01/12/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne

announces a ?50 cut to annual household energy bills. We'll talk

to Lib Dem president Tim Farron ahead of the Chancellor's mini

budget this week. Net immigration is up for the first

time in two years. Labour and the Tories say they want to bring it

down, but how? Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper joins us for the

Sunday Interview. The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will

be for some cornflakes to get to the top. The Mayor of London says

inequality and greed are essential to spur economic activity. The

speech won him plenty of headlines and reminded everyone he still has

ambitions. So what is the Boris game plan? And in London: The mayor

accepts the housing situation in the capital is now a crisis. Another

week, another strategy? Can this one deliver?

And with me throughout today's programme, well, we've shaken the

packet and look who's risen to the top. Or did we open it at the

bottom? Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates. All three will be

tweeting throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp. So, after

weeks in which Ed Miliband's promise to freeze energy prices has set the

Westminster agenda, the Coalition Government is finally coming up with

its answer. This morning the Chancellor George Osborne explained

how he plans to cut household energy bills by an average of fifty quid.

What we're going to do is roll back the levees that are placed by

government on people's electricity bills. This will mean that for the

average bill payer, they will have ?50 of those electricity and gas

bills. That will help families. We are doing it in the way that

government can do it. We are controlling the cost that families

incurred because of government policies. We are doing it in a way

that will not damage the environment or reduce our commitment to dealing

with climate change. We will not produce commit men to helping

low-income families with the cost of living. Janan, we are finally seeing

the coalition begin to play its hand in response to the Ed Miliband

freeze? They have been trying to respond for almost ten weeks and

older responses have been quite fiddly. We are going to take a bit

of tax year, put it onto general taxation, have a conversation with

the energy companies, engineered a rebate of some kind, this is not

very vivid. The advantage of the idea that they have announced

overnight is that it is clear and it has a nice round figure attached to

it, ?50. The chief of staff of President Obama, he said, if you are

explaining, you're losing. The genius of this idea is that it does

not require explanation. He would not drawn this morning on what

agreement he had with the energy companies, and whether this would

fall through to the bottom of the bill, but the way he spoke, saying,

I am not going to pre-empt what the energy companies say, that suggests

he has something up his sleeve. Yes, I thought so. The energy companies

have made this so badly for so long. It would be awful if he announced

this and the energy companies said, we are going to keep this money for

ourselves. I do not think he is that stupid. The energy companies have an

incentive to go along with this, don't they? My worry is that I am

not sure how much it will be within the opinion polls. I think people

might expect this now, it is not a new thing, it is not an exciting

thing. Say in the markets, they may have priced the ten already. If by

Thursday of this week, he is able to say, I have a ?50 cut coming to your

bill. The energy companies have guaranteed that this will fall

through onto your energy bill, and they have indicated to me that they

themselves will not put up energy prices through 2014, has he shot the

Ed Miliband Fox? I think he has a couple of challenges. It is still

very hard. This is an answer for the next 12 months but did is no chance

announced that Labour will stop saying they are going to freeze

prices in the next Parliament. He will say, I have not just frozen

them, I have done that as well and I have cut them. When people look at

their energy bills, they are going up by more than ?50. This is a

reduction in the amount that they are going up overall. Year on 08

will be for George Osborne. He will have to come up with something this

time next year. The detail in the Sunday papers reveals that George

Osborne is trying to get the energy companies to put on bills that ?50

has been knocked off your bill because of a reduction by the

government. He is trying to get the energy companies to do his political

bidding for him. It will be interesting to see if they go along

with that, because then we will know how cross the arm with Ed Miliband.

Let's get another perspective. Joining me now from Kendal in the

Lake District is the president of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Good morning. Let me ask you this, the

coalition is rowing back on green taxes, I do comfortable with that or

is it something else you will rebel against? I am very comfortable with

the fact we are protecting for the money is going. I am open to where

the money comes from. The notion that we should stop insulating the

homes of elderly people or stop investing in British manufacturing

in terms of green industry, that is something that I resolutely oppose,

but I am pleased that the funding will be made available for all that.

You cannot ignore the fact that for a whole range of reasons, mostly

down to the actions of the energy companies, you have prices that are

shooting up and affecting lots of people, making life hard. You cannot

ignore that. If we fund the installation of homes for older

people and others, if we protect British manufacturing jobs, and

raise the money through general taxation, I am comfortable with

that. It is not clear that is going to happen. It looks like the

eco-scheme, whereby the energy companies pay for the installation

of those on below-average incomes, they will spin that out over four

years, not two years, and one estimate is that that will cost

10,000 jobs. You're always boasting about your commitment to green jobs,

how do square that? I do not believe that. The roll-out will be longer.

The number of houses reached will be greater and that is a good thing. My

take is that it will not affect the number of jobs. People talk about

green levies. There has been disparaging language about that sort

of thing. There are 2 million people in this country in the lowest income

families and they get ?230 off their energy bills because of what isn't

-- because of what is disparaging the refer to as green stuff, shall

we call it. There will be more properties covered. We both know

that your party is being pushed into this by the Tories. You would not be

doing this off your own bad. You are in coalition with people who have

jettisoned their green Prudential is? -- credentials. You have made my

point quite well. David Cameron's panicked response to this over the

last few months was to ditch all the green stuff. It has been a job to

make sure that we hold him to his pledges and the green cord of this

government. That is why we are not scrapping the investment, we are

making sure it is funded from general taxation. I am talking to

you from Kendal. Lots of people struggle to pay their energy bills.

But all these things pale into insignificance compared to the

threat of climate change and we must hold the Prime Minister to account

on this issue. Argue reconciled to the idea that as long as you're in

coalition with the Tories you will never get a mansion tax? I am not

reconciled to it. We are trying to give off other tax cut to the lowest

income people. What about the mansion tax? That would be

potentially paid for by another view source of finance. That would be

that the wealthy... We know that is what you want, but you're not going

to get that? We will keep fighting for it. It is extremely important.

We can show where we will get the money from. I know that is the

adamant. That is not what I asked you. Ed Balls and Labour run in

favour of a mansion tax, have you talked to them about it? The honest

answer is I have not. It is interesting that they have come

round to supporting our policy having rejected it in power. So if

Labour was the largest party in parliament but not in power, you

would have no problem agreeing with a mansion tax as part of the deal?

If the arithmetic falls in that way and that is the will of the British

people, fear taxes on those who are wealthiest, stuff that is fear,

which includes wealth taxes, in order to fund more reductions for

those people on lowest incomes, that is the sort of thing that we might

reach agreement on. You voted with Labour on the spare room subsidy.

Again, that would be job done in any future coalition talks with Labour,

correct? I take the view that the spare room subsidy, whilst entirely

fail in principle, in practice it has caused immense hardship. I want

to see that changed. There are many people in government to share my

view on that. So does Labour. The problem was largely caused Labour

because they oversaw an increase in housing costs both 3.5 times while

they were in power. The government was forced into a position to tidy

up an appalling mess that Labour left. You voted with Labour against

it, and also, you want... No, I voted with the party conference.

Let's not dance on the head of the ten. Maybe they voted with me. -- on

the head of a pin. You are also in favour of a 50% top rate of income

tax, so you and Labour are that one there as well? No, I take the view

that the top rate of income tax is a fluid thing. All taxation levels are

temporary. Nick Clegg said that when the 50p rate came down to 45, that

was a rather foolish price tag George Osborne asked for in return

for as increasing the threshold and letting several million people out

of paying income tax at the bottom. So you agree with Labour? In favour

of rising the tax to 50p. I take the view that we should keep our minds

open on that. It is not the income tax level that bothers me, it is

whether the wealthy pay their fresh air. If that can be done through

other taxes, then that is something that I am happy with. -- their fair

share. Given your position on the top rate of tax, on the spare room

subsidy, how does the prospect of another five years of coalition with

the Tories strike you? The answer is, you react with whatever you have

about you to what the electorate hand you. Whatever happens after the

next election, you have got to respect the will of the people. Yes,

but how do you feel about it? We know about this, I am asking for

your feeling. Does your heart left or does your heart fall at the

prospect of another five years with the Tories? My heart would always

follow the prospect of anything other than a majority of Liberal

Democrat government. Your heart must be permanently in your shoes then.

Something like that, but when all is said and done, we accept the will of

the electorate. When you stand for election, you have got to put up

with what the electorate say. I have not found coalition as difficult as

you might suggest. It is about people who have to disagree and

agree to differ. You work with people in your daily life that you

disagree with. It is what grown-ups do. A lot of people in your party

think that your positioning yourself to be the left-wing candidate in a

post-Nick Clegg leadership contest. They think it is blatant

manoeuvring. One senior figure says, this is about you. Which bit of the

sanctimonious, treacherous little man is there not to like? What can I

see in response to that. My job is to promote the Liberal Democrats. I

have to do my best to consider what I'd defend to be right. By and

large, my position as an MP in the Lake District, but also as the

president of the party, is to reflect the will of people outside

the Westminster village. That is the important thing to do. Thank you for

joining us. David Cameron has said he wants to get it down to the tens

of thousands, Ed Miliband has admitted New Labour "got it wrong",

and Nick Clegg wants to be "zero-tolerant towards abuse". Yes,

immigration is back on the political agenda, with figures released

earlier this week showing that net migration is on the rise for the

first time in two years. And that's not the only reason politicians are

talking about it again. The issue of immigration has come

into sharp focus because of concerns about the number of remaining ins

and Bulgarians that can come to the UK next year. EU citizenship grants

the right to free movement within the EU. But when Bulgaria and

Romania joined in 2007, the government took up its right to

apply temporary restrictions on movement. They must be lifted

apply temporary restrictions on end of this year. According to the

2011 census, about one eyed 1 million of the population in England

and Wales is made up of people from countries who joined the EU in 2004.

The government has played down expectations that the skill of

migration could be repeated. This week David Cameron announced new

restrictions on the ability of EU migrants to claim benefits. That was

two, send a message. That prompted criticism is that the UK risks being

seen as a nasty country. Yvette Cooper joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Welcome to the Sunday Politics, Yvette Cooper. You

criticised the coalition for not acting sooner on immigration from

Romania and Bulgaria but the timetable for the unrestricted

arrival in January was agreed under Labour many years ago, and given the

battle that you had with the Polish and the Hungarians, what

preparations did you make in power? We think that we should learn from

some of the things that happened with migration. It would have been

better to have transitional controls in place and look at the impact of

what happened. But what preparations did you make in power? We set out a

series of measures that the Government still had time to bring

in. It is important that this should be a calm and measured debate. There

was time to bring in measures around benefit restrictions, for example,

and looking at the impact on the labour market, to make sure you do

not have exploitation of cheap migrant Labour which is bad for

everyone. I know that but I have asked you before and I am asking

again, what did you do? We got things wrong in Government. I

understand that I am not arguing. You are criticising them not

preparing, a legitimate criticism, but what did you do in power? Well,

I did think we did enough. Did you do anything? We signed the agency

workers directive but too slowly. We needed measures like that. We did

support things like the social chapter and the minimum wage, but I

have said before that we did not do enough and that is why we

recommended the measures in March. I understand that is what you did in

opposition and I take that. I put the general point to you that given

your failure to introduce controls on the countries that joined in

2004, alone among the major EU economies we did that, should we not

keep an embarrassed silence on these matters? You have no credibility. I

think you have got to talk about immigration. One of the things we

did not do in Government was discussed immigration and the

concerns people have and the long-term benefits that we know have

come from people who have come to Britain over many generations

contributing to Britain and having a big impact. I think we recognise

that there are things that we did wrong, but it would be irresponsible

for us not to join the debate and suggest sensible, practical measures

that you can introduce now to address the concerns that people

have, but also make sure that the system is fair and managed.

Immigration is important to Britain but it does have to be controlled

and managed in the right way. Let's remind ourselves of your record on

immigration. The chart you did not consult when in power. This is total

net migration per year under Labour. 2.2 million of net rise in

migration, more than the population of Birmingham, you proud of that? --

twice the population. Are you proud of that or apologising for it? We

set the pace of immigration was too fat and the level was too high and

it is right to bring migration down. So you think that was wrong?

Overruled have been huge benefits from people that have come to

Britain and built our biggest businesses. -- overall. They have

become Olympic medal winners. But because the pace was too fast, that

has had an impact. That was because of the lack of transitional controls

from Eastern Europe and it is why we should learn from that and have

sensible measures in place now, as part of what has got to be a calm

debate. These are net migration figures. They don't often show the

full figure. These are the immigration figures coming in. What

that chart shows is that in terms of the gross number coming into this

country, from the year 2000, it was half a million a year under Labour.

Rising to 600,000 by the time you were out of power. A lot of people

coming into these crowded islands, particularly since most of them come

to London and the South East. Was that intentional? Was that out of

control? Is that what you are now apologising for? What we said was

that the Government got the figures wrong on the migration from Eastern

Europe. If you remember particularly there was the issue of what happened

with not having transitional controls in place. The Government

didn't expect the number of people coming to the country to be the way

it was. And so obviously mistakes were made. We have recognised that.

We have also got to recognise that this is something that has happened

in countries all over the world. We travel and trade far more than ever.

We have an increasingly globalised economy. Other European countries

have been affected in the same way, and America, and other developing

countries affected in the same way by the scale of migration. I am

trying to work out whether the numbers were intentional or if you

lost control. The key thing that we have said many times and I have

already said it to you many times, Andrew, that we should have a

transitional controls in place on Eastern Europe. I think that would

have had an impact on them level of migration. We also should have

brought in the points -based system earlier. We did bring that in

towards the end and it did restrict the level of low skilled migration

because there are different kinds of migration. University students

coming to Britain brings in billions of pounds of investment. On the

other hand, low skilled migration can have a serious impact on the

jobs market, pay levels and so on at the low skilled end of the labour

market. We have to distinguish between different kinds of

migration. You keep trying to excuse the figures by talking about the

lack of transitional controls. Can we skip the chart I was going to go

to? The next one. Under Labour, this is the source of where migrants came

from. The main source was not the accession countries or the remainder

of Europe. Overwhelmingly they were from the African Commonwealth, and

the Indian subcontinent. Overwhelmingly, these numbers are

nothing to do with transitional controls. You can control that

immigration entirely because they are not part of the EU. Was that a

mistake? First of all, the big increase was in the accession

groups. Not according to the chart. In terms of the increase, the

changes that happened. Secondly, in answer to the question that you just

asked me, we should also have introduced the points -based system

at an earlier stage. Thirdly there has been a big increase in the

number of university students coming to Britain and they have brought

billions of pounds of investment. At the moment the Government is not

distinguishing, it is just using the figure of net migration. And that is

starting to go up again, as you said in the introduction, but the problem

is that it treats all kinds of migration is aimed. It does not

address illegal immigration, which is a problem, but it treats

university graduates coming to Britain in the same way as low

skilled workers. If Labour get back into power, is it your ambition to

bring down immigration? We have already said it is too high and we

would support measures to bring it down. You would bring it down? There

is something called student visas, which is not included in the

figures, and it does not include university graduates, and it is a

figure that has increased substantially in recent years. They

come for short-term study but they do not even have to prove that they

come for a college course. They do not even have to have a place to

come. Those visas should be restricted to prevent abuse of the

system and that is in line with a recommendation from the Inspectorate

and that is the kind of practical thing that we could do. Can you give

us a ballpark figure of how much immigration would fall? You have

seen the mess that Theresa May has got into with her figures. She made

a target that it is clear to me that she will not meet. I think that is

right. She will not meet it. Can you give as a ballpark figure by which

we can judge you? If she had been more sensible and taken more time to

listen to experts and decide what measures should be targeted, then

she would not be in this mess. You cannot give me a figure? She has

chosen net migration. She has set a target, without ifs and buts. I

think it is important not to have a massive gap between the rhetoric and

reality. Not to make promises on numbers which are not responsible.

OK, you won't give me a figure. Fine. Moving on to crime. 10,000

front line police jobs have gone since 2010 but crime continues to

fall. 7% down last year alone. When you told the Labour conference that

you do not cut crime by cutting the police, you were wrong. I think the

Government is being very complacent about what is happening to crime.

Crime patterns are changing. There has been an exponential increase,

and that is in the words of the police, in online crime. We have

also seen, for example, domestic violence going up, but prosecutions

dropping dramatically. There is a serious impact as a result of not

having 10,000 police in place. You have talked about the exponential

increase in online and economic crime. If those are the big growth

areas, why have bobbies on the beat? That would make no difference. It is

about an approach to policing that has been incredibly successful over

many years, which Labour introduced, which is neighbourhood policing in

the community is working hard with communities to prevent crime. People

like to see bobbies on the beat but have you got any evidence that it

leads to a reduction in crime? Interestingly, the Lords Stevens

commission that we set up, they have reported this week and it has been

the equivalent of a Royal commission, looking at the number of

people involved in it. Their strong recommendation was that this is

about preventing crime but also respectful law and order, working

with communities, and so they strongly took the view with all of

their expertise and the 30 different universities that they have involved

with it, that on the basis of all that analysis, the right thing was

to keep bobbies on the beat and not push them cars. Instinctively you

would think it was true. More visible policing, less crime. But in

all the criminology work, I cannot find the evidence. There is

competing work about why there has been a 20 year drop in overall crime

and everybody has different opinions on why that has happened. The point

about neighbourhood policing is that it is broader than crime-fighting.

It is about prevention and community safety. Improving the well-being of

communities as well. Will you keep the elected Police Commissioners?

Big sigh! What the report said was that the system is flawed. We raised

concern about this at the beginning. You will remember at the elections,

Theresa May's flagship policy, at the elections they cost ?100 million

and there was 15% turnout. You have to have a system of accountability

at the police. Three options were presented, all of which are forms.

So you have to have reform. It is not whether to have reformed, it is

which of those options is the best way to do it. The commission set out

a series of options, and I thought that the preferable approach would

be collaboration and voluntary mergers. We know they won't

volunteer. There have been some collaboration is taking place. I

think the issues with police and crime commissioners have fragmented

things and made it harder to get collaboration between police

forces. Everybody is asking this question, just before you go. What

is it like living with a nightmare? Who does all the cooking, so I can't

complain! Says Miliband people are wrong, he is a dream cook? He is!

In a speech this week, Boris Johnson praised greed and envy as essential

for economic progress, and that has got tongues wagging. What is the

Mayor of London up to? What is his game plan? Does he even have a game

plan and does he know if he has one? Flash photography coming up. Boris.

In many ways I can leave it there. You'd know who I meant. And if you

didn't, the unruly mop of blonde hair would tell you, the language.

Ping-pong was invented on the dining tables of England. Somehow pulling

off the ridiculous to the sublime. It is going to go zoink off the

scale! But often having to speed away from the whiff-whaff of

scandal. Boris, are you going to save your manage?

There's always been a question about him and his as role as mayor and

another prized position, as hinted to the Tory faithful this year at

conference, discussing former French Prime Minister Alan Juppe. -- Alain

Juppe. He told me he was going to be the mayor of Bordeaux. I think he

may have been mayor well he was Prime Minister, it is the kind of

thing they do in funds -- AvD in France. It is a good idea, if you

ask me. But is it a joke? He is much more ambitious. Boris wants to be

Prime Minister more than anything else. Perhaps more than he wants to

be made of London. The ball came loose from the back of the scrum. Of

course it would give great thing to have a crack at, but it is not going

to happen. He might be right. First, the Conservatives have a leader,

another Old Etonian, Oxford, Bullingdon chap and he has the job

Boris might like a crack at. What do you do with a problem like Boris? It

is one of the great paradoxes of Tory politics that for Boris Johnson

to succeed, David Cameron must feel. Boris needs David Cameron to lose so

that he can stand a chance of becoming loser. -- becoming leader.

And disloyalty is punished by Conservatives. Boris knows the man

who brought down Margaret Thatcher. Michael Heseltine, who Boris

replaced as MP for Henley, never got her job. In 1986, she took on the

member for Henley, always a risky venture. And why might he make such

a jibe, because he's won two more elections than the PM. Conservatives

like a winner. Boris, against Robert expectations, has won the Mayor of

London job twice. -- public. He might've built a following with the

grassroots but he's on shakier ground with many Tory MPs, who see

him as a selfish clown, unfit for high office. And besides, he's not

the only one with king-sized ambition, and Boris and George are

not close, however much they may profess unity. There is probably

some Chinese expression for a complete and perfect harmony. Ying

and yang. But in plain black and white, if Boris has a plan, it's one

he can't instigate, and if David Cameron is PM in 2016, it may not be

implementable. He'd need a seat and it wouldn't be plain sailing if he

did make a leadership bid. My leadership chances, I think I may

have told you before, or about as good as my chances of ying

reincarnated as a baked bean. Which is probably quite high. So if the

job you want with Brown-esque desire is potentially never to be yours

what do you do? He is, of course, an American citizen by birth. He was

born in New York public hospital, and so he is qualified to be

President of the United States. And you don't need an IQ over 16 to find

that the tiniest bit scary. Giles Dilnot reporting. Helen Lewis,

Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates are here. Is there a plan for Boris, and

if so, what is it? I think the plan is for him to say what he thinks the

Tory activist base wants to hear just now. He knows that in 18 months

time they can disown it. I think he is wrong, the way the speech has

played has a limited number of people. He has cross-party appeal.

He has now reconfirmed to people that the Tories are the nasty party

and they have been pretending to be modernised. Is it not the truth that

he needs David Cameron to lose the 2015 election to become leader in

this decade? It is very interesting watching his fortunes wax and wane.

It always seems to happen in inverse proportion to how well David Cameron

is doing in front of his own party. There is no small element of

strategy about what we are doing here. The problem with Boris is that

he's popular with the country, but not with the party's MPs and its

hard-core supporters. This was an appeal to the grassroots this week.

He is not the only potential candidate. If we were in some kind

of circumstance where Boris was a runner to replace Mr Cameron, who

with the other front the? I think it will skip a generation. The recent

intake was ideological assertive. I do not buy the idea that it will be

Jeremy Hunt against Michael Gove. I then, that generation will be

tainted by being in government. It is interesting, what is he trying to

pull? He is ideological. He does not believe in many things, but he

believes in a few things quite deeply, and one is the idea of

competition, both in business and academic selection. He has never

been squeamish about expressing that. We do make mistakes sometimes,

assuming he is entirely political. Look at all the Northern voters who

will not vote for the Tories even though they are socially or economic

the Conservatives. I do not think he helps. Who in the Tories would

help? That is a tough question. To reason me has also been speaking to

the hard right. -- Theresa May. I have been out with him at night. It

is like dining with a film star. People are queueing up to speak to

him. Educational selection is one of the few areas that he can offer. He

has gone liberal on immigration, as are made of London would have to. --

as a Mayor of London. It's just gone 11:30. You're watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I'll be looking at the week

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

across the UK. Hello and welcome from us. This

week, with me for the next 20 minutes or so, are Gavin Barwell,

Conservative MP for Croydon Central, and Teresa Pearce, Labour MP for

Erith and Thamesmead. Coming up a bit later on, as a new super-mall is

announced in Croydon, Gavin's patch, is the rise and rise of the

Westfield empire damaging for local shops? But first, even the mayor

himself accepted there's now a crisis on his watch as he launched a

new strategy to create more homes. There were freshened up promises, if

no new money, and he called it a bold vision. But there were plenty

who didn't agree. Andrew Cryan reports.

London's property market is booming again, good news for the type of

people who can make half a million quid by selling a two-bedroom flat,

not so good for others. It is too expensive. You need at least ?20,000

deposit. There is a housing crisis. There is a housing crisis across the

south-east of England. The mayor agrees that there is a housing

crisis. Boris Johnson has spelt out his recipe for averting it, I

promise to build 42,000 homes a year for the next decade. We have flea

all got to look back for the last 30 years and admit that we have in

building half as much as London needs. When you spoke about

collective responsibility for 30 years of not old enough homes, as a

conservative, Arizona responsibility is at the heart of your belief. What

about the personal responsibility that you take the last five years? I

certainly take personal responsibility. I certainly cannot

take personal responsibility for everything. I am not the creator of

every home in London, but I am rout of the results that we have had so

far. We are stepping up the pace. We need to go to 42,000 each year. That

is market towns, that is part by, part rent, that is

is market towns, that is part by, affordable rent. It will mean big

changes. If he manages it, he affordable rent. It will mean big

be doubling the number of homes built in London over the last half

decade. But built in London over the last half

homes so much, why has Boris Johnson not been building them in the last

five years that he has been mayor? The mayor's target was recently less

ambitious. The target was never met. According to this member of the

housing committee, it comes down to a lack of attention combined with

the wrong approach. The mayor has failed to grasp the seriousness of

the problem and failed to put sufficient effort onto the crisis in

affordable and social housing. He has had too much of a market led

approach. This time, will it be different, the mayor announced a

raft of new measures in his strategy, including a new London

Housing bank. It would land developers money to build. There

would be looser planning controls, and a drive to get pension funds

investing in housing. But that is concern from London councils that

the plan may not enough to get this out of what they agrees a crisis.

They say that London needs 800,000 homes in the next eight years, more

than double what the main is proposing. -- the mayor. This will

require not just the borrowers and the mayor, but central government to

make some decisions. The obvious one is raising the borrowing cap for

borrowers so that we can build more homes are cells in London. It will

also require banks to lend, builders to build and planning permissions to

be granted. Otherwise the mayor may not have success in meeting his

target. This is the deputy mayor for housing. Where do the figures come

from? It is based on the analysis that we have done. It is based on

capacity to build and demand. It is heavily influenced by the last

census in 2011. We have made a very honest assessment, and we have a

very honest strategy that we have published for consultation. For 30

years there has been a chronic failure to build enough homes. There

is a structural problem in housing market. If we returned to the

housing market we had before 2008, it would not the OK. We need a

radically different approach. This might be a signal, you might say

that you want 42,000, but with is the evidence you're going to do

anything different? There is new money attached to the strategy, in

excess of ?1 billion. You have identified that as new money, money

that has been announced in the previous comprehensive spending

review but it has not come on stream yet? It will be spent in 2015. There

is more to come, but it will start off with an initial 1 billion.

Compare that tween 2008 -- 2011, and the last Labour government. That was

?3 billion over three years? Let's go back to your first question, what

is going to be different this time? The strategy looks at three areas

where there is a real problem. It looks at product, financing and

land. These are the areas where you need to address things. You need a

much more mid-market product. People are finding housing costs in the

market increasingly expensive. You need a different approach to land.

We have been looking at cities around the world, Tokyo, places like

that. You need more finance and a greater balance of finance coming

in. Some of this is down to banks. The experience of most people is not

with state support. The high-street lenders have an important part to

play in this. But all of these things are important. I remember

these being spoken of in 2008. Where are the pension funds and the banks?

This man was going to do it by advocacy. It is not working. What is

happening? I don't know why you make that assessment. What about the

build that was supposed to happen? We are going to have something like

1000 homes a month being completed, low-cost homes for low-paid

Londoners. How is that possible? You completed 16,000 in the year before

the last election. This year, the year just gone, it went down by

8000. You are going in the wrong direction, aren't you? There is not

much point trading numbers. I would say look at the house-building. It

is 40% up from the recession. Talking about all the

house-building? Fair enough. And on the affordable side, the numbers are

robust and we can trade lots of numbers. The fundamental point is

that for 30 years... I want to look at the record. I wage trade figures

with you. But let me pick up on one point. -- I will not trade figures.

I want to look at pensions. Look at elephant and Castle. We have a

pension fund from America investing in the first purpose-built rented

accommodation. That big development? Yes. Elephant and Castle. Look at

the East Village, the former Olympic village. We have that company coming

in. There are number of things happening with pension funds and

investors. It is really important. If we rely on the equity from

house-builders and traditional back from lenders, then there is not

sufficient money in the system so this is really important. Let me

talk about strategy and philosophy. Mid-market. Very firmly there will

be a move away from affordable rented to part ownership. You want

to return to ownership, at least part ownership. We want to do more

of everything. Everybody wants to do that but talk about the shift. Are

you talking about the bottom end, people who just need a roof over

their head? Or more for the middle market? In terms of affordable

housing, there is a 60-40 split, owned and rented, and that is

progress. What do you make of this strategy? Nobody denies the key

point made that we have had 30 years of insufficient building. That is

absolutely right and people are priced out of the market absolutely

in London. I am an MP and my salary is quite good but if I was buying

now for the first time I could not afford to buy in most of London. It

is a ridiculous situation. I am glad that the Mayor has come out with

this strategy because it gives us the chance to talk about it. Looking

at the strategy, there did not seem to be any social housing at all.

There is part rent and part by, and affordable rent, but not really

social housing. Is that true? Is there planning for social housing?

We have rented product for those on low incomes and there are two tears,

within the affordable rented product. One is low rents and one is

at a discount rent. The average income of those people benefiting

from that product is about ?14,800. Does that sound like social housing

to you? If rent is low enough, that is fine, but rent in London is not

low enough and I don't see how you can cap them at the percentage of

market rate if market rate is so high. You are talking about 2015. By

then, families in my constituency in private rented will be in their

third property by then because of short-term rents and leases.

Something needs to be done about the private rented sector. I would like

to hear what the Mayor had to say about that. Let's bring in Gavin

Barwell. This is a housing strategy that... Well, there was another one.

This now supersedes that. It is the first strategy in four years. Has

the Mayor been asleep at the wheel? I don't think that is fair. We have

a fundamental challenge in London. Two problems. We have not been

building and houses for a long time and we are partly the victim of

London's huge success in terms of the numbers of people wanting to

move here. Huge demand and not enough supply. There were things in

the strategy that I particularly liked. The idea of a housing bank to

provide loans to get sites that are currently stalled under way. The

Gateway site in Croydon is a great example. There is planning

permission for a large residential element. At the moment it is stalled

because of market conditions and this could get building moving. And

the housing zone idea. The centre of Croydon is an opportunity area. We

will see what we can do to get these schemes under way quicker. Even

though there is a focus on concentration and getting houses of

all types, you have not given up the target of 100,000 affordable homes

over two terms, have you? That will still be achieved? That is

absolutely still the target and we are on track. So you have not

shifted so much a way that the rented , sociable or affordable

rented sector will be impacted? That is certainly not the intention. And

come on, you have been slightly harsh in your language. Suggesting

asleep at the wheel is deeply unfair. Suggesting that the Mayor's

approach is one of seeing how it happens is completely unfair. As you

know, this Mayor has invested billions of pounds. He has new

powers and new land. We have released the equivalent of 210

football pitches, construction boost of ?3 billion in terms of land for

development work, and we have the 100,000 homes programme, and we have

real help coming through to people who are very squeezed with a housing

costs to help them part by, and we have ambitious goals. There is a lot

happening. The really important point is that this needs cross-party

consensus and long-term planning and very different approaches from the

ones that we have had in the last 30 years. We will keep on having you

regularly and holding you to it and charting your progress. Thank you

for coming in. First it was Shepherd's Bush and then Stratford,

and now approval has been given for a new Westfield centre in Croydon.

If all goes to plan, it will be completed by 2017. There will be

regenerative benefits to the area according to the promises, but

others warn it could suck life out of surrounding neighbourhoods.

This week, Croydon Council and City Hall gave the go-ahead for a ?1

billion redevelopment of Croydon town centre. The scheme supporters

hope it will propel Croydon into the top ten shopping destinations. It

currently ranks around 30. This centre will be knocked down and

replaced with London's third Westfield shopping centre, all 1.5

million square feet of it. It is expected to deliver between 400 and

600 new homes and many more jobs. But what does it mean for those on

the High Street peddling their wares at the moment? Our high streets are

changing. Mega shopping malls suck in major chains from the surrounding

areas. I think it is a necessity because it is what the consumer

wants, but there is always a reaction. There will be a period of

three to five years when the market rebalances, rents drop, and then you

see the arrival of the pawnbrokers, betting shops, who move into the

spaces that are left empty quite rightly. It fundamentally changes

the tone of the side streets. Increased consumer spending is an

increasing force. Shoppers gravitate to the centres but at what cost to

the surrounding area? Gavin, is this cause for an at joy? It is the best

news that Croydon has had in my lifetime. It is a huge opportunity,

not just the development itself which is creating thousands of

jobs, but new homes, new leisure facilities, and it will also act as

a catalyst for other people to invest in Croydon. Squeezing

economic life out. We heard from that company that there can be a

process. First empty units, then stores that are not what people

want. There is a big difference with this scheme. Previous development

have been out of town or not in an existing town centre, a new

location. Westfield is coming in to invest in the existing Croydon town

centre. As we made sure in terms of the design that there are good links

to London Road and Surrey Street, where there is an ancient market, to

make sure that the whole centre benefits, rather than a box that

people go to and causes problems in the areas nearby. Would you like one

of those in your patch? The difference with this is that it will

be right in the centre of Croydon. In the area that I represent, we had

Bluewater, which sucked the life out of local shopping areas, because it

is somewhere that you go to, leaving the local shopping areas. But this

will bring people into Croydon, which brings jobs and spending

power. If you look at the Stratford example, people predicted that the

local shopping areas would be affected but they have had a lease

of life. And implement has been promoted. Housing? 15%, just 15%,

just one in eight will be affordable. How can you justify

that? You have to look at what is viable in the current market. 15% of

500 is better than 50% of nothing. We know it is better, but viable?

Westfield? With their profits and political support? They could not

put in housing for real people? This is a difficult scheme for them to

do. They are not buying on Brownfield land. They are buying up

an existing shopping centre, which is not initiate it was in 20 years

ago, but is still an inexpensive investment for them to make. You

don't think they will make a multi-billion pound profit year on

year and not be as successful as other shops? Why not? 15%, let me

remind you, of affordable homes. I certainly hope they do make a profit

and that the scheme will be a success. But actually, it is vitally

important to provide affordable housing, very important. But the

vast majority of my constituents want to own their own homes, so the

key is to get more housing for ownership which is at a price that

people can afford. We used the term affordable housing, and people might

think that is the hope they can afford to buy. What we are talking

about is council housing, social housing, and those people in my

constituency wants to own their own homes. Do you think we have got such

a hugely successful fast company... I am just wondering if companies are

asked to invest enough in local infrastructure for the right to base

themselves in somewhere like Croydon. The pressure is put on them

to employ locally and apprenticeships, whereas housing is

left until last which is the biggest crisis in London. Anybody who wants

to coming to London and make money in London should be made to put more

back into the community and housing is the most important thing. It is a

once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. You can only redevelop it once. You talk

about infrastructure and they are putting millions of pounds into the

tram system, the bus system. ?30 million at the outset to do that

stuff. More than that. ?60 million. Once they have paid that 60 million

once, they will be generating huge profits for years to come. They will

not put in money every year. They will, actually. Significant levels

of business rates will come to the council. The new homes bonus. It is

a big benefit to the community. We have talked about this before.

The key challenge for Croydon is to turn around the town's reputation,

to get people to live there and set up businesses there. The image of

the borough is shaped by the town centre and this is an opportunity to

transform that. It is such good news for the town. Now the rest of the

political news in 60 seconds. Squatters targeted Margaret

Thatcher's former Tory constituency base in Finchley to protest at new

laws. They set up camp on the driveway of the office, now used by

Conservative MP, and refused to leave until he spent a night camping

with them. They were evicted on Thursday. London Underground workers

will be balloted for strike action over job cuts and ticket office

closures. The RMT union said it would fight

against the plans for all ticket offices to be closed.

Following the recent spate of cycling fatalities, Metropolitan

Police officers were deployed at 166 key junctions, where they issued

fixed penalty notices to people breaking road traffic laws.

The Mayor gave the annual Margaret Thatcher lecture, in which he

claimed tackling economic inequality is futile because some people's IQ

is too low for them to compete. He argued that some measure of

inequality was an essential spur to economic activity.

The Mayor's words. 16% of our species have an IQ below 85. 2% have

an IQ above 130. The harder you shake the packet, the easier it will

be for some cornflakes to get to the top. What do you think you were

saying? It is typical Boris getting onto the front pages of the next day

and everybody talking about it. I find what he said offensive. But of

what he was talking about was people getting on in life, earning money.

And actually I don't think the value of someone is how much they earn but

what they do. And it depends what you mean by getting to the top of

the packet. He meant earning power and I think that is wrong. Do you

think this is an important contribution to the thinking about

social mobility? If you actually read the speech as opposed to the

media coverage, it is very different. He is portrayed as saying

that greed is good, but if I can read out from the speech? Said it

was a valid motivator. He said the Gordon Backers of London are

conspicuous for their greed and what they do for the population. Many

people have suffered real falls in their income over many years. And on

the point about IQ, we all have different gifts. Some of us are

lucky in terms of where we start in life, but he then said we have to

genuinely help those who struggle to compete, and make sure everyone has

the chance to make the best of the abilities they do have. I would

encourage people to read the speech and see what he said, rather than a

couple of quotes that have been picked out. People thought he was

touching on eugenics and things like that. That is all we have time for.

Thank you. What rabbit has George Osborne got up his sleeve? And

what's David Cameron up to in China? All questions for The Week Ahead. To

help the panel led, we are joined by Kwasi Kwarteng, Tory MP. Welcome to

the Sunday Politics. Why has the government been unable to move the

agenda and to the broad economic recovery, and allowed the agenda to

stay on Labour's ground of energy prices and living standards? Energy

has been a big issue over the last few months but the autumn state and

will be a wonderful opportunity to readdress where we are fighting the

ground, the good economic news that we delivered. If you look at where

Labour were earlier this year, people were saying they would they 5

million people unemployed. They were saying that there should be a plan

B. He is not in the Labour Party? Elements of the left were suggesting

it. Peter Hain told me it would be up to 3 million people. Danny

Blanchflower said it would be 5 million people. So we have got to

get the economy back to the centre of the debate? Yes, the game we were

playing was about the economy. That was the central fighting ground of

the political debate. We were winning that battle. Labour have

cleverly shifted it onto the cost of living. It is essential that the

government, that George, talks about the economy. That has been its great

success. I do not think this has been a week of admitting that Labour

was right, plain cigarettes packaging, other issues. If you look

at the big picture, where we are with the economy, we have the

fastest growing economy in the G-7. Despite Labour's predictions, none

of this has happened, none of the triple dip has happened. The British

economy is on a good fitting. That is a good story for the government

to bat on. You say that people have stopped talking about the economic

recovery, but it is worse than that, people have stopped talking about

the deficit? As long as people were talking about the deficit, the

Tories were trusted. But people have forgotten about it. This country

still spends ?100 billion more than it raises. Yes, I am of the view

that the deficit, the national debt, is the biggest question facing

this generation of politicians. You are right to suggest that the

Conservative Party was strong on this. That head, not deficit, is not

going to come down in the foreseeable future? It is rising.

This is a test that George Osborne is not going to pass. We know what

is coming in the Autumn Statement, it is lots of giveaways, paying for

free school meals, paying for fuel duty subsidies. We are still talking

about the cost of living, not changing it actively wider economy.

There might be extra money for growth but it is not clear what will

happen to that. If it is time for giveaways, let's speak about Labour.

I have never been a fan of giveaways. Fiscal prudence is what

our watchword should be. Look at the headlines. Each time, the deficit

figures, the debt figures, were always worse than predicted. This

year it will be significantly better. I think that is significant.

Any kind of recovery is probably better than no recovery at all. When

you look at this recovery, it is basically a consumer spending boom.

Consumer spending is up, business investment is way down compared with

2008, and exports, despite a 20% devaluation, our flat. Let's get one

thing straight, it is a recovery. Any recovery is better than no

recovery. Now we can have a debate about, technical debate about the

elements of the recovery. It is not technical, it is a fact. There is

evidence that there is optimism in terms of what are thinking...

Optimism? If I am optimistic about the economy, I am more likely to

spend money and invest in business. So far you have not managed that?

Exports have not done well either? Exports are not a big section of the

British economy. But of course, they are important. But given where we

were at the end of last year, no economist was saying that we would

be in this robust position today. That is true, in terms of the

overall recovery. Now the PM loves to "bang the drum abroad for British

business" and he's off to China this evening with a plane-load of British

business leaders. And it's not the first time. Take a look at this.

Well, you might not think exports unimportant, but clearly the Prime

Minister and the Chancellor do. They are important, but they are not what

is driving the growth at the moment. We used to talk about the need for

export led recovery is, that is why the Prime Minister is going to

China. Absolutely, and he's doing the right thing. Do we have any

evidence that these tend of trips produce business? The main example

so far is the right to trade the Chinese currency offshore. London

has a kind of global primacy. London will be the offshore centre. Is that

a good thing? I have no problem at all with this sort of policy. I do

not think that Britain has been doing this enough compared with

France and Germany in recent years. I am optimistic in the long term

about this dish -- about British exports to China. China need machine

tools and manufacturing products. In 20 years time, China will be buying

professional groups, educational services, the things we excel at.

All we need to do is consolidate our strengths, stand still and we will

move forward. The worst thing we can do is reengineer the economy towards

those services and away from something else. We have a lot of

ground to make up, Helen? At one stage, it is no longer true, but at

one stage you could say that we exported more to Ireland, a country

of 4 million people, than we did to Russia, China, India, Brazil, all

combined. I believe we form 1% of Chinese imports now. The problem is

what you have to give up in exchange for that. It is a big problem for

David Cameron's credibility that he has had to row back on his meeting

with the Dalai llama. This trip, we have been in the deep freeze with

China for a couple of years. This trip has come at a high cost. We

have had to open up the City of London to Chinese banks without much

scrutiny, we have had to move the date of the Autumn Statement, and

there is no mention of human rights. It is awkward to deal with that, all

in the name of getting up to where we were a few years ago. A month

after strong anchor -- one month after Sri Lanka, where he apologised

three human rights abuses, this is difficult to take. Do we have any

idea what the Prime Minister hopes to do in China this time? I am not

sure there is anything specific, but when you go to these countries,

certainly in the Middle East China, they complain, why has the Prime

Minister not come to see us? That is very important. High-level

delegations from other countries go to these places because the addict

-- because they are important export markets. You might look at the Prime

Minister playing cricket over there, and wonder, what is that for? I do

not mind the Prime Minister Rajoy cricket. This is a high visibility

mission, chose that politicians in Britain care. You are part of the

free enterprise group. It had all sorts of things on it like tax cuts

for those on middle incomes or above the 40% bracket, tax cuts worth 16

billion. You will get none of that on Thursday, we are agreed? No. But

he does have two budgets between now and the election and if the fiscal

position is using a little bit, he may have more leeway than it looked

like a couple of months ago. Yes, from a free enter prise point of

view, we have looked at the tax cuts that should be looked at. The 40p

rate comes in at quite a low level for people who, in the south-east,

do not feel particularly wealthy. They are spending a lot of money on

commuting, energy bills. The Chancellor has been very open about

championing this. He says that the 40p rate will kick in at a slightly

higher rate. Labour had a bad summer and the opinion polls seem to be

narrowing. Then they had a good hearty conference season. The best.

Has the Labour lead solidified or increased the little, maybe up to

eight points? If it is a good Autumn Statement, or the Tories start to

narrow that lead by the end of the year? If they go into 2014 trailing

by single digits, they cannot complain too much. That gives them

18 months to chip away at Labour's lead. But do they do that chipping

away by eight bidding Labour or do they let time take its course and

let the economic recovery continue, maybe business investment joins

consumer spending as a source of that recovery, and a year from now,

household disposable income begins to rise? That is a better hope than

engaging in a bidding war. Be assured, they will be highly

political budgets. That's all for today. The Daily Politics is on BBC

Two at midday all this week, except on Thursday when we'll start at

10:45 to bring you live coverage and analysis of the Chancellor's Autumn

Statement in a Daily Politics special for BBC Two and the BBC News

Channel. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.