:00:36. > :00:44.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne
:00:45. > :00:48.announces a ?50 cut to annual household energy bills. We'll talk
:00:49. > :00:51.to Lib Dem president Tim Farron ahead of the Chancellor's mini
:00:52. > :00:56.budget this week. Net immigration is up for the first
:00:57. > :01:01.time in two years. Labour and the Tories say they want to bring it
:01:02. > :01:10.down, but how? Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper joins us for the
:01:11. > :01:14.Sunday Interview. The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will
:01:15. > :01:18.be for some cornflakes to get to the top. The Mayor of London says
:01:19. > :01:20.inequality and greed are essential to spur economic activity. The
:01:21. > :01:25.speech won him plenty of headlines and reminded everyone he still has
:01:26. > :01:30.ambitions. So what is the Boris game plan? And in London: The mayor
:01:31. > :01:33.accepts the housing situation in the capital is now a crisis. Another
:01:34. > :01:44.week, another strategy? Can this one deliver?
:01:45. > :01:47.And with me throughout today's programme, well, we've shaken the
:01:48. > :01:54.packet and look who's risen to the top. Or did we open it at the
:01:55. > :01:56.bottom? Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates. All three will be
:01:57. > :02:06.tweeting throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp. So, after
:02:07. > :02:09.weeks in which Ed Miliband's promise to freeze energy prices has set the
:02:10. > :02:12.Westminster agenda, the Coalition Government is finally coming up with
:02:13. > :02:14.its answer. This morning the Chancellor George Osborne explained
:02:15. > :02:18.how he plans to cut household energy bills by an average of fifty quid.
:02:19. > :02:22.What we're going to do is roll back the levees that are placed by
:02:23. > :02:27.government on people's electricity bills. This will mean that for the
:02:28. > :02:33.average bill payer, they will have ?50 of those electricity and gas
:02:34. > :02:37.bills. That will help families. We are doing it in the way that
:02:38. > :02:40.government can do it. We are controlling the cost that families
:02:41. > :02:45.incurred because of government policies. We are doing it in a way
:02:46. > :02:48.that will not damage the environment or reduce our commitment to dealing
:02:49. > :02:54.with climate change. We will not produce commit men to helping
:02:55. > :03:00.low-income families with the cost of living. Janan, we are finally seeing
:03:01. > :03:04.the coalition begin to play its hand in response to the Ed Miliband
:03:05. > :03:07.freeze? They have been trying to respond for almost ten weeks and
:03:08. > :03:13.older responses have been quite fiddly. We are going to take a bit
:03:14. > :03:18.of tax year, put it onto general taxation, have a conversation with
:03:19. > :03:23.the energy companies, engineered a rebate of some kind, this is not
:03:24. > :03:28.very vivid. The advantage of the idea that they have announced
:03:29. > :03:34.overnight is that it is clear and it has a nice round figure attached to
:03:35. > :03:40.it, ?50. The chief of staff of President Obama, he said, if you are
:03:41. > :03:46.explaining, you're losing. The genius of this idea is that it does
:03:47. > :03:50.not require explanation. He would not drawn this morning on what
:03:51. > :03:53.agreement he had with the energy companies, and whether this would
:03:54. > :03:59.fall through to the bottom of the bill, but the way he spoke, saying,
:04:00. > :04:03.I am not going to pre-empt what the energy companies say, that suggests
:04:04. > :04:10.he has something up his sleeve. Yes, I thought so. The energy companies
:04:11. > :04:14.have made this so badly for so long. It would be awful if he announced
:04:15. > :04:18.this and the energy companies said, we are going to keep this money for
:04:19. > :04:23.ourselves. I do not think he is that stupid. The energy companies have an
:04:24. > :04:28.incentive to go along with this, don't they? My worry is that I am
:04:29. > :04:35.not sure how much it will be within the opinion polls. I think people
:04:36. > :04:40.might expect this now, it is not a new thing, it is not an exciting
:04:41. > :04:45.thing. Say in the markets, they may have priced the ten already. If by
:04:46. > :04:51.Thursday of this week, he is able to say, I have a ?50 cut coming to your
:04:52. > :04:54.bill. The energy companies have guaranteed that this will fall
:04:55. > :04:59.through onto your energy bill, and they have indicated to me that they
:05:00. > :05:06.themselves will not put up energy prices through 2014, has he shot the
:05:07. > :05:11.Ed Miliband Fox? I think he has a couple of challenges. It is still
:05:12. > :05:15.very hard. This is an answer for the next 12 months but did is no chance
:05:16. > :05:19.announced that Labour will stop saying they are going to freeze
:05:20. > :05:23.prices in the next Parliament. He will say, I have not just frozen
:05:24. > :05:28.them, I have done that as well and I have cut them. When people look at
:05:29. > :05:33.their energy bills, they are going up by more than ?50. This is a
:05:34. > :05:40.reduction in the amount that they are going up overall. Year on 08
:05:41. > :05:48.will be for George Osborne. He will have to come up with something this
:05:49. > :05:51.time next year. The detail in the Sunday papers reveals that George
:05:52. > :05:55.Osborne is trying to get the energy companies to put on bills that ?50
:05:56. > :06:00.has been knocked off your bill because of a reduction by the
:06:01. > :06:05.government. He is trying to get the energy companies to do his political
:06:06. > :06:09.bidding for him. It will be interesting to see if they go along
:06:10. > :06:14.with that, because then we will know how cross the arm with Ed Miliband.
:06:15. > :06:17.Let's get another perspective. Joining me now from Kendal in the
:06:18. > :06:23.Lake District is the president of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.
:06:24. > :06:31.Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Good morning. Let me ask you this, the
:06:32. > :06:34.coalition is rowing back on green taxes, I do comfortable with that or
:06:35. > :06:40.is it something else you will rebel against? I am very comfortable with
:06:41. > :06:46.the fact we are protecting for the money is going. I am open to where
:06:47. > :06:50.the money comes from. The notion that we should stop insulating the
:06:51. > :06:54.homes of elderly people or stop investing in British manufacturing
:06:55. > :06:58.in terms of green industry, that is something that I resolutely oppose,
:06:59. > :07:03.but I am pleased that the funding will be made available for all that.
:07:04. > :07:07.You cannot ignore the fact that for a whole range of reasons, mostly
:07:08. > :07:13.down to the actions of the energy companies, you have prices that are
:07:14. > :07:18.shooting up and affecting lots of people, making life hard. You cannot
:07:19. > :07:23.ignore that. If we fund the installation of homes for older
:07:24. > :07:27.people and others, if we protect British manufacturing jobs, and
:07:28. > :07:33.raise the money through general taxation, I am comfortable with
:07:34. > :07:38.that. It is not clear that is going to happen. It looks like the
:07:39. > :07:41.eco-scheme, whereby the energy companies pay for the installation
:07:42. > :07:45.of those on below-average incomes, they will spin that out over four
:07:46. > :07:51.years, not two years, and one estimate is that that will cost
:07:52. > :07:57.10,000 jobs. You're always boasting about your commitment to green jobs,
:07:58. > :08:03.how do square that? I do not believe that. The roll-out will be longer.
:08:04. > :08:07.The number of houses reached will be greater and that is a good thing. My
:08:08. > :08:15.take is that it will not affect the number of jobs. People talk about
:08:16. > :08:19.green levies. There has been disparaging language about that sort
:08:20. > :08:25.of thing. There are 2 million people in this country in the lowest income
:08:26. > :08:33.families and they get ?230 off their energy bills because of what isn't
:08:34. > :08:40.-- because of what is disparaging the refer to as green stuff, shall
:08:41. > :08:45.we call it. There will be more properties covered. We both know
:08:46. > :08:52.that your party is being pushed into this by the Tories. You would not be
:08:53. > :08:55.doing this off your own bad. You are in coalition with people who have
:08:56. > :09:08.jettisoned their green Prudential is? -- credentials. You have made my
:09:09. > :09:12.point quite well. David Cameron's panicked response to this over the
:09:13. > :09:17.last few months was to ditch all the green stuff. It has been a job to
:09:18. > :09:22.make sure that we hold him to his pledges and the green cord of this
:09:23. > :09:24.government. That is why we are not scrapping the investment, we are
:09:25. > :09:33.making sure it is funded from general taxation. I am talking to
:09:34. > :09:38.you from Kendal. Lots of people struggle to pay their energy bills.
:09:39. > :09:41.But all these things pale into insignificance compared to the
:09:42. > :09:45.threat of climate change and we must hold the Prime Minister to account
:09:46. > :09:49.on this issue. Argue reconciled to the idea that as long as you're in
:09:50. > :09:57.coalition with the Tories you will never get a mansion tax? I am not
:09:58. > :10:01.reconciled to it. We are trying to give off other tax cut to the lowest
:10:02. > :10:06.income people. What about the mansion tax? That would be
:10:07. > :10:12.potentially paid for by another view source of finance. That would be
:10:13. > :10:15.that the wealthy... We know that is what you want, but you're not going
:10:16. > :10:22.to get that? We will keep fighting for it. It is extremely important.
:10:23. > :10:32.We can show where we will get the money from. I know that is the
:10:33. > :10:37.adamant. That is not what I asked you. Ed Balls and Labour run in
:10:38. > :10:42.favour of a mansion tax, have you talked to them about it? The honest
:10:43. > :10:46.answer is I have not. It is interesting that they have come
:10:47. > :10:55.round to supporting our policy having rejected it in power. So if
:10:56. > :10:59.Labour was the largest party in parliament but not in power, you
:11:00. > :11:04.would have no problem agreeing with a mansion tax as part of the deal?
:11:05. > :11:09.If the arithmetic falls in that way and that is the will of the British
:11:10. > :11:16.people, fear taxes on those who are wealthiest, stuff that is fear,
:11:17. > :11:19.which includes wealth taxes, in order to fund more reductions for
:11:20. > :11:24.those people on lowest incomes, that is the sort of thing that we might
:11:25. > :11:32.reach agreement on. You voted with Labour on the spare room subsidy.
:11:33. > :11:39.Again, that would be job done in any future coalition talks with Labour,
:11:40. > :11:43.correct? I take the view that the spare room subsidy, whilst entirely
:11:44. > :11:49.fail in principle, in practice it has caused immense hardship. I want
:11:50. > :11:53.to see that changed. There are many people in government to share my
:11:54. > :11:58.view on that. So does Labour. The problem was largely caused Labour
:11:59. > :12:04.because they oversaw an increase in housing costs both 3.5 times while
:12:05. > :12:08.they were in power. The government was forced into a position to tidy
:12:09. > :12:20.up an appalling mess that Labour left. You voted with Labour against
:12:21. > :12:26.it, and also, you want... No, I voted with the party conference.
:12:27. > :12:37.Let's not dance on the head of the ten. Maybe they voted with me. -- on
:12:38. > :12:43.the head of a pin. You are also in favour of a 50% top rate of income
:12:44. > :12:48.tax, so you and Labour are that one there as well? No, I take the view
:12:49. > :12:55.that the top rate of income tax is a fluid thing. All taxation levels are
:12:56. > :13:00.temporary. Nick Clegg said that when the 50p rate came down to 45, that
:13:01. > :13:05.was a rather foolish price tag George Osborne asked for in return
:13:06. > :13:09.for as increasing the threshold and letting several million people out
:13:10. > :13:16.of paying income tax at the bottom. So you agree with Labour? In favour
:13:17. > :13:20.of rising the tax to 50p. I take the view that we should keep our minds
:13:21. > :13:25.open on that. It is not the income tax level that bothers me, it is
:13:26. > :13:31.whether the wealthy pay their fresh air. If that can be done through
:13:32. > :13:42.other taxes, then that is something that I am happy with. -- their fair
:13:43. > :13:47.share. Given your position on the top rate of tax, on the spare room
:13:48. > :13:51.subsidy, how does the prospect of another five years of coalition with
:13:52. > :13:57.the Tories strike you? The answer is, you react with whatever you have
:13:58. > :14:02.about you to what the electorate hand you. Whatever happens after the
:14:03. > :14:10.next election, you have got to respect the will of the people. Yes,
:14:11. > :14:15.but how do you feel about it? We know about this, I am asking for
:14:16. > :14:19.your feeling. Does your heart left or does your heart fall at the
:14:20. > :14:24.prospect of another five years with the Tories? My heart would always
:14:25. > :14:29.follow the prospect of anything other than a majority of Liberal
:14:30. > :14:34.Democrat government. Your heart must be permanently in your shoes then.
:14:35. > :14:39.Something like that, but when all is said and done, we accept the will of
:14:40. > :14:44.the electorate. When you stand for election, you have got to put up
:14:45. > :14:49.with what the electorate say. I have not found coalition as difficult as
:14:50. > :14:53.you might suggest. It is about people who have to disagree and
:14:54. > :14:57.agree to differ. You work with people in your daily life that you
:14:58. > :15:02.disagree with. It is what grown-ups do. A lot of people in your party
:15:03. > :15:08.think that your positioning yourself to be the left-wing candidate in a
:15:09. > :15:15.post-Nick Clegg leadership contest. They think it is blatant
:15:16. > :15:28.manoeuvring. One senior figure says, this is about you. Which bit of the
:15:29. > :15:34.sanctimonious, treacherous little man is there not to like? What can I
:15:35. > :15:37.see in response to that. My job is to promote the Liberal Democrats. I
:15:38. > :15:48.have to do my best to consider what I'd defend to be right. By and
:15:49. > :15:53.large, my position as an MP in the Lake District, but also as the
:15:54. > :15:57.president of the party, is to reflect the will of people outside
:15:58. > :16:03.the Westminster village. That is the important thing to do. Thank you for
:16:04. > :16:07.joining us. David Cameron has said he wants to get it down to the tens
:16:08. > :16:10.of thousands, Ed Miliband has admitted New Labour "got it wrong",
:16:11. > :16:14.and Nick Clegg wants to be "zero-tolerant towards abuse". Yes,
:16:15. > :16:16.immigration is back on the political agenda, with figures released
:16:17. > :16:20.earlier this week showing that net migration is on the rise for the
:16:21. > :16:24.first time in two years. And that's not the only reason politicians are
:16:25. > :16:28.talking about it again. The issue of immigration has come
:16:29. > :16:32.into sharp focus because of concerns about the number of remaining ins
:16:33. > :16:38.and Bulgarians that can come to the UK next year. EU citizenship grants
:16:39. > :16:43.the right to free movement within the EU. But when Bulgaria and
:16:44. > :16:46.Romania joined in 2007, the government took up its right to
:16:47. > :16:56.apply temporary restrictions on movement. They must be lifted
:16:57. > :16:57.apply temporary restrictions on end of this year. According to the
:16:58. > :17:01.2011 census, about one eyed 1 million of the population in England
:17:02. > :17:06.and Wales is made up of people from countries who joined the EU in 2004.
:17:07. > :17:12.The government has played down expectations that the skill of
:17:13. > :17:15.migration could be repeated. This week David Cameron announced new
:17:16. > :17:20.restrictions on the ability of EU migrants to claim benefits. That was
:17:21. > :17:31.two, send a message. That prompted criticism is that the UK risks being
:17:32. > :17:37.seen as a nasty country. Yvette Cooper joins me now for the Sunday
:17:38. > :17:40.interview. Welcome to the Sunday Politics, Yvette Cooper. You
:17:41. > :17:46.criticised the coalition for not acting sooner on immigration from
:17:47. > :17:49.Romania and Bulgaria but the timetable for the unrestricted
:17:50. > :17:54.arrival in January was agreed under Labour many years ago, and given the
:17:55. > :17:57.battle that you had with the Polish and the Hungarians, what
:17:58. > :18:00.preparations did you make in power? We think that we should learn from
:18:01. > :18:06.some of the things that happened with migration. It would have been
:18:07. > :18:11.better to have transitional controls in place and look at the impact of
:18:12. > :18:15.what happened. But what preparations did you make in power? We set out a
:18:16. > :18:20.series of measures that the Government still had time to bring
:18:21. > :18:25.in. It is important that this should be a calm and measured debate. There
:18:26. > :18:29.was time to bring in measures around benefit restrictions, for example,
:18:30. > :18:33.and looking at the impact on the labour market, to make sure you do
:18:34. > :18:38.not have exploitation of cheap migrant Labour which is bad for
:18:39. > :18:43.everyone. I know that but I have asked you before and I am asking
:18:44. > :18:47.again, what did you do? We got things wrong in Government. I
:18:48. > :18:53.understand that I am not arguing. You are criticising them not
:18:54. > :19:00.preparing, a legitimate criticism, but what did you do in power? Well,
:19:01. > :19:04.I did think we did enough. Did you do anything? We signed the agency
:19:05. > :19:10.workers directive but too slowly. We needed measures like that. We did
:19:11. > :19:14.support things like the social chapter and the minimum wage, but I
:19:15. > :19:19.have said before that we did not do enough and that is why we
:19:20. > :19:24.recommended the measures in March. I understand that is what you did in
:19:25. > :19:29.opposition and I take that. I put the general point to you that given
:19:30. > :19:33.your failure to introduce controls on the countries that joined in
:19:34. > :19:37.2004, alone among the major EU economies we did that, should we not
:19:38. > :19:42.keep an embarrassed silence on these matters? You have no credibility. I
:19:43. > :19:45.think you have got to talk about immigration. One of the things we
:19:46. > :19:49.did not do in Government was discussed immigration and the
:19:50. > :19:56.concerns people have and the long-term benefits that we know have
:19:57. > :19:58.come from people who have come to Britain over many generations
:19:59. > :20:01.contributing to Britain and having a big impact. I think we recognise
:20:02. > :20:05.that there are things that we did wrong, but it would be irresponsible
:20:06. > :20:11.for us not to join the debate and suggest sensible, practical measures
:20:12. > :20:14.that you can introduce now to address the concerns that people
:20:15. > :20:17.have, but also make sure that the system is fair and managed.
:20:18. > :20:22.Immigration is important to Britain but it does have to be controlled
:20:23. > :20:26.and managed in the right way. Let's remind ourselves of your record on
:20:27. > :20:31.immigration. The chart you did not consult when in power. This is total
:20:32. > :20:35.net migration per year under Labour. 2.2 million of net rise in
:20:36. > :20:46.migration, more than the population of Birmingham, you proud of that? --
:20:47. > :20:50.twice the population. Are you proud of that or apologising for it? We
:20:51. > :20:56.set the pace of immigration was too fat and the level was too high and
:20:57. > :21:00.it is right to bring migration down. So you think that was wrong?
:21:01. > :21:05.Overruled have been huge benefits from people that have come to
:21:06. > :21:10.Britain and built our biggest businesses. -- overall. They have
:21:11. > :21:15.become Olympic medal winners. But because the pace was too fast, that
:21:16. > :21:19.has had an impact. That was because of the lack of transitional controls
:21:20. > :21:23.from Eastern Europe and it is why we should learn from that and have
:21:24. > :21:28.sensible measures in place now, as part of what has got to be a calm
:21:29. > :21:33.debate. These are net migration figures. They don't often show the
:21:34. > :21:38.full figure. These are the immigration figures coming in. What
:21:39. > :21:42.that chart shows is that in terms of the gross number coming into this
:21:43. > :21:48.country, from the year 2000, it was half a million a year under Labour.
:21:49. > :21:53.Rising to 600,000 by the time you were out of power. A lot of people
:21:54. > :21:58.coming into these crowded islands, particularly since most of them come
:21:59. > :22:04.to London and the South East. Was that intentional? Was that out of
:22:05. > :22:09.control? Is that what you are now apologising for? What we said was
:22:10. > :22:13.that the Government got the figures wrong on the migration from Eastern
:22:14. > :22:16.Europe. If you remember particularly there was the issue of what happened
:22:17. > :22:22.with not having transitional controls in place. The Government
:22:23. > :22:26.didn't expect the number of people coming to the country to be the way
:22:27. > :22:31.it was. And so obviously mistakes were made. We have recognised that.
:22:32. > :22:35.We have also got to recognise that this is something that has happened
:22:36. > :22:39.in countries all over the world. We travel and trade far more than ever.
:22:40. > :22:44.We have an increasingly globalised economy. Other European countries
:22:45. > :22:47.have been affected in the same way, and America, and other developing
:22:48. > :22:52.countries affected in the same way by the scale of migration. I am
:22:53. > :22:57.trying to work out whether the numbers were intentional or if you
:22:58. > :23:01.lost control. The key thing that we have said many times and I have
:23:02. > :23:04.already said it to you many times, Andrew, that we should have a
:23:05. > :23:08.transitional controls in place on Eastern Europe. I think that would
:23:09. > :23:13.have had an impact on them level of migration. We also should have
:23:14. > :23:17.brought in the points -based system earlier. We did bring that in
:23:18. > :23:21.towards the end and it did restrict the level of low skilled migration
:23:22. > :23:24.because there are different kinds of migration. University students
:23:25. > :23:28.coming to Britain brings in billions of pounds of investment. On the
:23:29. > :23:32.other hand, low skilled migration can have a serious impact on the
:23:33. > :23:38.jobs market, pay levels and so on at the low skilled end of the labour
:23:39. > :23:42.market. We have to distinguish between different kinds of
:23:43. > :23:45.migration. You keep trying to excuse the figures by talking about the
:23:46. > :23:51.lack of transitional controls. Can we skip the chart I was going to go
:23:52. > :23:57.to? The next one. Under Labour, this is the source of where migrants came
:23:58. > :24:00.from. The main source was not the accession countries or the remainder
:24:01. > :24:05.of Europe. Overwhelmingly they were from the African Commonwealth, and
:24:06. > :24:10.the Indian subcontinent. Overwhelmingly, these numbers are
:24:11. > :24:13.nothing to do with transitional controls. You can control that
:24:14. > :24:19.immigration entirely because they are not part of the EU. Was that a
:24:20. > :24:24.mistake? First of all, the big increase was in the accession
:24:25. > :24:28.groups. Not according to the chart. In terms of the increase, the
:24:29. > :24:33.changes that happened. Secondly, in answer to the question that you just
:24:34. > :24:37.asked me, we should also have introduced the points -based system
:24:38. > :24:40.at an earlier stage. Thirdly there has been a big increase in the
:24:41. > :24:43.number of university students coming to Britain and they have brought
:24:44. > :24:48.billions of pounds of investment. At the moment the Government is not
:24:49. > :24:52.distinguishing, it is just using the figure of net migration. And that is
:24:53. > :24:55.starting to go up again, as you said in the introduction, but the problem
:24:56. > :25:00.is that it treats all kinds of migration is aimed. It does not
:25:01. > :25:04.address illegal immigration, which is a problem, but it treats
:25:05. > :25:09.university graduates coming to Britain in the same way as low
:25:10. > :25:13.skilled workers. If Labour get back into power, is it your ambition to
:25:14. > :25:17.bring down immigration? We have already said it is too high and we
:25:18. > :25:22.would support measures to bring it down. You would bring it down? There
:25:23. > :25:26.is something called student visas, which is not included in the
:25:27. > :25:31.figures, and it does not include university graduates, and it is a
:25:32. > :25:41.figure that has increased substantially in recent years. They
:25:42. > :25:44.come for short-term study but they do not even have to prove that they
:25:45. > :25:46.come for a college course. They do not even have to have a place to
:25:47. > :25:49.come. Those visas should be restricted to prevent abuse of the
:25:50. > :25:51.system and that is in line with a recommendation from the Inspectorate
:25:52. > :25:55.and that is the kind of practical thing that we could do. Can you give
:25:56. > :26:00.us a ballpark figure of how much immigration would fall? You have
:26:01. > :26:04.seen the mess that Theresa May has got into with her figures. She made
:26:05. > :26:28.a target that it is clear to me that she will not meet. I think that is
:26:29. > :26:31.right. She will not meet it. Can you give as a ballpark figure by which
:26:32. > :26:33.we can judge you? If she had been more sensible and taken more time to
:26:34. > :26:36.listen to experts and decide what measures should be targeted, then
:26:37. > :26:39.she would not be in this mess. You cannot give me a figure? She has
:26:40. > :26:41.chosen net migration. She has set a target, without ifs and buts. I
:26:42. > :26:44.think it is important not to have a massive gap between the rhetoric and
:26:45. > :26:47.reality. Not to make promises on numbers which are not responsible.
:26:48. > :26:52.OK, you won't give me a figure. Fine. Moving on to crime. 10,000
:26:53. > :26:57.front line police jobs have gone since 2010 but crime continues to
:26:58. > :27:00.fall. 7% down last year alone. When you told the Labour conference that
:27:01. > :27:06.you do not cut crime by cutting the police, you were wrong. I think the
:27:07. > :27:10.Government is being very complacent about what is happening to crime.
:27:11. > :27:13.Crime patterns are changing. There has been an exponential increase,
:27:14. > :27:23.and that is in the words of the police, in online crime. We have
:27:24. > :27:27.also seen, for example, domestic violence going up, but prosecutions
:27:28. > :27:33.dropping dramatically. There is a serious impact as a result of not
:27:34. > :27:36.having 10,000 police in place. You have talked about the exponential
:27:37. > :27:40.increase in online and economic crime. If those are the big growth
:27:41. > :27:47.areas, why have bobbies on the beat? That would make no difference. It is
:27:48. > :27:50.about an approach to policing that has been incredibly successful over
:27:51. > :27:53.many years, which Labour introduced, which is neighbourhood policing in
:27:54. > :27:58.the community is working hard with communities to prevent crime. People
:27:59. > :28:02.like to see bobbies on the beat but have you got any evidence that it
:28:03. > :28:07.leads to a reduction in crime? Interestingly, the Lords Stevens
:28:08. > :28:10.commission that we set up, they have reported this week and it has been
:28:11. > :28:16.the equivalent of a Royal commission, looking at the number of
:28:17. > :28:18.people involved in it. Their strong recommendation was that this is
:28:19. > :28:22.about preventing crime but also respectful law and order, working
:28:23. > :28:26.with communities, and so they strongly took the view with all of
:28:27. > :28:30.their expertise and the 30 different universities that they have involved
:28:31. > :28:33.with it, that on the basis of all that analysis, the right thing was
:28:34. > :28:39.to keep bobbies on the beat and not push them cars. Instinctively you
:28:40. > :28:45.would think it was true. More visible policing, less crime. But in
:28:46. > :28:48.all the criminology work, I cannot find the evidence. There is
:28:49. > :28:52.competing work about why there has been a 20 year drop in overall crime
:28:53. > :28:56.and everybody has different opinions on why that has happened. The point
:28:57. > :29:00.about neighbourhood policing is that it is broader than crime-fighting.
:29:01. > :29:07.It is about prevention and community safety. Improving the well-being of
:29:08. > :29:13.communities as well. Will you keep the elected Police Commissioners?
:29:14. > :29:18.Big sigh! What the report said was that the system is flawed. We raised
:29:19. > :29:23.concern about this at the beginning. You will remember at the elections,
:29:24. > :29:29.Theresa May's flagship policy, at the elections they cost ?100 million
:29:30. > :29:34.and there was 15% turnout. You have to have a system of accountability
:29:35. > :29:39.at the police. Three options were presented, all of which are forms.
:29:40. > :29:43.So you have to have reform. It is not whether to have reformed, it is
:29:44. > :29:54.which of those options is the best way to do it. The commission set out
:29:55. > :29:59.a series of options, and I thought that the preferable approach would
:30:00. > :30:03.be collaboration and voluntary mergers. We know they won't
:30:04. > :30:08.volunteer. There have been some collaboration is taking place. I
:30:09. > :30:13.think the issues with police and crime commissioners have fragmented
:30:14. > :30:17.things and made it harder to get collaboration between police
:30:18. > :30:22.forces. Everybody is asking this question, just before you go. What
:30:23. > :30:28.is it like living with a nightmare? Who does all the cooking, so I can't
:30:29. > :30:37.complain! Says Miliband people are wrong, he is a dream cook? He is!
:30:38. > :30:41.In a speech this week, Boris Johnson praised greed and envy as essential
:30:42. > :30:46.for economic progress, and that has got tongues wagging. What is the
:30:47. > :30:52.Mayor of London up to? What is his game plan? Does he even have a game
:30:53. > :31:00.plan and does he know if he has one? Flash photography coming up. Boris.
:31:01. > :31:03.In many ways I can leave it there. You'd know who I meant. And if you
:31:04. > :31:14.didn't, the unruly mop of blonde hair would tell you, the language.
:31:15. > :31:31.Ping-pong was invented on the dining tables of England. Somehow pulling
:31:32. > :31:35.off the ridiculous to the sublime. It is going to go zoink off the
:31:36. > :31:41.scale! But often having to speed away from the whiff-whaff of
:31:42. > :31:42.scandal. Boris, are you going to save your manage?
:31:43. > :31:46.There's always been a question about him and his as role as mayor and
:31:47. > :31:49.another prized position, as hinted to the Tory faithful this year at
:31:50. > :32:00.conference, discussing former French Prime Minister Alan Juppe. -- Alain
:32:01. > :32:05.Juppe. He told me he was going to be the mayor of Bordeaux. I think he
:32:06. > :32:09.may have been mayor well he was Prime Minister, it is the kind of
:32:10. > :32:18.thing they do in funds -- AvD in France. It is a good idea, if you
:32:19. > :32:22.ask me. But is it a joke? He is much more ambitious. Boris wants to be
:32:23. > :32:28.Prime Minister more than anything else. Perhaps more than he wants to
:32:29. > :32:36.be made of London. The ball came loose from the back of the scrum. Of
:32:37. > :32:43.course it would give great thing to have a crack at, but it is not going
:32:44. > :32:45.to happen. He might be right. First, the Conservatives have a leader,
:32:46. > :32:50.another Old Etonian, Oxford, Bullingdon chap and he has the job
:32:51. > :32:56.Boris might like a crack at. What do you do with a problem like Boris? It
:32:57. > :33:02.is one of the great paradoxes of Tory politics that for Boris Johnson
:33:03. > :33:05.to succeed, David Cameron must feel. Boris needs David Cameron to lose so
:33:06. > :33:09.that he can stand a chance of becoming loser. -- becoming leader.
:33:10. > :33:12.And disloyalty is punished by Conservatives. Boris knows the man
:33:13. > :33:14.who brought down Margaret Thatcher. Michael Heseltine, who Boris
:33:15. > :33:21.replaced as MP for Henley, never got her job. In 1986, she took on the
:33:22. > :33:32.member for Henley, always a risky venture. And why might he make such
:33:33. > :33:37.a jibe, because he's won two more elections than the PM. Conservatives
:33:38. > :33:51.like a winner. Boris, against Robert expectations, has won the Mayor of
:33:52. > :33:53.London job twice. -- public. He might've built a following with the
:33:54. > :33:57.grassroots but he's on shakier ground with many Tory MPs, who see
:33:58. > :34:04.him as a selfish clown, unfit for high office. And besides, he's not
:34:05. > :34:07.the only one with king-sized ambition, and Boris and George are
:34:08. > :34:16.not close, however much they may profess unity. There is probably
:34:17. > :34:21.some Chinese expression for a complete and perfect harmony. Ying
:34:22. > :34:24.and yang. But in plain black and white, if Boris has a plan, it's one
:34:25. > :34:30.he can't instigate, and if David Cameron is PM in 2016, it may not be
:34:31. > :34:37.implementable. He'd need a seat and it wouldn't be plain sailing if he
:34:38. > :34:41.did make a leadership bid. My leadership chances, I think I may
:34:42. > :34:45.have told you before, or about as good as my chances of ying
:34:46. > :34:49.reincarnated as a baked bean. Which is probably quite high. So if the
:34:50. > :34:55.job you want with Brown-esque desire is potentially never to be yours
:34:56. > :35:01.what do you do? He is, of course, an American citizen by birth. He was
:35:02. > :35:06.born in New York public hospital, and so he is qualified to be
:35:07. > :35:10.President of the United States. And you don't need an IQ over 16 to find
:35:11. > :35:16.that the tiniest bit scary. Giles Dilnot reporting. Helen Lewis,
:35:17. > :35:24.Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates are here. Is there a plan for Boris, and
:35:25. > :35:27.if so, what is it? I think the plan is for him to say what he thinks the
:35:28. > :35:33.Tory activist base wants to hear just now. He knows that in 18 months
:35:34. > :35:38.time they can disown it. I think he is wrong, the way the speech has
:35:39. > :35:45.played has a limited number of people. He has cross-party appeal.
:35:46. > :35:48.He has now reconfirmed to people that the Tories are the nasty party
:35:49. > :35:55.and they have been pretending to be modernised. Is it not the truth that
:35:56. > :36:00.he needs David Cameron to lose the 2015 election to become leader in
:36:01. > :36:07.this decade? It is very interesting watching his fortunes wax and wane.
:36:08. > :36:11.It always seems to happen in inverse proportion to how well David Cameron
:36:12. > :36:14.is doing in front of his own party. There is no small element of
:36:15. > :36:19.strategy about what we are doing here. The problem with Boris is that
:36:20. > :36:25.he's popular with the country, but not with the party's MPs and its
:36:26. > :36:30.hard-core supporters. This was an appeal to the grassroots this week.
:36:31. > :36:37.He is not the only potential candidate. If we were in some kind
:36:38. > :36:43.of circumstance where Boris was a runner to replace Mr Cameron, who
:36:44. > :36:51.with the other front the? I think it will skip a generation. The recent
:36:52. > :36:57.intake was ideological assertive. I do not buy the idea that it will be
:36:58. > :37:05.Jeremy Hunt against Michael Gove. I then, that generation will be
:37:06. > :37:11.tainted by being in government. It is interesting, what is he trying to
:37:12. > :37:14.pull? He is ideological. He does not believe in many things, but he
:37:15. > :37:19.believes in a few things quite deeply, and one is the idea of
:37:20. > :37:23.competition, both in business and academic selection. He has never
:37:24. > :37:33.been squeamish about expressing that. We do make mistakes sometimes,
:37:34. > :37:37.assuming he is entirely political. Look at all the Northern voters who
:37:38. > :37:44.will not vote for the Tories even though they are socially or economic
:37:45. > :37:51.the Conservatives. I do not think he helps. Who in the Tories would
:37:52. > :38:00.help? That is a tough question. To reason me has also been speaking to
:38:01. > :38:05.the hard right. -- Theresa May. I have been out with him at night. It
:38:06. > :38:10.is like dining with a film star. People are queueing up to speak to
:38:11. > :38:15.him. Educational selection is one of the few areas that he can offer. He
:38:16. > :38:27.has gone liberal on immigration, as are made of London would have to. --
:38:28. > :38:30.as a Mayor of London. It's just gone 11:30. You're watching the Sunday
:38:31. > :38:33.Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I'll be looking at the week
:38:34. > :38:35.ahead with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics
:38:36. > :38:38.across the UK. Hello and welcome from us. This
:38:39. > :38:41.week, with me for the next 20 minutes or so, are Gavin Barwell,
:38:42. > :38:55.Conservative MP for Croydon Central, and Teresa Pearce, Labour MP for
:38:56. > :38:58.Erith and Thamesmead. Coming up a bit later on, as a new super-mall is
:38:59. > :39:01.announced in Croydon, Gavin's patch, is the rise and rise of the
:39:02. > :39:05.Westfield empire damaging for local shops? But first, even the mayor
:39:06. > :39:08.himself accepted there's now a crisis on his watch as he launched a
:39:09. > :39:11.new strategy to create more homes. There were freshened up promises, if
:39:12. > :39:14.no new money, and he called it a bold vision. But there were plenty
:39:15. > :39:24.who didn't agree. Andrew Cryan reports.
:39:25. > :39:27.London's property market is booming again, good news for the type of
:39:28. > :39:35.people who can make half a million quid by selling a two-bedroom flat,
:39:36. > :39:42.not so good for others. It is too expensive. You need at least ?20,000
:39:43. > :39:45.deposit. There is a housing crisis. There is a housing crisis across the
:39:46. > :39:52.south-east of England. The mayor agrees that there is a housing
:39:53. > :39:56.crisis. Boris Johnson has spelt out his recipe for averting it, I
:39:57. > :40:02.promise to build 42,000 homes a year for the next decade. We have flea
:40:03. > :40:05.all got to look back for the last 30 years and admit that we have in
:40:06. > :40:10.building half as much as London needs. When you spoke about
:40:11. > :40:15.collective responsibility for 30 years of not old enough homes, as a
:40:16. > :40:20.conservative, Arizona responsibility is at the heart of your belief. What
:40:21. > :40:27.about the personal responsibility that you take the last five years? I
:40:28. > :40:30.certainly take personal responsibility. I certainly cannot
:40:31. > :40:37.take personal responsibility for everything. I am not the creator of
:40:38. > :40:42.every home in London, but I am rout of the results that we have had so
:40:43. > :40:50.far. We are stepping up the pace. We need to go to 42,000 each year. That
:40:51. > :40:56.is market towns, that is part by, part rent, that is
:40:57. > :40:56.is market towns, that is part by, affordable rent. It will mean big
:40:57. > :41:02.changes. If he manages it, he affordable rent. It will mean big
:41:03. > :41:05.be doubling the number of homes built in London over the last half
:41:06. > :41:08.decade. But built in London over the last half
:41:09. > :41:16.homes so much, why has Boris Johnson not been building them in the last
:41:17. > :41:20.five years that he has been mayor? The mayor's target was recently less
:41:21. > :41:27.ambitious. The target was never met. According to this member of the
:41:28. > :41:32.housing committee, it comes down to a lack of attention combined with
:41:33. > :41:34.the wrong approach. The mayor has failed to grasp the seriousness of
:41:35. > :41:41.the problem and failed to put sufficient effort onto the crisis in
:41:42. > :41:48.affordable and social housing. He has had too much of a market led
:41:49. > :41:52.approach. This time, will it be different, the mayor announced a
:41:53. > :41:56.raft of new measures in his strategy, including a new London
:41:57. > :42:00.Housing bank. It would land developers money to build. There
:42:01. > :42:06.would be looser planning controls, and a drive to get pension funds
:42:07. > :42:09.investing in housing. But that is concern from London councils that
:42:10. > :42:14.the plan may not enough to get this out of what they agrees a crisis.
:42:15. > :42:17.They say that London needs 800,000 homes in the next eight years, more
:42:18. > :42:24.than double what the main is proposing. -- the mayor. This will
:42:25. > :42:31.require not just the borrowers and the mayor, but central government to
:42:32. > :42:34.make some decisions. The obvious one is raising the borrowing cap for
:42:35. > :42:40.borrowers so that we can build more homes are cells in London. It will
:42:41. > :42:45.also require banks to lend, builders to build and planning permissions to
:42:46. > :42:53.be granted. Otherwise the mayor may not have success in meeting his
:42:54. > :42:57.target. This is the deputy mayor for housing. Where do the figures come
:42:58. > :43:04.from? It is based on the analysis that we have done. It is based on
:43:05. > :43:12.capacity to build and demand. It is heavily influenced by the last
:43:13. > :43:16.census in 2011. We have made a very honest assessment, and we have a
:43:17. > :43:20.very honest strategy that we have published for consultation. For 30
:43:21. > :43:24.years there has been a chronic failure to build enough homes. There
:43:25. > :43:30.is a structural problem in housing market. If we returned to the
:43:31. > :43:36.housing market we had before 2008, it would not the OK. We need a
:43:37. > :43:40.radically different approach. This might be a signal, you might say
:43:41. > :43:45.that you want 42,000, but with is the evidence you're going to do
:43:46. > :43:51.anything different? There is new money attached to the strategy, in
:43:52. > :43:55.excess of ?1 billion. You have identified that as new money, money
:43:56. > :43:57.that has been announced in the previous comprehensive spending
:43:58. > :44:07.review but it has not come on stream yet? It will be spent in 2015. There
:44:08. > :44:15.is more to come, but it will start off with an initial 1 billion.
:44:16. > :44:20.Compare that tween 2008 -- 2011, and the last Labour government. That was
:44:21. > :44:25.?3 billion over three years? Let's go back to your first question, what
:44:26. > :44:30.is going to be different this time? The strategy looks at three areas
:44:31. > :44:34.where there is a real problem. It looks at product, financing and
:44:35. > :44:43.land. These are the areas where you need to address things. You need a
:44:44. > :44:47.much more mid-market product. People are finding housing costs in the
:44:48. > :44:52.market increasingly expensive. You need a different approach to land.
:44:53. > :44:57.We have been looking at cities around the world, Tokyo, places like
:44:58. > :45:03.that. You need more finance and a greater balance of finance coming
:45:04. > :45:07.in. Some of this is down to banks. The experience of most people is not
:45:08. > :45:14.with state support. The high-street lenders have an important part to
:45:15. > :45:24.play in this. But all of these things are important. I remember
:45:25. > :45:29.these being spoken of in 2008. Where are the pension funds and the banks?
:45:30. > :45:36.This man was going to do it by advocacy. It is not working. What is
:45:37. > :45:44.happening? I don't know why you make that assessment. What about the
:45:45. > :45:49.build that was supposed to happen? We are going to have something like
:45:50. > :45:55.1000 homes a month being completed, low-cost homes for low-paid
:45:56. > :45:58.Londoners. How is that possible? You completed 16,000 in the year before
:45:59. > :46:04.the last election. This year, the year just gone, it went down by
:46:05. > :46:09.8000. You are going in the wrong direction, aren't you? There is not
:46:10. > :46:23.much point trading numbers. I would say look at the house-building. It
:46:24. > :46:25.is 40% up from the recession. Talking about all the
:46:26. > :46:28.house-building? Fair enough. And on the affordable side, the numbers are
:46:29. > :46:31.robust and we can trade lots of numbers. The fundamental point is
:46:32. > :46:37.that for 30 years... I want to look at the record. I wage trade figures
:46:38. > :46:43.with you. But let me pick up on one point. -- I will not trade figures.
:46:44. > :46:48.I want to look at pensions. Look at elephant and Castle. We have a
:46:49. > :46:52.pension fund from America investing in the first purpose-built rented
:46:53. > :46:59.accommodation. That big development? Yes. Elephant and Castle. Look at
:47:00. > :47:05.the East Village, the former Olympic village. We have that company coming
:47:06. > :47:09.in. There are number of things happening with pension funds and
:47:10. > :47:14.investors. It is really important. If we rely on the equity from
:47:15. > :47:17.house-builders and traditional back from lenders, then there is not
:47:18. > :47:23.sufficient money in the system so this is really important. Let me
:47:24. > :47:28.talk about strategy and philosophy. Mid-market. Very firmly there will
:47:29. > :47:32.be a move away from affordable rented to part ownership. You want
:47:33. > :47:38.to return to ownership, at least part ownership. We want to do more
:47:39. > :47:42.of everything. Everybody wants to do that but talk about the shift. Are
:47:43. > :47:46.you talking about the bottom end, people who just need a roof over
:47:47. > :47:54.their head? Or more for the middle market? In terms of affordable
:47:55. > :48:01.housing, there is a 60-40 split, owned and rented, and that is
:48:02. > :48:05.progress. What do you make of this strategy? Nobody denies the key
:48:06. > :48:09.point made that we have had 30 years of insufficient building. That is
:48:10. > :48:13.absolutely right and people are priced out of the market absolutely
:48:14. > :48:17.in London. I am an MP and my salary is quite good but if I was buying
:48:18. > :48:21.now for the first time I could not afford to buy in most of London. It
:48:22. > :48:34.is a ridiculous situation. I am glad that the Mayor has come out with
:48:35. > :48:37.this strategy because it gives us the chance to talk about it. Looking
:48:38. > :48:40.at the strategy, there did not seem to be any social housing at all.
:48:41. > :48:43.There is part rent and part by, and affordable rent, but not really
:48:44. > :48:45.social housing. Is that true? Is there planning for social housing?
:48:46. > :48:49.We have rented product for those on low incomes and there are two tears,
:48:50. > :48:54.within the affordable rented product. One is low rents and one is
:48:55. > :49:00.at a discount rent. The average income of those people benefiting
:49:01. > :49:05.from that product is about ?14,800. Does that sound like social housing
:49:06. > :49:09.to you? If rent is low enough, that is fine, but rent in London is not
:49:10. > :49:13.low enough and I don't see how you can cap them at the percentage of
:49:14. > :49:19.market rate if market rate is so high. You are talking about 2015. By
:49:20. > :49:23.then, families in my constituency in private rented will be in their
:49:24. > :49:26.third property by then because of short-term rents and leases.
:49:27. > :49:41.Something needs to be done about the private rented sector. I would like
:49:42. > :49:43.to hear what the Mayor had to say about that. Let's bring in Gavin
:49:44. > :49:46.Barwell. This is a housing strategy that... Well, there was another one.
:49:47. > :49:48.This now supersedes that. It is the first strategy in four years. Has
:49:49. > :49:51.the Mayor been asleep at the wheel? I don't think that is fair. We have
:49:52. > :49:55.a fundamental challenge in London. Two problems. We have not been
:49:56. > :49:59.building and houses for a long time and we are partly the victim of
:50:00. > :50:02.London's huge success in terms of the numbers of people wanting to
:50:03. > :50:06.move here. Huge demand and not enough supply. There were things in
:50:07. > :50:25.the strategy that I particularly liked. The idea of a housing bank to
:50:26. > :50:27.provide loans to get sites that are currently stalled under way. The
:50:28. > :50:29.Gateway site in Croydon is a great example. There is planning
:50:30. > :50:32.permission for a large residential element. At the moment it is stalled
:50:33. > :50:34.because of market conditions and this could get building moving. And
:50:35. > :50:37.the housing zone idea. The centre of Croydon is an opportunity area. We
:50:38. > :50:39.will see what we can do to get these schemes under way quicker. Even
:50:40. > :50:43.though there is a focus on concentration and getting houses of
:50:44. > :50:49.all types, you have not given up the target of 100,000 affordable homes
:50:50. > :50:52.over two terms, have you? That will still be achieved? That is
:50:53. > :50:57.absolutely still the target and we are on track. So you have not
:50:58. > :51:06.shifted so much a way that the rented , sociable or affordable
:51:07. > :51:10.rented sector will be impacted? That is certainly not the intention. And
:51:11. > :51:13.come on, you have been slightly harsh in your language. Suggesting
:51:14. > :51:19.asleep at the wheel is deeply unfair. Suggesting that the Mayor's
:51:20. > :51:22.approach is one of seeing how it happens is completely unfair. As you
:51:23. > :51:27.know, this Mayor has invested billions of pounds. He has new
:51:28. > :51:30.powers and new land. We have released the equivalent of 210
:51:31. > :51:36.football pitches, construction boost of ?3 billion in terms of land for
:51:37. > :51:39.development work, and we have the 100,000 homes programme, and we have
:51:40. > :51:44.real help coming through to people who are very squeezed with a housing
:51:45. > :51:49.costs to help them part by, and we have ambitious goals. There is a lot
:51:50. > :51:55.happening. The really important point is that this needs cross-party
:51:56. > :51:59.consensus and long-term planning and very different approaches from the
:52:00. > :52:04.ones that we have had in the last 30 years. We will keep on having you
:52:05. > :52:08.regularly and holding you to it and charting your progress. Thank you
:52:09. > :52:11.for coming in. First it was Shepherd's Bush and then Stratford,
:52:12. > :52:15.and now approval has been given for a new Westfield centre in Croydon.
:52:16. > :52:21.If all goes to plan, it will be completed by 2017. There will be
:52:22. > :52:23.regenerative benefits to the area according to the promises, but
:52:24. > :52:32.others warn it could suck life out of surrounding neighbourhoods.
:52:33. > :52:37.This week, Croydon Council and City Hall gave the go-ahead for a ?1
:52:38. > :52:43.billion redevelopment of Croydon town centre. The scheme supporters
:52:44. > :52:49.hope it will propel Croydon into the top ten shopping destinations. It
:52:50. > :52:52.currently ranks around 30. This centre will be knocked down and
:52:53. > :52:56.replaced with London's third Westfield shopping centre, all 1.5
:52:57. > :53:07.million square feet of it. It is expected to deliver between 400 and
:53:08. > :53:10.600 new homes and many more jobs. But what does it mean for those on
:53:11. > :53:15.the High Street peddling their wares at the moment? Our high streets are
:53:16. > :53:21.changing. Mega shopping malls suck in major chains from the surrounding
:53:22. > :53:26.areas. I think it is a necessity because it is what the consumer
:53:27. > :53:30.wants, but there is always a reaction. There will be a period of
:53:31. > :53:35.three to five years when the market rebalances, rents drop, and then you
:53:36. > :53:38.see the arrival of the pawnbrokers, betting shops, who move into the
:53:39. > :53:45.spaces that are left empty quite rightly. It fundamentally changes
:53:46. > :53:55.the tone of the side streets. Increased consumer spending is an
:53:56. > :54:00.increasing force. Shoppers gravitate to the centres but at what cost to
:54:01. > :54:05.the surrounding area? Gavin, is this cause for an at joy? It is the best
:54:06. > :54:09.news that Croydon has had in my lifetime. It is a huge opportunity,
:54:10. > :54:13.not just the development itself which is creating thousands of
:54:14. > :54:17.jobs, but new homes, new leisure facilities, and it will also act as
:54:18. > :54:21.a catalyst for other people to invest in Croydon. Squeezing
:54:22. > :54:26.economic life out. We heard from that company that there can be a
:54:27. > :54:32.process. First empty units, then stores that are not what people
:54:33. > :54:35.want. There is a big difference with this scheme. Previous development
:54:36. > :54:39.have been out of town or not in an existing town centre, a new
:54:40. > :54:42.location. Westfield is coming in to invest in the existing Croydon town
:54:43. > :54:47.centre. As we made sure in terms of the design that there are good links
:54:48. > :54:52.to London Road and Surrey Street, where there is an ancient market, to
:54:53. > :54:55.make sure that the whole centre benefits, rather than a box that
:54:56. > :55:02.people go to and causes problems in the areas nearby. Would you like one
:55:03. > :55:05.of those in your patch? The difference with this is that it will
:55:06. > :55:13.be right in the centre of Croydon. In the area that I represent, we had
:55:14. > :55:17.Bluewater, which sucked the life out of local shopping areas, because it
:55:18. > :55:21.is somewhere that you go to, leaving the local shopping areas. But this
:55:22. > :55:26.will bring people into Croydon, which brings jobs and spending
:55:27. > :55:33.power. If you look at the Stratford example, people predicted that the
:55:34. > :55:38.local shopping areas would be affected but they have had a lease
:55:39. > :55:44.of life. And implement has been promoted. Housing? 15%, just 15%,
:55:45. > :55:49.just one in eight will be affordable. How can you justify
:55:50. > :55:55.that? You have to look at what is viable in the current market. 15% of
:55:56. > :56:02.500 is better than 50% of nothing. We know it is better, but viable?
:56:03. > :56:06.Westfield? With their profits and political support? They could not
:56:07. > :56:20.put in housing for real people? This is a difficult scheme for them to
:56:21. > :56:23.do. They are not buying on Brownfield land. They are buying up
:56:24. > :56:26.an existing shopping centre, which is not initiate it was in 20 years
:56:27. > :56:28.ago, but is still an inexpensive investment for them to make. You
:56:29. > :56:30.don't think they will make a multi-billion pound profit year on
:56:31. > :56:34.year and not be as successful as other shops? Why not? 15%, let me
:56:35. > :56:39.remind you, of affordable homes. I certainly hope they do make a profit
:56:40. > :56:41.and that the scheme will be a success. But actually, it is vitally
:56:42. > :56:45.important to provide affordable housing, very important. But the
:56:46. > :56:49.vast majority of my constituents want to own their own homes, so the
:56:50. > :56:53.key is to get more housing for ownership which is at a price that
:56:54. > :57:07.people can afford. We used the term affordable housing, and people might
:57:08. > :57:10.think that is the hope they can afford to buy. What we are talking
:57:11. > :57:12.about is council housing, social housing, and those people in my
:57:13. > :57:15.constituency wants to own their own homes. Do you think we have got such
:57:16. > :57:19.a hugely successful fast company... I am just wondering if companies are
:57:20. > :57:23.asked to invest enough in local infrastructure for the right to base
:57:24. > :57:30.themselves in somewhere like Croydon. The pressure is put on them
:57:31. > :57:33.to employ locally and apprenticeships, whereas housing is
:57:34. > :57:37.left until last which is the biggest crisis in London. Anybody who wants
:57:38. > :57:41.to coming to London and make money in London should be made to put more
:57:42. > :57:46.back into the community and housing is the most important thing. It is a
:57:47. > :57:49.once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. You can only redevelop it once. You talk
:57:50. > :57:54.about infrastructure and they are putting millions of pounds into the
:57:55. > :58:01.tram system, the bus system. ?30 million at the outset to do that
:58:02. > :58:05.stuff. More than that. ?60 million. Once they have paid that 60 million
:58:06. > :58:10.once, they will be generating huge profits for years to come. They will
:58:11. > :58:13.not put in money every year. They will, actually. Significant levels
:58:14. > :58:40.of business rates will come to the council. The new homes bonus. It is
:58:41. > :58:42.a big benefit to the community. We have talked about this before.
:58:43. > :58:45.The key challenge for Croydon is to turn around the town's reputation,
:58:46. > :58:48.to get people to live there and set up businesses there. The image of
:58:49. > :58:51.the borough is shaped by the town centre and this is an opportunity to
:58:52. > :58:53.transform that. It is such good news for the town. Now the rest of the
:58:54. > :58:55.political news in 60 seconds. Squatters targeted Margaret
:58:56. > :58:57.Thatcher's former Tory constituency base in Finchley to protest at new
:58:58. > :59:00.laws. They set up camp on the driveway of the office, now used by
:59:01. > :59:02.Conservative MP, and refused to leave until he spent a night camping
:59:03. > :59:04.with them. They were evicted on Thursday. London Underground workers
:59:05. > :59:07.will be balloted for strike action over job cuts and ticket office
:59:08. > :59:11.closures. The RMT union said it would fight
:59:12. > :59:14.against the plans for all ticket offices to be closed.
:59:15. > :59:19.Following the recent spate of cycling fatalities, Metropolitan
:59:20. > :59:23.Police officers were deployed at 166 key junctions, where they issued
:59:24. > :59:27.fixed penalty notices to people breaking road traffic laws.
:59:28. > :59:30.The Mayor gave the annual Margaret Thatcher lecture, in which he
:59:31. > :59:38.claimed tackling economic inequality is futile because some people's IQ
:59:39. > :59:41.is too low for them to compete. He argued that some measure of
:59:42. > :59:49.inequality was an essential spur to economic activity.
:59:50. > :59:55.The Mayor's words. 16% of our species have an IQ below 85. 2% have
:59:56. > :59:59.an IQ above 130. The harder you shake the packet, the easier it will
:00:00. > :00:04.be for some cornflakes to get to the top. What do you think you were
:00:05. > :00:09.saying? It is typical Boris getting onto the front pages of the next day
:00:10. > :00:12.and everybody talking about it. I find what he said offensive. But of
:00:13. > :00:17.what he was talking about was people getting on in life, earning money.
:00:18. > :00:23.And actually I don't think the value of someone is how much they earn but
:00:24. > :00:27.what they do. And it depends what you mean by getting to the top of
:00:28. > :00:31.the packet. He meant earning power and I think that is wrong. Do you
:00:32. > :00:35.think this is an important contribution to the thinking about
:00:36. > :00:39.social mobility? If you actually read the speech as opposed to the
:00:40. > :00:44.media coverage, it is very different. He is portrayed as saying
:00:45. > :00:50.that greed is good, but if I can read out from the speech? Said it
:00:51. > :01:01.was a valid motivator. He said the Gordon Backers of London are
:01:02. > :01:03.conspicuous for their greed and what they do for the population. Many
:01:04. > :01:06.people have suffered real falls in their income over many years. And on
:01:07. > :01:09.the point about IQ, we all have different gifts. Some of us are
:01:10. > :01:12.lucky in terms of where we start in life, but he then said we have to
:01:13. > :01:15.genuinely help those who struggle to compete, and make sure everyone has
:01:16. > :01:17.the chance to make the best of the abilities they do have. I would
:01:18. > :01:21.encourage people to read the speech and see what he said, rather than a
:01:22. > :01:25.couple of quotes that have been picked out. People thought he was
:01:26. > :01:41.touching on eugenics and things like that. That is all we have time for.
:01:42. > :01:47.Thank you. What rabbit has George Osborne got up his sleeve? And
:01:48. > :01:53.what's David Cameron up to in China? All questions for The Week Ahead. To
:01:54. > :02:02.help the panel led, we are joined by Kwasi Kwarteng, Tory MP. Welcome to
:02:03. > :02:06.the Sunday Politics. Why has the government been unable to move the
:02:07. > :02:10.agenda and to the broad economic recovery, and allowed the agenda to
:02:11. > :02:15.stay on Labour's ground of energy prices and living standards? Energy
:02:16. > :02:19.has been a big issue over the last few months but the autumn state and
:02:20. > :02:22.will be a wonderful opportunity to readdress where we are fighting the
:02:23. > :02:28.ground, the good economic news that we delivered. If you look at where
:02:29. > :02:33.Labour were earlier this year, people were saying they would they 5
:02:34. > :02:43.million people unemployed. They were saying that there should be a plan
:02:44. > :02:47.B. He is not in the Labour Party? Elements of the left were suggesting
:02:48. > :02:51.it. Peter Hain told me it would be up to 3 million people. Danny
:02:52. > :02:57.Blanchflower said it would be 5 million people. So we have got to
:02:58. > :03:03.get the economy back to the centre of the debate? Yes, the game we were
:03:04. > :03:06.playing was about the economy. That was the central fighting ground of
:03:07. > :03:11.the political debate. We were winning that battle. Labour have
:03:12. > :03:16.cleverly shifted it onto the cost of living. It is essential that the
:03:17. > :03:27.government, that George, talks about the economy. That has been its great
:03:28. > :03:29.success. I do not think this has been a week of admitting that Labour
:03:30. > :03:37.was right, plain cigarettes packaging, other issues. If you look
:03:38. > :03:43.at the big picture, where we are with the economy, we have the
:03:44. > :03:47.fastest growing economy in the G-7. Despite Labour's predictions, none
:03:48. > :03:53.of this has happened, none of the triple dip has happened. The British
:03:54. > :03:58.economy is on a good fitting. That is a good story for the government
:03:59. > :04:01.to bat on. You say that people have stopped talking about the economic
:04:02. > :04:07.recovery, but it is worse than that, people have stopped talking about
:04:08. > :04:11.the deficit? As long as people were talking about the deficit, the
:04:12. > :04:17.Tories were trusted. But people have forgotten about it. This country
:04:18. > :04:23.still spends ?100 billion more than it raises. Yes, I am of the view
:04:24. > :04:29.that the deficit, the national debt, is the biggest question facing
:04:30. > :04:31.this generation of politicians. You are right to suggest that the
:04:32. > :04:38.Conservative Party was strong on this. That head, not deficit, is not
:04:39. > :04:44.going to come down in the foreseeable future? It is rising.
:04:45. > :04:48.This is a test that George Osborne is not going to pass. We know what
:04:49. > :04:53.is coming in the Autumn Statement, it is lots of giveaways, paying for
:04:54. > :04:58.free school meals, paying for fuel duty subsidies. We are still talking
:04:59. > :05:04.about the cost of living, not changing it actively wider economy.
:05:05. > :05:11.There might be extra money for growth but it is not clear what will
:05:12. > :05:14.happen to that. If it is time for giveaways, let's speak about Labour.
:05:15. > :05:23.I have never been a fan of giveaways. Fiscal prudence is what
:05:24. > :05:27.our watchword should be. Look at the headlines. Each time, the deficit
:05:28. > :05:32.figures, the debt figures, were always worse than predicted. This
:05:33. > :05:38.year it will be significantly better. I think that is significant.
:05:39. > :05:44.Any kind of recovery is probably better than no recovery at all. When
:05:45. > :05:49.you look at this recovery, it is basically a consumer spending boom.
:05:50. > :05:56.Consumer spending is up, business investment is way down compared with
:05:57. > :06:02.2008, and exports, despite a 20% devaluation, our flat. Let's get one
:06:03. > :06:08.thing straight, it is a recovery. Any recovery is better than no
:06:09. > :06:14.recovery. Now we can have a debate about, technical debate about the
:06:15. > :06:19.elements of the recovery. It is not technical, it is a fact. There is
:06:20. > :06:25.evidence that there is optimism in terms of what are thinking...
:06:26. > :06:31.Optimism? If I am optimistic about the economy, I am more likely to
:06:32. > :06:37.spend money and invest in business. So far you have not managed that?
:06:38. > :06:41.Exports have not done well either? Exports are not a big section of the
:06:42. > :06:48.British economy. But of course, they are important. But given where we
:06:49. > :06:53.were at the end of last year, no economist was saying that we would
:06:54. > :07:00.be in this robust position today. That is true, in terms of the
:07:01. > :07:04.overall recovery. Now the PM loves to "bang the drum abroad for British
:07:05. > :07:07.business" and he's off to China this evening with a plane-load of British
:07:08. > :07:37.business leaders. And it's not the first time. Take a look at this.
:07:38. > :08:03.Well, you might not think exports unimportant, but clearly the Prime
:08:04. > :08:09.Minister and the Chancellor do. They are important, but they are not what
:08:10. > :08:13.is driving the growth at the moment. We used to talk about the need for
:08:14. > :08:18.export led recovery is, that is why the Prime Minister is going to
:08:19. > :08:23.China. Absolutely, and he's doing the right thing. Do we have any
:08:24. > :08:29.evidence that these tend of trips produce business? The main example
:08:30. > :08:34.so far is the right to trade the Chinese currency offshore. London
:08:35. > :08:39.has a kind of global primacy. London will be the offshore centre. Is that
:08:40. > :08:43.a good thing? I have no problem at all with this sort of policy. I do
:08:44. > :08:48.not think that Britain has been doing this enough compared with
:08:49. > :08:53.France and Germany in recent years. I am optimistic in the long term
:08:54. > :09:00.about this dish -- about British exports to China. China need machine
:09:01. > :09:04.tools and manufacturing products. In 20 years time, China will be buying
:09:05. > :09:11.professional groups, educational services, the things we excel at.
:09:12. > :09:16.All we need to do is consolidate our strengths, stand still and we will
:09:17. > :09:18.move forward. The worst thing we can do is reengineer the economy towards
:09:19. > :09:25.those services and away from something else. We have a lot of
:09:26. > :09:30.ground to make up, Helen? At one stage, it is no longer true, but at
:09:31. > :09:34.one stage you could say that we exported more to Ireland, a country
:09:35. > :09:43.of 4 million people, than we did to Russia, China, India, Brazil, all
:09:44. > :09:49.combined. I believe we form 1% of Chinese imports now. The problem is
:09:50. > :09:54.what you have to give up in exchange for that. It is a big problem for
:09:55. > :10:01.David Cameron's credibility that he has had to row back on his meeting
:10:02. > :10:05.with the Dalai llama. This trip, we have been in the deep freeze with
:10:06. > :10:11.China for a couple of years. This trip has come at a high cost. We
:10:12. > :10:15.have had to open up the City of London to Chinese banks without much
:10:16. > :10:19.scrutiny, we have had to move the date of the Autumn Statement, and
:10:20. > :10:23.there is no mention of human rights. It is awkward to deal with that, all
:10:24. > :10:31.in the name of getting up to where we were a few years ago. A month
:10:32. > :10:35.after strong anchor -- one month after Sri Lanka, where he apologised
:10:36. > :10:41.three human rights abuses, this is difficult to take. Do we have any
:10:42. > :10:46.idea what the Prime Minister hopes to do in China this time? I am not
:10:47. > :10:50.sure there is anything specific, but when you go to these countries,
:10:51. > :10:55.certainly in the Middle East China, they complain, why has the Prime
:10:56. > :10:59.Minister not come to see us? That is very important. High-level
:11:00. > :11:05.delegations from other countries go to these places because the addict
:11:06. > :11:16.-- because they are important export markets. You might look at the Prime
:11:17. > :11:21.Minister playing cricket over there, and wonder, what is that for? I do
:11:22. > :11:25.not mind the Prime Minister Rajoy cricket. This is a high visibility
:11:26. > :11:32.mission, chose that politicians in Britain care. You are part of the
:11:33. > :11:36.free enterprise group. It had all sorts of things on it like tax cuts
:11:37. > :11:43.for those on middle incomes or above the 40% bracket, tax cuts worth 16
:11:44. > :11:49.billion. You will get none of that on Thursday, we are agreed? No. But
:11:50. > :11:57.he does have two budgets between now and the election and if the fiscal
:11:58. > :12:00.position is using a little bit, he may have more leeway than it looked
:12:01. > :12:06.like a couple of months ago. Yes, from a free enter prise point of
:12:07. > :12:12.view, we have looked at the tax cuts that should be looked at. The 40p
:12:13. > :12:17.rate comes in at quite a low level for people who, in the south-east,
:12:18. > :12:24.do not feel particularly wealthy. They are spending a lot of money on
:12:25. > :12:28.commuting, energy bills. The Chancellor has been very open about
:12:29. > :12:33.championing this. He says that the 40p rate will kick in at a slightly
:12:34. > :12:38.higher rate. Labour had a bad summer and the opinion polls seem to be
:12:39. > :12:43.narrowing. Then they had a good hearty conference season. The best.
:12:44. > :12:48.Has the Labour lead solidified or increased the little, maybe up to
:12:49. > :12:52.eight points? If it is a good Autumn Statement, or the Tories start to
:12:53. > :12:58.narrow that lead by the end of the year? If they go into 2014 trailing
:12:59. > :13:03.by single digits, they cannot complain too much. That gives them
:13:04. > :13:09.18 months to chip away at Labour's lead. But do they do that chipping
:13:10. > :13:13.away by eight bidding Labour or do they let time take its course and
:13:14. > :13:17.let the economic recovery continue, maybe business investment joins
:13:18. > :13:21.consumer spending as a source of that recovery, and a year from now,
:13:22. > :13:29.household disposable income begins to rise? That is a better hope than
:13:30. > :13:32.engaging in a bidding war. Be assured, they will be highly
:13:33. > :13:35.political budgets. That's all for today. The Daily Politics is on BBC
:13:36. > :13:39.Two at midday all this week, except on Thursday when we'll start at
:13:40. > :13:41.10:45 to bring you live coverage and analysis of the Chancellor's Autumn
:13:42. > :13:45.Statement in a Daily Politics special for BBC Two and the BBC News
:13:46. > :13:48.Channel. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.