27/01/2013 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. The coalition

presides over the weakest recovery for generations, but Labour's lead

slumps to six percentage points. The Cameron referendum effect? The

Prime Minister wants to negotiate a new, semi-detached relationship

with the EU and put it to the British people. But what will the

repatriation of powers to look like?

Is Mr Cameron's plan achievable and would we be better or worse off

outside the EU? The two sides go head-to-head.

In London the mayor says he has an open mind on the impact of carbon

emissions are climate change. When might that leave City Hall policy?

With me as always, the best and the brightest political panel in the

business, Isabel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh, and Nick Watt are treating

more regularly than Andy Murray loses grand slam finals.

The economy is stagnating and living standards are falling, but

the polls this morning see Labour's League falling to just 6% or 7%. It

is not a lot when the Government should be at the height of its mid-

term unpopularity. Labour strategies worry that Tory Euro-

scepticism and the promise of an EU referendum are more popular with

voters than some commentators think and could deny Labour an overall

majority. Nick Clegg was asked if he could contemplate working with

Ed Miliband. The attitude of working together in the national

interest with politicians you do not agree with, because that is

what the British people want you to do, is the attitude I have always

had. I shall take that as yes? can take that as years I will

always take a responsible role to make sure this country is properly

governed. Joining me now at the Shadow Chief

Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves. Thank you for a waiting for

us today. Nick Clegg left the door open to a coalition with Labour.

With your lead down to 6%, I guess you will be keeping the door open

to the Lib Dems? Labour are going for a win at the next election and

that is our ambition and we will see how many MPs Nick Clegg has got

left after the next election. Labour want to win the next

election. Your leader said there could be no Labour-led coalition

with Nick Clegg in it. Is that still Labour's position? As I said,

we want to win the next election and we want a Labour-led Government.

If that is in the national interest. Could Nick Clegg be in? Nick Clegg

has been on the wrong side of the debate on tuition fees, on the

failed austerity measures and we think he has made the wrong

decisions by the country. But it is up to the electorate to decide the

result of the next election. We will have to work based on what the

election delivers, but we are going for a win and we think that is

achievable. It is interesting you say you are going for a win, but as

we sit here this Sunday the economy is stagnating and might even be on

the verge of a triple dip recession, living standards are being squeezed

harder and longer than at any time since the 1920s and the core of

Government policy is deficit- reduction and that has stalled. Why

would the public trusts Mr Cameron and George Osborne on the economy

rather than the Labour Party? recent poll put Labour and the

Conservatives neck and neck on the economy. We lost the last election

and we have got a long way to go before the next election and to win

that people's trust. The numbers today in the polls, the Observer

has Labour 13 points ahead. That was taken before Mr Cameron's

Wednesday speech. The latest polls show 6% or 7%. Why is your lead

down to 6%? There are lots of numbers out this week, but the

important numbers are the numbers on the economy, which show that it

shrunk. Most people are not going to be poring over the poles, they

are going to be worried about their jobs, the cost of living and the UK

economy. If the Prime Minister was governing international interest,

he would be putting all his efforts into getting the economy growing

and getting people back to work and reducing the cost of living for

ordinary families. He is focusing on the pure party political protest

-- a process, and that is why he made the speech on Wednesday. I am

not sure he even believes in it because a few months ago he wrote

against a referendum. Since 2009, this country has run a massive

public sector deficits and under this Tory coalition led Government

we had a 120 billion deficit two years ago, there will be another

120 plus deficit this year. Why would a Labour deficit of 130

billion mean more growth? What the IMF and Goldman Sachs and other

people are saying is that the plan the Chancellor and Prime Minister

and Nick Clegg have been pursuing has not worked and it is time for a

Government to take stock. Austerity alone... The chief economist at the

IMF only speaks for himself. But he has said it the economy does not

start growing, the Government has to rethink its plans. Why would a

bigger deficit result in more growth? We have at unprecedented

deficits for four years. Why would a bigger deficit make any

difference? What Labour are saying is we need to reduce the deficit

back at a slower pace compared with what his Government had tried to do.

The reality is that deficit is now increasing, not because they are

rethinking their plan on austerity, but because by failing to secure

the recovery borrowing is going up because tax revenues are not coming

in and the welfare bill is going up and knock down because we have got

more people out of work and more people in low-paid, temporary work

and you end up having to pay more out in benefits. This Government is

borrowing more because they are paying for their failed economic

plan. Labour is say we should temporarily reduce VAT to help the

struggling high-street and invest in infrastructure, positive plans

that could create jobs and bring the deficit doubt in a sustainable

way. Rachel Reeves, thank you for joining us from a rather windy

Gloucestershire. White is the Labour Party not doing better?

always thought, and I said last week, that David Cameron's speech

would generate a short-term poll boost, but that is by the by. Even

before this small dip in the Labour lead, the Labour lead was not very

big. To be only 10 or 12 points ahead mid-term at a time when the

economy is not growing was a feeble performance by historical standards,

compared even to Michael Foot. And so this sudden shift over the

weekend is not particularly significant. If I was a Labour

strategist I would look at the performance last year. What is your

theory? I do know that private polling shows that their lead is

even soft bed and the polling we see today. But I have a slightly

different perspective. I would have expected the Tory bounce Brumbies E

U speech, long awaited that has had such a build up, I would have

expected the bounce to be much more significant. The question is why

are the Tories not doing better in the way of that so-called good news

last week? Michael Foot was 18 points ahead of Mrs Thatcher at a

time when the economy seemed to to be going down the Swanee under the

Tories the last time. This time the economy is in a terrible shape and

they can barely muster 6%. Labour is not in a good position because

they are perceived not to have any credibility. There is a presumption

if the Government is presiding over a difficult economic environment,

the assumption is the opposition will have credibility. They will

not necessarily. Nick Clegg today has put on the table that Alastair

Darling cut capital spending too quickly. You may say it is absurd

for him to say Labour our deficit deniers, but the challenge for

Labour is that was part of the Alastair Darling plan. It is not 1

million miles removed from what the Government is doing, so where is

the Labour Party? They are saying the Government is to blame for a

1930s style depression, and yet there plant was not that difficult

but the coalition plan. George Osborne he thought by this stage

the economy would be much better, even he thought by now the Tories

would be 15-20 points behind, and the economy is much worse and he

thought and they are nowhere near that far behind. What the Labour

League consists of is the fact the Lib Dems are doing incredibly badly,

and UKIP are doing incredibly well. If the Europe policy that Cameron

expanded last week diminishes the UKIP support, it it is bad for

Labour. If I was Ed Miliband I would worry if well the Lib Dem

vote increase in the run-up to the next election, especially his -- if

Nick Clegg is pushed aside? much unhappiness is there in the

Labour Party that Ed Miliband seems to have stuck out so strongly

against a referendum? There is significant unrest. When I heard

him say that at Prime Minister's questions this week I thought that

was a mistake. They tried to pull back later that day. Immediately

afterwards his team were telling us all that they were only ruling it

out for now. It was a strategic mistake. Having interviewed him

myself for this week, he feels firmly he is taking a principled

stand on this. It is time for the British people to have their say

and time for us to have the question about Britain and Europe.

The Prime Minister unveiled his promise of an in-out referendum in

his long awaited speech on Europe. But if any referendum is to happen,

it will be four years away and in the meantime what will the

renegotiation achieve? Will satisfy the public or the Conservative

Party? A fragrant start to the day. A trip

to the New Covent Garden flower market. It is also a great place to

explain how the rules of the single market and the rest of the EU

affect us in the UK. On one hand there are no trade barriers to

importing tulips from Amsterdam. On the other, the traders are affected

by the red tape generated by the EU. We only import from Poland, so

obviously the paperwork is a lot easier because they are a part of

the EU. From the business side, there is not a lot of down sides to

it, but from a personal side there is. Too much money. How much money

do Reekie the EU every year? Billions. And all the problems with

immigration and all the problems with the rules and regulations they

impose on us. That is pretty much how the prime minister feels as

well. He announced if he is re- elected he will renegotiate our

membership to strengthen trade and we can Brussels bureaucracy and

then he will put the deal to a referendum. When that referendum

comes, if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it

with all my heart and soul. what he did not say it was what

exactly he will be bringing back from Brussels. I have come to the

city to find out what is on the wish-list of one enthusiastic Euro-

Isn't a problem with that that a lot of the regulations become quite

comfortable? We are in something of an economic disaster and the root

cause of that amongst other things is a lack of competitiveness with

the rest of the world so we might have to be uncomfortable. They

achieving this could mean David Cameron has to do something truly

historic - negotiate a new EU treaty with his fellow heads of

government single-handedly. The UK has not been the most enthusiastic

for major constitutional change in the EU, but we have gone along with

it. It would be unusual to have a major constitutional debate which

is solely around the status and the particular circumstances of the

state. Not impossible but we would be in uncharted territory. If the

British public vote for really uncharted territory - leaving the

EU entirely - how might it feel out in the cold? Economically, life

would not be that different. We would not be thrown back to the

Bronze Age, but we would pay a penalty, economically. We would be

somewhat poorer for it, and we would be much more isolated. We

would be a less influential country both in Europe and internationally.

Back at the markets, they are a fairly patriotic lot, just like the

Tories, who are now facing questions - will Britain bloom in

the new Europe? Are we heading for the exit? Is David Cameron's

strategy even possible? And the Europe Minister, David

Lidington, joins us now for the Sunday Interview. The Tories led

the Yes to Europe campaign in the 1975 referendum. Tory ministers

signed the Maastricht treaty. Did David Cameron's speak represent a

break with the past? No his speech was about the recognition of the

fact a dramatic change is already taking place in Europe and Europe

will change further. The speech was not just about the situation of the

UK in the rest of Europe, it is about how the whole of Europe needs

to respond to democratic accountability and getting the

relationship right between the eurozone and the others. So David

Cameron continues in the tradition of his predecessors? He made it

clear that she sees Britain's national interest lying as it

continued member and a leading positive member of the European

Union, but a European Union that has reformed itself in response to

global developments and the need for change in -- internally. So, he

is not a Euro-sceptic? Who does not have a secret plot to get Britain

out of the EU. There will be some of my colleagues who want to get

Britain out of the European Union altogether. You will find some of

those people in a number of political parties. The Prime

Minister is about trying to get reforms for Europe that enable

Europe to respond to the challenges it faces and get to a situation

where the British people are comfortable as members. Less than

two years ago, junior Tories in the government including your own

Parliamentary Secretary had to resign because they voted for a

referendum. What changed? What that debate and that vote was about in

20th October 11 was over whether there should be a referendum when

the future of Europe was very far from clear. What the Prime Minister

is talking about is having a referendum in the UK to settle

matters, to get the consent of the British people at the end of the

process of negotiation and reform. Two different questions. Is it

really? Let's look at what you I ask you again - what changed?

is still the case when you look at the opinion polls that Europe ranks

below issues like the economy in people's minds. What has changed...

They wanted a referendum. Are you now giving them a referendum?

Critically I think we do have greater clarity about the direction

in which Europe was heading. In 2011 when that debate took place,

there was considerable doubt including around the continent of

Europe as to what would happen with the eurozone. Were they going to

stand behind their currency and press for greater integration or

not? It is clear now that our colleagues will need further

integration which has consequences for the euro, which requires

further negotiation to get that settled. It is fair to say to the

British people at the end of that process, you have the final say.

you owe him an apology? Adam and I always got on before he resigned.

The you owe him an apology? I don't think so. The debate that took

place in 2011 was over a different matter, over having a referendum at

that time when there was no certainty. We are talking about

having a referendum in the next Parliament at a stage after a

negotiation has taken place. There is no certainty that the moment and

the reason I dwell on this is can you understand why people don't

trust you on the referendum. Now you want a referendum, and a cast-

iron guarantee over the Lisbon treaty turned out to be written on

sound, said David Cameron. No, he said if it had not come into force,

we would hold a referendum. In this famous article in the Sun, he did

not put that caviar it in. He and William Hague have said very

consistently that the referendum was linked to whether Lisbon came

into force or not, and when it did, he and William Hague made public

statements to say that that matter was now closed. We have been

through the cuttings and know where did Mr Cameron make it clear he was

only talking about a situation in which Lisbon had not become law.

They have clear recollection of what he said at that time. What the

Prime Minister's speech achieved this week amongst other things was

to separate the debate about the merits of British membership of

Europe on the one hand from this genuine sense of public grievance

which I accept exists that people have not had their say. Now they

will. There prime minister says the 2015 Tory manifesto will ask for a

mandate to renegotiate powers from Brussels back to Westminster. Will

you set out exactly what the powers that you aim to renegotiate will

be? So Italy there will be in the manifesto a description... It is

too early to say what level of detail about the approach the Prime

Minister will take, but what a Conservative government would take

at that stage. Certainly there would be clarity about the

principles that will inform our approach to that negotiation.

you specify... What is not sensible is for any party or government to

set out in public the full detail of negotiations. For when you

specify in the irreducible minimum of powers that need to be

repatriated before you can say we stayed in Europe? As part of the

process we will be looking at what the coalition is doing in reviewing

all the areas of policy which the EU now has an influence over,

looking at particular what British business says, or whether they

think there is any important things of value to hang on to, but also

where they want changes. Let me see if I can help - this is what the

He will have to wait and see exactly what comes out. It is not a

question of not telling you. well, you aren't telling me. I will

tell you the manifesto for 2015 has not been written. Your party has

started this debate so I do think you owe it to people to give a

general indication. Curbs on the free movement of peoples within the

EU, are they on your shopping list? Free movement is an important

principle to which every country has subscribed. 1.5 million British

people are living or working... am simply asking you a question -

will that be on your shopping list? We are looking at whether there are

measures which should be taking with regard to our own system on

social security and other matters that would curb abuses. The can do

that anyway without renegotiating Europe. Britain will remain open to

immigrants from every country in the EU - correct? We will be

looking at all areas of EU competence, and we will decide what

goes in our manifesto towards the end of that process. What is

already happening is that reforms are taking place. The emphasis the

Prime Minister placed on competitiveness, we are seeing it

in the discussions on fisheries and other matters. They Prime Minister

says he wants the EU to lay the foundations of an ever closer union

It beggars belief, doesn't it, that the rest of Europe is going to

overturn that principle. What the Prime Minister said was there that

principle of a closer union between peoples is often been interpreted

as a closer union between states and pointing towards a federal

model perhaps like Germany is organised at the moment and he

wants it clear that there is an ambition that we in Britain don't

see ourselves as heading towards that. He will not change that? That

will not be changed? It is premature to be pouring doom and

gloom upon the prospects of negotiation when the feedback I get

in my conversations from other governments around Europe is that

there is an appetite for measures that will improve competitiveness

as David Cameron said, and a recognition there is a problem with

democratic accountability. Let me ask you another - will you aim to

repatriate powers of Britain to do its own trade agreements with other

countries? Again, the detailed you will have to wait for the manifesto.

The government's position is that there is real value to be had from

the common voice on-trade that we get through membership of the

European Union. The leverage we get by the EU acting with a greater

voice... Sir trade deals will continue to be done by Europe. Many

Tory backbenchers don't trust you to bring back enough powers from

Brussels. Can you assure them some of your more Euro-sceptic Cabinet

colleagues will play a prominent role in the negotiations? It will

be for the Prime Minister to decide if the Conservative Party wins the

next election who he has in his cabinet. That will be a matter for

him and all of those Cabinet members will be involved in

European policy. At the moment you have people from right across the

Conservative Party and from the Liberal Democrats sitting together

in Cabinet committees working out a common approach on Europe. It does

work pretty well. Is there not a real risk for David Cameron that he

may succeed in bringing back enough powers to satisfy him and to

satisfy you, but nowhere near enough to satisfy your party? And

there you therefore risk an historic split? If ferries and in-

out referendum, only 23% would vote Does polls tend to be of people who

would contact them anyway. I think the majority of people within the

Conservative Party want to be members of a European club, but one

that is reformed, which has more competitive and is more democratic.

It may bring back enough to satisfy you, but not them. The crucial test

is whether it satisfies the British people. That is going to be

ultimately the test. Let me ask you this. If the rest of Europe fails

to play ball and agrees to the repatriation of next to nothing,

would it follow that you and the Prime Minister would campaign for a

vote to get out? We are not starting by talking about failure.

You are trying to kick this question into touch. If you do not

get what you need, we used day out? At the end of the day if the

British people think what has come back is inadequate, they will vote.

You have to take a view. We will take a judgment as those

negotiations go on. I come back to the point that your question seems

to assume that it is Britain on its own arguing against 26 other

countries and that is very far from the case. We have a lot of support

on issues of competitiveness and flexibility. We will see how much

support you have when we see what you get back. Are you happy for

colleagues to say that unless there is a major repatriation of powers,

they will campaign to withdraw? That is a matter for the individual

candidates, but they will want to take very careful account of what

the Prime Minister will say as party leader in terms of the

overall approach. It is hard to see you ever campaigning for Britain to

withdraw. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe Britain's

national interest lies in being a member of the EU, but I also accept

the EU needs pretty fundamental reform or prosperity right across

Europe will suffer. You will not campaign to come about? I will want

to see what comes out at the end of the negotiations and I trust David

Cameron to deliver it for us. sceptics and Europhiles are already

rehearsing the arguments in the run-up to a referendum on

membership of the EU in 2017. If Britain decides to leave, what

would be at risk. At the centre of the debate will be her membership

affects the economy. Some say the single market is vital for our

prosperity. But critics say the exports is exaggerated and the real

figure is more like 41. We also have a trade deficit, meaning we

buy more than we sell and we trade more with the rest of the world.

How much all this is worth is hotly-contested. The European

Commission says between �30 billion, and �90 billion a year to the UK

economy. Last year, the UK made a net contribution of �6.9 billion.

Estimates of how much it might cost in other ways vary widely. One

Business Group says EU regulation costs about �7.4 billion a year.

One study by a UKIP MEP has claimed that once all red tape and all

other factors are taken into account, being in the EU costs

�67.5 billion ear. But the present and previous governments have said

that 3.5 million jobs are linked in some way to trade with the EU. But

that is not the same thing as saying they depend on the EU.

Critics argue there could be a jobs boom wants smaller companies are

freed from the regulation. Joining us now is the Liberal Democrat

Sharon Bowles, chair -- chair of the European Monetary Affairs

Committee, and Daniel Hannan from the Conservatives. What makes you

think the rest of Europe will agree to a major repatriation of powers

back to Britain? I have no idea whether they will and anybody who

tells you with a authority they will or they won't, is deluding

themselves. A like the Europe Minister? We'll only know when the

question is answered. I have spent 14 years in Europe asking people

and the only honest answer is, we will know when the moment comes.

think some of what we require is achievable, but I'm not sure it is

going to be done in terms of we want to repatriate in a kind of

unilateral wave. We can do it in a multi- lateral way through the

normal legislative procedure and we can make progress. But it is not

the British plan to do it multilaterally. The German foreign

minister said Britain could not cherry-pick. Britain is like

joining a football club and wanting to play rugby. If that is the

attitude, then I will be campaigning to leave and I hope

that British people will have the common sense to see we can have a

friendly relationship based on participation in the single market,

like the Swiss, but on the basis we run our own affairs. I would hope

they would be a very substantial note vote. The problem with what we

have done now is we have invited the opposition team into the

dressing room before the game and given away all our strategy, so

those who do not want to give us things can gird their loins and be

ready. But some of it is achievable and to talk about it in unilateral

ways is wrong. Should be a con about this trying to wrap it up in

a grand reform of Europe rather than saying we are Britain and we

want this and this and this, whether the rest of you want or not.

That is what the Prime Minister is doing. He is wrapping it up in a

grand reform. In my view, the important thing he said on

Wednesday was if we cannot get a general devolution of power, then

we will seek unilateral repatriation. My tests of a

successful repatriation would be very different from those that

David was setting egg. It is important we should be able to sign

independent trade agreements with the bits of the world that are

growing. He ruled that out. I think it is critical when we are confined

in this dwindling customs union that we have the freedom to trade

abroad. It is critical our budget contributions fault. They have

wiped out all of our austerities savings. It is critical we have the

supremacy of British law on domestic issues in the UK. Is there

not a danger that if the Europeans treat our request for repatriation

with contempt, or what we think is content, it will only fuel at Euro-

scepticism? The mood music is all wrong. We ought to be making common

cause with other European countries on the competitiveness of gender.

The Poles wanted to do this when they took over their presidency,

but the euro-zone crisis took everybody's energy. A our policy

for 40 years has been to get into their and argue the case and turn

it into something that it is not. There comes a point when you have

to say, we have given it our best shot. Therefore, the question is

are we going to be part of what we are doing? If not, what kind of

relationship? But you are ignoring the changes that have already

happened. If you take the working- time directive, if you look at the

countries that are in programmes because they have got into

difficulties, the structural reforms they are making means they

are having to open up their labour markets in a way they have not

before. Next time round, they are far more likely to be talking in

the same line as the UK. The in the years you and I have been in the

European Parliament, Britain has assimilated more than 3000 EU

directives every year. How many have been repealed? Give me an

example of something that has been returned to the United States?

accept there was a lot of a body of legislation, but I do not know, I

am dealing with financial services legislation. Are you against

repatriation of powers? I am not against it, but if the each chooses

not to have something in a given area, it is automatically

repatriated for everybody. His we talk about it in those terms, we

stand much more chance that if we want to unilaterally grab it back

the UK and never mind what happens to the other people. It is clear

that if the repatriation is not substantial, you will campaign to

leave the EU? Yes. Do you think you will carry the bulk of the Tory

party with you on that you? I think so. That is the current opinion-

poll evidence of the members, of the MPs and more importantly of the

voters, but I do not think that is the key question. The key point is

not whether the Tory party the votes to accept or reject it, it is

whether the British people as a whole do. If 14 years in the

European Parliament has taught me anything it is that people are up

more wise than their leaders and we have left it to ministers to decide

whether the deal is good enough. I will put my trust in the British

people. You are watching Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will be

looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until then, it is

Sunday Politics across the UK. Welcome. Coming up later: The Mayor

says he has an open mind on the impact of carbon emissions on

climate change. What is he currently doing about his and could

a shift of emphasis be on the way? Turning this Stephen Timms, Labour

MP for East Ham, and a Conservative MP for Battersea, Jane Ellison.

Difficult to escape top of Europe this week. What will the Prime

Minister's announcements over Europe mean for London? Good or bad

news? Overall good news because for a long time some of London's keep

industries have been very worried about the burden of regulation

coming from the EU. The fact that for example the Lunt -- London

Stock Exchange welcomed the speech and that his stance is quite

telling. The aim of working towards a more open Europe, competing in

the single market, trying to fight back some of that tide of

regulation, overall medium to long term that is good for London's key

industries. I think it is bad news for London because of the

uncertainty it creates. A referendum is going to take place

in four years time and it means between now and then we are not

going to know whether the UK will stay in the single market. Boris

Johnson has been saying it is inconceivable we will leave, but

now it is conceivable. It is a problem particularly with the

economy in such difficult circumstances. If you were given

one thing that you wanted to be repatriated before you could vote,

perhaps relevant to London, London's economy, what would it be

before you could vote to stay in? would start from the point of view

of wanting to stay in any way. But I would be looking around the areas

of financial-services to seize some rolling back of some of the

regulation. But this is the beginning of a long process and the

Prime Minister is being quite sensible not to put out a whole

load of red lines. The response from Angela Merkel has been

positive in terms of saying, we will work to find compromises. I

think the EU wants Britain to stay in and particular a lot of the net

contributing countries. Aren't Londoners going to take a look at

Labour and say, we want one of these in the referendum, but Labour

are not offering us that? We have not ruled out a referendum. It did

not sound like that this week. is a mistake to be embarking on a

process during such a long period of uncertainty. At a time when we

have to bring in new investments and the private sector investments

from the world, if people are not confident we will continue to be in

Europe, the real danger of losing some of that investment is there.

Two years down the line, do you accept Labour may have to finesse

his position? There does need to be a referendum? The uncertainty the

referendum creates in four years time, that is damaging to the

economy and to prospects for investment. At the moment that

should be the top of the Government's list of priorities.

That is the whole reason for saying this now. The latest employment

figures were seen as encouraging news for the capital. Unemployment

fell at one of the fastest rates in the country, but are they full-time

and jobs to last? Positive news on the employment front with

McDonnell's announcing 400 new jobs in the capital, a figure which the

Government says is part of the bigger picture. The headline

figures look encouraging, unemployment in London Curragh is

stands at 350,000, with the rate of This address the underlying pattern

could be a shift in the way Londoners work. Joining me here,

John Burton, director for development in the West field

shopping centre. Whilst there is this uncertainty, unemployment

coming down. We know that there has not been enough growth, but you are

growing and the experienced in Stratford is that there is not much

of a problem. If it has been a particularly successful example of

what good urban regeneration can do in terms of retail. There were

nearly 10,000 new jobs created as a result of that project and nearly

3000 of those went to people who have effectively not had a job in

their lives before. I read somewhere that the highest ft fall

for a shopping mall, yours have the highest ever? Certainly in the UK.

In the past year we have that nearly 48 million people through

that shopping centre. It looks as if we will do a similar number this

year. Some of that was down to the Olympics. We had probably another 9

million customers. There are your credentials established so help on

this one, this conflicting picture - in high-street stores closing,

jobs going, quite clearly, although the latest data indicates that

unemployment is coming down. Be in the retail sector we are seeing a

slight growth in jobs so it is not all doom and gloom, particularly

around London. The high street has some particular issues. It is going

through an evolution now as it partly suffers from long-term

under-investment. Those facilities are not attractive, but what we

have shown in recent times, the last five years, it is that if you

deliver the right sort of facilities, safe and secure, you

can create jobs. We have created nearly 25,000 jobs. Do you believe

these figures showing consistently coming down, given that we no job

losses are around the corner? are seeing that most of the

retailers we work with our increasing their workforce. So is

the problem construction, manufacturing, other areas? You're

saying there is demand, you are seeing signs of demand returning?

certainly our retailers are seeing an increase in demand. We have had

the confidence to say we will take on another project in Croydon,

providing construction and retail jobs in the years ahead. The tour's

first to acknowledge the impact of places like yours has a big impact

on the diversity of smaller businesses and shops in the areas.

High would have to challenge you on that. Maybe Steven can talk about

Stratford and what has happened there, but the areas around us have

actually grown. Shepherd's Bush, London, similarly the stories of

doom and gloom as a result of investments like ours are patently

wrong. A quick point on that, whether Stratford has had a

beneficial experience. Quite a lot of my constituents have jobs now

that they would not otherwise have. There are some very important

lessons from John's success, particularly with the partnership

with the local council. They have done a very good job of recruiting,

carefully targeting, local unemployed people. We have seen

from the latest figures it is going down across London. There has been

a very welcome fall, but as you hinted there are some complex

things going on in those figures. If you look nationally, there are

more people working part-time but want to work full-time them there

have ever been. Youth unemployment went up a bit in the figures this

week, and the government is now projecting unemployment to rise

next year. It is fragile picture, underlined by the reduction in GDP,

this triple dip we have now entered into. Do you accept it is fragile,

even if you welcome these figures? Take on that point there is a shift

happening here. On the latter point, most people who have a part-time

job want a part-time job. Labour's original predictions on

unemployment have been shown not to be correct in the last few years so

there is a tendency to focus on part-time. The biggest problem we

have seen at the moment in the economy, and the latest GDP figures,

his production is the section of the economy really suffering. There

were some interesting statistics recently showing domestic demand,

they are finding their members are reporting domestic demand are

better levels than for a year-and- a-half, but the production part of

the economy is dependent on export markets. The recession make that

difficult. Her how can we restore confidence? Firstly having a plan

to deal with debt, to help people out of unemployment. Talking about

confidence. The mare was going to be talking about that today in

Davos. It is important. There is a real danger sometimes of overdoing

the talk of austerity and talking about people like John. A if you

look at the growth of the British economy since the spending review

in 2010, our economy has grown by 0.4%, the US economy and the German

economy has grown. It is clear the policies in place, which we were

told would lead to steady growth, are not working. The honest, with

the austerity talk, does that worry you? No, we are satisfied with the

long-term prospects for the UK. We would not continue to invest money,

as we are about to, in Shepherd's Bush, the Northern billion-plus

pounds in Croydon -- another billion-plus pounds. That will be

music to the ears of the Prime Minister.

In his weekly newspaper column this week, Boris Johnson said he had an

open mind about whether climate change was the cause of carbon

emissions and he was taken by the views have some who see solar

influence as most important, or what is the sum that does it really.

Could a change of emphasis be on the cards? -- the sun. Last week's

weather got the mayor wondering. Surely there wasn't this much snow

when he was a kid? He used his column in the Daily Telegraph to

say he had an open mind as to whether common theories about

climate change are right and that we might be to enter a mini Isa age.

This man believes global warming is nonsense. There is no scientists in

the world who can come forward and give evidence that changes in Co

took our causing changes in the weather. All they have as a theory

which doesn't work. The mayor wonders whether it might be time to

take these beliefs seriously, which could have implications for any

policy aimed at carbon reduction. If it is a waste of taxpayers'

money. Carbon-dioxide is good for plants. This is an unnecessary

burden imposed on people and should be stopped. City whole policy is

very far away from that. Boris Johnson has promised to send

millions of pounds to help deliver the promises in this climate change

mitigation strategy. City Hall has a tougher targets for carbon

reduction in London and the government has for the UK as a

whole. London Assembly Greens say the mayor is not on track. It is a

strategy that talks a lot about carbon reduction targets, but he is

not delivering on it which means his heart is not in it. When he

talks about solar flares, he is showing he is not planning for

future generations, not taking this seriously and rejecting mainstream

scientific advice. At the heart of the strategy is insulation for

homes and offices. Buildings are becoming less wasteful across the

capital. The installation work here it should save the resident about

�300 a year of his bills. The mayor said this makes a lot of sense

because it saves people money, but the programme is moving slower than

originally hoped. By April, this amount of houses will have been

insulated. The target was �200,000. City Hall insists cutting carbon

remains a prior -- priority. With me now is the mayor's adviser on

climate change. His climate change still regarded as the biggest

threat to human civilisation? mayor is doing a great deal to

reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the film alluded to some of those.

Is it recognised as the greatest threat? If I would say it is a very

serious threat and we really should do what we can. There is also

economic value in this. Mr Corbett was saying it would cost taxpayers

money, but this has shown that some of the project are saving money and

some of the longer term projects will give cheaper energy to

Londoners. But not meeting the target? In fact way over 200,000

homes have been fitted with insulation by the end of last month.

He you are right on target? A in a time of restricted budgets, it is

interesting to say people want to measure the output. Power output is

way over 200,000. Just because that is not public sector money, that is

a good thing that should be celebrated. In the article he says

his Ford doing this not least because it reduces people's energy

bills, but not a mention that the key aim is to tackle the dangers of

climate change. Sure Lee you should measure people on what they are

achieving. Our carbon dioxide levels are now below those of 1990

and on a downward trajectory which is astonishing when you look at the

population. The figures went up between 2009 and 2010. The longer

term rejection is rather it is going down. London's population is

going up, we are talking about adding an extra London borough

every two years. It appears the numbers are beginning to go up

again but the key issue here would be many people will have seen the

article - does this signal a shift in how we importantly City Hall

regards the need to tackle carbon emissions? At saluting not because

there is potential economically in this as well. But to tackle it

because of the global issue and the dangers that will grow if it is not

tackled - forget the economics. don't think we should forget the

economics. The mare was elected on a jobs and growth platform. The

retro fitting programmes have economic potential. This sector has

grown by 4% and everything else has been stagnant. Is there the same

commitment there was in 2008 to tackle the effect of climate

change? Of course, yes. A book in addition you can see the economic

benefits. Is it because there are economic benefits that it is worth

pursuing this? In a time of restricted budgets and difficult

times, it is fantastic that such an important issue as climate change

can be addressed at the same time as creating economic growth. A what

did you feel about his comments about snow, that we were possibly

entering a mini ice age. It has been noticeable that there has been

a series of winters that we are not used to since he has become mayor.

The official figures show that 2007, 2008 were unusually low snowfall

and he was talking about not remembering such snow since he was

born in the 1960s. There have been a few snow events. People may

remember the first one that caused transport paralysis across London.

We seem to have gone back to the sort of winters we had generations

ago. Would you indicate the mayor of London thinking these things out

loud may mean that he will be $:/STARTFEED. He is bound to raise

that question. This Government said it would be the greenest ever, but

it has not worked out that way. Renewable energy is a sector

weather is a lot of potential and we ought to be harnessing that

investment, but we are going the other way. I think the endless

debate about the science leaves a lot of voters cold. Most people are

engaged by the practical measures. Particularly in difficult times

talking about these issues through the prism of reducing your energy

bills and doing goods makes obvious sense. Very few people write to me

about the scientific debate, lots write about the practical things.

What else has been happening in the City this week? Unions protested at

a fire authority meeting where members have voted against proposed

cuts, pouring cold water on the plans for the time being. But the

Meyer may use his powers to push the proposals through.

A High Court is to review Barnet council's plans to outsource some

services. A contract was to be signed this month. A disabled

resident launched a complaint. The birthrate has shot up by 53% in

the last decade in Barking. Londoners saw an overall increase

of 28%. Labour called on the Government to

carry out a full inquiry that Labour workers have been

blacklisted for major projects due to their union activity.

material included personal information such as workers'

private relationships, whether they had raised health and safety issues,

their trade union activities and so on. Stephen Timms, does this

blacklisting story raise issues for you? It certainly does. In the

Olympic Park and in some other public sector projects as well, so

public money is being used for accessing blacklists. I completely

agree with the Prime Minister on this, it is completely unacceptable

and I think the Government should investigate and look at possibly

tightening the law further. Is it possible and understandable

employers want staff who do not want to disrupt things -- for want

to disrupt things? There was an outbreak of consensus this week and

the Secretary of State accepted the opposition motion and committed the

Government to further investigation. People should not be blacklisted

for raising legitimate health and safety concerns or standing up for

her fellow workers or anything. The Government accepted the

opposition's motion and there will be an investigation. With that,

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

politics next week, but first the news. Good afternoon. A fire at a

nightclub in Brazil has claimed at least 245 lives. It is thought the

blaze broke out in the early hours of the morning in the packed club

in Santa Maria. It was a desperate search for

survivors. Emergency workers and club-goers worked side by side. The

fire, set officials, had spread in seconds, the result of a stage show

gone wrong. In the smoke and dark hundreds of youngsters have rushed

to escape, but only one exit was open. The fire started as far as we

know from some sort of firework display even before the fire

fighters were there. People were trying to make holes in the wall to

help people get out. Santa Maria has a large student population and

it is thought a party with 500 people was being held at the club

last night. The scale of the disaster has left Brazil stunned.

Investigations are now under way to discover the exact cause of the

fire and how many came to dive. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick

Clegg says a referendum on membership of the EU is not in the

national interest. He says David Cameron is risking growth and jobs

by tying the country in knots in what he calls an arcane debate.

priority will always remain at the simple objective of building a

stronger economy in a fairer society and that makes it more

difficult if you have years of tying yourself up in knots. Tying

yourself in knots about the precise terms. Tens of thousands of people

are attending the funerals of 29 people killed in violence in Egypt

yesterday following the verdict at a football right case. Clashes have

broken out between some mourners and the security forces.

Yesterday's violence started after 21 people were sentenced to death

for their part in a riot last year when 74 people died.

French forces in Mali are closing in on the City of Timbuktu. Bases

at Gao yesterday in the north of the country. African Union leaders

are meeting to discuss sending more troops to the country.

Andy Murray has failed to win his second Grand Slam title in a row,

losing to Novak Djokovic. He took the first set in a tie-break, but

Novak Djokovic took the next three sets. Andy Murray struggled with a

hamstring injury and blistered feet. There will be more news at 6

o'clock. After another lousy set of economic

figures, how will the Government get some growth into the economy?

Pushing bulldozers through Tory marginals or offering cheap

childcare for families? The questions for The Week Ahead. Apart

from the jobs front where the news is better, almost every other

metric of the Government's economic strategy is in ruins. Does the

Government had a strategy any more? It looks challenging. They have a

strategy which is the one that George Osborne set out in the

emergency budget. Do you remember those adverts in the 1970s for

Access card, you ever flexible friend? There are two parts to that

is a mandate, eliminating the budget deficit and then seeing debt

falling as a proportion of GDP by the end of the parliament. 1

deficit that is assessed on a rolling, five-year basis, so you

can fudge around with that. On the debt target that was definitive,

but George Osborne said he was not going to meet it. If he had stuck

to the rule of the law, taxes would be going through the roof and

spending would be cut more dramatically. He is using his

flexible friend and he is not being lashed to the mast. When things go

wrong, politicians start obfuscating. Let's listen to what

the Prime Minister said in a party political broadcast. What's the

difference between debt and deficit. Although this Government has had to

make difficult decisions, we are making progress. We are paying them

Britain's the debts. So spot the deliberate mistake. This is not a

party political point, it is a fact, we are not paying down our debts,

debt is rising in this Government. By the end of this Parliament it

will reach 1.5 trillion. When he says that, is he deliberately

telling us a porky? It is fair to accuse him of being economic a with

the truth. His get-out clause is if you focus on his enunciation, he

says the debts, which could allude to the economy's aggregated debts.

Had he said, we are paying down our debts, it would have been an

ambiguous. It is half of a get-out clause. The private sector is

paying down its debts, we as individuals are paying out our

debts, the one that is not paying down their debts is the Government.

Or ordinary people feel things are not getting any better yet and

things are permanently bleak. The polling shows people feel things it

should be getting better by now and they are not. It is the most

politically potent GDP figure of the year because it is the last one

before the Budget. This time last year, we had a contraction of 0.6

that amplified pressure on George Osborne to produce a spectacular

growth measure and he went for 50 pence. Is it going to be more of

the same, or it will be seen some kind of change in economic strategy

come March? I think we will feel there will be some sort of movement,

but I think there is enough flexibility in the original fiscal

mandate for him to say he is not changing a Plan A. George Osborne

is terrified of the credit rating agencies and of the UK using its

AAA status, which it may do. One thing you can be sure of in George

Osborne's mindset that if you muck around with the legality of the

plan, the credit-rating agencies might well take fright. I think

they have taken fright already. The problem with the media is we know

how to cover tax and spending, but what is really important is what is

happening in the bond markets and it is very difficult for the mass

media to cover that. Tomorrow the next phase of the HS2 rail link is

going to be unveiled. The preferred route will see the line split north

of Birmingham, one side to Leeds and the other to Manchester. It

will pass very close to George Osborne's Tatton constituency. What

they are going to do is they are going to say, we are into

infrastructure spending and this is the biggest capital spending in the

history of the universe, except none of it will happen for the

foreseeable future. It sounds quite exciting, the idea of having a kind

of French style train, or perhaps double-decker, whizzing up and down

the country, but we are not going to see this project for about two

decades. It will not provide a quick fix. The idea dates to 2006

when George Osborne visited Japan and got a trip on a bullet train

and concluded Britain needed that kind of infrastructure and that

made sense before the crash. Labour was all for it as well. There is

going to be a third and for a runway at Heathrow Airport, and the

Howard Davies review will give George Osborne the cupboard to do

that. Then, guess what, the Government does not need to spend

any money. You've had the story about the Conservative MP, Adam

Afriyie, that he is going to challenge the leader and there will

be a leadership bid this week. this week, not even next year.

why did you put it on the front page. This is preparation for post

2015. It shows the breakdown of party discipline on Cameron's

backbenchers. People are actively looking to life beyond David

Cameron. Secondly, what does that mean for difficult legislation that

comes up in the next few months and years? Why would you run the story

this weekend? He has never been more popular among his

backbenchers? The Tories cheered a concession for about five minutes

and then went back to their original position, which is

relentless criticism. The only Tory leader to have won his leadership

comfortably was David Cameron and the only when he faces an imminent

leadership threat is David Cameron. Sorry, not imminent. This Tory

press, how and rectal could they people stop the Mail on Sunday

story runs the Adam Afriyie story. The Telegraph and the male are also

running the story because the Chancellor and the Prime Minister

go and have a pizza in Davos. It is an expensive pizza. There is no

such thing as a cheap pizza in Davos. How ungrateful can they be?

They have had their fantasy murmured. But Isabel is clever

because there are mutterings going on and Isabel has got the names

into the open. The name is Adam Afriyie. The brains behind it is a

frank Field. They are former members of the front bench, they

are embittered, they are immensely talented. Perhaps they should be

ministers, but they are not. If the Conservative Party thinks replacing

David Cameron is a good idea, they are stark, raving mad. He is their

best chance. This is what Adam Afriyie says in the Mail on Sunday.

They had it along with the sun on Sundays. This is a very naughty

conversation. He has been watching the Life of Brian. You are being

very mischievous, I supported David Cameron to become leader, I love

him and want him to be leader for the next 20 years. I am going to

end this conversation and he then hung up. That is what we know as a

non denial of denial. There is no plan to replace Cameron and less he

loses the next election. The fact they are talking about this and

look at what these people have in common, they are the dispossessed,

the embittered and they should be ministers, but they are not. I come

to you for some sense in this. Are we agreed there is no chance of a

leadership challenge this side of the election? Any serving Prime

Minister always faces a abruptly 10% chance of being deposed. I

agree, I do not think David Cameron's chances of being deposed

He would be on a farm in the middle of Oxfordshire. Now, in the process,

you have destroyed Adam Afriyie's career, haven't you? He should keep

his head down. The government is planning changes to child care, and

you have just had a baby, you will be keeping a close eye on this.

What do you make of it? The idea is to allow nursery workers to look

after more children per head. I can't imagine looking after six

toddlers. As a mother of three aged five and under, that is quite

enough for anybody. What are they going to do about tax breaks for

child care? There has been a big argument behind the scenes about

what they will do well on our. They don't want to be seen giving tax

breaks to people, well certainly the Lib Dems are not keen on that.

They were only going to be giving tax breaks to have the better off,

isn't that how we would work? said do we really want to be seen

to be subsidising nannies. They are sometimes the cheapest way to do it

if you have multiple children. believe you are about to get

married so this will be an important issue for you. He indeed,

maybe. Paul what do you make of the policy? Of it is lose trust's idea

and she was coming up with these ideas before she was a minister. --

Liz Truss. In the newspaper today there is a table showing how low

the ratio is not grow for how many children nannies can look after,

and the question is can we allow more flexibility into these rules,

and interestingly talking about simplifying and elevating the

qualifications you need to mind a child, which is interesting stuff.

Childcare is one of those issues that doesn't get covered a lot in

Westminster, but it resonates with families and parents up and down

the land. Behind the scenes in Number 10, they are working on it

for the next manifesto because they know there was not a two-year offer

in the way the Labour produced in 2001 with the Sure Start centres

and so on. As a parent of zero children, I can't imagine looking

after six are either! Briefly, have we seen start in the trend of

narrowing the Labour Tory gap with this Europe speech? Because the

economy comes back centre stage and so on, is it just a short-term

blip? It is short term. I think the Labour bounce will soon slip back

to where it was. Short-term, but I think it will narrow in and -- the

last nine months of this Parliament. Ed Miliband's leadership under