14/04/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning, fetes. This is the Sunday Politics. Seeing leaders, two

legacies. What can Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair teach their parties today?

As Maggie exits stage right, we will ask the Tory chairman whether

his party will ever win an outright majority again. And after Tony

Blair's warning that Labour risk becoming a party of protest, not

power, we are joined by former Home Secretary John Reid for his verdict.

How will history judge the battle between Mrs Thatcher and the

unions? And what is their role in Britain today? The TUC secretary,

Frances O'Grady, and former trade minister Digby Jones go head-to-

head. In the capital, Transport for

London is considering giving the green light to scrapping the use of

cash on the buses by the end of All that and the journalistic

equivalent of flying pickets. We have got Comrades Watt, Oakeshott

and Ganesh tweeting throughout the programme.

So, the controversies around Mrs Thatcher's death go on, with the

focus today on the funeral arrangements. John Prescott, in the

Sunday Mirror, calls for the field to be privatised rather than any of

the cost to be met by the public purse. One poll this morning says

just about 60% of voters agree with him. Are we being churlish, arguing

about the cost of the funeral, or, at a time of austerity, should we

keep an eye on the cost? reported cost, I have seen a number

of figures, but 10 million seems to be the most commonly used one. It

is grossly inflated. I spoke to Frances Maude, who has been

organising the arrangements, and he denied that it is anything like

that amount. Any idea what it would be? I don't know. The family are

contributing something. He pointed out that it is unusual. It is

normal for the state to pick up the bill for the funeral of a former

Prime Minister. It is absolutely right. We don't have anything on

this scale. But she was an exceptional leader, simply in

longevity. She served a long time, 10 years. Also, I have been struck

by how few Labour politicians had been prepared to go on record and

criticise that. I'm not surprised to see John Prescott coming out and

doing that. But there are not many others. On that basis, I suppose we

had better start saving up for Tony Blair's funeral. He won as many

elections. Whether he changed the canter to the same extent is more

doubtful. -- the country. People who did not like Margaret Thatcher

still don't like it, and those who adored her still do. Attitudes to

the funeral will fall along that axis. What I find weird about John

Prescott's hostility is if he feels that much animus towards Margaret

Thatcher, how does he feel about being part of a government that

does not undo her reforms? He is either a hypocrite or showing how

out-of-touch she was when he was Deputy Prime Minister. The reason

we are having this deal is because there was a consensus. These plans

were drawn up under the last government. The reason we are

having this being able is because there is a political consensus. --

this funeral. For him to say it is Tory propaganda is misleading.

learn a lot on the Sunday Politics! Anyway, with all eyes on Margaret

Thatcher and her legacy, you may not have noted that Ed Miliband is

doing well. Labour's lead has grown this week. David's departure has

drawn a line under the Miliband Brothers soap opera. And he was

lauded for his performance in commemorating Mrs T. But his

party's old guard has criticised him. Now David Blunkett. It is what

Mr Miliband had to say about the former Prime Minister's

intervention. Tony Blair has always got important things to say. He is

always the first to recognise that political parties meet him off --

move forwards. On immigration, for example, I think we made mistakes

in office. I do at the weekend to defend what we did in the past. We

have got to -- I don't think we can defend what we did in the past. I

think the Labour Party is moving on and moving forward. Ed Miliband,

having a coffee. We are joined to discuss that by the former minister,

John Reid. What is the single most important lesson Ed Miliband can

learn from Margaret Thatcher? think he can learn not only from

Margaret Thatcher, but from Tony Blair, and most successful

politicians, that you have to move from being a voice of protest to

offering solutions. So, do you go along with what Mr Blair has said,

that for the moment, he and his party are still a voice of protest?

Firstly, I don't go along with your caricature of that as criticism. It

is not. It is advice. That is what colleagues do. We advise each other.

Ed Miliband has performed the first feature very well. He has made

Labour a good opposition. What he now has to do it to set out the

direction of a future Labour government on questions like the

economy, housing, and so on. There are signs that it is beginning to

happen. The important thing is to recognise that as you move from the

politics of opposition to the politics of a potential government,

that you have to be offering solutions and not just criticising

the status quo. Mr Miliband says the centre ground is moving left.

He is there evidence for that? don't know. You have to ask Ed

Miliband that. I don't think the centre ground is necessarily moving

left. What is happening is what happened under Mrs Thatcher. There

were some things that needed revolutionary change, but since she

didn't believe in society, she didn't believe you have to balance

the change with social justice. That is why the idea that Mr Blair

was somehow the legacy of Thatcher is fantasy, and certainly partly

misleading. The idea that the Thatcher government would have

brought in the New Deal for the young, a sure start for children,

similar qualities for homosexuals, or the Irish peace process, that

his fantasy. You did not roll back a number of the very major things

she did. That is the point I was going to make. A dynamic economy is

central to any modern society. Public services have to offer the

choice that was being a foot in the private sector. Many more working

people were becoming more affluent. They wanted more power and choice.

Those are the lessons that we carried through, but we balanced it

with social justice. Unlike Mrs Thatcher, we believe we have mutual

obligations. Let me come back to Ed Miliband. He says he can be a

transformational leader, like Mrs T. Where is the evidence for that?

can't give any evidence until he is in government. Until Margaret

Thatcher was in government, she was a joke. She had formidable

qualities. Do you feel he could be a transformer -- transformational

leader? He has to be able to apply the values that the Labour Party

have always held central to what they are doing. This is why he is

right and Tony Blair is right. You have to update your policy, but

remember that constant renewal is essential part of what Blair

believed in. What has he done that would make he -- us believe he is a

transformational leader? You can't do it in opposition. You can only

judge, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as other great

leaders have shown. Mr Blair said in this article, which you are

calling advice, his advice is, quote, don't tack to the right on

immigration and don't attack to the left on tax and spend. That is

pretty much what Mr Miller -- Mr Miliband is doing. I am not sure he

is hacking to the right. What he is saying is that we didn't tackle

immigration the way we should have done. I agree with that. That is

because the Treasury insisted that having a free throw -- flow of

Labour... I was inside the government are doing that we had to

her some kind of control over immigration. -- arguing. I said

that it's not a racist to discuss immigration and I was attacked.

Whether it is right or wrong, that is what he is doing. I absolutely

can't test that. There is nothing to the right by saying you have to

be planned and reasonable in immigration. Some people said that

in power, that is what your party did, say it was right-wing

criticism. If Mr Miliband does not accept some of this advice that you

have been giving him, it does risk becoming just a repository of

protest, not a party of government. Yes, but I think Ed Miliband is

astute enough to recognise that. The other piece of advice that will

reinforce that realisation on his part is that every Labour leader

has been attacked from the left because they have refused to say,

yes, we will restore the status quo, including people like Neil Kinnock.

All those years ago, he was attacked by the left because he

said we will not restore education as it was before. You have to be

transformative. But that does not mean to say you have to shift to

the right. You have to balance radical change with social

responsibility. But Mr Miliband's attack is that the left is doing

what it wants. I'm not sure that it's true. For instance, last week,

Liam Byrne was suggesting that we should re establish the value of

the welfare state that links your benefits to your contributions.

That is pretty radical. Ironically, it is by re establishing some of

the older principles, taking the old values, and putting them in the

modern setting. On housing, the Conservative policy is bad on

housing. It will create a property bubble. The idea that you don't

build any houses but that you help people increase demand with the

presence apply, I think Labour ought to be asking why is it that

housing benefit has exploded? -- present supplier. Is it because of

a shortage of houses? If you build houses, you fulfil an economic and

social need. His Ed Miliband the next Prime Minister of this

country? If you believe the polls at the moment, there's a good

chance. We know what the polls say. The first task has been

accomplished. Labour, under his leadership, has avoided fracture

Thank you for being with us. What about the Tories? They didn't

just lose their most successful leader of modern times. It was also

the 21st anniversary of the last time the Conservatives won a

general election. That was in 1992, for those of you who can't do

arithmetic. What lessons can be learned from the woman they will

commemorate this week? The death of Margaret Thatcher has

brought about a period of reflection in British politics, not

least in the party she once led. The Iron Lady had a reputation for

following her own come -- convictions. She was, famously, not

for turning. But her successors have been criticised for a number

of policy U-turn so. The debate over her legacy has turned into

soul-searching about Tory strategy. Her electoral success was built in

no small part on the votes of striding folk from ordinary

backgrounds. Critics say the party's failure to come up with an

attractive offer for strivers in 2010 was the main reason the Tories

failed to win a majority. With two years until the next election, it

is down to Grant Shapps to find a way to sell the Tory brand that Mrs

Thatcher once made popular. And Grant Shapps joins me now for

Are you a Thatcherite? I probably am. I was brought up under the

Thatcher government and she inspired me into public service.

year chairman of a Thatcherite party? That I am chairman of a

party which had Margaret Thatcher as its Prime Minister. We are also

a John Major party and a Disraeli party. We have a long history.

is like saying everyone who has been your leader, you are that

party. You know what I mean. So answer the question. To the truth

is, as he pointed out, it is a lot of years ago and things move on and

change. You asked me if I am a Thatcherite and I probably am.

are the Thatcherite chairman of a non- Thatcherite party? I think it

is silly. It is a fairly meaningless distinction. I am the

chairman of the Conservative Party, one of whom's greatest leaders was

Margaret Thatcher. Supporters and enemies agree Margaret Thatcher was

a conviction politician. Can you honestly claim the same about David

Cameron? Yes, absolutely. If you are cut one of the things Margaret

Thatcher is most remembered for, it is getting the rebate in Europe. Is

saved billions of pounds. What has David Cameron done? He has gone to

Europe and said no to an EU treaty and he has got the first of a cut

in the European budget that there has ever been in European history.

Here is a man on conviction. That little cut in the Budget is up

there with the rebate? It is only a little cut in the Budget but we are

already saving hundreds of millions. She saved 75 %. That is one example.

Let me give you another one. Again, Europe, we have a Prime Minister

has gone to Europe and said, we will have an in out referendum on a

reformed Europe. That is a pretty big move that Margaret Thatcher was

not able to offer. He has not delivered that yet because he needs

to win an election. The Lady famously said she was not for

turning but David Cameron has made about 25 U-turns. Sometimes you

find situations where you want to change direction or adapt direction

but on the fundamentals of the things we believe in, building an

economy where everyone can work hard and if you do you get on in

life, those other things wet David Cameron has been absolutely clear

about from the outset. And he has done it. He has things which

Margaret Thatcher did not suffer. One is we have no money and

secondly we do not have a majority. We had a large majority with

Margaret Thatcher. I would say David Cameron has done a tremendous

amount in being very radical, sorting out things like long-term

care which even other governments with large majorities were not able

to do. Let me run these words that Norman Tebbit had to say in the

House of Lords. I must say, as her Party Chairman, I found my life was

made much easier by my understanding of the certainties of

her beliefs. I was never asked by her to commission a focus group.

LAUGHTER. Do you commission focus groups?

sometimes do but not on the behest of anyone. I think it is important

to understand the way policies are impacting. My best focus group of

all is sitting in my own constituency surgery, talking to

people who come in and talking about what goes on in their lives

so I can work on their behalf. There are MPs doing that all the

time. You do not need sophisticated modelling to understand. So why did

you do them? We want a country where people can get on in life and

work hard. You do not need focus groups to do that. Let me give you

one example. I will have somebody coming into my surgery saying they

have to spend an hour and a half sat in front of a JobCentre Plus

computer to work out if they work those extra few hours a week will

they be better off or worse off? We are changing policies to make that

an absolute certainty for them. If you work you will be better off

witches great. What I want to know is if that message is getting

through, whether people know about it and they are able to act on it

and they are able to accept the job because they understand that the

JobCentre Plus is not required. If you want to work it will always pay.

Of course there is a way for polling but not in the way you

might think. We do not spent time obsessing about the polls. We are

governing for the long term in the nation's interest in what you might

call a Thatcherite way. Thatcher saw herself as anti-

establishment. By no stretch of the imagination could you see Mr

Cameron as anti- establishment. think first of all on Thatcher that

that is absolutely true. She said, it does not matter who you are, way

you come from, we are not interested in that. If you work

hard and get on, we will succeed. She broke many glass ceilings. The

way David Cameron and us as a government are pursuing that goal

is by ensuring that in this country you are not trapped in a situation

where if you work hard, you're not necessarily better off. This week

we have those caps coming in on welfare. That means no one on

welfare will earn more than the average family in work. That is a

way of carrying on that legacy. legacy that is left -- yet to brush

off on David Cameron, let me show you these polling figures for who

we think is the greatest Prime Minister. Mrs Thatcher ahead of

Winston Churchill. Tony Blair getting 10 %, David Cameron is only

an zero %. Even Gordon Brown got 2%. I remember polls like this during

the Thatcher time in government when that would have been reversed

around the other way. The great thing about Thatcher and one thing

we can all learn from hat, regardless of whether we agreed

with her or not, she is someone who looked to the long term and the

interest of the nation, not to the short term and the interests of one

political party or another. I do not put much stock in opinion polls

like this. What is of interest is reforming the country in the long

term, helping people to work, by their first house, get a job. These

are things which will reform the country, not a short-term

popularity contest. The differences, the people who want these things to

happen, they felt Margaret Thatcher was on their side. They do not feel

you on their side. Let me show you another poll which should cause you

some concern. This is among C1 voters, aspiring people on modest

incomes. You got 52 % of the vote in 1992. In 2010 you only got 39 %

of these people. Today you are even lower. We could spend this entire

programme looking at opinion polls. At you do not think that is

instructive? If I had my own iPad here and connected to the screen.

Let me correct myself, that is not a poll, it is the election results.

If I had the ability to display graphics are that I could show you

made pulse and mid- results from the middle of parliaments during

which Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister... But that is the 2010

election, that is an actual result expat let me show you that I could

show you bar chart which showed you how a government suffered far

greater unpopularity than this one. One of the finest comments was

Connor Burns, the Conservative MP reports that he had gone to tell

Thatcher about the current status quo, the political scene at the

moment and said we are 10 points behind. She said that is not nearly

far enough behind to win the next election. You can look at all these

different stacks until the cows come home. The only thing that

matters is have we done things in the interests of the British people.

If you are somebody on the minimum wage in this country and you have

seen the amount of tax you have to pay has been halved by this

Conservative-led government, you know we are on your side. You also

talk about aspiration. The blunt truth is your government is

penalising strivers. The moment they reached a taxable income, they

face a marginal rate of 42 %. Mrs Thatcher thought 40 % was for the

rich, not the strivers and you are taxing the strivers. We live in

difficult times and we have to do everything possible to make the

books balance. We have cut a third of the book so far. I met an

occupational therapist, she said to me, the great thing now is I can

earn �9,500 without paying any tax at all, up from �6,500 when we came

to power. She knows it is headed for �10,000. People who are getting

that kind of cut in their income tax is absolutely critical in their

ability to go about their daily lives. We are absolutely on the

sides of the strivers. You have a high marginal rate to show it.

me come on to welfare reforms. Mick Philpott, the chap who is in jail

for setting fire to his children, exactly what role do the welfare

state playing his actions? person most responsible for his

actions is him. So the welfare state played no role if he is

entirely responsible? Secondly, no one can deny that having 17

children and not needing to work can only be possible if there is a

welfare state that allows that are used to go on. Does it make you

more likely to set fire to your house? No. What role did it played?

In it means you can be unproductive and have ever more children to be

able to have an income of �100,000 and live without working. A Usain

because of the welfare state - that are you saying, it may allow people

to wallow in idleness and have these kids batter mix them

potential child killers? No, and I think you are trying to set up a

false debate. George Osborne said it. The welfare system should be

there to look after the most vulnerable people and support them

with a safety net when they fall on difficult times. What it should not

do is to track people in the welfare dependency from which they

cannot escape. That is wrong. It is wrong for individuals and wrong for

the nation. Every family in Britain is having to pay five grant to

support the welfare budget. We need to sort it out, we are sorting it

out and a case which indicates somebody was able to have 17

children and an income of something like �100,000 as a result, is an

extreme case but it demonstrates something that is wrong. One of the

reforms is what you call the scrapping of the spare room subsidy

and you say it -- and other people call the bedroom tax. You say your

boys share a bedroom but you have a four bedroomed house and they are

sharing by a choice. You are implying that you sharing rooms is

like people in small houses having to share rooms. I am making the

point that a lot of kids a share rooms. There is nothing more to

read into it than that. You used it in terms of the welfare reforms.

a throwaway remark, less. There are one million bedrooms in this

country, social homes, where the taxpayer is paying for the ruins

not to be in use. Would it not be better to tackle some of the four

or 5 million people on housing waiting list to live in some of

those rooms? Is that not a better use? By eight my calculation you

have two spare rooms. Is one of them for Michael Green? Grant

Shapps, thank you for joining us. Margaret Thatcher regarded some of

the union barons who challenged her as the enemy within. She saw Arthur

Scargill as a big threat to have holed in power, as big as

Argentina's General Galtieri. She thought Mr Scargill had no plans

for negotiations. He had to be beaten outright or she would be

finished. It is a conflict which still resonates as today's unions

clash with the Government over cuts. We will debate baton a moment but

first, here is Giles Dilnot on the unions past, present and future.

Ed Hall is handy with a needle and thread. In his south London shed

bedecked with coloured cloth and the paraphernalia of Arts and Craft,

who works at his latest trades union banner for unite. The

attention he stitches into his work, you suspect he hopes any victory of

the workers will come under the banner of his latest creations. Now

he has his own perspective. liberty of the working class is the

action of the workers. It is up to the workers to change society. I do

think there are some issues when organised labour should be able to

say to the government, if you do not do what we are saying, and we

have had our arguments with you, and are you continue with it, we

will try and bring you down. That was the union view in the seventies

that Mrs Thatcher wanted to defeat. She saw them as over-mighty,

dictating to Downing Street, bringing the country to a halt. Her

government used a mix of legislation and controversial - a

controversial strong-arm confrontation to curb union power.

Today, union membership is far lower than its 1979 heyday but

still, over 6 million people are within the TUC. But opinion in the

movement are divided between what past tells you about how you get

the best deal for your members and take a political position on

today's austerity. I think we are all living with the aftermath of

Mrs Thatcher's attack on the unions and what it has done to people

since. There is no doubt that many union leaders learned from that

period that they thought the lesson was you can never win. Therefore,

if you cannot win, it is all about trying to be moderate and hope you

can peacefully persuade people. If that is all you do, you can go home

thinking we have won the argument but you do not change nothing.

Unions have been debating whether to unite against the government in

its policies but others say there are sophisticated ways of

protesting and some keep the public on side. Unions are looking at

different things at a smart strike which affects the government or the

council but does not affect the ordinary people and service users.

They also looking at building coalitions with community groups. I

think unions have to do both. They have to look at industrial action

where it needs to happen but also different strategies and ways of

making the argument. It is down to what unions are for, workplace

representation or something bigger? It is the unions in Britain now who

represent the real opposition. It is the unions to represent your

position in terms of economic alternatives, arguing for a strong

welfare state and arguing for a different economy. Is that their

job? Yes, it has to be our job if nobody else is fulfilling it.

will reflect that is what general elections, not general secretary

Frances O'Grady, do you accept that, looking back, that by 1979, the

unions were too big, and no matter who won the election, they would be

taken down? We can argue about the 1970s. But it was Britain's most

equal decade. What followed, you can draw a direct line between

Margaret Thatcher's policies of demonising the unions, but also

deregulating the banks, neutralising the building-society

is and selling off council homes without replacing them. You can

draw a line between that and the mess we are living with today.

Digby Jones. She didn't answer the question. In

1979, this country was in such a mess because four or five

undemocratically elected people decided, on behalf of the whole

nation, and when you had a Labour Chancellor saying in his Budget, I

will cut one penny off off the basic rate of income tax if four

union leaders agree to a pay rise limit, who on earth was running the

country? What I find sad about all these demonstrations and refusals

to answer the question is that those who were around at the time

realise that it was not actually Margaret Thatcher that brought the

unions into a proper place in society. It actually was Britain.

The average, skilled, working man or Britain in my home town of

Birmingham was told, you will join a union or you will not have a job.

If you are going to vote against what we want, we will beat you up.

That is no way to run a society. Let me see if I can get some

quicker answers! I think these can be answered by either Yes, No What

don't know. Was Margaret Thatcher right to answer secret ballots?

Unions are democratic organisations. Yes or no! I would like an

opportunity to talk about what is happening now, and not just what

what -- was happening in the past. Unions are democratic organisations.

Was she right to end the closed shop? Our members will decide.

Nobody took anybody out on strike without there being strong support.

It is art that insulting to suggest otherwise. -- is it insulting.

Democratic organisations are not interested in reviving the battles

of the 1970s but sorting out the mess we have had as a result of the

unions being marginalised in society. We had huge support for

the public sector pensions strike in 2011. Two-thirds of the public

supported us. Eight in 10 young people. Something is very wrong in

Britain today. Diverting the debate into the 1970s will not help us.

was training to -- trying to establish your attitude, but I

failed. Unions have lost power since 1979, no question. The

consequence has been that there has been a big move in this country

from a share of wealth going to profits at the expense of wages.

Wages are a smaller percentage of GDP than before. The companies are

not spending profits. Statistically, you are right. But of course,

there's one great example where profit and shareholders have

suffered. Does our bankers. -- of those our bankers. Secondly...

wages have fallen, and that is one of the reasons why we are still in

recession. I don't think the real wage falling is one of the reasons

for recession. Because of the enhanced profit in the business, I

think you are right. Frances O'Grady is doing herself down. If

you look in the private sector today, essence of partnership

between good quality trade unions and business is brilliant. It is an

example for Europe. Look at JCB, Rolls Royce. They are unionised

places. But there's a fabulous sense of partnership. I think...

Let me bring in Frances O'Grady. The majority of people now believe

that the balance of power has swung too far in favour of employers. We

know that the growing inequality that we saw go up under Thatcher

and is increasing massively to day was one of the key causes of the

crash. There's too much wealth at the top and not enough for ordinary

people. We need a different kind of economy to move forward. Even the

Christian Democrats in Germany now accept a wage is need to rise, that

collective bargaining needs to spread. -- that wages need to rise.

Even people like Digby Jones must be joined us in arguing for an

industrial policy for growth. you to both of you for joining me.

You're watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes, we will be

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

Hello and welcome to the London part of the show. Coming up later

in the programme: London's transport chiefs are

looking to scrap the use of cash on the buses. Is it a reform too far?

Joining us for the programme are Teresa Pearce, Labour MP for Erith

and Thamesmead, and Paul Burstow, Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton and

Cheam. Welcome to you both. First off, the story that has

dominated all others, of course - the death of Margaret Thatcher.

We've heard the fulsome tributes to Lady Thatcher's achievements, and

indeed the dissenting voices. But what I'd like to do is look at how

some of her ideas and policies play today, and what she would have made

of multicultural London had she still been the occupant of number

10. We are joined by the man who represents, in part, Lady

Thatcher's old seat for Finchley - Mike Freer, Conservative MP for

Finchley and Golders Green. It is Bob Carr's commence a few

days ago - he thought that Margaret Thatcher was racist. Did that make

any sense to you? Totally wrong. If you look at her record in Finchley,

she was the first that I know of that embrace the Jewish community.

She also, from an early stage, founded an Anglo Indian Association.

From an early stage, she was by no means racist. She completely

embrace anybody. She was not bothered about background. It was

what she had -- they had to offer. When he spoke of her warning that

Sydney should not be allowed to become like Fiji, that is not the

person you recognise? Note. It is difficult to take things that were

said many years ago and apply them today. Most important, what she was

saying is that she fought hard for integration. There's a difference

between communities being isolated in a city of being fully integrated.

That is what she was trying to warn against. She was keen on

integration. At the moment, we are wrestling between myth, a geography

and hatred. What she inclusive? You are a man who is out, day and proud.

Yes there was a leader who brought in Clause 28. How do you reconcile

that? I think she was badly advised. I was never one of the inner circle,

never a close confidant. But my take on her in the Conservative

Party was that she took a libertarian view to sexuality. She

didn't care what people did in their homes. The whole issue on

Section 28, I think she was badly advised. Looking back, things were

different. I can't explain it. But I know, personally, that she had no

hang-ups about people's sexuality. You have an anecdote that I would

love to come suit. But let's talk to both of you as well. If she

walked through London today, would she be a happy Prime Minister?

she lived in London up to the end of her days, so clearly she knew

what London was like. I would be interested to see what she makes of

London now. I would be interested to see how she gets on with the

Mayor of London. The Battle of the Blondes! A lovely way of putting it.

She was not a lady who like to share a stage. And yet we have a

mayor who, regarded, does not like to share a stage. The -- we could

argue. She also swept away democratic government for London

for a decade. What there are people who never supported Ken Livingstone,

and I didn't, the idea that you get rid of their opponents by

abolishing them was not really the act of a democratic leader. It was

not good for London in terms of having democratic Co ordination of

import and services. There's an argument that she was a great

friend of London. Others say, bits of it, but not the whole of it. She

liked the Square Mile but the rest she could have taken or left.

is wrong. She supported suburban London. She was a London MP. She

was proud of London being a world city. How do you feel when you see

bits of London, Brixton, for example, on the day of the

announcement of her death, street parties going on? We hear that

during the funeral, part of the city may do the same thing. What is

your feeling about that? I was brought up to know that you had

your differences in life, but when you put the -- when a person passes,

you put the differences to one side. People should know better. If they

want to have a street party and argue the case, they should do it

after the funeral. To do it now is childish. Actually, it says more

about them than Mrs Thatcher's legacy. I did say that you have a

lovely anecdote. You do your surgery between bomb-proof glass,

which is a throwback to her time. Her surgeries where every three

weeks, at least. It didn't matter what was going on, even the middle

of the Falklands conflict, has surgery is carried on. During the

threats from the IRA, we had a mortar attack on the office. We

have bomb-proof glass, a remnant of her time. For a time, she could not

have her surgery in her office. She had to have it in local houses.

People forget that. A fascinating insight.

It's all change on the buses with plans to scrap the use of cash by

the end of 2013. That's the confidential proposal from

Transport for London, discovered by this programme. So is it fair?

Slow to use and expensive. That is the problem with using cash on the

buses. The proposal, to end it. is also proposed that the sale of

cash tickets on bus be stopped at a suitable time in 2013. As the bus

system is modernised, cash is used less and less. It now accounts for

1.5 % of journeys. It may not sound like much but it is 24 million bus

journeys a year. As it costs twice the amount of an oyster card, you

can bet those are probably times when people have a good reason for

using cash. Labour think it would be at a bad idea for getting rid of

cash or together. If you are waiting at 2 o'clock in the morning

for a night bus and oyster cadres empty, you may want to use cash so

you can get home. There may be few times you need to use cash but they

may be crucial. Transport for London should think about taking

this facility away, particularly on the night buses. The accord and to

Transport for London's watchdog, because so few people use cash, it

is questionable about whether you would be speeding things up at all.

If you take away cash and you had people who could not pay and did

not have the right card, you would probably end up with buses being

delayed more with having arguments with the driver over what kind of

card you did or did not have than actually just being able to pay

cash and get on with your journey. As yet, TfL has not consulted the

public on the plan. While transport authorities might be keen,

Londoners are likely to have a mixed response. I have been caught

out sometimes if by oyster has run out and there is no other way of

paying now. Normally I pop to a newsagents beforehand so if people

plan ahead it would not be a problem. It would not affect me

because I have an oyster card and most people do. It is not good news

for people who want to pay by cash so I think it is bad news. It may

well be that spending cash on the buses will be history.

Joining me is Managing Director of Surface Transport at Transport for

London, Leon Daniels. Is this happening or not? Just to be clear,

we have made no decision on this. It is part of a long-term plan.

thought you would say that. It is because of our digging around we

have found this. It is proposed that the sale of cash tickets on

buses be stopped at a suitable time in 2013, with another line

suggesting there Mayor takes that up. That sounds like a

recommendation to me. We have not yet made any decision. There are

eight months left, when will you get round to it? What we will do is

follow the market. We are down to 1% of our bus passengers paying

cash. So you are going to do it? what I am saying is, we are

watching the market. As the number of customers who pay cash

diminishes it will not be worth collecting cash any more. You have

eight months to make a decision, you are talking about the fact you

have not made a consultation yet, you have already told made you feel

the market is driving you to this decision, just be clear about it.

We are watching the market and see how many people pay cash. When too

few pay it we will come to it. what is too few? 1% of our

customers pay cash. That is an insignificant number of people. We

are getting to the position where the cost of collecting the cash is

greater than the value of it. The public is overwhelming --

overwhelmingly using the oyster card. It seems that sophistry way

you say we have to get a point where it is too low and then you

say it is too low already. What about the concerns that have been

raised in the film, you have young people, women in particular, who

may go out in the evening, they may be caught out, they need to get

home, they need to get on a bus, places are closed, they cannot get

their hands on an oyster card, will the buses leave them stranded?

vulnerable people are left behind on our bus network. We have to

raise a distinction between the people who were trying to avoid

paying at people who were generally in a difficult situation.

Vulnerable people are never left stranded. You're telling me a

bustard - at a bus driver will have to determine policy in his cab on

the hoof with a bus full of people. He has to do that every day. What

is most important is nearly everybody who it uses the transport

network is using a pre-paid card. We only have a very small number of

cash passengers. The small number of cash passengers do still use the

buses. Let's stay with the scenario we are talking about, are you

honestly say in this is the best way to run a network, even though

it will provoke rows on the bus where people are arguing their case,

where people are getting angry on the bus because they want to get

home, this is a tinderbox you are creating and the lack of taking

cash will be the smart - the spark that likes it. The London Bus

Network runs at a loss. There is �4 million which makes up the

difference of what the passengers pay and the cost of running the

network. Last time I checked passengers did not want to pay more

and people did not want to pay more tax. It cost �15 million to collect

cash. With that money there are lots of other things you can do

with the London Bus Network. I know you have not asked Londoners, have

you asked Transport Police whether they are happy with your plans?

is not a case of whether people are happy. There is no date, there is

no plan to do this. As we come to the point when we think this will

be a good idea, we will consult widely with all the stakeholders

including the police and passengers. Has Boris Johnson told you what to

do? The Mayor is waiting for us to make a recommendation. Paul Burstow,

what would you make of this? I am interested in whether that document

is one that Transport for London accept is part of their thought

process. It is. It is a document we wrote. Say it 2013 was the year you

were thinking about doing this in? When we rate the document that was

the year we were thinking about. There is not a drop-dead date. If

it is not done by 31st December, there is no penalty attached to it.

My concern is 1% of what. It is a very large number of individuals

who are potentially affected by this. And also, let's not forget

there are people who do not live in London who want to travel in London,

they do not have access necessarily to oyster cards when they come in,

what are they meant to do? exactly, people who come from

further out in Kent who do not have the oyster system, if you live in a

small visit -- village where there is no post office or shop to get

your oyster card charged up, at the moment, if you pay by oyster,

you're single fare is quite low. If you pay by cash it is considerably

higher so there must be a reason Orin need for people to do that.

What about people who come from out of town? Tough luck? Every main

line station in London allows you to buy a ticket to London terminals

or zone one. If you buy a ticket to zone one you have unlimited travel

on the bus or underground network from London. Anyone who travels in

from Kent has a chance to buy a ticket. Not in my local station, it

does not have a ticket machine. Thank you.

Tomorrow, four London boroughs will be the first places in the country

to see the government's new �26,000 a year cap in benefits introduced.

Designed so that no family on benefits receives more in welfare

than the average working family earns, the policy is overwhelmingly

popular with voters. But when it becomes a reality this week, is

that still going to be the case? Sarah Burns is head of one of the

households which will find their benefits capped starting from

tomorrow. She makes it -- she thinks it makes great sense in

theory. I think it is unfair if people are given money where the

average person cannot afford to live. But in practice, she says it

is very different. As a mother of three, she lived in a two-bedroom

council flat where all three of her kids were forced to share a bedroom.

They suggested giving a private property. However, in accepting

that, my rent went from �90 a week to �260 a week. Because the rent at

this new property is so high, Sarah currently gets �26,000 per annum or

�500 a week. From tomorrow, things get much tougher. Over half of her

benefit goes to the landlord. After other benefits are taken into

account she has been told to expect a cut of �90 a week, meaning she

will have to raise three kids on �100 a week. I will not be able to

replace school uniforms or pay for them to do school trips. I will not

be able to replace shoes. It really is that dire. Sarah has asked to

move from this house. The main thing is I feel I have been placed

in this position under false pretences more or less. Now, when

the situation has become so untenable nobody wants to help me.

No one is saying this is easy for anybody. But what is important is

we give support to people at Sarah so they can find accommodation they

can afford and also get back into work. But also reflect that the

welfare bill is being picked up by people earning low wages so that

tax will pay for these benefits. These taxi him in favour.

�26,000 a year cap is a popular policy. A lot of people think it is

fair so it proves very popular. but when the reality is raising

three kids on �100 a week, will public opinion shift?

Teresa Pearce, what will happen when this is introduced? We are

looking at the wrong answer to the wrong question. To cap benefits,

fair enough. We do not want a massive benefits bill. We do not

want people in work who cannot afford rents that people out of

work can. All of those arguments, we understand them. The problem

here is sky high rents in London for sub-standard housing a lot of

the time. This money does not go into the pockets of these people.

It goes into landlords. We need to look at some sort of rent control

Ora massive housebuilding project where people have somewhere decent

to live that does not cost a fortune. Whenever the public are

asked if they are for or against this, 80 % said they were

absolutely behind the changes. Are you perhaps out of step? No, what

we are doing is asking the whole country, do you think it is right

that people have �26,000 a year or more on benefits? For most of the

country that is an eye-watering amount of money because rents in

other places are not as high. It is a London problem. It is a small

number of people affected but for those families, those children will

have to move schools. Paul, I know you have three children, could you

hand on heart deal with �100 a week and bring those children up. I do

not think I would. I would say in my constituency, the average income

of a family is �26,000 a year and those are people who are working.

In those situations, how can I look on them -- how can I look them in

the face and says someone relying on benefits should get more than

them? A lot of people will say he - - Paul Burstow cannot raise three

children of �100 a week. It I had said the other, you would challenge

me to prove it. But it is not a game. Absolutely it is not a game

but people are my constituency are living on incomes of �27,000 a year.

They expect us to do the best for them, as people who are paying

taxes to support other people on benefits. This cap is one of a

number of measures. Housing has a part to play in this. The last

Labour government had a lamentable record when it came to house

building. They are tragic stories, are you prepared for them? Their

tragic stories of people who are trying to make ends meet through

working. We are trying to support them. People will be �600 at a year

better off because of the tax change. We will leave there. It is

time to look at the rest of the political news in 60 seconds.

Fact, all and Greece deposits, so called fatbergs, will be collected

and turned into a green energy which will power homes and a water

plant. Transport Secretary Stephen Hammond

has questioned the use of back-seat translator's saying some unfairly

help people to pass their driving test.

Harrow council is considering giving their tenants up to �20,000

to move abroad. They say the offer is in its early stages and would be

for those already considering leaving the country.

Figures have revealed that a increasing number of hospitals are

running at over 85 % occupancy, raising concerns about their

ability to maintain expect cab. 25 London hospital trusts expect --

exceeded this level. Up from the previous year.

So we have heard that hospitals are getting more overcrowded. They are

feeling the strain. Paul Burstow, I am interested here where you stand.

You supported the government with their policy when you were in the

department at when you left you started campaigning for your own

local servers? What I have consistently done as a minister and

since leaving the Department of Health is opposed local proposals

to close A&E departments in south London because they are not based

on good evidence. Is it about having your cake and eating it?

it is about standing up for Mike insistence -- my constituents.

you worried about the trouble that is coming down the line? I think

these figures need to be looked at in terms of some of the proposals

for closing A&E departments in London. They do show that the Aga

you can do more out on the We need to look at where people are

in hospital. Will there are people should be at home that a care

package. -- elderly people. There are people in hospital who should

be at home and that I'm afraid we In a moment, we will look ahead to

the big stories that have dominated politics. First, the news.

The London School of Economics has accused the BBC of endangering its

students by sending a crew with them took North Korea to film an

undercover documentary. The LSE said the students were not told

enough to give their informed consent and that the filming could

do serious damage to its reputation for academic integrity. The BBC

disputes the accusations and insists the programme will go ahead.

The Panorama team filmed undercover for eight days last month,

travelling on estate organised tour. But the LSE believes that by posing

as its students, they put the entire group in danger. The LSE has

accused the BBC of using lies and deception from the outset. It said

it had no prior knowledge of the trip and that now the BBC is

unwilling to take responsibility for endangering its students. The

BBC says the students were told twice that a journalist would be

travelling with them. It warned of the risk of arrest and detention.

But the journalist John Sweeney acknowledges they were not told

there was an under keep -- undercover team of three filming a

documentary. We told them enough, but not so much as two in peril

them if something went bad. Nothing went bad. We got away with it. It

was preposterous. But the students helped us, and the majority are

happy for the documentary to go ahead. As an LSE graduate, I find

it extraordinary that an institution that police in three

fought should call for a documentary not to air. -- that

encourages a free thought. John Kerry is visiting Tokyo are in

his latest attempt to build pressure on North Korea. As he

arrived, Japan said the two countries should send a strong

message to North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programmes.

Anti-missile systems have been stationed around Tokyo in

anticipation of a North Korean missile launch.

Details have been published for the funeral service for Lady Thatcher,

to be held at St Paul's Cathedral. That is going to happen on

Wednesday. She requested the service should include music by

English composers and will contain some of her favourite hymns,

reflecting her patriotism and her upbringing as a meat despite the

Methodist. Firefighters have managed to

contain a fire London. The blaze started early this morning in the

tropical house. Firefighters were able to rescue two crocodiles and

an officer, but some animals have died.

That is all the news for now. There So, the debate about Margaret

Thatcher's legacy and how the country will say goodbye reaches a

conclusion on Wednesday, when her funeral takes place. Before we

discuss that, we wanted to take a break, to show you this clip from

YouTube showing her responding to, what shall we call it, an unusual

request from a Swedish journalist in 1995.

All the people I interviewed, I ask them to do something for me. It is

to jump in the air. I would not dream of doing that. Why should I?

I see no significance of making a jump up in the air. I make leaps

forward, not little jumps in studious. Mikhail Gorbachev did it.

You amaze me. What must he have thought of free society if that is

what they ask you to do? It shows another side of the human being.

shows that you want to be thought of as more popular. I don't have to

say that to prove it. This has been my whole life. It is just a gimmick.

No! No, no, no, to coin a phrase. That was indeed a phrase. Nick,

that was, in a sense, Margaret Thatcher. No nonsense, I am not

doing it. I don't care about popularity. If that is her legacy,

it is difficult for today's focus group politicians. Indeed. It is an

error when -- Deraa went politicians did not care what

people thought. What does the death of Lady Thatcher Meifod David

Cameron? It is a blessing in that it means he lead a party of

somebody who changed the world. It is also a burden. One of the

burdens is he is going to measure up against her. It is interesting

to talk to senior Conservatives who say, how does he compare? And they

are generally pretty scathing. I spoke to one Conservative he said

the real difference was, from Margaret Thatcher, 1% of her

ambition was to go to Downing Street, and 99% was what she did

when she got there. Would David Cameron, 99% of his ambition is to

get to Downing Street. -- for David Cameron. And he would have dreamt,

wouldn't he? He would have aimed for a halfway house. Boris would

have jumped. British public life did quite well this week. There are

always going to be tasters reactions, but they seemed to come

from fifth-rate comedians and protesters. The mainstream Left,

would impress of Parliament, the reaction was actually quite

sensitive. -- weather in press or parliament. A good example was Ed

Miliband. As a fifth-rate comedian, Isabel, what do you say? I was

impressed by the tenor of the tributes from Labour critics. I

thought it was a good week for Ed Miliband, until the intervention by

Tony Blair. Until then, it was a positive week for him. I was trying

to get to what is the Tory legacy. Let's go to Ed Miliband. This is

how he handled the commemoration of Margaret Thatcher in the Commons.

You can disagree with Margaret Thatcher, but it is important to

understand the kind of political leader she was. What was unusual

was that she sought to be rooted in people's daily lives, but she also

believed ideology mattered. Not for her the contempt sometimes heat on

ideas and new thinking in political life. Well she never would have

claims to be an intellectual, she believed and showed that ideas

matter in politics. It is fascinating how everybody positions

themselves in relation to her. It is 2013. She entered Parliament 50

years ago, I think. The way I read that when Mr Miliband is implicitly

saying, look, Margaret Thatcher moved the centre to the right, and

that was based on ideas. I am going to move the centre to the left for

based on my ideas. That is exactly what he is saying. The difference

is that historical trends were on Margaret Thatcher's favour in the

1970s and 1980s. Is it obvious that trains are now in the favour of the

left? The two big trains are a lack of fiscal resources in the West and

intense competition from China and the East. Do you conclude from that

that we will move towards a more pro estate future? This is why Tony

Blair is so nervous about Ed Miliband. In his article, Tony

Blair made a point that yes, Ed Miliband was making comparisons

with Margaret Thatcher, but the question is, are you interested in

the right ideas? You would have thought that the overall mood would

have moved to the left after the banking crisis, when rich banks and

bankers screwed everything up. Yet John Reid and Tony Blair seemed to

think it is not. Ed Miliband seems to suggest it is. There has been a

real tension there for Labour MPs, which has been bubbling below the

surface. It surprises me that it has not come out before. It has

been brought to a head by the welfare debate. Blair should the

party position itself on the extent to which people should be cutting

back on the welfare state? -- where should the party doesn't itself.

Labour has been worried that it is on the wrong side of the opinion

polls on that. They did not want to be on the wrong side of Mrs

Thatcher's death either. Yeah, it would have been two consecutive

weeks when they were on the wrong side. I think Ed Miliband's

comments were quite sincere. I think he would have liked to have

gone further in his praise. As a conviction politician, he

identified with her. More to the point, he acknowledged that some of

her convictions were right. The 1970s was an omnishambles.

Something has happened. Why are so many people saying these things

now? It is interesting that you mention welfare. Talk to Labour

people on the streets, they say, we are getting absolutely slaughtered

on welfare. We seem to be in the wrong place. There are nerves in

the party on that. Mr Miliband is doing well, but one of his rising

stars, Chuka Umanna, there his pages. -- his page is. He says

either he or somebody close to him has gone into his page and put in a

comparison between him and President Obama. It is always a

cover up. Suggesting it was a member of his own staff or Dutch

journalists are misbehaving was an error. -- that journalists. I don't

think there's anything wrong with people modifying their own pages.

The problem for him is that he should have come clean about it.

What is wrong with being ambitious? I agree that this is not great. But

if he did it, it was when he was in his late twenties. Chuka Umanna is

one of the most serious people in the Labour Party. None of it really

matters. He is one of the great hopes for the Labour Party, he

really is. It is no bad thing for him. Good to change the subject for