28/04/2013 Sunday Politics London

Sunday Politics. The bunting dashed the economy is growing again, just.

But the picture remains bleak for manufacturing and construction, so

what happened to the promises to rebalance the economy away from

services? We will ask deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. We will also

ask him why he is right and the police are wrong about new powers

they say will help protect the public from terrorists.

All that and his party's prospects in the local elections in our Sunday

interview with the Lib Dem leader. Will Thursday's elections produce a

UKIP breakthrough in local government, and could the Greens be

a casual to? We will ask UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall amid controversy

over some of their candidates and Green MP Caroline Lucas. In London,

government investment falling fares rising that can London have

world-class tube when studies show it is expensive and unreliable?

All that and their political panel with views dashed Janan Ganesh, Nick

Watt and newcomer Helen Lewis. They will be tweeting as if their lives

depended on it throughout the programme, which they do!

UKIP are making the headlines this weekend, but not necessarily in a

good way. The party have tripled the number of candidates they are

running in the local elections next week and they remain in double

figures in the latest polls. But with success comes scrutiny and

criticism, from among others, big beast can Clark, who was attacking

them on sky News this morning. So have other Tories and the Sunday

papers this morning. Janan Ganesh, you can take comfort from the fact

that they are now so important that the other parties' spin doctors can

be unleashed on them. If I were Nigel Farage, I would take this as a

perverse condiment. There is no way either the Tories or the press would

be switching their guns towards UKIP unless they were a serious presence

politically. But it becomes bad news if they don't adjust to it and

become more able to withstand scrutiny. There are signs that they

are struggling. There is an idea mooted by some UKIP figures that

they essentially buy policies off-the-shelf from right-wing think

tanks because they have so little internal capacity for that kind of

thing. That is something they will have to improve before 2015 if they

are to make an impact electorally. So they can take comfort from being

in the headlines, but they also seem to have expanded so quickly that as

they have admitted, they have not been able to scrutinise some of

their candidates, who may be living up to you that Cameron's original

description of UKIP? They have gone up from 600 to nearly 1800, which is

an imperial overstretch which has taken place. We know about that at

the BBC. You have some astonishingly fringe views that are being found.

One candidate had to be suspended because he called for forced

abortions of babies with Down's syndrome. There are linked to the

BNP and the EDL. It is really troublesome. There will be some

whose views even UKIP would not stand by. Just the teething pains of

a growing party? Well, UKIP now occupy an important position as the

protest party. The Lib Dems used to be the protest party, but they were

the protest party who were serious about getting into government. UKIP

are not serious. Helen is saying there are all these candidates that

they have not vetted, and that is true. But there are not policies. On

the front page of the Observer today, Janan Ganesh was talking

about whether they might go to some right-wing think tanks and get

policies off-the-shelf. Beyond that core policies, they don't have a

serious set. We will see on Thursday whether the old adage that all

publicity is good publicity is true. They may just be happy to be on the

front pages. Now, it has been three years since

Nick Clegg and David Cameron famously appeared almost

hand-in-hand in the Downing Street rose garden, promising to sort out

the deficit and get the economy moving again. This week, they were

grateful to avoid a third dip into recession, but the facts behind that

headline remain worrying for the parties running Britain.

This week, we found out that the UK economy had grown by just 0.3%. In

the first three months of 2013. It shows how bad things have got that

such a tiny upward tick was greeted with relief. These numbers are an

encouraging sign that the economy is healing and despite a tough

situation, we are making progress. Figures show that growth was driven

by the services sector, with construction and manufacturing

production continuing to perform poorly. If that sounds familiar, so

does this. Coalition tensions over Civil Liberties. Theresa May's plan

to consider withdrawing temporarily from the European Court of human

rights to improve the chances of deporting terror suspect Abu Qatada

have not gone down well with the Lib Dems. Then there was what critics

call the snooper's Charter, the plans to monitor e-mail and internet

used to help thwart terror plots. Nick Clegg effectively killed that

live on local radio. What people have dubbed the snooper's Charter

will not happen. However unpopular he is with his Conservative

colleagues, Nick Clegg will be hoping that rank and file Lib Dems

like it. Keeping them is vital for this Thursday's local elections.

Three years on from the Rose Garden, the challenges of government for the

coalition's junior partner show no sign of diminishing any time soon.

Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Good to have you back. You made

rebalancing the economy in favour of manufacturing one of the key

missions for the coalition in 2010. Why have you failed even to make a

start on that? I agree, the rebalancing away from an over

reliance on financial services and on one square mile in the city of

London as opposed to one hundred thousand square miles of our

country, over reliance on service as opposed to manufacturing, you are

right that that rebalancing, much like the other healing processes in

the economy, is taking longer than we hoped at the beginning. The

manufacturing issue is heavily bound up with problems in the Eurozone. A

lot of our most competitive parts of our manufacturing industry are

export facing. Because they rely so heavily on those European export

markets, there has been a body blow to that rebalancing exercise. That

does not mean we should stop, as a government, pulling the levers which

help rebalancing - infrastructure investment, expanding

apprenticeships, giving tax breaks for capital investment and we are

proceeding with those. Your colleague George Osborne talked

about the march of the makers. Let me show you how serious it has got.

Let me show you this chart. Since you came into power, you can see how

construction has plummeted. Services have risen. Thank goodness,

otherwise there would be no growth. Manufacturing production continues

to fall. But by no sense are we going through an era of the march of

the makers. I accept that the drop-off in construction, which is

linked with sentiment in the housing market, is something where we are

injecting new initiatives like the help to buy scheme in the Budget,

which I believe will make a difference. For the first time, the

Treasury has given to housebuilders a guarantee that the Treasury will

underwrite the financing costs and provide an insurance policy to the

tune of �10 billion. I believe those things are starting to feed through

the pipeline, but I accept, because we inherited this massive cliff edge

drop in capital in the Smith decided upon by Gordon Brown and Alistair

Darling, which were duty-bound to adopt in the first period of our

government, we have been making up for it since. In the first Budget,

we announced �3 billion of extra capital investment. I accept that

all of those things have hit the construction sector, but I hope you

will see that the initiatives we have taken will have an effect.

housing, you inherited an economy which the year before you came to

power had reduced a 96,000 housing starts for England, a derisory

figure. How many was it last year? can't tell you. It was 90 8000, 2000

more over three years. That is why I stress to you that many of the

initiatives we take, these guarantees are important because

they reduce the financing cost for housebuilders. I learnt with some

frustration in government that when you decide something, the time it

takes to get a decision and implement it in practice,

particularly in housing, does take a while. But I have spoken to housing

associations and housebuilders, and they are telling us that they think

the two minute of effect of these measures will have an effect.

would think that three years, we should have done something. You have

confessed - not confessed, but recognised that manufacturing is

struggling, but your government has made it worse. This month, energy

intensive is Mrs, which is manufacturing, will have to pay a

minimum of �16 in tax for every tonne of carbon they produce. In

Europe, they will pay less than e3. How can they compete? You are

missing out an important part of this, which is that George Osborne

announced as well that we are providing millions of pounds of

assistance to the most energy intensive industry, precisely to

make sure the industry is not just. We have also said we will make sure

we implement that policy because everybody agrees that we have to

make sure our industry is not only competitive, but sustainable in the

long one. But we want to do so in a way which is consistent with what is

happening across the European Union. Your point is not to tie their hands

behind their back. That is why we have provided millions of pounds of

assistance to energy intensive industries. You have departments

which are saying different things. That is slightly mischievous. We are

identifying those industries which are most energy intensive where

there is a clear objective case that because of their reliance on

energy, they need to be provided with assistance. It is only going to

get worse, because the carbon tax this month will increase to �30 a

tonne in 2020 and �70 a tonne 2030 and your government's plans.

Europe, it is three euros a term and falling. Why would anyone come to

Britain to manufacture with that tax regime? Surely you have already lost

the aluminium industry in this country. You will lose more with

this? Actually, investment increased under this government. Many of the

investments were announced by major foreign investors subsequent to the

decision is announced, so that is incorrect. We are doing that because

the reasons you decide to invest in this country - yes, energy costs are

important, particularly in relation to the cost of Shell gas in the

United States. There is a discrepancy. But there are other

reasons why people decide to invest in the UK, because we have flexible

labour markets, and very competitive corporation taxes, which are now

lower than anywhere else in the world because we are investing

massively in tax breaks for capital machinery. We are investing on a

scale never seen before in apprenticeships and skills. Many G

-- energy costs are the biggest cost, and you have increased them.

There is a distinction between those who have a particularly heavy

reliance on energy, and for that, we made that announcement sometime ago,

a fund which helps soften the blow for those industries. At the same

time, please do not overlook armour whether it is on skills,

infrastructure or investment, whether it is the success of parts

of our manufacturing base, I announced a few weeks ago a major

new partnership where we as a government put up �1 billion, and

the aerospace industry puts up its own billion pounds to create a new

industry. We will see if it leads to a new rebalancing. Let's move on to

infrastructure. You told a magazine a little while ago a little

confession. There was a reduction in capital spending. Why did you make

capital spending. Why did you make that mistake, and how big was it?

Massive cut, and the government, and because of the state of the economy,

we were teetering on the edge. -- we were teetering on the edge. --

teetering on the edge. We were duty-bound to adopt those plans in

the first instance. What we have done since then, if you let me

explain, it is a little technical but it is important. We had switched

money from current spending into capital spending. Most recently, we

announced an additional �3 billion of capital spending. That is �18

billion of extra capital. Our plans, going forward, will be better

than any of the plans put forward by Labour. Labour's plans were 7% less.

I think what is not going to show up in these figures is that there are

things the government have done which are innovative ways of

leverage in private and public capital. I think 70% of capital is

private. It is not government. The green investment bank,

infrastructure guarantees, �80 billion worth of infrastructure

guarantees. That has never been done before and they are obscured by the

figures. Let's show the figures. This is the trajectory. Public

sector investment. You keep going on sector investment. You keep going on

about needing to do more for infrastructure but this shows you

that from the UU came in, �39 billion, you have cut it down to �24

billion for this year and it only rises in real terms to �25.8 billion

for the two years after that. You are presiding over, for all this

talk about infrastructure, a fall in public investment of 30%. I'm in

danger of repeating myself but that is the drop-off, a Labour cut.

second point, given that by some definitions, 70% of capital

investment is from the private investor, -- private sector, let me

give you an example. The Liberal Democrats are implementing some

major loans, for example to a power station in the Midlands just this

week and that is �3 billion worth of taxpayers money, used to leverage

around 5 billion, �15 billion worth of private sector investment. The

�80 billion worth of Treasury infrastructure guaranteess do not

show up on those figures and will lead to billions of pounds of extra

investment in infrastructure. You hope will stop you have no proof and

that is the reality. How much has the Green bank lent so far? It has

already started lending on a significant scale. How much? The

plan is to use �3 billion from the public sector and, over the coming

years, make sure that matches... How much has the �80 billion of

guarantees been realised in the private sector? I do not have the

figures. But that is all we have to go on, Deputy Prime Minister. We do

not. �80 billion is a real figure. It

dwarfs that. Let me repeat, it is an offer from the government, and

innovative offer to people who want to invest in housing and

infrastructure and roads and energy. We say to them, we will lower the

costs of your financing costs by allowing you to use the government's

balance sheet. As an insurance policy, in expect. -- in effect. And

I'd hope it happens. At a time when there is no money, it would be

lovely to wave a magic wand and say that we wish we had not inherited

land from Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling and that we could split

money all over the place, but we cannot. We're new things. -- we are

doing new things and eye except that some of this takes longer than I

would like. -- I accept. There is evidence that it is starting to

happen. The changing face of terrorism, the Boston Marathon, the

thought of attempt on a Canadian train, two high-profile terror gangs

convicted this week. They show that terrorism is home-grown and not

directed by Al-Qaeda. Those paid to save our lives think that enhanced

digital monitoring of these people is essential, yet you have killed

off the bill that the security services want. Why? Of course the

police and security services must be given proportionate, workable tools

for beer job. -- their job. My point is that on further examination of

what is proposed, significant part of what was proposed were neither

workable, nor proportionate. proposal that a law would be passed

which meant that there are records of every website you ever visit,

Andrew, or anybody in the country, creating a huge treasure trove of

information of websites ever visited by anyone, or whoever you ever

communicate with on social media, once close exoneration many people

thought that was not proportionate. -- upon close examination. There

were players in the internet industry upon whose cooperation we

relied to get that right to send that they were not workable. Having

said that, there are issues, and one is technical but important, because

the police and the intelligence agencies have told me that to match

a single individual IP address... Are you in favour of that? We are

continuing to work on that. Bernard what he wants. I have quotes from

the greater Manchester Chief Constable. It is important. I'm not

stopping the police and the intelligence services using very

considerable powers to keep and analyse communications data to keep

us safe. But we already have... As I say, there is no point having a

political debate, and joint committee MPs examined these

proposals already and came up with an excoriating report saying that a

significant amount of them were not proportionate or workable. You have

to come up with things that are acceptable to the public. Of course,

you have to allow the police and intelligence services to have the

tools they need to keep us safe. I have said that we should continue to

work and we will as a government on this issue. There are not enough IP

address is to go around. We will crack that one. The other measures

the proposed work in my judgement, and in the judgement of the court

cross-party -- cross-party committee deemed to be not workable or

proportionate. #ColourWhite Abu Qatada, you made it clear that it

was a nonstarter to suspend our membership of the European Union. I

spoke to Theresa May and she addressed the House of Commons.

There is no proposal on the table for us to start acting illegally

ought to start advocating... Nobody has put a proposal to me. If they

did, you would be against it? this week, we have entered into a

new treaty with Jordan. Let me finish, she says, as she said to the

House of Commons, that if we want to deal with the legal impediment

inventing us from getting rid of this man, I want this man out of the

country as much of anybody -- as much as anybody in government, and

she says the way to do that is by addressing concerns about due

process in Jordan. And she's doing that. She tells me that that is the

most promising route to deal with this guy. There is another pull --

and other illegal immigrants, a convicted drug dealer, defeating

attempts of the portion because of a right to family life will stop this

is a man who has abandoned the children in the two mothers by whom

he had these. And yet the court is giving him the right to family life

will stop I understand the right... Does that Mac -- does that make you

angry? The right decisions taken by judges than ideal not right. --

there are decisions. There is the rule of law that protect everybody.

Sometimes it means that you get these judgements that people do not

accept. But these are judgements, taken by British judges on British

legislation, drafted on the basis of a convention of human rights

originally drafted by British lawyers under Churchill. The idea

that somehow there is something alien being opposed is a little

misleading. That does not mean that we can have a legitimate public

debate -- that we can have a legitimate public debate about how

the provisions work. You exist being overshadowed by UKIP in these

elections? I am slightly amused that people think the is a link between

us and UKIP. You used to be the insurgents and now you are the

establishment. They are the insurgents. Of course it is

seductive for people to say that they will vote for that lot who say

to hell with mainstream politics. I think the more you look at UKIP in

terms of what they stand for, people will be less attractive when they

see that UKIP's stands in favour of cuts would be cuts to schools and

hospitals, and their tax policy means that people will pay the

syntax as rich people. They want to jeopardise up to 3 million jobs in

this country. At the end of the day, there is a struggle going on on the

right of politics between the Conservative party and UKIP will

stop the Liberal Democrats stand squarely as the party which

offers... Behind UKIP in the polls. They are ahead of you. Let's look at

what has happened. In the most ferociously contested poll,

Eastleigh, we won and they did not. In local by-elections up and down

the country, we have actually won the net gains against both the Lib

Dems that the Labour and Conservative parties. In my view,

travelling around the country honestly -- constantly... But you

are losing councillors. We actually gained councillors. Except that

these are a tough round of elections. -- I accept. We are

emerging as the only party in the centre of politics, given that the

centre ground has been vacated by Labour to the left and the

Conservatives to the right, we the only party saying that if you want

to do the tough things to repair the economy, but do so fairly, in a fear

society, enabling everyone to get on, we are the party for you. -- in

a fear society. One final question, Iain Duncan-Smith suggested that it

off Orwell the pensioners, not just better off, should give back tax

payer funded benefits like the bus pass and TV licence and winter fuel

allowance. What say you? I do not think it is reasonable to say to a

working family who have just had their child benefit taken away, why

should they, through their taxes, pay for the multimillionaire

pensioner living next door for his TV licence and winter fuel payment?

I think we should grasp this nettle as we have other difficult levels.

The Conservatives do not want to do so and that is a difference of

approach. We believe that welfare reform starts at the top and works

down. You do not start from the bottom and work up. The idea of

saying that in the meantime you give people benefits and then you say,

please give them back, I think that does not make sense. When money is

tight, you have to have the right priorities. I think it is right to

ask wealthy people, may be multimillionaires to make sacrifices

as we are asking families on low incomes. Thank you for being with us

today and going through these questions. Thursday 's election

could well be challenging for the Lib Dems. It is quite a test for the

Tories, too, because the last time the seats were fought, Conservatives

were flying high in opposition and labour was plummeting. Local

elections are also a time for smaller parties like the Green party

and UKIP to flourish it began. We have been to England's South Coast

to find out how the smaller parties plan to operate a solution voters a

new place to go. -- offer dissolution voters. --

disillusioned. There are not any local elections happening in

Brighton but there is a festival of music themed sand sculpture, and it

is a good place to look at the tactics of one of the parties hoping

to make an impact. The Green party has been digging in here for years

and it has worked. In 2010, this place gave them their first-ever MP.

In 2011, they became the largest party on the council. That means

they have a concrete record that they can build on elsewhere. And it

is not just things like these cycle lanes. The bedroom tax was brought

in by central government and we said that we would not evict people if

they came to the point where they were facing eviction simply because

they cannot pay the bedroom tax. That becomes a flagship for what

other parties elsewhere might look at doing. And the government would

call it a change to the benefit system rather than a bedroom tax.

Out in the leafy parts of Sussex, like this village, it is less green

and more true blue. But UKIP are on the march. The last time these seats

were fought, UKIP fielded candidates in fewer than half of the warts.

This time around, there is a UKIP candidate in every single one. --

have awards. Even though the came second in the Eastleigh by-election,

UKIP still has not at the local level. They are hoping that voters

will follow in the footsteps of Roger Harper, the district

councillor who defected from the Tories. What became obvious in

talking to members, these footsoldiers on the were fading.

They were disappearing. -- these foot shoulders on the streets were

fading. They were disillusioned with gay marriage and the police and

crime commission, with wind farms, and those are all things that

resonated with me. Nationally, the parties fielding three times as many

candidates as they did in 2009, but that has brought some admin

problems. Here, they missed the deadline for nominated a -- for

nominating a candidate and they forgot to sample the postal votes. A

candidate in the neighbouring village was suspended for comments

about the Holocaust. On the south coast, UKIP and the Greens are not

fighting over the same political territory, but they are competing

for the votes of people who look at the larger parties and think, none

of the above. So, votes up for grabs. Who can win

them? MP and former Green party leader Caroline Lucas and deputy

leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall, join me go head-to-head.

Paul Nuttall, let me come to you first, because you are in the news

this morning. Your party seems to be in disarray as you had to these

local elections. Even one of your own leaders says getting your

candidates together is like herding cats. They need to get off their

hobbyhorses. Well, I don't think we are in disarray. That is a bit

unfair. We are a young, growing party. There are teething problems.

But this has been a concerted attack by the establishment. It is part of

a dirty tricks campaign by the Conservative Party over the past 24

hours, and I think it is rather sad. It is things like this which turned

people off politics and ensures that voter turnout goes down. What

evidence is there that you are a victim of Tory dirty tricks? Because

we have the 100 page dossier that the Conservative Party Central

office handed to a national newspaper on Friday. The

Conservatives have got people doing these kind of dirty tricks, going

through the private lives of our candidates, going back two years on

social media. We are not going to respond. Caroline Lucas, they are on

the front page. They are the new insurgents. Are they in danger of

overshadowing you? They are certainly doing well at the moment,

and I would not mind some of the wealthy backing they have from big

business. If we had that, we could be doing a good job as well. So I am

envious of that. Which big businesses are backing UKIP? They

have a lot of wealthy backers. are they? I don't have the names.

But I have been reading about the hundreds of thousands that go into

the UKIP covers. You only have to look around the country to see the

number of billboards they have been able to afford. When you have more

money, you can make a bigger impact. But we are making progress. We are

hoping to build on the strong position we have in places like

Oxford shirt, Suffolk and Norfolk, hopefully winning our first seats in

Essex and Cornwall. We have 140 councillors on principal authorities

now. We hope to increase that number. When we get the chance to

explain our policies on the doorsteps, people like what they

hear. Paul Nuttall, your candidates are not all surviving scrutiny. Is

there a danger that your policies will not survive when they get the

same scrutiny, because they don't add up? I am happy for people to

look at our policies. But I am not happy for people to start delving

into the backgrounds and lives of people who are just local people.

This is not a general election. It is not a European election. These

are local people putting their heads above the parapet, and if the

Conservative Party and Labour Party are going to try to delve into their

pasts and all they can find is a problem with 0.5% of our

candidates... But if they have neofascist pasts, shouldn't we know

that? Not all of them have neofascist sympathies. But what

about the ones that do? We are the only political party in Britain that

has it written into its constitution that if you have been a member of a

far right organisation, you can never be a member of UKIP. The

difference between ourselves and the Labour Party is this. When we find

members who have been in the BNP, we kick them out. There members who are

ex-BNP councillors. We will not take lessons from anyone else on fighting

the far right. Caroline Lucas, there is a time for everything. And at

least in the short to medium term, your time has come and gone.

Greenery was fashionable. The main parties were tripping over

themselves to emulate you. Now we are in a seemingly never-ending

recession, jobs are scarce, living standards are squeezed. UKIP is the

coming force and you are in decline. It is a funny time for you to say

that, just a year after we have won our first council and two years

after we got our first MP. UKIP doesn't have any MPs. The

environment has to be at the top of the agenda. We need to invest in

clean energy not just because of the environmental reasons, but because

it would generate lots of jobs. But also, as you heard on that clip, we

are fighting the bedroom tax and this onslaught of attacks on poorer

people. Here in Brighton and Hove, we will pledge not to evict people

from their homes because of the bedroom tax. We are trying to

implement a living wage. But don't you have to be left-wing to vote

Green? All your parties are to the left of Labour. It is not hard to be

left of Labour Right now, because they have moved so far to the

centre. I think left and right is not helpful terminology. Labour have

security issues that are to the right of Ken Clarke. Our message is

that if you care about making sure we have a fairer society, a cleaner

environment, more jobs, more strong local economies, the way to do that

is to vote Green. I assume you will start vetting your general election

candidates after what has happened. What would be success for you on

Thursday? We just don't know. Things are up in the air at the moment. I

have never seen politics so fluid in my lifetime. Membership is at around

27,000 at the moment, and we are at 70% in the polls. All bets are off.

17? You have picked the best pole! You can't give as a yardstick to

judge you by? I am not going to try and predict. But I think we will do

well and our vote share will be up significantly. Caroline Lucas, what

councils will you be prominent in after Thursday? We hope to get our

first seats in places like Essex and Cornwall. We hope to build on what

we have got in Oxfordshire and Suffolk and Norfolk. But after Paul

Nuttall has been defending the background of his candidates, people

should be worried about their policies. They have an MEP who says

that any sane businessman should not be employing women of childbearing

years because they would have to pay maternity pay. They have a culture

spokesperson who says that gay adoption is child abuse. Poor people

will be paying more percentagewise in terms of tax... Paul, you have

the final 20 seconds. If people want to vote for us, they should look at

our policies. They should. We want to give local referendums to local

people. If you don't want your sports centre closed or you don't

want that wind farm, we will trust the people. If you want to vote for

the Greens, the lights will go out in Britain. On that uncontroversial

claim sarcasm macro, we will leave The lights are still on here. You

are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up, I will be looking at the

week ahead with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics

across the UK. Welcome from us. Coming up later,

London Underground claims that its upgrade will deliver a world-class

network, but it's own report has called the present system expensive

and unreliable. We will be discussing that and other things

with the Transport Minister Stephen Hammond and shadow attorney general

Emily Thornbury. Let me ask you both about the latest estimates that

within three years, we will be 120,000 school places short. How has

that come about? In May 2004, the ONS predicted this. In 2006, the

baby boom was happening. The last government cut the funding for

primary school places. That has caused a particular problem for

London. Funding was cut from �560 million down to 420 million. We need

to ensure that we can build classrooms for the future. So you

took your loft the ball on this one? Well, we can all trade statistics.

The budget for building new schools was in fact cut by this government

by 50%. If you cut the budget for building new schools and you

introduce a system where local authorities are not responsible for

building new schools, and instead you have these free schools which

can open up wherever they want, and half of them are pinning in areas in

London where they have too many school places already, there is

chaos. Tell me if I am wrong, but until just three years ago, you guys

were in government, and you were there for a long time. Yes, and

now, we need to make sure local authorities - they are not allowed

to tell free schools to expand their class sizes. So it is all very well

to say that, but they can't do it. But at the moment, there doesn't

look to be any panacea coming from your direction. That was her

government's policy. Secondly, she can't run away from the numbers.

During the last Labour government, they spent �1.9 billion overall on

secondary schools and primary schools. Under this government,

there will be 5 billion spent on building new schools. As of March

2013, more money was allocated for this year the jury the whole period

of government for Labour. Let's move on. We will soon see what happens

over the next few years with you in government. But those problems

should have been dealt with. Negotiations are currently underway

between the government and cities all over how much funding the Tube

network needs over the next few years.

Government investment has been falling. The burden on fare payers

is increasing. With the poorest programme of upgrades and

improvements, Transport for London claims it can deliver a world-class

transport system, but it's own studies raise doubts about this.

The Copenhagen Metro is almost the complete opposite of London's.

Brand-new, open 24 hours a day, it can feel like you have walked into a

computer simulation. If I was trying to do this in London, it would be

impossible. I would have to shout to be heard and the train would be

moving too much for me to stand or walk. But here, it is quiet and

incredibly smooth. And another difference - no drivers. When there

are staff on trains, they check how people are and keep on top of a

baffling array of payment methods. A better system, according to the

bosses. Releasing the drivers to become stewards, they can then

interact with the passengers, and it is a different job. In our mind, it

is a better job. Inside the station's, natural light streams in.

Pleasing design is literally a legal requirement. And the good news for

wheelchair users and parents with a buggy is that every station has a

lift. At street level, the Metro seems popular. What do you think of

the Metro system here? Marvellous. Is it often late? It is actually

right on time. Really new and clean and nice. In London, it is not so

clean and it is old. Do you like the London Underground? It is a bit

spooky, because you are way down. Not everything is perfect. The

Copenhagen Metro had a difficult year and passengers had complaints

about the ticketing system. But it offers people an experience they are

unlikely to receive in London, with one big afferents. In London, you

have very old infrastructure which they are continuously trying to

maintain and upgrade. That is where we have a big advantage. London is

currently spending billions doing up the tube itself, more than twice

what we spent on the Olympic Games. TfL say that will buy us a

world-class system to compete with anywhere on the globe. But is that

really what we are getting? The our system is deemed unreliable and

expensive. We are paying more for upgrade work than others and are on

course only to compare amiably with them, rather than well. But how much

of that is down to things that are outside of the control of transport

for London and how much of it could be do something about? According to

Labour, our money could be better spent. It is true that dealing with

one of the oldest undergrounds in the world, there are significant

problems. It has not had regular investment until recently. It is

clear it is going to be a difficult and expensive underground but it is

also clear that there are some old-fashioned practices within

transport for London that, if they really thought about it, they could

make signalling savings. Transport for London transport -- has said

that there are significant changes they are going to make in the

future. Clarify this, I'll be going to have a world-class system or not?

Looking at the experience of last summer, where public transport was

one of the key reasons of the Olympics were so successful, I think

people would have described that experience as world-class. The great

news is that the reliability levels that we saw at the Olympics have

been maintained. We have seen a 40% improvement of reliability. Why does

this report says that we have not? The result was work to do. You still

have signalling systems on the Piccadilly line dating from the

early 60s will stop -- early 60s. Let's look at the positive things.

On the Jubilee line, we have 33 trains an hour. More than any other

natural. Are you saying that we are already world-class? In some

places, where we have delivered new capacity. This report does not show

us as world-class. The question is, do we think the abridgements

planned, the pro-Dash the programme of improvements will deliver that

with the money that you have at the moment from government. Are you

going to be able to deliver a world-class tube network? Those

lines are becoming world-class. The Victoria line is comparing

favourably to Asian natural systems. We need sustained

investment going forward and the government understands that. It is

crucial that we see that elsewhere. Let's explore that. As we stand

now, plans across the network, where there is guaranteed money, will that

provide a world-class transport network the Mac that will give us an

upgraded Metropolitan line and 191 new trends. It will complete the

Northern line. We have not yet got the funding secured for the

Piccadilly line. We need that and we need to give certainty to the supply

train -- supply chain. We need to make jobs across the economy, which

we are seeking to do. We are having positive discussions with the

government on that. So those lines need to be done and we have to keep

this process. We know that London compares badly in operating costs at

the moment, so, were the government to maintain current spending, would

you be able to deliver those world-class systems? That has been a

30% improvement over the last ten years in terms of productivity so we

are making inroads. Of course if we had the investment that we have seen

in recent years continued over the forthcoming years to enable us to

finish these lines, then, yes, we will see what we're seeing on other

airlines that been modernised. We will see that type of reliability

across the network. And do you expect to get a maintained level of

funding, given that government investment has been coming down in

the last few years? I have no doubt the government is listening to the

argument. They know that investing in London means grating jobs across

the UK. Not just for London but for the wider economy. I have no doubt

that they understand this. Let's get an early inkling of government

thinking. Will you guarantee the same level of funding that they have

had for the last three years? That has been going down. Will you

guarantee that? I think the report was interesting. What it showed is

that what is happening in terms of the upgrades that have already been

done is that this is a natural system that compares very favourably

with others of similar age and the upgrades that can be done. We need

to know, we know that times are hard and we know that transport is not

protected in the spending round, as continuing measures are sought to

cut borrowing. Will you guarantee the same level of funding? Mike has

said that we and Transport for London are in discussions. We know

that there is a huge benefits to the economy. We have seen the benefits

from the upgrade. It is a lesson that the government understands.

you happy that the burden for future improvements has been moved from

central government to the fear payer? Is that right? That is a

policy that has been in place through the previous administration

and this Administration. We are trying to ensure a fair settlement

for London. That is not the case. Since you have been in, there's been

a drop-off in central government spending and the burden has shifted

firmly to the fear payer. Is it sensible economic? -- sensible

economic. If you take the money out of their pocket, that is money they

cannot spend, that is money that businesses cannot spend. The macro

you are forgetting the money that was given over on top of that to

TEFL last October to ensure that the deal in London was the same as

overseas. -- Transport for London. The whole point was that that was a

commitment from central government to London to make sure that

Londoners benefited. Are you happy? Why is the taxpayer not just paying

for the service that they get rather than paying for infrastructure,

capital, future improvements, which is surely the responsibility of

government. The majority is coming from the taxpayer and the central

government grant from Transport for London. It is nonsense to suggest

that that is following on fare-payer. The problem with your

intervention in this debate is that there were promises about cutting

theories which were not sustainable if we're going to have a world-class

network. --fares. I was struck by how much cheaper it is to get

escalators if you can build them and have not made for matter. Those

suggestions mean that the costs could be cut by 1%. I thought that

it was interesting that the government commissioned this report

and what a shame that the mere had not been doing this because he has

to get on top of this and needs to take the job seriously. Moody's, the

credit agency, says that there is a surplus of �190,000, more money in

income than your spending. Why are you raising that money when it is

not being spent? Moody's have misunderstood the position. In

reality, the grant from government is to find -- is defined as revenue

even though it huge proportion is spent on capital renewal. -- a huge

proportion. Why is that the case? If you were given money for revenue,

that is being spent on operating costs each year. That is what the

fare-payer should be paying. grant from government is allocated

as revenue. When it is delivered as it capital programme, then it goes

back to the Treasury and is accounted for as capital delivery

when there are bricks on the ground and new trends. It is a

misunderstanding. Moody's have misinterpreted the reality and

there's not a surplus sitting around. All our funding is allocated

for important capital programmes. know that, but the question is, who

is coming from? Should it be coming from government? Of course, it is

going from government and Taiwan to continue to get the level of

investment we need going forward. -- I want to continue. We are the

oldest metro in the world by far and it is crucial that we modernise. It

is crucial to sustain the growth of population in London. It is crucial

that we have the capacity. Also, to deal with things like high speed

to. -- High Speed two. I would like to congratulate you for King's

Cross. Always good to end on a condiment. Uncertainty over the size

of the influx of immigration has sparked a political row and

according to Westminster, there is serious cause for concern.

Bulgarians and Romanians gained the right to Visa free travel to the UK

when they joined the EU in 2007. But the number of low skilled workers

was limited and they face job constraints including that employers

had to apply for work permits and migrants had to apply for an

accession work hard. These researchers will end in January. The

last time the EU expanded in such a way was to those and four. Then, the

government underestimated the number of immigrants who would arrive. This

week, Westminster Council told a Parliamentary committee that it

needed more accurate predictions regarding numbers in order to plan

for local services, otherwise it would be in serious difficulty. They

claimed that migration from Romania was already having quite an impact

in the borough in the form of a rising number of migrant rough

speakers around marble arch, and an increase in low-level crime in the

area. Should we expect a major influx of new migrants in the New

Year? I do not think we will see a mass exodus from bog area. People

who wanted to leave have already left or have gone somewhere and

comeback. With a pinch being felt across all of the services, is

enough being done? The leader of Westminster Council is here. You

detect that will be a problem and you do not think enough is being

done to prepare. We are concerned about the potential impact. Being in

central London, we are an attractive place for immigrants. We need to

plan for it. I am encouraged by government statements that they are

planning to look at access to benefits. That is absolutely

crucial. It is crucial to stemming the influx. What about stopping the

influx in the first place? It is difficult without changing EU law

and the way that we have negotiated that. You have had a long time to

think about this. What problem do you foresee? Is there not enough

housing? If you take a family of two coming from Rumania or Bulgaria,

they will be eight or nine times better off on bulk area -- on

benefits in Britain than in their own countries on paid work. Who

could blame them for coming to Britain? Dealing with access to

benefits is absolutely vital to stemming the flow. From our

perspective, we need to plan. Everything from educational places

through to the House that we need to provide. But no one seems to know,

they do not seem to have done the work to work out how many people are

going to be coming over. We have kept in place the conditional

transitional arrangements. There have been estimates of varying

numbers in the estimate has been something like 16,000 year, so we

have seen estimates. The government is making plans. But 13,000 did not

believe it. You have asked me the estimate and I'm telling you. You

can play around with the statistics if you like, but that is the number.

What the government is doing is that we are ensuring that there will be

access limitation to benefits so people cannot come here for an NHS

holiday. We want a matron that is in place and they will be. So that we

can limit the attractiveness of people coming here. I do not think

Labour would have had the appetite for that. I think the government

should be ensuring that people are paid in wage. I think we should

start with prosecutions if people are not paying the minimum wage goes

I think that people are being undercut. And let me start with

people who work, because people do, I think, come here on the whole to

work, but they should not be allowed to undermine anything. We should

make sure we do not have landlords taking advantage of people, cramming

people into spaces. We should make sure that regulation is in place and

we should look at the resident thing. You should have to live for a

while in the country before you are entitled to benefits. So you support

the government? They are talking about press releases and rhetoric.

They have not actually done anything so how can I support what they are

doing? They are not doing a thing! That is clearly nonsense.

Actually... What have you done, what have you done? ! #ColourCyan that is

nonsense as you well know. One of the reasons why we are in the

situation is that your government in 2004 open the floodgates and let

them in. At that not happened, we would be in a different situation.

I'd completely agree. We said a massive influx, which was colouring

our perspective now. It is great in difficulties. And that is the final

word because we have to get in another item. Time for a look at the

rest of the political news in 60 seconds.

The mayor is spending �160,000 to find out why many people don't know

what he does. City Hall claimed the research will inform Londoners and

make them are countable, but opponents say it will promote his

own national political ambitions and at the spent beggars belief. The

price for the finals at the London 2012 Olympics were too high

according to a London Assembly report.

It found that it -- tickets to the athletics, track cycling and

swimming events were unavailable to the public for less than �50. The

big week for London's skies as Hillingdon, Richmond and Hounslow

launched consultations on aviation expansion at Heathrow, while the

first part of the government investigation into night flights in

London came to an end. Tickets, please, as it is revealed

that Transport for London boss Peter Henley spent �175 on toy buses for

Boris Johnson. It is thought that five of the new Routemaster toys

were built. TfL claimed they were gifts for visiting dignitaries.

Let's talk quickly about Jo Johnson's elevation. That is mean of

the prime minister, to come between brothers. They are working together

for the same end. Shame the Labour Party can't do that. There was a

board of people working with Jo. New ideas for the next general election.

All these bright young things coming up? These bright young conservatives

are the future? I am told that number ten is like a ghost town

because they have run out of ideas. They just want to win the next

election. Good to see you both. In a moment, we will look ahead to

the big stories that will dominate politics next week, an election

which, with our political panel. There has been a shooting outside

the Italian prime minister's office in Rome. Two police officers have

been injured. It happened as the country's new minister, Enrico

Letta, was being set warning at the President shall palace, about half a

mile from the incident. Let's go live now to our correspondent in

Rome. What more can you tell us? Italian police told the BBC that

they are not sure whether there is any connection between the shooting

and the swearing-in ceremony of the government. They say they have

arrested a man who shot these two policemen, and they have suggested

that he may have mental problems. But they are still gathering

information. However, this is a sombre start for Italy's new

government, which faces huge challenges both politically and

economically. The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain

Duncan Smith has suggested that wealthy pensioners should pay back

benefits like free bus travel and help with heating bills. He said

some elderly people could afford to pay for themselves, and he would

encourage them to return the money to the state. David Cameron promised

at the last election not to cut these benefits for pensioners.

The owner of a building that collapsed, killing hundreds of

factory workers in Bangladesh, has been arrested after going on the

run. Two people have been rescued this morning and it is believed that

more survivors are trapped beneath the rubble. Emergency teams are due

to start using heavy machinery to clear some of the debris. At least

360 people are known to have died after the collapse on Wednesday. The

Duchess of Cambridge has recorded her first video message to appeal

for support for children's hospices. The Duchess, who is royal patron of

East Anglia's children's hospices, said the centres provide a lifeline

for families at a time of unimaginable pain. I have been

fortunate to see at first hand the remarkable work that they do for

children and young people with life limiting conditions and their

families. Children's Hospice Week is a time to recognise, celebrate and

support the inspirational work of those hospices and those who provide

palliative care to these children and their families.

That's it for now. Our next news on BBC One will be at 6.35.

So, there is a big electoral test coming on Thursday. Will the Tories

suffer at the hands of Nigel Farage and his merry band? Will Ed Miliband

make inroads into the south-east and be a real one nation party after

war? Will Nick Clegg's Lib Dems show signs of life in their old

strongholds in the West Country? All questions for the week ahead.

Janan Ganesh, give me your reaction to the Nick Clegg interview? He was

both well briefed and even perky, and probably with good reason. The

unwritten story in Westminster over the past six months has been, if not

the revival of Nick Clegg, then at least the stabilisation of his

political fortunes. His leadership is no longer under threat. He no

longer has Chris Huhne to worry about. They won in Eastleigh. They

are good at playing up policy differences with the Tories, such as

the snooper's charter that they talked about. That seems to augur

well for the May election. So if he is feeling perky, it is for good

reason. Surprisingly perky, given that the Lib Dems are expecting to

lose seats. He said two things which were both correct and unpopular,

firstly that we should not regard pensioners as a monolithic block and

their benefits should be up for debate. They should be subject to

means testing? Not necessarily on everything, but there is an

unfairness that a family with a disabled child might be affected by

the bedroom tax, and pensioners might not be. The second thing is

that the rule of law is the rule of law, even for people we don't like.

If you can suspend the human rights for somebody, where next? Two

unpopular things that are true. the suspension thing, M ourselves

dashed the court ruled that Abu Qatada could stay. The next day, we

heard that the government was thinking of leaving the Court of

human rights for a while, getting rid of him to Jordan, and then

joining again. Then came the lobby briefing, which seemed to confirm

that. Mr Clegg said the proposal had ever been made to him. Theresa May

and Downing Street wanted to impress the right-wing papers, so they

briefed them overnight that we could pull out of the European Convention

on Human Rights on a temporary basis. At the following morning's

briefing, the prime minister's civil servant was asked about this, and he

said, we are exploring all options. When Theresa May gave her statement

at the House of Commons, she said, we are exploring all options. But

the idea of actually doing it was never going to happen because the

Liberal Democrats would not have agreed to it. When they had the

meeting in Downing Street that prompted this briefing to the

right-wing newspapers, the prime minister was there. The Home

Secretary and Justice Secretary and Attorney General were there. What do

they have in common is? They are all Conservatives. When the Liberal

Democrats got wind of it, they said, it ain't going to happen.

there is, at last, a Johnson in Downing Street. Not the one we

thought, but the one we thought may end up in Downing Street had

something to say about it. B Johnson finally gets into Downing Street,

not A. Helen, do we think this will make much difference to the Downing

Street team? Definitely, because that unit has been headed by a civil

servant and now it is an explicitly Tory unit. During the Thatcherite

years, it was coming up with radical policies. At first, I thought David

Cameron had done something clever, because everyone knows that brother

on brother narrative has been so poisonous for Ed Miliband. If there

will ever be a Johnson on Johnson clash that will help David Cameron.

Do you have to be a Tory to get into Downing Street? Previously, they

said Downing Street was not full of old attorney's. But now they have a,

it is harder to rebut that. Jo Johnson has the ultimate

qualification for greatness, which is that he used to work for the FT.

That will stand him in good stead. He is tough. There are still 100 odd

ministerial posts that are not filled by people who went to Eton.

Did they go to Winchester and Westminster? Places like that. But

Jo Johnson is a very bright guy. It is strange that you have somebody

like Jo Johnson as head of the policy unit, who is the most

pro-European member of the 2010 intake, and then you have Peter

Lilley on the board, who is a climate change sceptic. What is the

strategic direction here? Have they found a way of reconciling those

views bomber or is it about party management? Let me come to Labour.

The current cycle of Labour politics kicked off with Tony Blair's article

in the new statesman, which was critical of Mr Miliband. But then we

had the leader of Unite macro come out from the other side of the

Labour Party. Where does this leave Mr Miliband now? He has had a go at

both of them. It leaves him in a difficult position that is partly of

his own making in that a policy vacuum has developed around him.

Both the right and left of his party want to push him in the direction

they want him to go. Tony Blair's article said they can't rely on the

anti-politics line that UKIP have found some useful. They can't be the

repository for people's anger, as he said, they have to offer a vision,

and that is something they have not got yet. There was a White House

correspondent dinner in Washington. It is an enormous night of humour

and Delph -- self-deprecation. Look at this. I have to admit, I am not

the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be. But some things

are beyond my control. For example, this controversy about Jay-Z going

to Cuba. It is unbelievable. I have got 99 problems, and not Jay-Z is

one. I recognise that this job can take a toll on you. I understand

that the second term needs a burst of new energy, try some new things.

My team and I talked about it. We were willing to try anything, so we

borrowed one of Michelle's tricks. self-deprecation. Could British

politicians do that sort of thing? No, but that is not a bad thing. I

have never been such a fan of the correspondence dinner as most other

people are, not only because I don't get an invite, but because there is

something slightly oleaginous and creepy about the press corps

laughing at almost anything the president gutters. If this was the

case under Bush and Clinton. Obama is good at telling jokes, but it is

always the case. In Washington, the relationship between the media and

the political class is much closer than here. The president is head of

state as well, of course. When I was there, when he came in, you would

stand up. You would not stand up for the prime minister. Yes, the prime

minister is a here today, gone tomorrow politician. The president

of the United States is the head of state. But what was interesting

about that dinner was the joke about being a young Muslim socialist. That

shows Obama's supreme self-confidence that he is able to

address, in a joke, one of the main things that people on the right say

about him. That was more than a joke, that was a significant

moment. I disagree with Janan Ganesh. I like the correspondence

dinner. Have you been invited?Sadly not. There was a great incident

couple of years ago when a satirist in the US just took apart George

Bush, and he had to sit there and listen to it. Imagine what it would

be like if David Cameron told a joke. The best line was when the

president said someone wanted to be a senator. Kids today. We will be

back with a big stories on BBC Two with the Daily Politics next week.