03/03/2013 Sunday Politics London

Good morning, hoax. Welcome to the programme. After the Tories'

disastrous showing in the Eastleigh by-election, the Prime Minister

attempts a fightback. But he tells his party there will be no lurch to

the right. How is that going down with restless backbenchers? Who

better to ask than Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell? After another bad

week for the economy, we ask Vince Cable if the Government can

continue cutting and stimulate growth. Right here we have the

stale bread... And R Michael Gove's plans for history horrible or just

what the doctor ordered? We will ask Dr David Starkey, who goes

head-to-head with Professor Richard Evans and be -- on the historic

plans. In London, plans to double the

number of journeys by river. Is the Thames a realistic option as a

All that and a political panel offering more fun, insight and

excitement than you will find this side of a post by-election pub

crawl around East Leake with Nigel Farage. It is Janan Ganesh, Isabel

Oakeshott and Steve Richards. So, the Tories postmortem continues

with David Cameron using an article in the Sunday Telegraph to reject

calls from in his party to lurch to the right. The Conservative Party

must stay on the common ground, representing... No, not the middle

ground. This is not about triangulating a point in politics

between us and other parties. It is certainly not about a lurch in any

direction. It's about making the success of these things, in the

most challenging circumstances of any government in modern times,

that this government has set about doing. When the Prime Minister is

in trouble he writes an article for a Sunday newspaper. Did you enjoy

it? I didn't get to the end. I got about two sentences three before

losing the will to live. He can take heart from the fact that the

reaction from backbenchers has been fairly muted. David Davies had said

that if the Tories came third there would be a crisis. On other Daily

Politics, he said that. Clearly, there has not been a crisis. Having

said that, there is something slightly ominous about how muted

the reaction has been. It feels to me that something fishy might be

going on. We need to wait and see what happens at the budget. Maybe

they are waiting at the budget. If they get another omnishambles

budget, it is going to be gloves off? It's either the budget or the

May local elections they are waiting for, I suspect. I thought

the article in the Sunday Telegraph was not scintillating. But it's

called point, that the party should not move to the right, is basically

correct. The ultimate proof of that was easily. You have to remember

that they did feel a stridently conservative candidate. They fought

a core vote campaign. They even used UKIP coloured purple and

yellow campaign paraphernalia. The campaign took place only six weeks

after the in-out speech that David Cameron gave on Europe. It's

difficult to see how they could have done any more to appeal to the

right-wing UKIP vote. And it didn't work. That leads me to conclude

that competing with UKIP on the right is a mug's game. The further

you go in that direction, the further you alienate wavering

centrist voters. The Prime Minister says he's not moving to the right.

The Home Secretary and just a secretary at out of manoeuvres. One

is calling for total withdrawal from the European Court of Human

Rights. The other is saying they will get rid of the Human Rights

Act. What is that about? Exactly, slightly conflicting messages

coming out from the various Sunday papers. You get those quite right-

wing headlines. We are not lurching from the right, that is what is

coming from David Cameron. It's interesting that David Davis gave

that interview with you before Eastleigh. He is a formidable

operator and he would not have made that warning without intending some

kind of follow-up, knowing then that it was likely they would come

third. At some point, perhaps around the budget, there will be a

follow-up from him and others. They are clearly waiting to time it. It

is incredibly interesting, it is because this call to go right,

Cameron has said we will not lurch to the right, as some have observed

today, quite a lot of what Cameron is arguing for his honour the right.

He's off a day in-not referendum, welfare reforms, public service

reforms, its difficult to see where he goes coming after the election.

It's not just the backbenchers that have some issues, he's not exactly

flavour of the month in the party Up and down the country, people are

very frustrated. They feel that the voluntary party has not been

listened to. There seemed to be a group of modernisers around the

Prime Minister that have his ear. We, in Conservative Grassroots,

really want to appeal to the Conservative Party leadership to

wake up and listen to its core membership. And not just its core

membership, loyal Conservative voters, lifelong loyal Conservative

voters, who have been utterly switched off by what has been going

on for a little while now. Niemi now, former Tory Cabinet

minister Andrew Mitchell, back in the political fray after something

of an enforced absence. This is his first interview since leaving the

Government last year. We are not going to go over the whole pleb

incident again. They are saying it is time to listen to the grassroots,

they are fed up? I think they are fed up, the protest A3 that your

panel has so clearly identified in the earlier part of this programme

shows why they are fed up. The question for the Government is if

it is pursuing the right policies. In very difficult circumstances, in

all of the key areas, I think they are doing exactly that. What

lessons did you learn from Eastleigh? That it was a difficult

lesson for the Conservative Party, it's not as bad as some I can

remember. But it was extremely difficult. The lesson that we have

to take away, as any to communicate what we're doing better, and they

are, after all, two core texts which show what this government is

about. One is David Cameron's speech at the party conference last

year, in Birmingham. The other one is the speech that he made about

Europe. Both of those two things, most Conservatives can camp on the

ground that he set out. But these are not lessons, I asked you what

the lessons of Eastleigh were. The reason I ask is because it is quite

clear that if you cannot win in Eastleigh you do not have any

chance of having an overall majority? I don't think by-

elections are a good guide to the result of the next election.

there are no lessons? No, there are, the lessons are that we need to

communicate what we're doing better. The two speeches I'd mentioned I

believe are the core texts. But he said that well before Eastleigh and

he still didn't win. And not just a by-election, he did and when his

General Election in 2010, Eastleigh was one of your target seats. He

didn't win the by-election and your chance of winning Eastleigh is

unlikely and therefore your overall majority is unlikely? The policies

we are pursuing are the overall best policies for Britain. If you

look at the sophisticated polling carried out on election day by Lord

Ashcroft, you can see that, at the next election, in a choice between

Ed Miliband and David Cameron, the voters of Eastleigh would plump for

David Cameron. How deep and serious is the anger? There is a healthy

debate on other Tory backbenchers which will, I think, come to a head,

if you like, at the time of the budget. This is going to be an

extremely important budget. If you ask me, as a former Chief Whip,

about discipline on the backbenches, I think that the party has been

incredibly disciplined. There will not be another omnishambles budget?

I can compare it to John Major's day, when discipline went out of

the window. I think they have been very disciplined. David Davies says

that it is a crisis for David Cameron, coming third? He wants the

Conservative Party to win the next General Election. Well, he is a

Tory MP. He is, he wants the Conservative Party to win the

election and his advisers always worth listening to. But was he

right? I think coming third was deeply disappointing and a bad

result for the Conservative Party. I think has to be seen in the

context of by-elections, as a protest vote and not a sign of the

likely outcome of the next election. On the one hand we had the Prime

Minister telling us he is not going to moved to the right. On the other

hand, we have Theresa May and Chris Grayling saying we will repeal a

hidden Rights Act, we are going to leave the court of human rights

altogether. Is that the direction your party should be going in?

think the news this morning from Chris Grayling, and I have only

seen the interview that he has given, is exactly the right thing

to do. I think the approach he is taking will be hugely in Britain's

interests. I think we must wait and see what goes into the next

manifesto. I would expect something like that TB in it. There is a

story in the Mail on Sunday, that you have been in discussions with

the Prime Minister about a job as Britain's next to EU commissioner.

Is that true? My main aim at the moment is to concentrate on looking

after my constituents in Sutton Coldfield. But he had a chat with

the Prime Minister about this? chat with the Prime Minister from

time to time. But I am not going to do my career planning here.

sounds like you have been talking about it? There is an important job

to do, to make sure that Europe changes in the interests of

everybody in Europe and in Britain. I don't deny that. But my central

interest is to support my party in any way I can and look after my

constituents in Sutton Coldfield. Keep us posted. House prices are

quite low in Brussels, it could be a good time.

Now, amid the Lib Dem sex scandal, the Eastleigh by-election and the

departing Pope, you might have missed what was a truly awful week

for the UK economy. Bad news for the Government and tough times for

the man charged with getting Britain's business is booming.

Vince Cable is in his third year as a business secretary. His job,

trying to get British business and the economy growing again, isn't

getting any easier. Last week, Britain lost its treasure it AAA

rating and the figures confirmed a shrinking economy for the last

quarter of 2012, putting us officially on the verge of one

unprecedented triple dip recession. No wonder, with the budget A little

under two weeks away, he is said to favour more spending on

infrastructure projects. There was some good news. Not the economy,

but Eastleigh, where they hold on to Chris Huhne's old seat. That's

despite criticism of Nick Clegg's handling of allegations over Lord

Rennard. But the Business Secretary were -- is refusing to rule out

relay his party one day, so there could be a silver lining for Vince

Cable. And he joins me now for the Inflation remains high, and the

squeeze on living standards is worse than at any time since the

1920s. Sterling is slipping. The deficit reduction has stalled. Bond

yields are rising. Productivity is slumping. There is no growth in the

economy. The AAA rating is gone. What is the good news about the

Government economic strategy? is good news to set aside that long

list of difficulties. Job growth is very substantial. 1 million private

sector jobs over the last two years. Company formation start-ups are at

a record rate. The areas we need to be, exporting to the big emerging

markets, big manufacturing countries in particular, education

services, there are some positive signs. You are quite right, that

list is a grim one and it reflects the depths of the crisis we are

emerging from. You have said that manufacturing is a key driver of

our economy. But output fell in manufacturing in the 4th quarter of

last year, and again last month. So, no growth, no rebalancing of the

economy. The manufacturing story is heavily influenced by the fact that

a big chunk of manufacturing is construction products, things like

steel, cement and glass, which had been hit very badly by the slump in

construction. If you look at the bits of manufacturing that adhered

to the big emerging markets, like engineering, you have got some very

good, successful companies. overall it is down? Lending to

businesses, you and the coalition have always been talking about this,

that has been going down for months and the rate of decline is even

faster, there is less and less going to business? I am alarmed by

that as well. It is one of the consequences of the banking crisis.

It takes years and years for banks to adjust their balance sheet. One

of the casualties has been lending to businesses. The Government has

introduced a Funding for Lending scheme, which has mainly helped the

Margaret -- mortgage market. The new banks are taking advantage of

it and the business bank will help mending. It is a problem and we

have got a lot to do, particularly getting the state-owned banks much

You were expecting an export boom. No boom, very little growth.

exports fall into two distinct categories. Where we are exporting

to the growth market of Asia and countries like Turkish and Brazil,

we are doing well. There is rapid growth. We started from a will he

base. There was neglect for many years and the more competitive

exchange rate helps but on the other side half of our exports go

to the European Union and they have been clobbered by the crisis there

and we have been hit. But in terms of restructuring the economy, it

has to come through exports and it is proving pretty... I was looking

at comparative figures, both the dollar and sterling have seen a 30%

declin since 2006. But American exports over that time are up 70%.

Ours are up 10%. They have actually started to slowdown in recent years.

It's a pretty terrible record. is. I think the fact is this over a

decade-and-a-half, partly because of an over-valued exchange rate,

but for more complex reasons, British companies and the

Government at the time took their eyes off the big growth markets. We

fell horribly behind not just Germany and the US but also

countries like France and Italy and rebuilding an exporting

infrastructure is a major challenge. We are actually doing it. We are

putting in place better trade finance facilities. My department

has a whole lot of new products we are trying to help exporters with

and putting effort behind trade promotion but you pose the

challenge rightly. Here, over two- and-a-half years into power with

this coalition, in your particular area, we have manufacturing in

decline, lending to business in decline, sterling in decline, but

no export boom. It's a remarkable catalogue of failure for a Business

Secretary. Not at all. As I said, there are some very positive things

happening. Exports to emerging markets, rapid job growth in the

private sector, lots of private companies being established and a

lot of entrepreneurial activity but we have deep-rooted problems and

the kind of things I'm responsible for, the long-term issues which is

why we're building an industrial strategy working over the long-term

working with our industries, investing in skills and

apprenticeships, science and innovation. They take a long time

to mature. Let's look at what Nick Clegg said on this. To see what you

Do you agree with him? Is he right? Yes, and I have said that many

times. And yet for all the talk up there and I have seen you say it

too, for extra infrastructure spending, it's still in decline.

Public investment was �50 billion a year when you came into power. Last

year it was �28 billion. Almost half. Next year it will be �25

billion and then in the next couple of years it falls to �22. So you

talk about it, but it continues to fall. The decline from �50 billion

which you refer to, came from the fact that there had been a big

burst of infrastructure spending in the middle of the financial crisis

which was rightly the right thing for Alistair Darling to have done

but he then slashed capital spending by half and we have been

living with the legacy. You have kept with that, you haven't changed.

You are not learning Mr Clegg - Mr Clegg said we need to learn from

that. But under your coalition's plans, infrastructure spending

continues to fall year after year? I think in the Autumn Statement

last year we went some way to correcting that. Big capital

investment in things like science and universities. But, we need to

do a will the more. This is the area where the Government, through

the Budget and subsequently now has to focus, getting capital spending

going. Big infrastructure projects take years to get off the ground.

You cannot just press a button but you have to do it. You say you are

doing it. These are the figures from the Treasury public finances

data bank dated 225th February. Public spending -- 25th February.

Public spending on infrastructure will go from �25 billion next year

to �22 billion by 2015-16. For all your talk, it's still declines.

Well that has to be reversed. it in the Budget? My colleagues in

the Government will be arguing very strongly for a much heavier

emphasis on capital spending and infrastructure and getting big

products moving. Is the Chancellor listening? I think he is. He is

heavily involved in it. We've identified 40 big infrastructure

projects. The obstacles to getting them off the ground - partly about

funding because PFI has collapsed in the funding crisis. A lot of

physical and training problems. If you are doing tunneling, you have

to train engineers it, takes time. Exactly. If you are only talking

about that and not got to the stage of spending, this kind of

infrastructure spending can bring no relief to the current state of

the economy it. Won't get us out of the stagnation this year or next?

Well there are different kinds of capital spending. The kind of

things I'm doing in our department, for every �1 put forward by

universities from their own money, we get from private sector, we

match it. That happens quickly. There are road projects which

involve maintenance rather than big construction which can be moved

quickly. We have to get that moving. If you were honest with us, you are

deeply disappointed by what happened in this field, aren't you?

Yes, I am. I think we should be doing a lot more and that's where

the focus has to be now. Your department isn't ring-fenced when

it comes to spending cuts. Should health, education and everseas aid

remain fing-fenced? -- overseas aid. I have been critical of fence 46

fencing, but I accepted the policy. My colleagues agreed we would do a

ring-fencing approach in this Parliament. That's what we're

committed to and I'm living with it and delivering substantial cuts in

my debt. But I think in general it is not a good approach in the long-

run. Are you up for any more cuts or due feel, as fillip Hammond the

Defence Secretary said this weekend, that he doesn't want any - Philip

Hammond. He is what we now call the National Union of Ministers. Are

you a member? I think I have been fingered as the shop steward. There

is a very strong argument, if we are interested in greth and

recovery, for investing more, not less in skills, science and

innovation. -- growth. I will make that case in Government. There was

a sting with what Mr Hammond had to Do you agree with that? If I was

trying to help Philip Hammond with his Budget, I would sympathise with

him not wanting to cut front-line troops which if you trapped the

Trident missile, which my side of the coalition argues would make

significant savings. What about the welfare spending being further cut?

I think it would be very difficult to go further down that road. My

party has argued that there are elements of universial benefit that

we should perhaps be looking at. All right.

You wrote to the heads of the big FTSE firms - excuse me - that men-

only boardrooms should be a thing of the past. They had them. You

urged them to redress the gender balance, telling them to change the

paternalistic culture, urge a significant female presence. A bit

rich given your party's own record on women? Well, the matter did not

the complaints about Lord Rennard very well. We acknowledged that and

that's why we set up inquiries to investigate what happened and how

we improve the procedure it. Wasn't good practice. I'm particularly

concerned that the women that were affected by it, do feel that they

get proper treatment. We have to address that. No it wasn't a good

example. As far as women on boards is concerned, that is a separate

issue, but a very important one. The more women there are in top-

decision-making the better. Your own female MPs, own 12% of Liberal

Democrats are female. Many in vulnerable seats. The Tories are

are better at 16%, Labour better at 33%. It is a bit tough to lecture

boards, when your own party is hardly in the van grd? No, we are

not. We have to do more. I think you will find in terms of our

candidates in our existing winnable seats next time, we are going to do

much better. It is not a great record. We acknowledge that. We

have to do more. Last week you sin cysted that Nick Clegg knew nothing

-- insisted. That Nick Clegg knew nothing specific or unspecific

about the allegations of Chris Rennard. Within 12 hours it was

proved wrong. Who misled you? told that he didn't know about the

specific allegations. Who told you? Well I talked to his team about it.

I was actually asked what I knew. I knew nothing and I wasn't involved

at any stage but I did add that because his team had informed me

that he didn't know anything about the specific allegation. And that

remains the case. His office misled you? No, they didn't mislead me on

that. They said he didn't know anything... You said he knew

nothing but he knew something. it is about general issues. Hes a

acknowledged that. At that point, it was - was he aware at all about

allegations about Mr Rennie, Chris Rennard, you had been told he

wasn't, and he was. I was told he wasn't aware of specific

allegations but this whole question of who said what to whom? It is be

an important question. That's why we have set up an inquiry to get to

the bottom of it, rather than apportioning... I understand, but

as you know Nick Clegg said he knew about allegations way back in 2008

that Chris Rennard was told to "stop it now" and it is now even

being said that Mr Clegg's office this it was a reason why he was

encouraged to step down. Why didn't he single him at the 2009

conference. Let's hear what he had to say: I would like to pay my own

tribute to Chris. Chris, I can honestly say, if it wasn't for your

guidance and encouragement, I wouldn't have been elected as an MP,

let alone now be leading the party. And if it wasn't for the Rennard

School of Campaigning, this would not be a party ready to transform

British politics, ready to win, winning already.

Now given what Mr Clegg now tells us he knew at that time, what does

that sort of econium send to the women who made the allegations, or

the people who'd heard the allegations? Well, those women are

very hurt by what has happened and felt the matter was not properly

dealt with and they are right. is being heaped on Chris Rennard,

the praise. He was praising his record as a campaigner. He was a

brilliant campaigner. That's separate from personal conduct in

the office. That has to be properly investigated. After Eastleigh is

Nick Clegg's leadership safe? nobody is diveg. He'll lead the

Liberal Democrats into the general election at 2015? If he wishes to,

I'm sure he will. That's the assumption. He does, does that mean

you have to abandon all hope of being leader? I can see this side

of the election you are probably the major contender to take over if

he was to step down. But post-2015 they'll likely turn to a new

generation? Probably. I'm not helping or planning to be the

leader. For logical reasons, I don't rule it out. If he falls

under a bus, there will be people who will be looked at. It is not

something I'm hoping, conspiring or competing to do. He is safe in his

job and he is getting on with it. Thank you for being on the Sunday

Politics. Now, how's your history? When you hear the words "William of

Orange", do you think of an invading Dutch monarch or the

Foreign Secretary after a trip to the tanning salon? And are you a

bit sketchy about the Reformation but think it might have something

to do with Robbie Williams going back to Take That? Well, it's a

good job Michael Gove is on the case. He has plans to change the

way we teach history in schools in England. But what are they and will

they work? Susana Mendonsa's been back in time to find out. This is

school, Victorian-style. These nine and ten-year-olds are on a day trip

to London's ragged school mue zem but in the future kids this young

won't have to be caught about the Victorians because the way we teach

his industry changing. -- Ragged School Museum. Now we are doing

spelling. Excellent. Well done. So what cooks for these kids?

like the Romans. I really like the Romans.

I did like the Great Fire of London. The Egyptians.

Sit up. Yes, pay attention. The Egyptians

are not on the new curriculum but the Romans are and there will be

more focus on chronology and knowledge. But why? There is a

perception, which I think is real, that children are leaving school

without a deep knowledge of the chronology of British history and

the history of countries that are important to this country. They

tend to repeat the same periods of history over again, the Tudors and

then the Second World War. I think children need to understand the

whole of our history if they are One attempt to get children

interested has been Horrible Histories. The programme's

historical consultant thinks that the Government's curriculum might

struggle to engage their minds. feels a bit like a 19th century

rote learning type of scholarship. It's all about absorbing facts that

are flown at them, rather than communicating with children.

will learn by repetition, repeat, repeat, repeat. Remember, remember,

remember. Back in Victorian times it was all about rote-learning, the

idea Ross repeating facts again and again until it stuck in your head.

Critics of Michael Gove's plans think he is heading back in that

direction. Supporters think the balance has tipped too far the

other way. The 70s array move away from textbook based teaching in

private schools. According to Nick Gibb, secretary schools began to

focus more on skills and knowledge in 2007. But how much do these kids

know? The Spanish Armada, what here today attack England? I seriously

doubt no! The who was the Queen at the time? Queen Victoria. Who was

Brunel? I'm just guessing. Maybe a Queen? Do you know what the Magna

To be fair, a few adults out there will not know the answers to those

either. So, his Michael Gove right or

wrong? Dr David Starkey and Professor Richard Evans joined me

Richard Evans, what is wrong with what Michael Gove is proposing?

There are lots of things wrong with what he is proposing. First of all,

it's his a very personal plan he has brought up. It was a large

consultation exercise, consulting teachers. He pushed that all to one

side. Many of these historical organisations, conservative

teachers who are used to teaching in schools, they are absolutely

horrified. It is a very amateur set of proposals. It is just teaching a

chronicle. There doesn't teach the kind of historical skills that you

need to analyse the past, to make up your mind. It is shoving facts

down schoolchildren's throats without giving them a chance to

debate and make it they remind. What say you? I think there are two

problems with what Richard has just said. We have seen from those clips

their the staggering level of ignorance. University Challenge, a

question on 1688, it got an answer from one good student at Bangor,

the monarch involved was Elizabeth I. From another even brighter

student, a medical student at UCL, that it was William the first. Out

by 600 years. That is a problem. Richard does not seem to think it

is. There is evidence of an extraordinary evacuation of basic

historical knowledge. He talks about debate and criticism, you

cannot debate unless you know. This whole skills approach has got it

the wrong way round. I think there is something much more

fundamental... Before you go on, can I get your reaction to that?

You need to know the facts before you can analyse them? No, Michael

Gove is preparing kids to do well in a pub quiz or come top in

Mastermind. The curriculum is not about teaching them to understand

and analyse history. The facts do not come first. They come together

with the interpretation. They both belong together. I absolutely agree

that factual knowledge is important. When should it be taught? It should

be taught in an age appropriate way. Michael Gove is posing to get

seven-year-olds to understand early medieval history, he wants ten-

year-olds to be up to understand the Magna Carta. He wants 11-year-

olds to understand John Locke, for goodness sake. Having a whole

chronology of basic history, from five to 18, starting at the present,

is not going to work. I will interrupt him, the problem is that

the current curriculum, which Richard is defending, is wholly

dishonest. He talks about the need for debate, the need to question

everything. Richard, should schools be questioning and debating the

Holocaust or should they be presenting it as moral fact? That a

really good point. The new curriculum says that the children

have to learn that the unique evil of the Holocaust. Now, there are

several problems with that. First, it is a moral and not historical

approach. Secondly, the uniqueness. That is wholly controversial.

is exactly what is going on now. I have never heard a single debate in

school on the issue of the Holocaust. It is taught as a moral

absolute. It should be taught as an historical issue. We are agreeing!

How can you understand it without knowing something about the history

of anti-Semitism? How can you understand it without knowing

something about Germany? Germany does not appear in this entire...

You said you were going to drop out. Come on, I am taking you at your

word. Let's take another point. You said you disliked myths and hero

worship. Why do we have Mary Sicko there? Have you looked at the text?

They describe a fashion that is clearly designed to make her the

antithesis. Do you remember Diane Abbott saying we do not want blonde,

blue-eyed women in the National Health Service. She's being

referred to as the patron and heroine of these nurses. The

current curriculum is affected by current political concerns. And she

is in the new curriculum. What they need to be taught to do is to look

at somebody like that and asked difficult questions about them. The

new curriculum does not combine historical thinking more skills on

the one hand with the facts. It just has the facts. We are now

agreeing that the current curriculum, it has fundamental

problems? No, no, you are generalising. I have ever seen any

evidence in any of the teaching materials that there is any debate

on her at all. You get the final word, seeing as he has said a lot.

The current curriculum does a narrative of British history from

the age of 11, up to the age of 14. Let's remember, this is up to the

age of 14. There is another bunch of problems about 14-16, 16-18. But

it is centred on a narrative of British history, it combines that

with skills and it has some world history and European history. That

is why the new one is absolutely missing that. You have a whole

generation leaving school without knowing anything about any other

country. It really is wrong. The campaign for the current curriculum,

it was headed by a list of signatories with Jesse Jackson at

the top. It is politically and left-wing skewed and quite

deliberately so. It is a product of the last government and it needs

demolishing now. We shall see how many viewers have ever heard of

her! There is a good reason they haven't. The U-boat get 100 lines

for a overrunning. -- you both get 100 lines for overrunning.

The coming up: I will be looking at the week ahead with our political

panel. Until then, the Sunday Hello, welcome from others. This

week, we will be talking about how to make more of the river as a

regular form of transport. A little later, these are difficult times

for councils with difficult decisions to make. Our counsellors

trained and paid and have to do the job? Mark Field and Diane Abbott

out with me today. Welcome to both. A quick word on ECT kick-off with.

Mark, you are a well-known Tory plot there. Does this bring forward

the day when you consider installing the extra phone lines in

your Westminster pad? Obviously a very disappointing result for the

Conservatives. We would have liked to have done better. The important

thing from the party's point of view is to not lose our nerve.

Let's have a proper postmortem. Obviously we have to move on from

that. When were you have that postmortem? The urgent meetings you

have been having around Adam Afriyie and everything else?

think that is taken as read. But much more importantly, the party

needs to discover on the ground where things went wrong. Clearly,

this is a must-win seat at the next General Election, given the

boundary changes are not going to happen. One of the disappointments

is the search for UKIP. It was felt that David Cameron had rather put

this issue to bed. The idea was that we had rather shocked the UKIP

Fox by having that talk about a EU referendum. Clearly, that has

backfired. Do you think you are now more write about thinking for the

future and you need to look for someone else as a leader?

future thought is simply if the coalition doesn't blast and we are

back in opposition in 2015, clearly there will need to be a fundamental

change of direction and where the Conservative Party does. Are we a

bit closer to that? It is going to be made the 15th. My view has

always been that this coalition will always last right through. We

have some very difficult issues that have to be faced, particularly

in relation to the economy. I think the public want see a government

pushing the national interest. do we turn Labour into a party that

is more than one nation north of Watford? No, no. East the was a

difficult city for us. I don't dig we have ever held it. But we never

expected to come higher than third or 4th. It would be unreasonable to

expect anything else. Really? It was not long ago that you well, you

had the UKIP thing. What worries me about them doing so well is that

they will drag the centre ground towards them on issues like

immigration and Europe. I don't In several parts of London,

detectives working at the specialist unit dealing with sex

crimes, allegations that they tried to persuade victims not to pursue

complaints. What did you feel about that? I thought it was very

shocking. We have one of the lowest rates of conviction for rape in

Europe. Less than one in 30 rape victims can expect to have their

crime cleared up. It shows a pretty rotten attitude to what is a

serious crime. Mark Field, satisfied that the practice is not

going on across London now? totally satisfied I'm afraid, no.

In a more trivial way, the evidence of what has happened with the

Liberal Democrats and that Lord Rennard fear or is the fact that

you cannot push up any of these sorts of issues. -- furore. The

public demand transparency, that is expected of the police and I hope

we will get to the bottom of that. Why aren't more people travelling

to work by river? This week, the mayor announced plans to double the

number of river journeys by 2020. But his travel by the Thames likely

to remain mainly for tourists, as the cost and time of journeys rules

it out as a genuine commuter option?

It last year's Jubilee was a reminder of the time when the

Thames was the busiest waterway in the world. On a normal day, it is

more likely to look like this. But the Met wants that to change, this

week announcing his plan to double the number of journeys on the river

by the end of the decade. In order to do that, he has pledged �10

million. Part of that is going to go on three new piers and he also

wants better information from people so they know when they are

going and how long it is going to take until the next service comes

along. But could he be doing more? A report by the London Assembly

said that for people to really treat the river as an alternative

type of transport, it needs to be marked as one on the Tube map, a

recommendation he has not adopted. Every mode of transport is really

at capacity in London. We are looking at increasing capacity on

the Tube and the rail. If we can make it like a tube line, carrying

12 million passengers a year, it will help other motor transport and

transform the river into a genuine mode of transport. But is the

Thames ready? According to the Policy Exchange, millions of extra

journeys on the river could lead to something like chaos on the water

without air traffic control style management. Again, that is absent

from the mayor's plant. At the moment there is an disruption and

that would get worse. It's important to think about some kind

of air traffic control system to make sure you have a steady flow

and less disruption. As an alternative to the Tube and buses,

it certainly fails at one count, Speed. A morning commute from North

Greenwich to London Bridge takes 34 minutes. On the Tube, it is just

nine. For tourists, that is less of a problem. City Cruises are the

largest tour operator on the river. They think too much focus is

sometimes put on commuter services as opposed to tourism. Cruising on

the river is an experienced. It is wonderful. We have three World

Heritage Sites, we have 50 attractions you can view from the

boat. It is that message, that messaging that needs to get out.

fact, the figures in this week's action plan show City Hall expect

the increase in travel to come more from tourist services than

commuters. Those hoping the Thames can be transformed into some kind

of Tube line that will have to wait a little on their guard. -- a

Joining me is Richard traistyi, the mayor's river ambassador. --

Richard traistyi. Is it price, or time? A lot of people are keen to

use it. Upstream to Putney there has been a skeleton service. That

will be changed from the 2nd April. Otherwise, I don't think people who

want to use the river are too put off by the price. It's not actually

that much more, really. It is double, stpbt? It is excluding low

earners? -- isn't it? The people who say they want to use it, who

live by the river, in fact, you know, low earners can get, if they

wanted to use it, they can get season tickets. They certainly get

reductions by having Oyster or travelcards. The make a point, the

people living by the river, we know the people living close to the

river in piers, in nice flats. Is that what this service, you hope

will develop into, something for the quite well-off? Not entirely.

We want to see everybody using it. It is focused on that. If you let

me finish the answer, the fact is that there are people living by the

river, who most definitely do want to use it. They maybe, as you have

described them. Quite well-off. But other people, too. Indeed old age

pensioners, who have the Freedom Pass will actually have half the

price that other people will have and then, of course, fll be -

anybody who wants to use it, -- there will be. - anybody who wants

to use it regularly, season tickets give enormous reductions. The issue,

as everyone accepts, is interconnectivity, how do they get

towards needing the bus or other form of transport to get to the

river first? And all the information tying up. That is all

part of the river strategy. TfL. Now that they have a river strategy,

which of course they didn't before but now that they do, we will be

working on signage. We will be working on connectivity and as was

mentioned into the film, we'll certainly be working on

incorporating the river transport into the London travel map, along

with the underground lines. Are you optimistic or do you believe this

could become a genuine alternative mode of transport a serious one,

taking numbers away from other forms? I am optimistic. One of the

models we've looked at it some depth is the Brisbane river in

Australia, a windy river like the Thames and ten million people use

the boats there, similar boats. Similar catamaran form of boat.

Going forward, what we want the river to do is to relieve some of

the other services. Where I'm a member, in Wandsworth particularly,

very long river front, actually the underground service going along the

line of the river isn't particularly good. Its mainline

trains or buses and it would relieve the buses -- it's mainline.

Why a promise of this by 2020? The mayor won't be around then? What

can we see while he is still mayor? He is looking forward, to have a

plan. What will happen over the next four years while he is mayor,

rather than looking so far ahead? In the last four years, when he is

mayor, the use of the river has gone up by 25%. Pretty significant.

He did decide, in 2008, with a certain amount of cajoling from the

likes of me, that it was a good idea. So, we have worked hard and,

you know, as I say, this is, really, a landmark moment, to get TfL to

have a river strategy that they didn't have before. It was all

buses and underground and roads and so on. Now they have their eyes on

the river. Diane Abbott dou, believe this will unlock it,

without more subsidy. -- do you believe? Lots of people have hope

that we'll turn it into a thriving mode but it hasn't happened. I have

heard people say they are going to turn the river into the equivalent

of the Central line for years and it doesn't happen. It doesn't

really serve communities and taking them where they want to go. If you

are in Hackney the river is not going to take you to work in the

City or West End. This is another Boris gimmick like his blessed zip

wire. That was a one-off. You mean the

cable car. The cable car. Yeah. Introducing a permanent zip wire

across - there is an idea! Would you run away and play with that

one? Well, people have suggested it. Do you think this is a gimmick?

don't. I think some parts have been a success. To be honest, it is

never going to be a mass transit option, partly because of tides and

the pure volume, compared to looking at how many people are on

the Tube going down the District line. Millions a day. You have to

go around the Isle of Dogs to go from North Greenwich to London

Bridge, it is slightly unfair it make that comparison. I think it is

a leisurely form of transport. I love going by boat. It tends to be

something I do at the weekends with my children going to Greenwich,

rather than something I will do on a dilly basis. It is not commuter

challenge. - Daily basis. Who knows, perhaps we can see improvements

soon. London has 1,00 local councillors much it is a tough job

at the moment for those who take their duty seriously. -- 1,800.

There are tough decisions on spending to take and to make to

voters Rthey paid enough and skilled enough?

Most of us will know, more or less, what we get out of our local

councils? Such as lending us book, emptying our bins and comparing for

the elderly. Perhaps less familiar is the work of councillors, they

man the meetings and committees on town halls but do you know how

diligently they work? Sunday Politics London has contacted all

London authorities about their councillor's attendance records.

Most attend well but some councillors do much worse,

attending half of meetings or less. Brent has two councillors who have

done just that since May 2010. In Hounslow it's three, and two

boroughs with directly-elected mayors, Hackney and will you I

shall ham have four. Last week, a Lewisham councillor was forced to

resign after attending just one meeting in the last six months, the

statutory minimum. They are paid a basic allowance which is topped up

if they take on extra responsibilities, such as chairing

a committee. In London the basic rate varies from �7,500 to �11,200.

I think probably councillors shouldn't be paid at all. There are

lots of people who work hard in public service, school governors,

for example, who don't get paid. There would be an advantage, I

think that some of the people who are the deadwood hanging on because

they get paid the money, would decide to standdown.

Others argue that it is actually higher payments that could attract

brighter and better candidates but West Africa-tightening budgets,

what can council do to get members working -- with ever-tightening

budgets. Now the points of view of Clive

Betts now, the Chairman of the Select Committee on local

government. Are they skilled and paid enough? I think councillors

have an incredibly difficult job as your piece said at the beginning

there. The cuts they are now making throughout the country are

unprecedented in their scale. So, they have a very difficult job

making choice abouts which services to cut and explaining them to

constituents and listening to constituents about them. We have

found that councillors are not representative of a community as a

whole. The average age is 60, a minority of people in work when

councillors don't do a full-time work job, they do an important

part-time job. Some of them work. But we were told repeatedly of

people who get an allowance to do council o work but because they

have to get time off on their council job from their day jobs

they end up being worse off. Would you like to see the allowances

increased for a rank and file officer? The majority of people on

many councils are pensioners. There is no great incentive for them to

look at the position who are on -- of the people who are on the

council with a job, or of those who might be deterred from going on the

council. MPs have let their pay and allowances be overseen by an

independent body. Why should they say they should have an independent

body. What about employers rthey sympathetic enough, make allowances,

encourage people to be council ors and put back into the community?

Not always. -- councillors. We had examples of people who said - carry

on with your council work and you will get the sack. Other people who

were told at the Jobcentre don't put on your application form that

you are a councillor, as nobody will take you on. We are

encouraging employers to release people for Territorial Army a good

scheme, do something similar for councillors. And instead of giving

allowances, why not look at the people who are in work, who have to

take time off, why not have the element of allowance as a also of

earnings. The public can understand, that give up your time to be a

councillor and you will get your earnings covered. That arrangement

to be brought. In Whether about the Cabinet structure in place, which

gives quite important powers and responsibilities to a small group

of councillors but leaves a few or a lot of backbenchers and so on who

perhaps aren't proving as useful? Doesn't this, you know, produce an

argument for slimming down local authorities? Getting rid of

councillors? It certainly doesn't stop the number of complaints

coming to individual councillors. There is a danger sometimes that

councils overcentralise and it is the Cabinet members who get advice

and support and backbenchers are left to fend for themselves. We

went as part of our inquiry to Sunderland and looked to what they

are doing. They are giving more power and responsibilities to what

they called, not backbench councillors but frontline

councillors. More councillors make morgue decisions with more support

to help constituents. -- making more decisions. It was a very good

model. I know what Conservative councillor in Bromley was thinking

of reducing the number of councillor. Do you think it is time

for this? It probably is in London. I wonder whether they are over

counciled with almost 2,000 and 33 London boroughs. I was a councillor

before I came an MP in the neighbouring borough of Kensington

and Chelsea. We had an allowance system when I was on the council

initially, almost 20 years ago at �1,500. I think the allowance is

roughly the right level. I think there is a difficulty that it

becomes almost like a second income or second pension for a few people

who hang on in there because of the financial element of it all but I

do wonder whether we actually probably have too many councillors.

Again, in the days of the pre- Cabinet system, that's when I was

involved, which has made a great difference. A small number of

councillors having tremendous responsibilities and a large number,

somewhat twiddling their thumbs. Diane Abbott, it's mayor and London

Assembly and this Cabinet system, whether there is an argument or

what will we lose if we slimdown or get rid of some councillors? We'd

lose ordinary people at a local level knowing there is someone who

lives on a street or around the corner for them and speaks for them

at the Town Hall. It is an important function of demcascy. I

couldn't put their money up. -- democracy. Clearly people have to

be paid for out of pocket ebsspenss. If you give them a salary you will

get people in it for the money. -- pocket expenses. How important is

the local councillor. We hardly see that reflected in a huge turnout at

local elections? Well it comes back to the role of both political

parties. If we want better quality councillor, both political parties

have to search their conscience and think about the sorts of people

they are putting forward on local authorities. I lived in the ward I

represented. I moved to the ward when I got selected. But I have to

say I think it made a real difference. Day-to-day I could see

the problems. From the trivial things like potholes, whether there

was a house that - where there were potentially squatters and the

issues and I was able to report it back on a daily basis. I'm sounding

like an anorak on this. Therefore, I think it helps to have local

councillors. You would agree with that, no need to change the

structure? I think this is very important for people to be

represent bid someone really local who they know. Fewer people may be

voter but more people are going to MPs and councillors, so it is

important we keep them. Time for a round-up for the rest of the

political news nted capital this week, in -- news in the capital

this week in 60 Seconds. Further evidence of the so-called

practice of beds in sheds. When it was revealed that two high street

estate agents in Brent are renting out beds and sheds without

residential planning permission. Offering substandard housing on

behalf of landlords. According to a new NHS audit,

London hospitals are failing patients who need emergency care.

None of the 28 trust meet all the minimum standards.

The London Fire Authority has decided not to challenge mayor,

Boris Johnson's, order to hold a public consultation on proposed

cuts to the London Fire Brigade. At the vote on the mayor's Budget,

Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Assembly Members spotted the Deputy

Mayor was missing, giving them the two-thirds majority they needed to

block the vote. They kick pld Johnson out of the chamber and

attempted to rush it through but the plot was foiled when the Deputy

Mayors with arrived in a nick of time. Leading him to describe them

as... Great supine protoplasmis invertebrate jellies.

So drama at the City Hall Budget setting meeting. The first time

that has ever happened. I have had to sit through a few. Was that

right for Labour and the opposition to give up the chance, democratic,

open session, hold the mayor to account, because someone was

missing, rushed a sneaky quick vote? That's politics. I have been

in Parliament for over 20 years. is a brutal game. It was absolutely

the right thing to do. Seriously. When I you see that exchange and

General eight Arnold having to interrupt the mayor and the mayor

insulting Assembly me, doesn't it person people off -- Jenette.

! Have you seen Lincoln, the film, people love it? It is a law we can

never get away from. Did you feel that? Everyone took it in good

humour. Borelies laugh it off. I think onelies yon, will be that

every last Tory member will be there for the next three years.

-- one lesson. The Glassly sqauling and shouting

at Prime Minister's Questions put people off. But this was an

opportunity to ask the mayor to explain his policies and given the

chance to do it and the opposition groups weren't prepared to do that.

Day-to-day they have to deal with Boris. They obviously felt that

particular meeting was time for shock and awe. And 95% of the hard

work gets done quitely. Labour and Liberal Democrat Assembly Members

are able it talk to Boris Johnson and get things done. -- to talk.

This is the fun. You look at set- piece moments. A lot of good work

we do is very much on a cross-party basis. The irony was, we were told,

given discussing transport and so on, that she was late because she

was delayed on the Tube but officials rushed to say that was

not true. Thank you both very much. In a moment, we will look ahead to

the big stories that will dominate next week. But first, the news.

Good afternoon, further assistance for the Syrian rebels will be

announced in Parliament this week, according to the Foreign Secretary.

Speaking to the BBC, William Hague dismissed President Assad's

criticism of British policy, describing his remarks as

delusional. The shelling and the shooting

continues in Syria. Tearing apart a state in which 70,000 have died

since the uprising began almost two years ago. But Syria's President

has accused the British government of trying to miniaturise the

country, in his remarks to the Sunday Times today. This government

is acting in a naive and confused manner. William Hague described the

interview as delusional. This is a man presiding over this slaughter.

The message to him is that we, Britain, are the people sending

food, shelter and blankets to help people driven from their homes and

families in his name. We are the people sending medical supplies to

try to look after people injured and abused by the soldiers working

for this man. William Hague said that, faced with the extreme

humanitarian distress of Syrian civilians, Britain could not just

sit it out. There were arming the rebels is not yet British policy,

he made it clear he would not rule it out in future.

The Prime Minister has insisted there will be no lurch to the right

by the Conservatives following the party's defeat in the Eastleigh by-

election. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, he said he would stick

to the course that the Government is on. This report is from Louise

Stewart. Following two days of negative

headlines after the Conservatives's bruising defeat in the Eastleigh

by-election, David Cameron has chosen to fight back. He says the

Battle for Britain will not be won by lurching to the right, but by

appealing to the common ground. In an interview with the Sunday

Telegraph, he pledges to do that by protecting NHS spending,

controlling immigration and capping welfare payments. But the leader of

the UK Independence Party, which came second in Eastleigh, forcing

the Conservatives into third place, said they should be focusing on

addressing concerns now, not making pledges for beyond the next

election. Jam tomorrow. That is what we keep hearing from the

Conservatives, promises about what they might do if they win the next

General Election, just as we heard promises from them before 2010.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has said he would expect a future

Conservative government to scrap the Human Rights Act. His remarks,

and those of the Prime Minister, will be seen as an attempt to

please some on the backbenches who crave what they see as a more

muscular conservatism, while trying to broaden the party's appeal.

That is all of the news for now. There will be more on BBC One at

Now, Cabinet ministers are already fighting like rats in a sack over

whether the next round of cuts should come. NHS to the executive

David Nicholson's fight for survival is also likely to dominate

In the interview with Vince Cable, he came out, I think, probably

further from the traditional coalition line and he has before,

almost Plan B? Certainly in terms of capping spending, he not only

echoed the quote you gave him from Nick Clegg in January, saying that

they should have done more, earlier, he was absolutely adamant they

needed to do more now and wanted more money to go into capital

spending. I think this negotiation over public spending is going to be

really, really interesting. In theory, people are always say in

public spending, we need to cut it. In practice, they find it much,

much more difficult. You on going to have lots of battles between

different departments. I get the sense from him that he wants an

increase of his budget. Forget cats, he wants more. When you see that

the Defence Department and others are doing that, I think this will

be really interesting. mentioned the Defence Department,

this latest ball began to roll thanks to Philip Hammond. Let's see

what he had to say. We will not be able to make significant further

cuts without eroding military capability. We are already

extremely taut. We have hard targets ahead of us and I am clear

we will not be able to deliver big further savings without eroding

military capability. He needed the army behind him as he said that.

This isn't just about the budget, it's about the next spending review.

They are now jockeying, Vince Cable, Philip Hammond, they are playing

for position? It is what they call the Comprehensive Spending Review,

which comes well after the budget. I was not really surprised to sheer

Philip Hammond saying what he did. He has had such a battle to fill

what he calls the great black hole in his budget. I think it was

something like �36 billion. That is what he had to address. He managed

to pull that off. The last thing he wants now is to be told that he

needs to make further cuts. He knows that will go down terribly

with the core Tory vote. It's all hanging on George Osborne now?

was surprised he went as public with his remarks as he did. You

would expect Vince Cable to do his lobbying and public, you do not

expect somebody who has traditionally been an ally of the

Treasury to do it. In general, I don't have much sympathy for what

is being called the National Union of ministers. I think they are

guilty of what some of us call fiscal nimbyism. They support

austerity in the abstract, but when it conflicts with their interests

they go cold. The best example so far has been the cap on child

benefit. It is a welfare cut. It should be something that most

Tories would support. And yet it provoked a huge amount of hostility

from Tory backbenchers and the Tory press. It goes to show how

difficult it is to make cuts a practical reality. The thing is,

Vince Cable believes that the way out of austerity is increases in

capital spending. That is the wider political debate. I take your point,

the rest of them are battling like hell for their departments, while

arguing, in theory, in favour of public spending limits. Even if

Vince Cable were to get his way, it would make no difference to the

economy for the foreseeable future? As he acknowledged, it takes a heck

of a long time for these plans, once agreed, to take practical

effect. Certainly by the time of the next election they will not.

That is always the downside of capital spending. If they want to

do this, they should have done at the moment they came in? As they

now admit, some of them. The Tory backbenches, they are not really

kicking off after Eastleigh. We are told they are waiting to see what

Mr Osborne will do in the budget. I would suggest they should not hold

their breath? I don't think it will be a dramatic budget. What Osborne

is desperately trying to achieve is to ensure there is no repeat

whatsoever of what could be described as an omnishambles. I

think memories of this time next here -- last year are still quite

fresh. So the buyer is being set quite low, it would be hard to do

worse! The pre-Budget was rather bland. He said the pre-Budget

Report led the way to the loss of the AAA rating, because it

confirmed that the fiscal targets were going to hell and a hand

basket. Mr Clyde, is he out of the world's banks to Eastleigh? --

I think he is, for the foreseeable future. The encouraging thing for

David Cameron is that it shores up Nick Clegg's position, which shores

up the coalition. The omnishambles, it comes in various forms. For the

Conservatives, having lost Eastleigh, they could then have a

budget that doesn't have much in it, it doesn't have to be disastrous

but have very little impact. They get a kicking in the May elections,

which they probably will, they are stuck at below 30% in the polls.

That is when you open the cup and headless chickens run out? I think

all of those things will happen. That sequence you have described is

about to unfold. The budget, there are no tricks, no magic wand he can

wave to suddenly appease those that are furious with him. If who were

to wave a magic wand, I think it would look like an omnishambles.

All of those things will happen. The question is, what then? We get

these stirrings and we know there are lots of Tory MPs that do not

like David Cameron and would want him out. But how, when, with who?

All of those things are very unclear. Where does this leave

Labour? Well, none of us are talking about Labour. I think there

by-election result, or fiercely it was absolutely dismal, but they can

comfort themselves with the fact that it was not a target for them.

I think they did not really put heart and soul into it, far from it.

I suppose they are thinking to themselves, well, it is not like we

really threw ourselves at this. I think they will write it off as

fairly irrelevant. They may have learnt something important about

the kind of candidate they put up. It clearly didn't work putting in

an outsider in a by-election like that. I think it was a surprising

mistake to make. If Steve is right that there is a grim scenario

coming for the rest of the year, David does not have to worry about

Eastleigh? We thought that would have happened over the past 18

months. The economy hasn't grown, we have lost the AAA rating, and

yet Labour still feel frustrated that they struggle to land blows on

the issue of the economy. A lot of that is because the public don't

expect the economy to be much better than it is. Their research a

sense of resignation, a real British attitude, that they don't

think that a change in fiscal strategy would make much of a

difference in the short to medium term. It's difficult for Ed Balls

to make incursions into public opinion. We saw that with the

emergency question on the AAA rating, when the stage was set and

he could have really eviscerated George Osborne. It was more of a

tepid score draw. Given the state of the economy, the list of things

I read to Vince Cable, it's quite remarkable they are not able to

land more punches? They have a tactical dilemma. Does easily

suggest that by not saying or doing very much nationally, keeping

things fairly vague, they are going to get into power because the vote

on the right is split and the Lib Dems are doing well in Tory seats?

Or do they now need to start flashing things out, try to really

develop a sense of momentum towards the next election? I don't think

they have answered that question. They are partly in a dilemma

because a five-year parliament means it is still a long way off.

But I suspect they do need to start flashing things out. That is it for

this week. The Daily Politics will keep you up-to-date throughout the