is obvious in so many elements. The housing crisis is

stark. It will get worse if the population increases and if the

governments and local authorities don't do more about it. Why has the

rapidity of the population increase, why has it caught people on a

worse? It is interesting question and needs to be investigating. It

is how we deal with the bulging population and the housing problems.

From where you sit has therefore been a failure of prediction,

failure put at the door of Government? The rising rolls for

school, the rising demand for housing and part of it is so the

external immigration. A lot of it is domestic immigration, people

coming from the rest of the country? It affects public housing

and public services. It needs to be considered and looked at. But the

big issue is how we deal with the crisis now, how we can build more

houses and get more primary school places. Where did this go wrong?

is one of those things about the speed with which our population is

changing, because of the way the economy has changed. We came more

international, globalisation. All these consequences were well

predicted for whatever reason and central Government does have to

look at how it does better forecasting. But work with local

councils Anderson to them. They are at the forefront and one of the

most efficient part of our public administration. We have to make

sure there isn't a battle between central and local Government, but a

greater partnership. In my constituency we are seeing balding

classes, but Hounslow has been building affordable housing. The

Government shouldn't have cut funding for housing when it did

after the last General Election. I think we need a renewed focus on

the supply of housing because that is going to be what will affect

private sector renting as well as This looks like historic

underfunding. Even in 2008, they were saying the population in

London was bigger than the last Syrian, but they were not being

funded for that, -- than the last census. This is why it is so

important to be working more closely with local authorities

because at the front face, they will be seeing much more than it is

coming forward in the census, and funding often follows population

estimates. Councils always say it, they were since 2010, I mean, we

privately dismayed when Michael goes to talk up the Building

Schools for the Future to make provisions for schools? -- Michael

Gove ripped up? It was very expensive in terms of... It wasn't

actually delivering very much and it was an expensive way to build

schools. I think Michael Gove was right to look at better ways of

doing that. In the Ealing we have a brand new secondary free school

been bought in the north of the borough and it will take pressure

off some of my constituency -- being built. We have a brand new

primary school being built in the middle of active. So I think the

Department for Education is getting its act together -- in the middle

of Acton. The prediction of Tony Blair's government was that the

number of Polish people coming to the country would be 30,000 and it

is now half-a-million. Are you unhappy with the number of Polish

people in the Ealing? There are some issues around some Polish

people who have come and have not managed to find work and find it

difficult to get housing and many of them have not got the money to

go home and we do need to think about helping some Polish people to

get home if they want to, but Ealing it is probably very diverse

and that is one of the way Ealing's character is identified, so it...

Looking forward and trying to find solutions, which your organisation

does, how will we unlock housing? Several ways we can unlock housing

supply quite quickly. You have some empty shops on high streets in

their Rees parts of towns across London. Councils need to be quicker

at changing the use of those so they can be residential -- in

various parts of towns across London. Secondly, more land needs

to be released. We have to consider whether we need to build on some

parts of the green belt, on the fringes. If local people are happy.

If local people are happy! That is a big if. We need houses where

people want to live. There is a massive waiting list of social

housing. We think that what councils should do if an expensive

property becomes vacant, they should sell their property and we

invest in more social housing. That could be the biggest... In Dagenham

they are having to put so many people up in bed and breakfasts...

Exactly, the waiting list is very long. Cow sorts already sell places

-- councils. They need to sell them when they become vacant and that

will result in the biggest social housing building programme since

the 1970s. You are missing the point about the impact of

government changes on the reduction in benefits and how that will

affect people, people losing their jobs and their homes. These are

ordinary families. We talk about those who are homeless as the

"other" but it is ordinary families. Hounslow has a 13,000 waiting list

for social housing. Things the government did a few years ago had

a dramatic impact on that. A lot of people telling you their housing

benefit is being squeezed and capped but private rents have gone

up 60% in ten years. It is an issue. Housing is a big problem in London

where rent is high and properties are expensive but part of the issue

of capping housing benefit was the cost of housing benefit components

to the taxpayer, which went up and up, and the government is very

mindful of the issue of fairness. People could not possibly afford to

live in central London themselves and are funding through their tax

others able to live there through their benefits! It is about trying

to get fairness back in the system. Plus we had to deal with an

unsustainable growing bill. Thank you. Since the Great Reform Act of

1832, copies of the electoral register detailing who lives where

has been available for sale. London's councils make money from

selling details to organisations, ranging from churches to estate

agents. A voter registration form, your

entry to the democratic process, but did you know that unless you

tip the small box preventing consent when filling in your

details, your data can be sold to anybody wants to buy it? How do

councils and public authorities respect people's Livesey? Are they

being open or taking our data and using it in ways we never knew

happened and using it to get benefit themselves without sharing

that with us? We are clear that the only way people can truly have

control of our data is if they know what happens. So who is buying it?

A catholic assortment, ranging from mosques, churches, Bell Pottinger,

Foxtons and the Halifax Building Society. In 2008, a report said

this problem needed to be sorted out and nothing has happened since

so hopefully by putting this data into the public domain, we can

remind people that this has been put on the shelf for years,

councils are dragging their feet and reform is needed. Councils in

London made �400,000 last year by selling our details. In the

electronic age of social networking and Google, a private company is no

more and more about us but do they now know too much and is it time

for a rethink? If we are joined by Simon Parker

from the new Local government Network. The Electoral Commission

says this should not have been allowed to happen. I am relaxed

about this. Councils have been doing it for well over a century.

It has been happening for ages. The information is not just going to

market is, it is going to community groups and political parties. It

seems to me if you are going to go into some complicated way of giving

very his permissions for everything, that is very complicated and

bureaucratic. There is not a ground swell of complaint. Why bother

changing its? Do people want all of this on their doormat? They want to

know how someone got their name and details? If they don't want it,

they tick the box. It is the easy. But you know that people do not

perhaps notice that box. Shouldn't they have to actively opt him?

We will spend lots of money redesigning the forms and have a

public campaign, it seems a lot of effort for something that could be

solved with the few public information messages. You could

lose because you would have to go through longer checks. One of the

reasons you did not get credit was because people could not find due

on the electoral register? I find it irritating, it adds to

everything else when the personal data is being sent all over the

place. I think an opt-in option would be a better way of doing it

because I think people should be able to say, I am relaxed about you

using a personal data, making some money out of it, rather than having

to make the effort to opt out. I think it is one of those added

things, our personal data belongs to us. Particularly in this

electronic time when you can find out so much about people anyway.

Sure we get worried about this? What is important is the

transparency of what is happening and awareness of what is going on

and the choices you have. I don't think most people understand the

difference between the edited version of the register and the

full version and to understand to that is given to is an important

part of public information so maybe that is what needs to be revisited

in the first instant. But you think, leave things as it is? I can see it

there may be a case for public information. Not just about this.

We give data are we all the time on Facebook and Twitter. But quite

often without realising it. If I was to list in order the places

that sold data, councils would be down the list. You need safeguards

as well. What we do not know it is necessarily what safeguards are put

in place for people to then sell on that day to again and the clarity

about what the rules of the game are is really important. They it is

wet and opt in option would be so much better. -- that is why an opt-

in option. Now a round-up of the rest of the political news in 60

seconds. His Westminster Council turning up

the heat on restaurants? Once saw a rare burger taken of its menu over

health and safety concerns. Some critics say it could set a

precedent. A top City economist joined City

Hall as the mayor's chief economic adviser. Boris Johnson welcomed his

expertise but Labour said �127,000 appointment is out of touch with

cash-strapped London. An independent report into the 2011

Tottenham riots has made 10 recommendations, including setting

up an independent body to oversee new regeneration, new housing and

jobs and improve transport links. Londoners using their capital's

buses can now pay for their journeys with contactless credit

cards. The city's 8500 buses are leading the way we pay and the

technology will be rolled out in the Tube network at the start of

next year. Should the mayor be paying 127,004

an economic adviser at to provide him with advice for 30 hours a

week? -- �120,000, for an economic adviser. Families are losing money

every year as a result of government changes and to have

somebody who will be paid more than the Prime Minister to provide

economic adviser, that the mayor should be able to get in other ways

or at less of a cost to the public purse. He has an economic adviser

who succeeded you on the London Assembly but apparently he needs to

be on top of the macro-economic picture and to get research which

underpins him campaigning for more from the government. It is quite a

lot of money but the proof is in the pudding. We need to stretch

every sinew to make sure London stays at the top of the competitive

global league, and the mayor is right to be pulling out every stop,

however if this guy does earn his money by giving good advice then he

will have brought more prosperity... But the delay has its own economics

unit? He has twice been the top forecast in the Sunday Times so he

knows his stuff. If he can do a good job for London he will have

earned the money and made as a bit more prosperous. But if he hasn't,

he should not hang around very long because it is a very large salary.

But the proof is in the pudding and we would expect the mayor to be

pulling out every stop to keep London at the top of his game.

is absolutely right to get the best voices contributing for London,

nobody is disputing that. But the question is... Whether this was the

right value for money for London and London taxpayers. That is a

very big question for someone to be paid more than the Prime Minister

effectively. Time will tell. one of many who earn over 100,000

by the mayor as an adviser. Quite a few were under the previous mayor

as well. If it leads to more for London, you think it will be worth

it. If he can do something and get prosperity, he will have earned his

keep. People try to get him on this Andrew, it is back to you.

In a moment we'll look ahead to the big stories that will dominate

politics next week with our political panel, but first the news

at noon with Tim Willcox. Good afternoon. President Obama will

meet the families of victims of the school massacre in Connecticut

later today. Six members of staff and 20 children - all aged six or

seven - were shot dead at Sandy Hook Elementary school by a gunman

on Friday. A British boy is believed to be among the victims.

Jon Brain reports. The body of the nurse who was found

hanged after taking a prank phone call about the Duchess of Cambridge,

has been taken to Mangalore in southern India. Jacintha Saldanha

was found dead days after transferring the call to a

colleague at the King Edward VII in central London. She will be buried

in her home village tomorrow. Ballots are being counted in Egypt

following the first round of voting in a referendum on a new

constitution which has divided the country. Both supporters of

President Morsi and the opposition claim that early indications show

the vote will go their way. The official results won't be announced

until after a second round of voting next weekend.

It's been an unforgettable 12 months for British sport, and

tonight the winner of the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year will

be announced. With so many celebrated achievements to choose

from that the short list had to be increased from ten to 12. The

contest features 11 Olympic and Paralympic gold medallists and the

golfer, Rory McIlroy. That's all the news for now, there

will be more here on BBC One at Ballots are being counted in Egypt

Voting in a referendum on a new constitution which has divided the

country. Now, only nine days to Christmas but the political classes

are not hurrying away from Westminster just yet. It's very

hard to get them to go on holiday you know. There's that row over gay

marriage, a big speech from Nick Clegg on the Lib Dems and the

festive fracas that is PMQs to enjoy before they can all go home.

All subjects for the Week Ahead. Nick Clegg has his speech coming up

and they have leaked bits of it in advance. What struck me, he

repositioned the Lib Dems as a centre party, not centre looked,

not progressive, not to the left of Labour. The Centre Party Bulls star

he attacked his own woodsmen, the dogmatic liberals and said it was

time to get real, what did you make of it? Interesting message that

came out in the Sunday Times, is he will attack the Tory Right for

living in a fantasy world. He does that all the time? What is

interesting is, he is showing the differential strategy, that he is

not going to be worried about speaking out against David Cameron.

You had his interview in the Sun newspaper this week, talking about

how David Cameron made the wrong decision not to accept the Royal

recommendation for the Home Affairs Select Committee and drugs. You

will get Nick Clegg talking strongly in the New Year about how

David Cameron is wrong to be talking about repatriating powers

from the European Union. It goes back to the decision by David

Cameron to trash Nick Clegg to allow Tory donors to depict Nick

Clegg as a liar for supporting David Cameron as Prime Minister. We

will see him pushing on that. are seeing Nick Clegg at the

beginning of what will be a long, drawn-out fight for survival. The

poll speak for themselves. The Lib Dems are not picking up any more

traction. I think 2013 could be his last four year as leader of the

party. I as I read it, he was prepping for a leadership challenge.

He was getting his position now, and he will repeat and build on

that through 2013 to try to see off a leadership challenge in 2014?

the leadership challenge happens, the end of 2014, beginning of 2015,

in the run up the election is the most likely period for it to happen.

I interviewed bit like five years ago when he became leader. The

expectation was, he would struggle to win 15% of the vote from the Lib

Dems because Iraq which played so well for the Lib Dems in 2005, was

fading as an issue. He ended up getting 23%, getting them into

Government. And he has ended up doing some concrete things, namely

the rise in the personal income tax threshold. When he does eventually

lose his job, and it is likely he will before the election, he should

be remembered as one of the more successful the Dem leaders.

message is, he distanced himself from the Tory right, even from Mr

Cameron. These are words he is saying to his own people. Saying he

-- it is tough in Government, get real. We need to get used to this

if we are to be regarded as a party of Government. That is what he is

saying. I had an interview with him in August. He said there is no

point in appealing to voters on the left, because they hate the

Government and they hate us. We need to go for the centre ground,

soft Tories. It was that comment that prompted Matt King low shot to

go on the Today programme saying we needed leadership. Gay marriage,

how much does this add? There is a sense of disillusion among the Tory

faithful. We have talked about the Liberal faithful, but there is

disillusion with David Cameron, he is not delivering on the economy,

he is not cutting their taxes, not doing a lot of things they want.

Then he adds in gay marriage! Why would you do that? It is his

bloody-mindedness on this issue. I thought a few months ago, he would

let this one drop. He could see politically wire that would be the

wisest thing to do. Yet, he has got the bit between his teeth and he

won't give up on it. I think he will pay a price for that. The Tory

chairman, he used to be disillusioned and Tory voters had

no where to go except to the wide, outer reaches of what most middle-

class folk regarded as unacceptable. There is a place to go now, and it

speaks the language? You may lose voters to UKIP, which is what you

are looking to. But you may gain voters in urban constituencies.

Where is the evidence for that? There is majority support for gay

marriage. In nearly every city, the Tories did badly? Because they're

economically away from the interests. In London, they failed

to win my constituency, Hampstead and Kilburn. It is populated

extensively by people who are well off. Do you think they will win

that in 2015? They were double figures away from winning it last

time. On an issue like gay marriage, it could be 10 Link. David Cameron

is obsessed by not being the 30% Tory leader. He is 28% now.

needs to be 40% if he is to get a majority. They want to complete the

Now, it's the final Prime Minister's Questions of the year on

Wednesday. Don't worry, they'll be back in January. But last week's

encounter will be a hard act to Specifically on the Institute of

Fiscal... I am surprised the shadow chancellor is shouting again. I am

surprised he is shouting again this week. We learnt last week, like

bullies all over the world, he can dish it out, but he cannot take it

will stock. He never learns, he never learns. I must say, I have

heard everything went the boy from the Bullingdon Club let his people

on bullying. -- lectures. Absolutely extraordinary. Have you

wrecked a restaurant recently? Mr Speaker, they look after their

friends. The people on their Christmas card list. Meanwhile,

they hit people they never meet and whose lives they will never

understand. His donors put him where he is, pay him every year,

and determine his policies... heated and personal stuff. And

we're joined by psychotherapist, Lucy Beresford, whose been casting

her trained eye over the Miliband- Cameron relationship. What do you

make of it? There is quite a lot of tension. You saw some interesting

body-language, not least from Ed Miliband, when he asked the

question about the restaurant. Enormous smile, lots of teeth on

display. But it look like he was chuffed, like it was not scripted.

Like her little boy who swears in church. He is playing to his own

gallery. PMQs is the theatre to their own tribes. He has found a

way Sue annoyed Mr Cameron? Cameron is not comfortable in his

own skin about the issue of where he went to school. It is not just

about where you went to school about influences way you are.

Someone else who went to Eton, Boris Johnson, it is not something

David Cameron wants to be constantly reminded of. Boris

Johnson does handle it better, but Mr Cameron I would suggest, he

shouldn't get riled by that, he should have a pin in his hand and

hit his finger with it. What you saw, he reaches out for a glass of

water, almost like a comfort blanket, to remind himself, don't

rise to the bait. If he had a modicum of self-doubt about himself,

in some electoral terms, it might be attractive. There have been

other leaders, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, who had been so

egotistical inner self- belief, it has caused their downfall. But it

you have a modicum of self-doubt, it can be attractive. But the

trouble is, David Cameron gets wound up by it, and the Labour

Party know that. What about the idea it is not just Mr Cameron who

is uncomfortable, Ed Miliband has some on comfort about his

background. Every time he speaks, he talks about coming from the

barriers of Primrose Hill. It is projection, talking about something

else and the other person, but it is a lot about yourself. What do

you make of that? When Ed Miliband makes these personal comments, he

does it with good humour. But David Cameron, there is a flash of

nastiness. You see it time and again in the Commons. Why isn't Mr

Cameron as comfortable in his skin or his background as Boris Johnson?

Boris Johnson is comfortable about everything. Even if he screws up

and commits an minor act of incompetence, he can brush it off.

I have an unfashionable view on this, I prefer angry David Cameron.

I think the Prime Minister is at his worst and most infuriating when

it seems he things like is a game and his job is leisure activity. I

like him been wound up like he is at PMQs. It you are a swing vote at

home, it looks on Prime Ministerial. Plus the noise and the insults he

picks up on the floor of the Commons that as we do not here, do

get to him. You forget how ruthless and ambitious David Cameron is.

When he was in the Bullingdon Club, he made sure he was not there when

the restaurants were trashed. No pictures of him wearing a dinner

jacket when he was in opposition. His background shouldn't matter,

but it does when he is trying to say his central message is, we all

in it together. He was talking in the House of Commons the other day

about how we have to get away from the Bank of mum and dad. The

problem is, he knows more than else benefits of the Bank of mum and dad.

Not all of us did not have a bank of mum and dad. Final thought?

think Ed Miliband is on to a good thing but he needs to avoid the

finger-wagging. He shouldn't do that. David Cameron needs to learn

to beat a bit more... Relaxed in himself. Thanks very much.

Well, if you thought Cameron Miliband was bad tempered, take a

look at this in Ukraine's It is a bit like that at the Sunday

Politics Christmas party, except more violent! I want some

predictions and you will be held to account! I don't want equivocation

and dreadful, I want proper answers. Will the coalition still be here

one year from now? Yes. Definitely. Definitely. Will we know the date

of the European referendum in one year? No. Yes. No. How much growth

will there be next year? Less than 1%. Father Christmas is more

qualified to say that! 1%. 0.4%. Sorry. I am with you, under 1%.

Will Ed Balls be shadow chancellor this time next year? Definitely.

Yes. The definitely, definitely. The world David Miliband be back in

frontline politics next year? -- will David Miliband. Not on the

front bench. No. No. I agree. Will Vince Cable still be in the Cabinet

in 12 months? Yes. Yes. Yes. I say yes, too. It is a better position

from which to launch a leadership challenge in 2014. Precisely.

Perhaps that is another prediction, particularly if the Lib Dems come

fifth in the elections. This time next year, will UKIP still be third

in the opinion polls? Borderline. Yes. Third, on the way to first in

the European parliamentary elections. They will be five months

away then. By the end of 2013, we will be looking at the European

elections. Which will shape so much. Anything that will surprise us next

year? I think UKIP will get its first MP in the form of a Nadine

Dorries. You think she will defect? Yes. Last week she denied she would

defect. Didn't Bob Spink call him... He is such a smart alec? They will

not get another elected MP. They don't need to win seats. The Social

Democrats won seats. UKIP simply need to take votes away from the

Tories at the time that Lib Dems are defecting to Labour. A number

of Tory-Labour marginal seats, that is a disaster. Because if that

tends the Tories to go to the right, we all know what happens. A you

mean like Mrs Thatcher in 1983 and 1987? Mrs Thatcher, a right-wing?

She won on the centre ground! Centre ground of its time.

Thatcher. It was when she moved to the right on the poll tax and

Europe that she went, the party got rid of her. When she campaigned on

the centre ground in 79, 83 and 87, she won. And she had divided

opponents. This is getting a bit too highbrow. I want to stick to

Nadine Dorries. I think she will defect. We have had our predictions.

You can hold us to a count in the months ahead! -- account.

That's all for this week and indeed this year. But don't worry, we'll

be back at the same time on Sunday 13th of January 2013 when we'll be

joined by a jolly round man with a resonant laugh. No. Not Santa -

he'll be long gone. Eric Pickles! Until then, a very Merry Christmas