17/02/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to The Sunday Politics. The gloves are off.

It is all guns blazing has the parties fight it out over Chris

Huhne's vacant seat. Eastleigh is turning and to one of these British

by-election humdingers. We will talk to the man leading the

Conservative campaign in our top story.

Ed Miliband wants to introduce a mansion tax. He also wants to

reintroduce the 10 pence tax rate. Policies at last, but are they any

good? We asked the man who helped Ed get the top job, shadowed

Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan. David Cameron is off to India

tonight, a space-age military power to which Britain still gives aid.

But not much -- not for much longer. In times of austerity, should we be

doling out more aid than ever, and does it work? The two sides go head

to head. Ten years since the congestion

charge, his London less congested? We were asked the man behind the

scheme, Ken Livingstone. And with me, three ne'er do wells

we have picked up off the streets of London in our very own job

creation scheme. Isabel Oakeshott, Nick Watt and Iain Martin will be

tweeting as if their lives depend on it throughout the programme, and

they probably do depend on it. Things are turning somewhat beastly

in Eastleigh. The old railway town on the south coast of Hampshire is

where Chris Huhne's disgrace has prompted a by-election, pitting the

coalition partners against each other. As always, when supposed

friends fall out, it is getting frenetic. To give us a flavour of

the campaign, our correspondent has the hottest ticket in the country.

We have the Tory chairman in just a minute. Tell us how the Tory

campaign is going. They are working very hard, and they need to because

their opponents are very well organised. The Liberal Democrats

have held the seat since 1994, when they took it from the Conservatives

in a by-election. They are well represented on the local council

and have an army of party workers. They delivered 50,000 leaflets just

yesterday. The Conservatives are fighting back. There are lots of

big hitters on the campaign trail, including David Cameron, who was

here on Valentine's Day, surprising voters in one cul-de-sac by posting

leaflets through their letterboxes. Tory MPs have been told that they

must get on the campaign trail here in Eastleigh at least three times

during the campaign. Their candidate, Maria Hutchings, has

attracted controversy. Some have described her as being off-message.

She made comments about education, saying her gifted some might find

it difficult to get the right sort of education in the state system.

Her opponents have leapt on that, saying she has insulted the state

education system. The Conservatives have countered that she supports

the reforms being made by Michael Gove. There is lots to play for.

The gloves are off between the coalition partners. Labour and UKIP

are hoping to do well, too, as the countdown to polling day on

February the 28 continues, with 14 candidates fighting for it.

As if by magic, we have the chairman of the Conservative Party

on hand, Grant Shapps. He is in sunny Hertfordshire. Your candidate

in Eastleigh keeps putting her foot in it, you are behind in the polls

and the bookies make the Lib Dems favourites to win. What is the good

news for the Tories this morning? Well, we have a candidate who is a

local person. She has worked there forever. When you walk down the

street, people say that did the job club she set up and this is the

cafe she helped saved from development across the road. She is

involved in the community in a real way. She would be a fantastic

advocate for the area. The people of Eastleigh will decide, but we

have a great candidate. By not a great advocate for the area's state

schools. She says it is impossible in the state system for one of her

children who is gifted and wants to be a surgeon to get a decent

education in the state system. Is she right? Well, she went to state

school, as did her husband, as did two of her children. We have to be

responsible as politicians and not try to drag children in two

elections. She was the one who mentioned it. For is she right that

her kids can't get a decent state education? I think she was

answering a question by someone else. Every parent wants the best

for their child, be that Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband or Maria Hutchins or

myself. It is reasonable to look for the best option. She has four

children, and two or three of them are in the state system, so that

illustrates that she believes in it. You are playing a -- paying a small

thatched -- fortune for an election strategist. Why is he doing glossy

photo-shoots instead of leading the charge in Eastleigh? Linton Crosby

is part time. He advises us on some of our campaigning. But we have a

fully staffed operation. The main thing we want to do his make sure

people know we have a first-class candidate in Eastleigh. She is from

the local area, and she is a natural. She does not need telling

what to do, because she goes out and fights. She is an advocate for

people in Eastleigh without instructions from outside. So Mr

Crosby is not involved in that? I said, he works part-time,

advising the party on various things. The great thing is, we are

not the kind of organisation that needs somebody telling us what to

do when you have such a good candidate. Maria is capable of

knowing when to fight against the inappropriate development that the

Lib Dem candidate for voted for in the council and is now against.

Maria naturally knows to be on the side of local people, because she

is one, and fights against the inappropriate development, wanting

it to go in the best place rather than places that cause problems for

the infrastructure. Given that she is such a great local candidate in

your view, if you can't win Eastleigh after the sitting Lib Dem

MP departed in disgrace, then you're a general election strategy

of winning 20 Lib-Dem seats is for the birds. The idea that any by-

election is a determinant of the next general election has been

disproved over the years. I don't know what will happen in Eastleigh.

I agree with your correspondent. It is a tough battle. But we will

fight for the hearts and minds of Eastleigh residents. If they want

an MP who works hard, his local, who fought at the last election and

did not win it, but did not go away and carried on fighting, not

because she is a politician, but she's a regular person who believes

in the area, people will get not a professional politician, but

someone who cares passionately about Eastleigh. Speaking of

regular people, when will you give Nadine Dorries the whip back?

is not my choice. It is up to the Chief Whip. You don't have a view

as to whether she should be back or not? That is a matter between her

and the Chief Whip. As we know, when she went away, it was not on

authorised leave, to go on a celebrity show.

I would love to tell you the answer, but I don't know.

Nick, the Tory campaign, he is not the most confident Tory. But they

have a new approach, which is a Tory candidate who does not agree

with the Prime Minister on most of the issues of the day - Europe, gay

marriage. It is a franchise approach. It is like McDonald's,

they have franchised the Tory plan to Maria Hutchings in Eastleigh. If

you don't agree with the leadership, it doesn't matter. It may work in a

by-election, but that is not serious governance. Remember New

Labour, when they were storming those by-elections in the '90s? You

looked at a disciplined, governing force. This does not look like a

serious force. Somebody said to us that the Tory headquarters at the

Eastleigh by-election was like a scene from a cowboy movie, but one

where the tumbleweed was just drifting through the corridors.

Absolutely. The Tories have a real problem there. It is getting

unpleasant. No one expected it to be an edifying contest, but it is

happening because there is a lot at stake for three of the main parties.

They all need a win. The Lib Dems need to hold on because that

suggests that they are on the way back. The Tories need to win. And

Labour's candidate has put it well. He is rather refreshing. He said

yesterday that he had no idea what would happen, that anything could

happen. You could get a UKIP surge or in Labour surge. It is all to

play for. You have to hand it to the Tories for not choosing a Tory

robot on this occasion. I don't know whether you two have been in

the constituency this week, I haven't. But my sense is that there

is increasing panic in the Tory campaign headquarters. They have

chosen an unusual candidate. There has been a game of cat-and-mouse

with journalists trying to get an interview with Maria Hutchings

which is ridiculous. They are desperately trying to control their

candidate now. You can get a list of all the

candidates in Eastleigh on the BBC website.

The Liberal Democrats like the idea. Labour is now a jolly keen on it,

too. The Tories are not so keen. I am talking about a mansion tax,

which Ed Miliband says he would like to introduce so that he can

reintroduce the 10 pence income tax rate which Gordon Brown introduced

in the late 1990s and then abolished amid controversy in 2007.

So Labour is beginning to flesh out its policies, but will it lead to

them being trusted when it comes to the nation's finances? We sent Adam

Fleming to find out. If only he had thought of a more scientific way of

measuring the public mood. To find out whether people trust

the Labour Party on the economy, we have come to Spitalfields Market in

London, a stone's throw from the City. We will use our mood box,

where people vote with these. The Tory government have done what

they promised. They need to do more for the working class. Do you trust

Labour on the economy? Did you put it in less by accident? Yes, sorry.

Labour have not set out their credentials. I have seen Ed

Miliband say they will reintroduce the 10 pence tax. It is the first

policy I have seen. I will leave my ball there. You have until 2015 to

decide. They have a way to go before they regain public trust.

What about the small matter of running up a massive deficit?

admittedly. But we were heading that way anyway. I don't feel this

is Labour's fault. Absolutely yes. Trustworthy, good people. Is that

message getting through? No. Which party do you trust on the economy?

Do you trust the Labour Party on the economy? I don't trust Miliband.

And Ed Balls... Well. Miliband or balls? Ed Balls? I don't trust him.

Soon the spending and what they were throwing money at, I don't

trust them. What a question! I don't trust any of them. One have

you gone for yes? Because I am a lifelong socialist and I would

never vote anything else. In fact, this Labour is not quite left

enough for me. Take a break from shopping and Total Politics?

thank you! Who is our prime minister? David Cameron. David

Cameron! But he seems to have a concrete plan on reducing the

deficit, whereas Ed Miliband has a funny voice and does not really say

anything. I would like a box in the middle that says, I would like to.

The EU can't say yes? Are a guess so. Doesn't look good. The balls

have cast judgement on the economic policies of Ed Balls, and the

majority of the public say no, they don't trust the Labour Party on the

The shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan joins me now.

Welcome. We note mood box is not scientific but opinion polls are

reliable in these matters. Let me show you this one which confirms

the mood box. It is who is most to blame for the economic downturn? I

wonder why, three years into the coalition, with almost no growth in

the economy, living standards still falling, taxes rising, why do more

people still blame Labour for the state of the economy, than the

Government? I think the mood box and the polls you have, I don't

disagree what they say. I think it is fair that after we secured 29%

of the popular vote in May 2010, in two years and nine months we have

not won back the trust and confidence of the British people.

That's what the speech this week by Ed Miliband was about. There have

been other announcements we have made to show to the British public

that we get their concerns we. Need to persuade them we can be trusted

on the economy and we're trying to win back the trust and confidence.

Let's look at the mansion tax is. This a change in direction for a

party which once said it was intentionally relaxed about people

being rich? One person said that in our party during the New Labour

years. One school of thought is the way to get jobs and growth is to

get opportunities and give it to the those at the top to create

wealth and hope it trickles down. Another school of thought says - if

many do well, there is more chance of living standards improving and

our country doing better. The mansion tax is a good example,

where those who own a property that's worth more than �2 million

contribute. It means we can, for example, make life easier for hard-

working people on lower-to-middle incomes by a 10p rate tax. Are you

intensely relaxed about the redistribution of wealth? Is that

on your agenda? We do believe that wealth should be redistributed. You

heard the phrase, about pre- distribution. You try to address

inequality before it happens. We argued for 13 years about a men mum

wage. What about a living wage so we can make sure rather than having

just tax credits, to improve the poor salaries people receive, try

to persuade employers to pay a decent living salary in the first

place. But you are quite hostile it, would seem to the well-off now. You

would take away 50% of their income, a lot. And then would you charge

them tens of thousands of pounds for the privilege of living in an

expensive house, of which they've already had massive stamp duty. Why

would they feel welcome in a Labour Britain? Why would they stay?

are in favour of keeping the 50p top rate of tax for nbgd earned

above �150,000, not below it. So we wouldn't be giving away the tax cut

to millionaires. I'm not arguing about whether that is right or not.

I'm saying if you were well-off and earned a big salary you wouldn't

feel welcome in a Labour Britain. Most people who are well-off who I

speak to say there is nothing wrong in the broadest shoulders carrying

the weight. So, for example, rather than a disproportionate. A people

lower down the salary scale having it pay for the deficit, by, for

example, cuts in the benefits and public services, we should all

share the load. When Labour last went in for this sort of penal

taxation in the '60s and '70s, the country suffered a massive brain

drain? I don't accept these being penal for those who earn lots of

money. We say for those who earn a property above �2 million should

pay tax towards - which helps out those who are earning �8,000,

�9,000, �10,000, it is a �1,000 band. It'll benefit for peanuts. If

they are on tax credit they'll get 67p a week. It is not more me to

belittle small sums of money. week. When we introduced the 10p

rate, the band of �,700. It went up to �2,200. We have announced,

because it is costed is about... Labour's idea of helping the

working poor is 67p a week. Don't belittle the contribution that a

10p rate of tax will do to heart- working people who are struggling

to pay tube fares and fares at petrol stations. How can 67p a week

help someone struggling to pay a tube fare whose rise is going

through the roof? It would pay for roughly speaking �100 a year,

roughly speaking, �2 a week. Then they'll lose their tax credit. It

is not �2 if you take away tax credits. How will you work out

which homes are worth ��2 million? That's what we are working out. We

would say if we are in Government today we would cancel the tax cut

for billionaires and introduce a 10p rate of tax and introduce the

mansion tax to fund. Do you rule out a revaluation for all

properties? If it meant hard working people having to pay more

council tax, we wouldn't want to do it. The Liberal Democrats have

suggested having a 7% stamp duty on those whose property are above

�million and a third option - revaluation of council tax bands.

Everybody's council tax would go up. That's the concern about that

option. That's why rather than simply saying today - it'll be in

man 23 yo no matter what, we are sea saying we'll do the work and

see if we can afford it and that's our aspiration. Will Labour back

the Home Secretary in their effort to get judges to deport more

violent criminals? We backed the Home Secretary already when it came

to us providing clarity to the judges on article 8 of the Human

Rights Act. It respects a private life. We said the Government that

we supported the Government in relation it making clear to judges,

when it comes to deporting criminals, if they are dangerous,

they should be deported. Soul sport primary legislation? We -- so you

will support them in the primary leg shraigs? We supported them.

If it comes to Strasbourg at the end of the road and they insist we

should give prisoners the votes, would you comply with that? I have

asked Chris Grayling and Ken Clarke on the legal advice they have. We

may disagree with the judgment of Strasbourg and we have been against

prisoners having a investigate for a number of years. What is the

legal minimum we have to satisfy the court, in relation to which

prisoners should get the votes? What I have said it Chris Grayling

and Ken Clarke - show me the legal advice, what is the minimum we can

do, to get away with the judgment that has been passed and let's try

to do the minimum possible. attacked in October, the Government,

for the fact that most burglars don't go to prison, even if they

have previous convictions? Would you change the sentencing guide

liebs to make sure more do go to prison -- guidelines? I think there

should be a presumption when it comes to sentencing burglars that

they should go to the prison. A judge is a person who hears the

case, he or she, sees the evidence and the syringe Timms and sees the

demeanour and conduct of the criminal. You could change

guidelines. The sentencing council, we are part of the sentencing

council make-newspaper relation it the guidelines they give to judges.

We could, for example, pass legislation and say everyone who is

found guilty of burglary should go to prison, but we think judges

should have the discretion. There should be a presumption, if

somebody is found guilty of a burglary on a residential property

they should go to prison. But they don't. The judges could do as what

they want, you wouldn't change that. I wouldn't tie the hands of the

judges. It was just words. No, we have constitutional powers. The

legislature pass the laws and the judges have to interpret them. We

say to the judges, the direction from Parliament, 239 executive is

we take it seriously of the residential burglary traumatizes

families and victims and neighbours. We think it is so serious that

there should be a presumption they go to prison. Why has Labour chosen

a candidate in the Eastleigh by- election who was disappointed - his

word - that Margaret Thatcher was not murdered by the IRA in Brighton.

He is a comedian dem bad taste. He has written a book about this in

the '80s or '90. I'm sure if you asked him if he agreed with that.

You picked a joker. You will have to ask John O'Farrell. He is your

party's candidate. Why have you picked a candidate had said he

wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War? It is probably bad

humour, him trying to be funny but clearly not. You have picked a

joker. We can pick and choose the words of people who have written

stuff in the past. He was a fictional writer and comedian.

He was expressing political views that he was disappointed the Prime

Minister of Britain wasn't murdered by the IRA and he wanted Britain to

lose the Falklands. Why are you picking him to fight the Eastleigh

by-election? John O'Farrell said these 20 years ago in a book he

wrote which was supposed to be funny. Parts of it was, some was in

bad taste. It is funny to say that you want the British Prime Minister

to be murdered by terrorists. Is that funny? Some is in bad taste

but he wrote a book that was funny and witty. If he was here now he

would say he doesn't believe that at all. You have been made Shadow

Minister for London. Will you one day run for mayor? I have no

intentions. My job is to deliver on May 8th 2015 words going round

constituencies in London, Labour gain, Labour gain. Who would you

like to be mayor? I love this city. It is a city I have been born and

raised in. You are a Londoner. Why wouldn't you like to be mayor of

the biggest, greatest city in Europe? I wouldn't mind serving in

Ed Miliband's Cabinet and being the Lord Chancellor and Justice

Secretary proper. You are not quite ruling it out. I love this job.

would love being mayor, too. I love being Shadow minute sister for

London. Let me see if I can deliver what Ed 45 asked me to do, Labour

gains around London. There should be no part of the country, let

alone London, which is a no-go area for Labour. David Cameron will be

spending most of next week in India. He said last week he likes his

curries hot. The main reason for his trip is to boost British

business. The Government now defines relations with India is in

terms of trade rather than aid it. Announced last year aid programmes

to India would be phased out by 2015. Some critics argue it is

premature, others question why the Government is increasing an aid

budget at all overall at a time of cuts and basic services at home.

Susana Mendonsa has been weighing up the arguments.

Packed up and ready to go. This is ok familiar's rapid response centre

in Bicester, Oxfordshire. -- Oxfam's. If there is a humanitarian

disaster somewhere in the world, these boxes get shipped out. All of

these could be used in programmes funded by the Department for

International Development and David Cameron has made it clear he sees

foreign aid as a priority for his Government but should we be

spending so much on it, at a time of austerity? Government's spending

on oversees aid has jumped from �8.7 billion last year to �11.3

this year. That's in line wits commitment to

spend �0.7% of national income on aid by 2013. A UN target which the

UK has now reached. With countries like independentia,

which has its own space programme on the receiving end, the Prime

Minister has faced calls from backbenchers to change force. --

countries like India. The Government announced it'll end up a

financial aid to India in 2015. A decision think-tank IPPR has blamed

on political pressure. But one former Chancellor says we need to

cut back. Because we take the targets seriously, we are giving

more aid than any other country in Europe. More in aid than any other

country in the world with the exception of the United States,

which is of course very much richer and larger than we are. In makes no

sense, whatever, particularly at a time of financial stringency, when

a lot of important public expenditure programmes in this

country are having to be cut back, with great damage to the poor.

figures show that 16 out of 23 developed nations cut the amount of

money they were spending on aid back in 2011, mainly as a result of

the economic crisis. But here David Cameron has

continually defended aid spending. I know that some are sceptical

about our aid budget. But picture the scene: you're in

the health centre in Kinshasa. See the child with a needle in her arm

being injected with a yell yes fever vaccine. That's the

difference between living and dying. -- yellow fever. How can anyone

tells me it is waefs money. Aid agencies like Oxfam agree.

These are going out to help 120,000 people who have had to flee the

contact in Syria. After a humanitarian crisis, dirty water

can kill you this. Technology keeps people alive. There is a concern

that the money the Government is sending out isn't going to the rit

places. How do we know we are getting value for money. 12 million

kids used to die every year from five, now it is down to seven

million. Five million children won't die because of the aid.

David Cameron has put new goals to end poverty by 2030. The debate on

how much we put into foreign aid isn't going away. Justin Forsyth

the Chief Executive of Save the Children and author and journalist

Jonathan Foreman, go head-to-head. Jonathan Foreman, we heard aid

workers saying film there that our aid is saving the lives of millions

of young African children. What is wrong with that? Well, what is

wrong with that, Andrew, it is not entirely true. We have saved

certain numbers of children but the aid industry and the department

trot out large numbers that are improveable, like so much in aid

and that aren't true. For instance, vaccination, which the Prime

Minister refers to, less than 1% of aid budget goes to that. You could

put 95% and still be saving the children. I don't think it is true.

A huge amount of our aid budget goes towards vaccination and girls'

education and training frontline midwives. He says 1% goes. How much

do you say? 2011 I think the UK Government made a pledge of over

500 million over a if you years for vaccinations that. One intervention

the British Prime Minister made in 2011 will vaccinate almost 4

million children and already have saved 1 million children's' lives.

We know it has made a big difference. We had the biggest fall

in history last year in the number of children that do I from

preventable illnesses like do I Vaccination is effective, but it is

a tiny part of the Budget. If you are one of the 250 million children

that have been vaccinated over the last few years who are live now and

have not died of diarrhoea... he says you don't need 11 billion

to do that. We are just talking about vaccination, which is one

intervention. But across the board, we have made more progress than at

any other point in history in eradicating poverty and getting

children into school. Economic growth has lifted people out of

poverty, and that has not come out of foreign aid. Growth in India

that has lifted people out of poverty is to do with home-grown

development and businesses and people making money. It is not

because of the money taken by officials all over the world. As

everyone knows within the aid business, it is a difficult thing

to do. You can polarise the debate, but I agree that growth plays a big

part. The Chancellor made an important intervention today. But

aid targeted on education, health and vaccination is largely where we

spend our money, girls' education. Your view of aid is what we used to

do 30 years ago. Now, aid is very focused on those things and has

made a lot of progress. Eight people have always claimed we used

to do it badly, and now we do it well. We did use to do it badly. We

used to prop up dictators. And you are not doing it now? No. Take

Ethiopia. Take India. It is not just that the Indian government is

not particularly keen on it, but we at DFID put a fortune in to aid in

India, much of what that she -- much of which are taken by Indian

officials. We should have zero tolerance of corruption. But in

India, British aid has made a big difference. Let me give you one

example. There is a man in India who many years ago, with the

support of British aid, helped 39 villages reduced child mortality

dramatically by training one woman in each village to do different

things. As a result of that tiny intervention, those volunteer

health workers are being rolled out of 500 million Indians. That will

save a lot of lives. The point is not that no aid works, the point is

that a lot of it is wasteful and makes things worse. There is a lack

of accountability in the aid business which makes waste

inevitable. How much of our aid budget is squandered? It is

difficult to know, but we have very rigorous auditing. I agree that we

should be transparent and tackle corruption. But if we don't know,

we are not transparent, clearly. Well, Justine Greening recently

suspended aid to Uganda because of corruption. We stopped aid to or

under. There are difficult places, but there are other places which

are to important, like Somalia and Pakistan. Bill Gates says that

cutting aid would do irreparable damage to global stability, the

growth of the global economy and to the livelihood of millions of poor

people. It is far more likely to do harm to the livelihood of people in

the aid industry. There are 500,000 people in the world in this age

business, who carried on without business, regardless of how well it

does and are routinely dishonest about how much goes into the

pockets of the wrong people. If you go to other countries, you will

find that people resent aid programmes when they go into the

pockets of corrupt business people. Has any economy in the world been

transformed by aid? Lots. We have double-digit growth in African

countries. What has that to do with aid? A lot. In the centre of the

famine years ago in Ethiopia, I stood in the market where Michael

Burke broadcast with dying children around him. That is now a thriving

market. The reason those areas have grown economically is because of

roads, mobile phones, health clinics, education. Growth comes

from private sector investment, but the private sector went there

because the government, with eight... The Chinese are building

those roads. The Chinese also give aid of. The tragedy of Jonathan's

position is that just when we are making dramatic progress to reduce

child deaths, he is increasing scepticism over aid. A marketing

tends to treat the public as idiotic. You are afraid we will not

give you the money if you admit how difficult things are and how much

gets wasted. There is an inverse correlation between the most aid

and that economic growth. Somalia, Haiti, and a poor, basket cases,

and they get the most aid in the world. If you look at countries

with spectacular growth - South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, they did

it without aid. If that is not necessarily true. Countries in

Africa that have done recently had at both private sector investment

and aid. I have just returned from Mogadishu, and nearly half the

children are dying in Somalia. They desperately need aid. That is an

emergency situation. If we did not invest in Somalia, that would be a

conflict for ever. We have to leave it there.

You are watching The Sunday Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes,

I will look at the week ahead with our political panel. Until then,

the Sunday Politics across the UK. Welcome to the London part of the

show. Coming up, today, at the congestion charge celebrates its

tenth birthday, we will ask the man behind the scheme, Ken Livingstone,

if it has worked. With us for the duration, the Conservative MP for

Bexley and old Sidcup and Home Office minister James Brokenshire

and Dame Tessa Jowell, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood. First,

it will be a big seven days for the capital's hospitals. This time next

week, we will know the fate of a further half a dozen A&Es. If NHS

bosses get their way, six more emergency departments in north-west

and south-west London could face the chop, are being downgraded to

what they call urgent care centres. The argument is that bigger and

fewer units will save more lives. Is it an argument either of you

buy? There is an argument to say that if you have certain serious

conditions, getting to somewhere to provide the specialist need makes

you more likely to recover afterwards. We have seen this with

things like stroke. That is the approach being taken here. The

question is always about capacity. We have a situation in south-east

London, and I was pleased that the Health Secretary said that Lewisham

would retain its A&E for the majority of people with cases of

need. It is about focusing on getting the best outcome for the

local health service. Can we change quite so quickly, though? It seems

the pace of change has escalated dramatically in London. There are

three things going on at once - the employment of the government's

market-led health reforms, the reconfiguration of A&E departments

and thirdly, in south London, you have proposals for the merger of

King's College Hospital and Guys and Thomas's. That is a lot of

disruption for nurses and doctors. And also for patients. It is hard

to understand what is going on. A&Es have always been the front

door to the NHS, and people don't understand the changes. If you look

at A&Es, if you walk in the door, you will be treated there. Most of

those emergency cases will not be walking cases. It will be the

ambulance that takes you to the most appropriate place. It is the

focus on getting the right care quickly. Nobody can disagree with

the assertion that any departments should be organised to save the

most lives -- accident and emergency departments should save

the most lives. Conditions from which people would die ten years

ago, they can now survive. But it is a question of trust. If you take

the decisions about Lewisham, for instance, where the health

secretary has at about 100 lives could be saved, where is the

evidence for that? It is hotly contested. You talk about the issue

of trust. That is something we will talk about later. But should people

listen to politicians? None of you is going to say it is fine to shut

my any. You have both campaigned on it. Or should they listen to

doctors, who saved lives? evidence should be clinical

evidence. And I think politicians should act as the voices of local

communities, mediating on a proper solution between what may be

difficult factors to reconcile. There has to be that blend of

conditions providing their view. But it is not right to say that the

public or politicians should be excluded from that. There are often

local circumstances. You know your area well. You know the challenges.

It is about a blend of bringing together the public with health

professionals to make sure we get the right outcome. Accepting that

there are financial issues here, some of those PFI debts are

unsustainable. We will hear a lot more about that next week.

Now, it might seem like a daft question, but how would you like to

save hundreds of pounds off your energy bill? A bit of a no-brainer,

you might think, and that is what London's councils are hoping. In a

week, there are launching what they have called the Big London Energy

Switch. The idea is to get a million Londoners to sign up and

then use that support to hammer out the cheapest deal from the energy

companies. But is it the best way to bring down our bills?

Trudy Kennedy retired four years ago. Without a regular salary, she

has had to make changes. The only way you can accommodate that is to

cut back on your heating. I switch off my heating when I go out. And

we enjoy our snuggle blankets. I did wear a hat indoors, because it

keeps you warm. You have to economise. You could cut back on

your food. But the bills have to be met. But today, she is being told

about the Big London Energy Switch, due to launch in a few weeks. It is

a new plan from London councils, designed to help with energy bills

and spearheaded by her local authority, Kingston. It works like

this. At the moment, we all go around as individuals and find the

best deal for our household energy bills, if we have the time and

inclination. But under the scheme, anyone in London can sign up, a

group together and use one huge new contract to get a big discount from

the energy company who wins it. The target is to get 1 million people

involved, and could save households hundreds of pounds. A similar

scheme run by the consumer group Which? took an average 230 quid off

the bills of 38,000 households. Perhaps all very laudable, but

their -- but our local councils the best people to do this? Not

according to some. The air is a big distortion of the market here. If

London councils do this together, combined as one, it is nearly

impossible for smaller groups to enter the market. If there was a

particular housing estate that thought, if we all get together, we

might be able to cut a deal, that becomes crowded out. This is true

of vast amounts of government policy. However well-intentioned,

it prevents more spontaneous, smarter actions growing up in the

free market. Brixton energy in Lambeth. Even on a cold day like

this, these co-operatively owned panels generate enough energy to

power the building. Texas Energy is sold to the National Grid. It pays

for apprenticeships for young kids, advice on how to cut bills and a

small profit for the people involved. The man who set this up

thinks the council's energies which will not help the most vulnerable.

There are vulnerable people who do not have internet connections or a

bank account who will be missed by this. We have people dying in

Lambeth off fuel poverty because they are just cold. Perhaps the

biggest challenge for the England and energy switch - there rain to

get 1 million people signed up by April. If they can't do that, their

ability to drive a good deal will be seriously challenged.

Joining us is Catherine West, who as well as being leader of

Islington council, is also chair of London Councils' transport and

environment committee. This is your baby, and you have a challenge to

sign 1 million people up in ten weeks. It clearly, councils are at

the heart of the community. As we go about our daily duties, we are

identifying people who are fuel poor, those who cannot afford the

huge bills coming from the private companies. We will join together as

boroughs to purchase energy on behalf of people, and then

encourage people to switch to a cheaper product. But for this to

work, you need to get an awful lot of signatures. How are you doing?

Well, this ground has only just come through from the government,

but we hope to reach their landlords for thousands -- we are

the landlords for thousands of people, so we can contact them

directly. We on the side of people in times and we are trying to

assist. We can also communicate with a lot of people through our

housing services. There is something in it for you as well.

Councils can get money out of this? The air is a small management fee

which we will then recycled back into the scheme. The EU will get

�15 for every customer? The yes, and councils will than use that for

We feel we'd have the best interests at heart. All of the

private companies aren't necessarily setting upt best deal.

Couldn't the councils go to energy companies and saying - we spend

money on electricity, do us a good deal? Is that something which do

you? It is something we can do. would strike a lot of people as

that being the best way forward to. Get the big public institutions to

use their power, flex their muscles. We could. We want to give it

directly back to the residents. We have to redus our own bills, of

course, which is what we need to do. We care about people's pockets. If

we reduce our own costs as a council that's not necessarily

going back into the pockets of the people hit by resenges and

Government cuts. What about -- recession. What about what Mark

Littlewood was talking bby councils getting together you squeeze out

smaller projects, and you say - we have more muscle and the energy

companies will deal with you. use our fee to recycle it back into

paying for solar panels. Because we have been hit with Government cuts.

We don't have the capital we need to do the solar schemes. However if

we manage this well, we can recycle the money back into more

interesting schemes around solar panels. Is this a win-win, James?

You are not James, hang on, I think it is ral interesting scheme. I'm

pleased London borough of Bexley is supporting this by signing up to it.

It is a question of how we can ensure ordinary consumers can get

best deal available. I think it's complimentary of the steps the

Government is taking on the energy bill to make sure the best tar

riffs available and we're getting clarity as well as the green deal,

to ensure there is the focus on people being able to take steps to

insulate their home and therefore consume less energy. I will gaive

turn, now, Jess is a. -- I will give you.

Shall Tessa. I think there is a benefit. And there is the benefit

of creating this huge consumer buying power but alongside it

creating a capital fund. Certainly the Brixton solar energy project

has been incredibly successful. It's already won a sustainibility

award. I think that we will see, across London, as a response to the

cuts, more money coming out of the market. This pulling of resources

in order to deprive collective benefit. We'll leave that there,

James. You jumped in early. I'll stop you now.

I need to talk about the green deal. We'll move on to something else,

green. The congestion charge is ten years' old today. The mayor

announced plans it make central London more imprentabl for some

drivers, suggesting a ban for all but the most environmentally

friendly cars, not though, until four years after he has left office.

Has the chdge done the job it was supposed to? And what will it look

like in the future? -- has the congestion charge.

The congestion charge, it has become an every day part of driving

in London. Since its introduction it's raised TfL over �1 billion.

But while it may have been a financial success, hau has it

faired in tackling congestion charge? London's transport has been

charge? London's transport has been redused.

The but the congestion tells another story. Average traffic

speeds in central London have go the slower, falling during both the

morning and evening peak times. think the congestion charge has

think the congestion charge has failed in its main objective. It

was to reduce congestion which is demonstrably worse. The truth is

there is a nice couple of hundred million that the Mayor of London

has to play, with which is additional to the money that they

get from fares at TfL. I think frankly it is an irrelevance now it.

Would be a brave mayor who scrapped it because they want the couple of

hundred million but is it serving any purpose other than filling the

mayoral coffers? No, clearly not. This week the mayor signalled a ger

change. Instead congestion, Boris Johnson wants it make London air

his priority and is proposing to van all of the but the greenest of

cars from the centre? We are setting out a reasonable timetable

for Hague an all tra low emissions zone in London. We have to takele

air pollution. Premature deaths around 4,000 and babies' lungs not

developing properly and there is an opportunity now to be fair with

consumers and the motor manufacturers and set out a

practical timetable. Such plans within the come into

place until 2020. Not just the next mayoral election, but the one after,

that meaning the current mayor could be long gone before cars see

a red light in the centre of London. Jennifer Conway and joining us the

man gave the C word respectability, former mayor, Ken Livingstone. The

man responsible for the congestion charge. How has your baby grown up?

Well people think it was my idea it. Wasn't. It was the business

community in London came up for this. You took the credit. Rpblgts

happy to do that. They came to -- Happy to do that. They came to me

and other candidates to say - if you don't reduce congestion, firms

will leave London. Although it has got worse in the last couple of

yeevers we were down to nine-and-a- half miles per hour. The congestion

charge put it up to 12.5. But it allowed the bus system to get

reborn. It used to be the very poorest people on the buses. Now

all classes are on the buses. it done enough? Could you have been

bolder perhaps at the time? achieved all we need at the

beginning. One factor is we are building CrossRail. Look at the

huge chaos around Tottenham court Road and the other stations. This

is having an effect. This will be come improvement when the CrossRail

construction finishes. What Boris is saying is right, the world is

moving on. Other cities are talking about low emission zones. We now

know far more people are dying of air quality than we thought. I just

think it is wrong to wait seven years when you know 4,000 people a

year are dying. Not just a few months, but on average, 11 years

prem touring. Do you think on retrospect you could have gone down

the pollution liner that than congestion line? We Zwe set up the

low emissions zone. It came in shortly before I lost the first

election to Boris. There were various stages, Boris put one back.

If I won the election last May we were going to accelerate it. It is

not acceptable that people are having heart attacks, developing

cancers and cids having crippling asthma and we are told we'll wait

seven years. -- You were famous for calling the US am abouts doer a

chiselling little brook. But that doesn't seem to have changed. The

embassies don't seem to be paying. American embassies started paying.

George Bush appointed this hardline manufacturer, a motor manufacturer

fromical foreignia. He stopped paying. Now Londoners are owed

about �100 million, I think it is. Is it time they coughed up? It is

outrageous. We were sending young English men and women to die in

Iraq to fight America's wars. Here was their ambassador treating us

with contempt in their own city. Away from the Iraq war - not sure

we are moving to there, off congestion, in terms of where the

charge goes from here, has it got a future? Or, as Steve Norris says,

it is such a cash cow now for Transport for London. �1 billion

over ten years. It is about 1% of City Hall income. There are much

easiers ways of getting money than the congestion charge. If you

stopped it tomorrow, suddenly it would be gridlock again and

everyone wouldcy - you've gone mad that's why. People said about you

when you brought it In Boris Johnson is pro-car. He would loved

to have stopped it if he could and getted contract. He know fes does,

London can come to a stand still D- - he knows, if he did.

Tessa, you can go first this time. I was rude last time. I agree with

Kent. The question with the congestion charge is to what extent

it is a deterrent about bringing cars in and to what extent it is

about dealing with pollution. The mayor has clearly put his priority,

policy on the second of those. he right? Saying it is a waive

tackling dangerous pollution. But I agree with Ken. You don't have to

deal with it it on that time scale. There will be a generation of

children... Do you think he should hurry up a bit before then?

blend on having the issue on congestion and dealing with

environmental issues is an important one. I think Boris is

right to bring forward the concept of the ultra-Low Emission Zone.

2020, that's where the criticism is. The Transport for London has closed

on a consulation with a low emission contract to have

incentives on the vehicles. Steps are being taken already on how we

can incentivise the right behaviour and the congestion charge has made

a difference. It is around 60,000 fewer vehicles going in and out. It

is important to note as part of this and whilst Ken and I may have

difference on a number of different issues and have done over the years,

I would recognise that the congestion charge has made a real

difference and I'm pleased bore sis taking this forward anddling with

the issue -- Boris is taking this forward and dealing with issues

around congestion and the environment. I think the most

amazing thing after two-and-a-half years of the newspaper saying it

was a disaster, it came in and worked. It was a shock on something

that had been predicted. On the day there wasn't a tailback. There was

a snailback a man following you around. Yes, and not all with the

rest of you. I think we'll leave it there on political consensus, which

is unusual. That was the round-up of the last ten years of the

congestion charge. Now a round-up of the rest of the political news

in 60 Seconds. Boris Johnson is taking legal action against the

London Fire Authority after the body refused his order to consult

on fire station closures. He wants to press ahead with proposals it

save �45 million with the closure of 12 fire stations and loss of 18

engines. London's mayor has been criticising for failing to spend

the �100 million proproviding by the Government to invest in the

economy and create jobs. Business minister, Michael fallen has warned

London is behind other cities in its efforts to boost growth.

Passengers using Heathrow can face a rise in ticket prices, if a �3

billion fif-year investment plan is approve. Heathrow wants to inees

charges for airlines to use the airport between 2014 and 2019. A

London council has introduced on- the-spot justice for those caught

spitting in the streets. Waltham Forest said its enforcement

officers were to issue fixed penalty notices.

Now, I was going to ask you two about the 60 Seconds but disturbing

news has reached us of a poll of politicians -- about politicians

this week and it says, no-one trusts you, so I won't ask you. 18%

the levels, what with do we think about that? Are you trustworthy?

always think to ask the public whether they trust politicians as a

collective is too high a test. You can have confidence in the fact

that they are on your - that you hope, I mean I hope that people

think that the Labour Party, that Labour politicians are on their

side. I think people are more likely to trust their local Member

of Parliament. But we took a battering over expenses. The point

with Chris Huhne I think is one Tessa has identified. It is about

the local link about how we are having it make difficult decisions

at the difficult economic times, to Dell with the problems of the

deficit and all those things and how we communicate. It is

challenging. We still have a heck of a way to go. It is about getting

out into communities and being part of it. I think that's where you can

make the difference as a politician, so hold our hands up, that we

recognise the polling. You will appreciate to no, journal is didn't

do too much better. We are only 21%. -- You will appreciate to know.

still doesn't mean that seeking election to represent the people

isn't a good and honourable thing to do. Thank you for your company

this week. We are off for half-term, but Tim is back in two weeks' time.

Now been used. Good afternoon. The Home Secretary

has promised new laws to stop foreign criminals avoiding

deportation by claiming the right to a family life. In a newspaper

interview, Theresa May accused some judges of ignoring government

guidelines which say a prisoner's human rights should be balanced

against any risk to the public. The chief executive of the

supermarket chain Iceland has blamed local authorities for

driving down the quality of food. Commenting on the horse with

scandal, Malcolm Walker claimed local councils gave catering

contracts for schools and hospitals based solely on cost. He insisted

that supermarkets went to enormous lengths to ensure food safety and

were not responsible for the crisis. There is a whole side to this

industry which is invisible. That is the catering industry. Schools,

hospitals. It is a massive business for cheap food, and local

authorities award contracts based purely on price. If you are looking

to blame somebody for driving down food quality, it is invisible. It

is schools, hospitals, prisons and local authorities driving this down.

Police in Nigeria say a gunmen kidnapped seven foreign workers

including a Briton from a construction company. The attack

happened in a north-east state. Police say a prisoner was targeted

first before they caught him. A teenager was shot in his London

last night. He was packed in Clapton. A 52-year-old man was also

shot and injured. He is in hospital in a stable condition.

An investigation has started after a woman was killed by a car

competing in the Scottish Rally Championships. 50-year-old Joy

Robson was watching the rally near Loch Ness yesterday when have --

when a vehicle left the track and hit spectators. Two others

including an eight-year-old boy were injured.

AB dish teenager was lost in the Australian outback for more than

three days says he was on his last legs when he was found. Samuel

would head went missing on Tuesday after leaving a cattle station in

Queensland to go jogging. He lost more than two stone in weight

during his ordeal and stayed alive by drinking contact lens solution.

There will be more news on BBC One at 6.05.

So, David Cameron is off to India next week. It is the Brit Awards

and London Fashion Week, which probably explains why Janan is

otherwise engaged. And I expect that the horsemeat scandal will

rear its head again. If you have forgotten about all the fuss, here

is a taste of it. The committee was shocked and consumers have been

shocked to see how widespread this contamination scandal has become.

Many of his answers contain 100% bull. It is a good line, but this

is a serious issue. Minister has have been asleep on the job on this.

They cannot keep hiding behind FSA officials when they have been

catastrophically slow to act. not for me to micromanage food

businesses, it is for them to reassure the public. I am doing

this interview because it is the first moment I could have done that

interview. Nothing is more important to us at Tesco and the

trust of you, our customers. Every day, I strode a house -- a horse

near the house, and I would not want to eat it. In the Prime

Minister is serious about tackling the problem of misleading labelling

and the contamination of product, what future is there for this

coalition with the Lib Dems? coalition must be clearly labelled

at all points. Isabel, is there not a sense that

the Government has yet to get a grip of this? I see it as more of a

consumer issue than a government issue. Why have we got these things

getting into the food system? Because of our insatiable demand.

We are all guilty of it, for cheap meat. But there is also a danger

that we will get a bit desensitised about here had -- how serious the

problem is. That was quite a jokey clip. I saw a headline a few days

ago saying something like "a horse in school dinners" and I shrug it

off a bit. Six weeks ago, one would have been horrified. It now seems

to be descending into a national joke. Actually, the issues are too

serious to make light off. It's may be because it is as yet, an issue

of food labelling rather than food safety. The country does not seem

to a lot, although it does seem to want to think the Government knows

what it is doing. They week ago, the Government fear was that it was

going to be one of those stories that consumes the Government. But

that has not happened. I suspect the public actually really quite

cynical over this. They accept that it involves European regulation,

the Food Standards Authority, all of that stuff. It is not something

that they directly blamed this Government for. So there is a lot

of relief in the government. Does this story not have legs? Well,

horses certainly have legs, although not when they are in a

burger. It is not the government's fault that some dodgy outfits are

passing of horse as burgers. It is not their fault that there are

these ridiculously long supply chains that mean a company here or

do something, then it goes to France and then the Netherlands and

then Romania and ends up as horse in a burger. What is their fault is

that they don't seem to have got a grip of this. There is one

immediate reason, which is that this is about labelling rather than

health. There is a deeper problem, which is that this Government is

wary of government. Steve Hilton, before they came to power, would

always say, we don't want the Government to be blamed for

everything. We want individual companies to take responsibility.

But on something like this, you expected Downing Street and

Environment Secretary to sit down, work out what they were going to

say, and they have not got hold of that. But I don't see how they can

get a grip of it. A get a grip on the messaging. It is about

multinational systems. You can get a grip on messaging. Owen Patterson

has looked completely insecure. Last Friday, we had the absurd

spectacle of Downing Street blaming the supermarkets for not coming out

and talking. Well, neither have ministers. It has not looked like

they have a grip of the messaging. Of course it is not their fault.

it turns into for help scare, the government is in real trouble.

that happens, Owen Patterson's career is over. At the moment, the

public is not as angry as the media presumed it would be. A let me show

you this headline from the Mail on Sunday today. It is provocative.

This is a Lib Dem policy commission, looking at various ways to extend

the tax. They are even talking about the mansion tax covering you

if you own two or three properties. I am told Vince Cable said the idea

of taxing jewellery is absurd and it will not happen. It is an

interesting direction the country is going in. We seem to have two

political parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, who are looking for more

ways to tax those who are better off. I think Vince Cable is right.

If that policy happens, I will come back on this show and dance the

fandango. The end we all hope it happens. We will have to speak to

Lib Dems to make sure this is part of their policy. But you are right,

the Lib Dems have long been trying to find a way to extract more money

from those of Dacey as super rich. I don't think rummaging through

people's jewellery draws is a way that will work. But 13 years, we

had a Labour government who thought at the top rate of tax should not

be more than 40%. They also worried that if they put it up, tax

revenues might actually fall. But now you have Labour and the Lib

Dems, and it could be a problem for the recession when ordinary

people's living standards are being squeezed that there is a mood on

the centre-left of politics to up the ante on tax for the better off.

You might have to dance that fandango in the end. This is the

direction in which politics is going in the UK after the financial

crisis. It is possible to imagine coalition negotiations after the

next election in which it is Ed Miliband, Vince Cable and others

negotiating a package of tax rises on the wealthy that include a

mansion tax, taxes like this. This is ultimately my problem with

wealth tax, that once you start with a mansion tax, within months

you end up in all sorts of other strange areas that cross into

property rights. I have some bad news. I don't think Isobel will

have to dance the mad fandango, because there are many mad outfits,

and this idea of jewellery tax comes from the body that lumbered

the Liberal Democrat party with their tuition fee policy at the

last election. So there will not be a tax on jewellery. There may be a

mansion tax. That is about the politics of now, not the politics

of their manifesto for 2015. It is the politics of embarrassing the

Liberal Democrats by holding a vote in the House of Commons. It is

getting David Cameron to go on TV and say why it would be a bad thing

for people with properties of over 2 million to pay more in tax. It is

not about what will be in the manifesto. I and Labour will

embarrass the Lib Dems, whose idea the mansion tax is, by coming back

from the mid-term break and put enough motion down in favour of the

mansion tax to challenge the Liberal damp -- at the Liberals to

say, this is your policy, vote for it. That is right. In theory, they

should have a majority in the House of Commons for that. This is

potentially opening up a new political front where Labour and

Lib Dems were working closer together. But when I put that to

some of Labour's spin-doctors yesterday, they were really pushing

back on that, saying that actually, they see the Lib Dems as

accomplices in the coalition. We are not trying to embrace them. The

Tories may take some comfort from that. The Liberal Democrats would

say it is much more significant, what they are doing, raising the

tax threshold up to �10,000 by 2014. All Labour are talking about is

people earning between �10,000 and �11,000 getting about a �1,100 a

year. The Lib Dems would say they have done the heavy lifting on

raising VAT threshold. It is very smart politics. I am opposed to a

mansion tax, but it is a very clever piece of positioning, for

now. Those who advocate mansion taxes can often not explain exactly

how it will be implemented. Because we can't get the details, it seems

that no party in favour of it has done much thought on how it would

be implemented. But the mood is interesting. If you look at the

polls at the moment and particularly the failure of the

boundary changes, at the moment an overall Tory majority by 2015 is

probably the least likely outcome. It could change, but that is how it

looks at the moment. Labour could go into a coalition with the Lib

Dems, and then the mood towards more taxation on the wealthy has

changed. We would be back with the '60s and '70s rather than the '80s

under the Tories or the '90s under Labour. There is a move to the left

over taxation in a significant way. That is a problem for the

Conservatives, because they do not have unauthentic low-tax message.

What is interesting about this mansion tax policy for the Labour

Party is that they are portraying it as the burying of Gordon Brown.

It is really the burying of Tony Blair. Tony Blair said it to tax

with care, because you have to think not just of the people who

will be immediately tax, it is those who fear they are going to be

taxed. There are people in terraced houses in south west London who

will be living in fear that if Ed Miliband becomes prime minister,

they will face �2,000 a month. That breaks the law of Tony Blair.

of �100,000 is a lot more than 50% of nothing. In other words, if you

put it up, the people in that bracket disappear. Ed Miliband does

not think that. Where you are right is that Labour still have a big

problem on the economy. We have added one trillion to the national

debt as a country. We have been running huge deficits for five

years, and it has not delivered growth. And Labour's answer on how

to bring down the deficit is to increase the deficit. That is the

core problem that Labour faces. Nick, you are off with the Prime

Minister to India later today. This is fundamentally a trade mission.

He is going to drum up business for Britain. Will he try and get these

fighter jets that the French snuck in, will he took them out of that?

They are hoping for that, because Francois Hollande was in India last

week, and they failed to do the final signing on those jets. It is

a $14 billion deal. David Cameron will say to his Indian counterpart,

if you have problems on that front, don't forget that the Euro fighter

typhoons are still there. I was there on his first official visit

to India in 2010, when he set a target of doubling trade between

Britain and India by 2015. In the first two years after he visited,

trade went up. Last year, it was flat or even went down, but they

are confident that they are on target. Do you know what he hopes

to come backwards? I am sure he had to come back with a trade deal, but

mainly, it is about maintaining the relationship. It is difficult to

make a case for Tesco at the moment, but they have a real difficulty

getting a toehold in the Indian market. When Tony Blair went to

China in 2003, Lloyds were having difficulties getting into the

Chinese insurance market. It is not worth tens of billions, it is worth

hundreds of billions. And because the Prime Minister went there,

Lloyds were able to get in. So these visits are important.

Our team of eager Beevers have constantly scouring websites for

every political newspaper in the country for for information. This

week we've come up with a corker. # I've got chills mum plying

# I'm not losing control # But the power I'm sploig

# Is electrifying # You better shape up... # We

apologise to people of a nervous disposition. We should have warned

you before we run that. It sounds like he has been inhaling helium.

Why do politicians do that? They don't think anybody has a mobile

phone regarding them doing it. world do they live? They should be

lip sinking. The Beyonce approach would have been better. Isn't the

internet an extraordinary thing for human ro pro-gres. We have come so

far. I -- Human progress. We have come so far. I don't think we'll

see him on the West End stage. Probably stick to the day job.

dare they try to take off Graes. I saw that teletimes in 1978. I fell

madly in love with Olivia Newton John. If nur public, you should a--

if you are in public, you should assume somebody somewhere is taking

pictures. Well, that's it for this week. There are no daily or Sunday

politics next week, unless you are a lucky viewer in the South. There

is a by-election special where some of Eastleigh's viewers will