16/02/2014 Sunday Politics London

Good morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. It would be

extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an independent

Scotland to join the European Union, so says the President of the

European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, in a significant

development in the independence debate. It's our top story. He has

the power to bring travel chaos to the nation's capital. Bob Crow

joined us for the Sunday interview. Another by-election and another

second place for UKIP. How big a threat does Nigel Farage's party

pose for the Conservatives? In London, a week when the mayor set

out his budget for next year. We look at his decisions and priorities

with the help of his chief of staff. With me, the best and brightest

political panel in the business The twits will be as incessant and

probably as welcome as the recent rain. A significant new development

in the debate over Scottish independence this morning, the

President of the European Commission, President Jose Manuel

Barroso, has confirmed what the Nationalists have long denied, that

an independent Scotland would have to reply to join the European Union

as a new member, that it would require the agreement of all 28

member states and that would be in his words, extremely difficult, if

not impossible. In case there is a new country, a new state coming out

of a current member state, it will have to apply and, this is very

important, the application to the union would have to be approved by

all of the other member states. Countries like Spain, with the

secessionist issues they have? I don't want to interfere in your

democratic discussion here, but of course, it will be extremely

difficult to get the approval of all of the other member states, to have

a new member coming in from one member state. We have seen that that

Spain has been opposing even the recognition, for instance, so it is

a similar state. It is a new country. I believe it is great to be

externally difficult, if not impossible. Well, he says he doesn't

want to interfere, but he has just dropped a medium-sized explosive

into the debate on Scottish independence? A huge story. Alex

Salmond must be wondering what is going to go wrong next. His pitch to

the Scottish people is based on two things, the currency union with

England and the rest of the United Kingdom, which was blown apart last

week, and this morning, his claims that Scotland would automatically

get into the European Union has been dynamited. He's not only saying that

they would have to apply, it is also saying it might be impossible to get

the agreement of all 28 members to allow Scotland in. That's even more

significant than the application? The reference to Spain is

interesting, we talk about Catalan independence, an economic and active

area that Spain does not want to be independent. About five other

countries are blocking Kosovo's accession to the EU. There is no

reason they would want to encourage the secessionist in their country by

letting Scotland do the same. If Scotland does have to apply, and it

does get in, it solves the currency problem because all new members have

to accept the Euro? At the moment, the SNP are rejecting that quite

strongly. What an interesting intervention today. However, I know

that those arguing that Scotland should stay in the union are worried

that the polls are tightening. A lot of these interventions, parents care

arguments, they don't look like they are convincing the Scottish people.

We haven't had any polls yet? We haven't, but we have since the

currency debate was reignited in the last few weeks and it shows the

polls tightening slightly. I think Alistair Darling's campaign would

prefer to be much further ahead at the stage. They are worried that

these technical commandments are not having much sway. Are the polls

tightening slightly? They could be within the statistical margin for

error. They are, but not much. Alex Salmond's main page is one of

reassurance. He wants to say you can vote for independence, a pound in

the pocket will be the same as before and you will still be a

member of the European Union. In the last three or four matter days, both

of those claims have been blown apart. Angus MacNeil has already

told BBC Radio 5 Live that the remarks are nonsense and he is

playing more politics. We hope to speak to the SNP's finance minister,

John Swinney, a little bit later in the programme. It is not just the

constant rain that London commuters have had to deal with. There was

also a strike on the tube that disrupted the travel of millions. A

second stoppage was on the cards, but it was called off at the last

minute. The leader of the biggest

underground workers union, the RMT, is Bob Crow, who has led his members

into 24 strikes on the tube since 2005, as well as disputes on the

national rail network. Under his leadership, the union's membership

has grown from 57,000 in 2002 to more than 80,000, at a time when

union membership overall has been shrinking. The current dispute has

seen Bob Crow squaring up to Boris Johnson over the mayor's plans to

close tube station ticket offices. The 48-hour stoppage at the

beginning of this month is estimated to have cost the London economy ?100

million. The two sides have agreed a truce, for now, but Mr Crow has

threatened further action if the mayor imposes his changes.

Bob Crow joins me now for the Sunday interview.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. You have suspended the strike for the

moment. What will it take to call it off entirely? Want to know first of

all wider booking office has to close. The Mayor of London made it

quite clear in his election programme that the booking offices

would remain open. It was strange, really, because Ken Livingstone

wanted to close them down and the mayor thought it was popular to keep

them open and put in his campaign to keep them open. However, we have not

the news figures. We are being told only 3% of people use the booking

offices. That's not true. In research done, if somebody does to a

booking office with somebody sitting there and asks for a ticket of less

than ?5, they are not allowed to sell them a ticket, it is madness.

Do you use the ticket office? When it is open, yes. You said to ITV

that he didn't. I don't know what I said to ITV, I don't know what time

people use them, sometimes they are open and sometimes they are closed.

People make out that these ticket office staff are people that sit

behind barriers like a newsagent. I'm not knocking a newsagent,

however, these people were the same people treated like Lions when they

were helping people named in the terrorist incidents, taking them out

of the panels. Suddenly they are lazy people that sit in ticket

offices. My understanding is that the people would come from behind

and be out and about now. It is the management wants to run the

underground without ticket offices, isn't that their prerogative? They

are paid to manage, not you, not your members, they are the managers?

Managers are there to manage, and we want good managers. But we've got

some really bad managers that are not looking at the railway as a

whole. This is a successful industry, not an industry in

decline, one of the most successful in Britain. It is moving 3.4 million

people a day. All of the forecast is or it will move to 3.6 million per

day. The mayor wants to run services on a Friday and Saturday night. We

are not opposed to that. However, it does not make sense that if more

people are going to be using the tube on Friday and Saturday, coming

home at two o'clock three o'clock in the morning, a lot of people

drinking, a lot of people not dragging, why take 1000 people of

the network that come to the aid of people that are looking to people? I

want to show you this picture. This is you. Taking a break in Brazil, I

think it is. I was trying to copy you. You deserve this break because

you have done a fantastic job for your members. Yes, I don't see what

that has got to do with it. Let s get every editor of the daily

newspapers and see where they go on their holidays, I would like to

know. What I choose to do... I'm not attacking you for doing that...

You've got a picture up there, I've got to say, why don't they go and

follow Boris Johnson when he was away on holiday, when the riots were

taking place in London, and he refused to come back? Why don't they

go and view the editors of newspapers, where they go on

holiday? Why do they look at you when you go on holiday? They

sometimes do, actually. The basic pay of a tube driver will soon be

?52,000. Ticket office workers are already earning over ?35,000. Never

mind a holiday on Copacabana beach, or membership by your house for what

you have done for them? When you look at the papers this morning I

see that Wayne Rooney is going to get a ?70 million deal over the next

four deals. I see NHS doctors are getting ?3000 a shift. I see a lot

of people that do a lot of people that, in my opinion, don't do

anything for society. The top paid people in this country should be

doctors and nurses. Unfortunately, we live in a jungle. If you are not

strong, the bosses will walk all over you. The reason why we got good

terms and conditions is because we fought for them. The reality is all

of these three political parties, liberals, Tories and Labour, they

have all put no programme that to defend working people. So we have to

do it on our own. And that is why you have done such a great job for

your members and why union membership has been rising, people

want to be part of a successful operation. But it has come at a cost

for less well-paid workers, who travel on the cheap? If everyone

believes if London Underground tube workers take a pay freeze they are

going to redistribute the money to the rest of the workers that work on

the cheap... But the people that travel on the tube, let's look at

some of them, they are the ones that suffer from your strike action. The

starting salary of a cheap driver now, ?48,000. The starting salary

for a nurses only ?26,000, ?22, 00 for a young policeman, ?27,000 for a

teacher starting out. As your members have spread, they have had

to live through 24 strikes in 1 years to push up your members

wages. It's I'm all right Jack? The have put a pay freeze on by

conservatives and liberals. The police constables, so have the

teachers. We have had the ability to go and fight. The reality is, at the

end of the day, as I have said before, no one is going to put up

the cause for workers. Not one single party in parliament are

fighting the cause for workers. They all support privatisation, they all

support keeping the anti-trade union laws, they all support illegal wars

around the world. Unless they have a fighting trade union, our members

pay would be as low as some others. You said we could not care less if

we have 1 million strikes. But these people, the lower paid people who

travel on the tube, who need it as an essential service, they care Of

course they care, I've said before that I apologise to the troubling

public for the dispute that took place. 24 strikes in 13 years? It

two to tango. If the boy never imposed terms and conditions on us

against our will... But you've got great terms and conditions! But it's

a constant battle, they are trying to change them. Drivers are having

their pay going up to ?50,000. You said they are making it worse, it is

going up. They are trying to make things worse for workers. You said

at the start of the interview that the tube strike cost ?100 million in

two days. It means that when members go to work for two days it is worth

?100 million. That demonstrates what they are worth. Only a fighting

trade union can defend workers out there. Your members should enjoy

what you have got for them, because it's not going to last, is it?

Technology will change the whole way your business operates. As Karl Marx

says, you said I was a mixture of Karl Marx, Only Fools And Horses and

the Sopranos. I thought that was quite funny... The Karl Marx part of

it, the only thing that is constant is change. We have been crying out

for new technology. But for who To put people on the dole, so they

can't do anything and do anything for society, or technology so

everybody benefits, lower fares better service and better terms and

conditions for the workers. But you have made Labour so expensive on the

underground that management now has a huge incentive to substitute

technology for Labour. And that s what it's going to do, it is closing

the ticket offices and very soon, starting in 2016, the driverless

trains coming. What I am saying is that your members should enjoy this

because it's not going to last. Driverless trains are not coming

in, it is not safe. We have them in Nuremberg, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, it

is not safe? These are new lines that have been built so that when it

breaks down, people can get out of the tunnel. Would you want to be

stuck on a summers day on the Northern line? A pregnant woman who

cannot get off the train? Absolute panic that takes place, the reality

is simple, it is a nonsense. It s not going to happen because it is a

Victorian network. On Docklands railway for example it is driverless

but when the train breaks down, it is above ground on a very small

section. All of these other cities managed to have it. You remind me

about Henry Ford in the 1930s when he said, you see that robot over

their, he cannot buy a car. All sorts of new jobs are being created

all the time in other areas. Come back to the ticket offices, not many

people use the ticket offices any more, what is wrong with getting the

stuff out of the ticket office on to the concourses, meeting and

greeting, helping disabled people and tourists and making it a better

service? They can do more on the concourse than they can in the

ticket office. Andrew, he took the decision to close down every single

ticket office. You cannot compare for example Chesham with the likes

of Heathrow. Are you telling me people are going to be on a long

transatlantic flight, arrived at Heathrow and cannot get a ticket.

The stuff will be redeployed on the concourse. The simple problem is

that it is not just about the booking office, it is about people

having a visual. If you are partially sighted, you cannot use

the machines. If British is not your first language, you cannot use the

offices. How many languages do your members speak? I don't know, I

struggle with English. The machines can speak many different languages.

They are dehumanising things. You phone the bank, all you hear is

press one for this, two for that. People want to hear it human being

and what makes the London Underground so precious is that

people want to see people. Having well-dressed, motivated people out

on the concourse, what part of that don't you like? They will be on the

concourse and they will have machines. The fact is that London

Underground did a risk assessment of closing down their booking offices

and it is clear that if you are disabled, if you are partially

sighted, London Underground becomes more dangerous. You are posing the

closing of ticket offices, opposing driverless trains, when you opposed

to the Oyster card when it came in? No, Oyster cards, it is how you deal

with it. It is not the only way They should supplement the staff and

the job. If more people used the London Underground system, you want

more staff to deal with them. Let's look at your mandate to strike. Of

your members who work on the Tube, only 40% bothered to vote. Only 30%

voted for the strike, so 70% actually didn't vote to strike of

your members, but the strike went ahead. Isn't it right to have a

higher threshold before you can cause this disruption? It would be

lovely if everyone voted but the Tories took that away. We used to

have ballots at the workplace. What I'm trying to say to you is that we

used to have a ballot box at the workplace and the turnouts were

higher. The Tories believe that if they can have a secret ballot where

ballot papers went to people's home addresses, where they could be

persuaded by the bosses, votes would be different. Let's go back to the

workplace ballot because you get a bigger turnout. Will the RMT

re-affiliate to the Labour Party? I have no intention to. We got

expelled from the Labour Party. But you will give some money to the

Labour councils? Those that support our basic policies get money, we

don't give money directly to MPs, we give it to constituencies. Are you

going to stand for re-election in 2016? I might do, I might not. You

haven't decided yet? No, but more than likely I will do. And will you

stand again as an anti-EU candidate? Yes, I am standing in London, and

right across, completely different to UKIP's policies. They are

anti-European, they believe all of the faults of Europe are down to the

immigrants. We are anti-European Union. If London Underground is as

badly run as you think, why don t you run for mayor? That is down the

road, it has not come up yet. I m not ruling anything out. I'm not

ruling out getting your job on the Sunday Politics. You have got to

retire as well, you have got to put your feet up. I will get you to

renegotiate my package. Shall we go on strike first? If I could have

your wages, I would have two trips to Rio every year. Good luck. And if

you're in the London region they'll have more on the Tube strike later

in the programme. Let's get back to those comments from Jose Manuel

Barroso, and reaction to these comments from John Swinney. Scottish

Nationalists denied all along you would have to reapply, we have now

heard it without any caveats, you will and you might not get in. I

think Jose Manuel Barroso's comments were preposterous this morning. He

compared the situation to the one in Kosovo. Britain is the member,

Scotland is not the member. If you go independent, you will have to

reapply, he says. All of the arrangements we have in place are

compatible with the workings of the European Union because we have been

part of it for 40 years. The propositions we put forward work

about essentially negotiating the continuity of Scotland's membership

of the European Union and that position has now been explained and

debated and discussed and reinforced by comments made by experts. We are

talking about the president of the European commission and we have

spoken to him since he gave that interview on the BBC this morning,

it was an intervention that he made that he wanted to lay out that

Scotland should be in no doubt that if they vote for independence they

will have to apply for European membership and they may not get it

if it is vetoed by other members. What he didn't say is that no state

of the European Union have indicated they would veto Scottish

membership. The Spanish foreign minister has. They have said that if

there is an agreed process within the UK that Scotland becomes an

independent country, then Spain has got nothing to say about the issue.

That indicates to me clearly that the Spanish government will have no

stance to take on the Scottish membership of the European Union

because it is important that Scotland is already part of the

European Union, our laws are compatible with the European Union

and we play our part. The only threat to Scotland's participation

in the European Union is the potential in/out referendum that

David Cameron wants to have in 017. It has not been a great week for

you, has it? Everything you seem to want, the monetary union, that has

been blown out of the water by the Westminster parties, now Jose Manuel

Barroso has said you will have to reapply to the European Union, it

has not been a good week. You will follow the debate closely, and the

Sunday newspapers are full about the backlash taking place within

Scotland at the bullying remarks of the Chancellor and his cohorts. Is

Jose Manuel Barroso a bully is well now? He is making an indirect

comparison between Scotland and Kosovo. If you vote for independence

and you do have two apply again to join, if you do get in it solves

your currency problem because you will have to accept the euro. We

have set out an option on the currency arrangements which would be

to establish the currency union You would have to adopt the euro. That's

not rate because you have to be part of the exchange-rate mechanism for

two years before you can apply for membership and an independent

Scotland has no intention of signing up to the exchange rate mechanism or

the single currency. We are concentrating on setting out our

arguments for maintaining the pound sterling, which is in the interests

of Scotland and the UK. Thank you for joining us this morning.

This week's least surprising news was that Labour won the safe seat of

Wythenshawe and Sale East in a by-election, following the death of

the MP Paul Goggins. With the result so predictable, all eyes were on

whether this would be the sixth time this parliament that UKIP would come

second. And whether they'd chip away at Labour's vote, not just the

Tories and the Lib Dems. Adam stayed up all night to find out what it all

meant. Forget the hype. Forget the theorising. And yes - everyone has a

theory. UKIP are learning from us. What have they picked up from you?

To be silly. Thanks to this week's by-election we've got some hard

evidence in paper form that helps answer the question: How are UKIP

doing? Turns out the answer is well, but not well enough to beat Labour.

I'm therefore claim -- declare that Mike Cane is elected. So UKIP have

come second and increased their share of the vote quite

significantly. But their performance isn't as good as their performances

in some of the other by-elections this parliament. Just don't suggest

to them that their bandwagon has ground to a halt. A week ago you'd

told me you were going to win, what happened? No, I didn't, I said I

wanted to win. My mistake. How are you feeling? It is a Labour

stronghold, we always knew it was going to be a fight. Labour were

running scared of letting us present our arguments. UKIP's campaign in

Wythenshawe didn't point to the right but to the left, with leaflets

that branded Labour as a party of millionaires who didn't care about

the working class. It wasn't a winning strategy but it did help

them beat the Tories who focused on dog mess and potholes instead.

Professional UKIP-watcher Rob Ford from Manchester Uni thinks they

could be on the right track. He s analysed the views of 5,000 UKIP

voters for a new book, which could confound the received wisdom about

the party. The common media image of the typical UKIP voter is a ruddy

faced golf club and -- member from the south-east of the UK and many

UKIP activists do resemble that stereotype to some extent, they do

pick up a lot of activists from the Conservative party, but UKIP voters

are older, more working class, more likely to live in Northern, urban

areas, and they are much more anti-system than anti-EU. And

they're precisely the voters that the Tory MP David Mowat needs if

he's to hold on to his narrow majority in the constituency just

down the road. Do you have a UKIP strategy in your seat? Our UKIP

strategy is to point out that if they want a referendum on if they

want to be in the EU or not, there is one way to get it, for the

Conservatives to form their next government and for me to be their

MP. UKIP could accidentally destroy what they want? I'm not sure it will

be accidental. People need to realise that if Ed Miliband is the

Prime Minister, there will be no referendum on the EU and UKIP may

have made their point but they would not have got their referendum. Over

at UKIP local HQ, it is tidying up time. Not helping, Nigel? I had

major surgery on the 19th of November and I am still weak as a

kitten. I can barely lift a pint with my right hand, it is as serious

as that. The answer is, Carreon chaps, you're all doing a very good

job. There will be carrying on to the European elections in May, which

will provide more evidence of if the UKIP and wagon is powering on or if

it is just parked. -- bandwagon With me now is the Conservative MEP

Vicky fraud and UKIP director of medication is Patrick O'Flynn. He

will also be a candidate in the upcoming European elections. You

came second in Manchester, but it was not a close second. -- Vicky

Ford. There is nothing that is a game changer? I think it is very

unusual for any insurgent party like the liberals used to be, to

actually win a safe seat of the opposition. Those shocks, going back

to Walkington etc, it tended to be winning seats against an unpopular

government. We did extraordinarily well in Wythenshawe. Labour

compressed the campaign down to the shortest possible time and maxed out

the postal vote. Whatever we think about Labour, they do have an

efficient machine, lots of union activists signed a lot of people

with a lot of know-how. It pushed you into third place and showed the

increasing irrelevance of the Tories in the North? Tory minded voters in

the North Sea more inclined to vote for UKIP than you? I think

by-elections are by-elections. The same day, we took a seat from Labour

in Birmingham. Well, that was a by-election as well, so we should

discount that as well. You should learn from them, and we need to look

forward to the elections in 201 . That is in May this year, when we

have a chance to really grab this change in Europe, grab this change

that we were talking about just now. You don't worry, particularly in the

north, if people want to vote against Labour your supporters are

drifting to UKIP? I think people vote UKIP in a European election and

they have done that for many years. They vote that because they want

change. The problem is, Patrick s party have had MEPs since 1999 and

they cannot deliver that change They can't because they don't have

seats in Westminster. It was on that video, the only way we are going to

get the change we want in Europe is to have that referendum and have the

renegotiation, and that means vote Tory. What do you say to that? Let's

get real, the Conservative Party has not won a Parliamentary majority in

22 years. But the only way you will get a referendum, if that is what

motivates you, and with UKIP it is, the only way it will be a referendum

on Europe in this country as if there is a majority Conservative

government at the next election And you could well stop that from

happening? I don't accept that. I believe, just as we forced David

Cameron and into a referendum pledge he explicitly ruled out making

before through our success, and I was there in PMQs, when his MPs

asked him and he said it would not be in the national interest because

he didn't want to leave, our electoral success forced that

pledge. I believe by winning the European action this May we can

force Ed Miliband, again, against his will, to match that pledge.

Then, whatever formulation varies in the next Parliament, we will get a

referendum. Labour MPs have just had the chance to say we want a

referendum. They refused to do it. The only way you are going to get a

renegotiation, a change in our relationship with Europe and an in

or out referendum is to have a Conservative Government. Please

UKIP, stop pretending that you can deliver, because you don't deliver

and you don't... We have delivered, we forced David Cameron to give a

pledge for a referendum he didn t want to make. We will know if you

are right about Ed Miliband or not, you will have to tell us going into

the campaign. If you are wrong, what do you do then? There are still

loads of reasons for people to vote UKIP. A referendum is one thing

David Cameron, and I asked him directly, thermally wants to stay

in. He wants to be the Edward Heath of the 21st century. The Tories are

going to say, vote UKIP, get Ed Miliband. What would you say to

that? I would say we have probably maxed out the Tory vote we are going

to get because David Cameron has been incredibly helpful in sending

them in our direction. Our potential for growth now, would we are

concentrating on, his those disenchanted former Labour voters

and more and more of them are coming towards us on things like

immigration and law and order. We want to renegotiate our relationship

with Europe. We need to have people who are going to turn up to

negotiate with people like Barroso. That meant a Prime Minister that is

not Ed Miliband but David Cameron. UKIP MEPs do not turn up to

defenders. If President Hollande is as good as his word and says there

will be no substantial renegotiation, certainly no treaty

change this side of 2017 when he is up for the election, what do you do

then? He is a French Socialist Prime Minister, I don't expect him to

agree. But you can't bring anything of substance back with these

negotiations. Then people will vote to leave. The Prime Minister has

been very clear that British public opinion is on a knife edge and

unless we get what we want from a renegotiation, we will leave. You

would vote to leave? Let's see what we get with the deal on the table in

2017. If the status quo was what we have today, I would vote to leave.

But I want to renegotiate. We will have to move on. For those viewers

lucky enough to live in the East of England, they will be seeing more of

Patrick in a moment. You are watching Sunday Politics. Coming up

in just over 20 minutes, I will be talking about, what else, the

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

across the UK. Hello, welcome from us. Coming up in

a moment, it has been the week where the mayor set out his budget for

next year. We look at his decisions and his priorities with the help of

his chief of staff. I am joined by my guest for the next 20 minutes or

so, Sir Richard Ottaway, MP for Croydon South, and Gareth Thomas,

so, Sir Richard Ottaway, MP for for Harrow West. Can we start with a

quick word on the troops strike that did not happen. Who blinked first?

-- Tube. I think it was an outbreak of common sense, both sides

-- Tube. I think it was an outbreak recognised it was in the interest 's

of every Londoner to try and get a recognised it was in the interest 's

compromise and solution to the issue. I hope that negotiations will

continue in that way over the coming months. Pretty pointless having a

strike to achieve that, really. You will condemn the RMT for that? We

certainly didn't want the strike to take place. Equally, given the

certainly didn't want the strike to concern about job losses and the

potential impact on safety, we wanted Boris to sit down and talk

through the issues with the employees. Eventually, he agreed to

do that. He eventually agreed to do that? Common sense broke down, the

Mayor blinked first, offered to sit down and caved in? London is the

commercial centre of the Western world, a global city, a 24-7 city

and it made no sense whatsoever trying to bring it to a halt through

strike action. It doesn't that who blinked first or what. The important

thing is that they sat down, there isn't a strike, and these ticket

office closures are going ahead It is all going to be based on

voluntary redundancies. In fact there are more volunteers for

voluntary redundancies than there are redundancies available. No one

is going to be out of a job that doesn't want to be. As Gareth says,

round. But the mayor blinked first? round. But the mayor blinked first?

Does it matter who blinked? The important point is that they are not

striking, the ticket offices are going to close in a sensible, phased

way. Hopefully the extra investment will be there for 24-7 Tube

services. The total chapel of who blinked first is utterly irrelevant.

Let's move on. It's been the week where the mayor set his budget, the

next budget. His sixth budget, in fact. He claimed it was an

affordable budget and it was one that was going to help hard-working

Londoners. His opponents, labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens,

combined to oppose it and propose more investment in things like

housing, cycling and young people. Their plans failed to get enough

votes in the London assembly. All the while, London borrowing is

growing. It is the time of year when Boris

Johnson gets out his cheque-book and Londoners find out how he intends to

spend on each of the public services he funds. The message you are likely

to walk away with is this. I am again presenting a budget which puts

City Hall's share of council tax by 1.3%. Cue ovation. But he's actually

spending more money, ?1 billion more this year than he did last. Every

year that Boris Johnson has been mayor, spending has gone up, from

?13.5 billion a year when he took over from Ken Livingstone to nearly

?17 billion this year. In part, it has been paid for by a huge increase

in borrowing. City Hall debt has gone up from 3.5 billion to nearly

?12 billion in this budget. That GLA group have substantial debts,

possibly 50% of the budget or more. That is the kind of level of debt

that the UK national government has got, but in fairness it is mainly to

fund transport infrastructure for the city as it grows. But it does

carry with it the question of paying back on this debt, particularly of

interest rate rises in future. But other debt is spent on things like

this, the Crossrail site on Tottenham Court Road. When it is

finished, it will add 10% capacity to London's transport system. The

mayor's argument is this. London's population is growing and is

expected to increase by 1 billion people in the next decade. To stop

it grinding to a halt, we need not just Crossrail, upgrades to the

Tube, investment in cycling and investment in roads. However, major

credit ratings agencies have expressed concern about what they

call high levels of debt owed by transport for London and City Hall.

TfL's credit rating was actually downgraded this year. Some are

beginning to question how sustainable it is. Whoever is mayor

into Macri is time will end up paying the indebtedness that Boris

Johnson has built up. It is unlikely that the GLA group can go on

building up debt at this rate much longer. It begs the question of how

the city can finance itself and the infrastructure needs. It is down to

the Treasury and is in to the Treasury and this only having done

so. For the mayor's position on the London assembly, there is more

concerned for what they say is a lack of social housing than there is

for spiralling debt. He could borrow his affordable housing in London by

borrowing at sustainable interest rates against his revenue stream. It

is possible to do that and it is the only way we will tackle the housing

crisis we have an affordable housing in London. Transport investment is

welcome and improvements in the tube are continuing. Crossrail will open.

All of these things took place under a Labour Government, of course. That

only goes so far. Housing prices in London is pricing people out of the

city and making it impossible for young people to get a home to

starting and causing massive problems for the economy. The

mayor's budget passed through the London assembly last Friday. During

the debate he defended his spending on housing. Will have 1.2 million

going into affordable housing, I think it is a good settlement from

the government. I have to look at all of the priorities. This budget

is very well balanced. Boris Johnson described the housing situation as a

crisis. According to critics, he is yet to put his money where his mouth

is. I am joined by the mayor's chief of

staff, Sir Eddie Lister. Before we get onto the details of the budget,

you have heard, talking a little bit earlier, about the fact that the

strike was off. Suggestions that the Mayor blinked first, caved in to the

strikers. What would you say to that? I would say absolute rubbish.

It is very simple. There was a proposal put forward by transport

for London to go and do away with the ticket offices, but to retain,

certain Gateway stations, tourist or travel advice centres. Now, at the

end of this strike, what are we doing? We are having a discussion

about the Gateway stations and about how large, how many of them should

there be. And we have always been open to that the Bush years. Quite

frankly, it was a pointless strike. They had to strike? To get you to

discuss those stations? You conceded there would be a longer

consultation, so you were rushing through this without enough

consultation with them. They went on strike, and you offered them all. --

more. We have now closed the opportunities for voluntary

redundancy because we have more than enough people who have accepted

voluntary redundancy so we are moving ahead on this. There is some

discussion about the gateway stations but generally speaking

there will be no ticket offices Let's move on to the bigger picture.

Transport is obviously one of the reasons for it. A level of

indebtedness, should we be concerned? No, it is important to

recognise, if I can call this good debt, it is all going into

infrastructure. It is for Crossrail, which is adding 10%, it is another

billion pounds going into the Northern line extension, it is money

for housing, money for the Olympic Park and I can go on like this. It

is all about infrastructure. The interest on which will be paid for

by future Londoners. They are playing an increasing amount now in

fact. It is not all being met out of the taxpayers' funding. Some of it

is coming from levies, some coming from the sale of land. Don't forget

we are quite a big landowner, selling an land, so a lot of this

will be about paying back debt. The mayor also said about his budget

that it was to increase the quality of life and you are being attacked

particularly by the opposition for a failure over housing, as they put

it. Let's start a discussion of housing, finding out from you

whether you are happy when 65-7 % of new apartments, flats, homes in

prime locations are being bought by foreign investors. I don't accept

that number. They market most of these properties and they say it is

around that. Around 80% of housing in London is bought by Londoners, or

by residents and it is about 20 that gets sold. You are talking

about across London, I was specific about prime locations, this area

very close to the Thames. Those sites are being bought by foreign

investors and being left empty. I dispute that many of them are being

left empty. The number of properties being bought by foreigners... And

don't forget the definition of foreigners includes the Republic of

Ireland so be careful about your definitions, but of those about 6.5%

are being bought by foreigners and they are not standing empty. They

are largely going into the right to rent market -- buy to rent.

Secondly, if we didn't have those foreign investors, a lot of those

schemes wouldn't have happened. After the crash, the money we had

for construction dropped away. The only money we had was overseas money

and the whole construction industry would have ground to a halt without

it. For every 100 million of sales, about 25 million of that feeds

through to affordable housing. What about this very big budget overall,

when you take into account transport and the Olympic land and housing and

so on, what about the investment in the economy now, replacing the work

that used to be done by the London development agency and so on. Do you

accept you're not making much headway in terms of London's

economy? I think it has changed since the days of the London

development agency and the mayor was very critical about that agency

saying he felt it didn't produce the kind of results it should have done

in times of plenty. We then moved into the time of having less

resources and money has been very well spent. Let's talk about the

London enterprise fund, how much have you spent of that? A relatively

small amount will be spent because it is all in capital

infrastructure. Why do they take so long? Buildings take time to build,

projects take time to get off the ground. All of that money is

committed, it will go out as payments on those buildings. Is it

right that about two thirds of it is going into transport projects? It is

to fill a gap in TfL's budget? There is a reason in London why we have

vast tracks of London that have missed every development opportunity

that has come along for the last 20 years, there is always an

infrastructure problem. The mayor has been putting money into

infrastructure to open those areas up. I think it is time to bring in

the other two here, Gareth Thomas, the mayor is making the right kind

of priorities? We are worried the mayor doesn't seem to have grasped

there is a cost of living crisis for many Londoners. We have had six

years of rising Tube fares under this mayor. Nobody is quite sure

what the London economic panel doors, Eddie Lister can sit here and

say there it -- is a lot of investment in transport projects,

but banks are still not lending to small businesses and it could have

been supporting them. We have no serious initiatives to help

apprenticeships and young people so this is a disappointing budget. What

do you say, Richard? The short answer is that there is funding for

quarter of a million apprenticeships in the budget, there is a Council

tax cut, all of these are addressing the cost of living issue. The

Government has a long-term economic plan and the mayor has announced

something that dovetails with that. It is not a quick fix, it is a

long-term plan which will promote prosperity and the economy inside

London. My constituents are struggling now and so are yours

They will have to pay an extra 120 per year to commute into central

London. But they are more likely to have a job and a Council tax cut.

What about the cost of fares? Yes, but look at the expansion of the

network, increasing by 30% the capacity, and we have got to have

that money and we have got to be able to expand the network. If we

don't get the network sorted out, you won't be able to get into London

to those jobs. There is a fund of ?25 million announced a year ago,

where is that? It is in the setup phase. This is becoming a problem, a

lot of time spent setting up. Construction businesses are one of

the key areas for the mayor which is why he has spent so much on

resources for construction because that then feeds through to the rest

of the economy. Yes, there are a lot of businesses in London but we are

supporting a lot of them. We have run out of time, we must leave it

there. Thank you very much indeed. It has been a week dominated by

water, hundreds of people forced to leave their homes, misery for many

thousands more along the Thames Parts of London were under water

this week as extreme weather continued with the Met Office

warning there is more to come. According to the London assembly, a

significant number of homes are at risk of flood damage in the long

term. Croydon has been particularly badly hit this week, with water

being diverted into a car park and a playing field to avoid flooding

They Environment Agency has just 5000 homes in the area to be at

risk. Has enough been done to prepare for the flooding? We need to

be getting more trees planted, more of our surfaces that are covered in

concrete with natural greenery on them to absorb the water. The fight

against the flooding continues, holding back the water and clearing

up. Anyone who have to face this problem, whatever the party, it

would have been a hard one, wouldn't it? Yes, but you could have expected

there to be better planning and coordination between the Environment

Agency on the one hand, local councils on the other, and military

and central government and it has been a story of confusion, often

poor planning, many people having to struggle on their own and deal with

the consequences of flooding on their own. Are you worried about

that, Richard Ottaway? I know you are an honest individual, you cannot

say this has been well handled. I have spent a lot of time down in

Purley looking at how Croydon Council is dealing with this and you

have to take your hat off to people who are dealing with this. There

were people sleeping in their cars, I asked them why and they said

because they have been there for three days. The emergency services

have prevented something like 1 00 houses... It is a lovely story of

local heroism in many places, are you worried that confusing messages

have been sent about how the Government have handled this? I

disagree. The way in which the Government has responded, beginning

to look at the medium-term aspects of getting people back on their

feet, and already looking at the resilience issues for the long term,

and I think that is the right approach. The Government has made a

very positive response. It's time for the rest of the political news

in 60 seconds. Documents published by the aviation

commission show the full extent of the Government 's plans to increase

night flights into Heathrow. The number of planes allowed to land at

the airport before 6am will increase from 16 to 35 next year. George

Clooney has called for the Elgin marbles removed from the park then

on to be returned to Greece. There are certain pieces you would look at

and say that is the right thing to do. Average weekly rents in the

private sector amount to more than 50% of average local wages in 1

London boroughs. Thousands of former offenders in the capital including

burglars and thieves will no longer have to declare their criminal

convictions in a move intended to boost their job prospects.

Bermondsey MP Simon Hughes said the change would be a vital support for

people who want to turn their back on crime and rebuild their lives.

Richard, do you have worries here that employers will not know and

have a right to know the past of certain criminals? One of the

biggest problems of getting people back to work is a criminal record,

and if somebody has a minor offence, I think that by taking this off the

record and mentoring them and making sure they have the right skills we

are more likely to get effective rehabilitation if an employer were

to take them on without knowing of a criminal record. Giving people a

second chance. I think it is a sensible change. There is

discretion, where the employment is sensitive employment, the person

will still have to make clear they have had a conviction in those

cases, but where it is not a particularly sensitive posts it

seems it is right to give people a second chance. In half of London

boroughs, people are spending half of their income on housing. What

about that? It is a challenge facing many Londoners and we have worries

that the mayor is not building enough houses. Rent is falling but

it is a long-term problem. In real terms rent is now falling in central

London and outer London, but when I first arrived in London in the

1970s, I paid 60% of my salary on rent so this is not a short-term

issue. You really don't think this is something heading in the wrong

direction? No, in real terms now the rent is falling in London. Andrew,

back to you. Welcome back. Let's start by talking

about the weather. What could be more British? It has been

practically the only topic of conversation for the past few

weeks. This morning, Ed Miliband has made the direct link, declaims,

between this exceptionally wet and windy weather and climate change.

That's an interesting development, taking place. Ed Miliband is the

author of the 2008 Climate Change Act, so he has to stick to that line

or his life 's work goes up in smoke. When he passed it, there was

Westminster consensus. Now the Tories are beginning to appeal off.

UKIP has definitely peeled off. Labour and Lib Dems are sticking to

their guns, there is now a debate? It has moved from consensus to very

fragile consensus. It's an interesting tactic for Ed Miliband

to take. He could either approach the floods talking about government

failures and handling, instead he has gone for the intellectual

argument, try and turn this into a debate about ideology and climate

change. I think he will find that quite difficult. Partly, I don't

think the public I get listening to an argument like that. Partly

because only one in three of the public totally agree with him. The

polls for The Times think that about one in three think that man-made I'm

a change is responsible for these floods, the rest do not. I'm not

sure that the interventions will be particularly well picked up. It puts

David Cameron in a difficult position. He was hugging those

huskies, it was going to be the greenest Government ever, and now he

has an Environment secretary that doesn't really believe in climate

change. Well, we don't know where he stands. That is not where he was in

2010. It has always been sold to us that he is statesman-like and

pragmatic, but that drifts into he doesn't really believe anything

This is a worldwide phenomenon now. You've got the Canadian government,

they are pretty sceptical these days. The new Australian government

is pretty sceptical. The Obama administration has been attacked by

the green movement across the United States, he is probably about to

approve the keystone pipeline that will take over the Texas refineries.

What was a huge consensus across the globe is a guinea to break down

Probably started to break down about the time of the financial crisis,

the age of austerity, when suddenly people had more to worry about than

green issues. Even at home it is a slightly risky tactic for Ed

Miliband. The idea there is a scientific consensus on this, there

isn't. You look at Professor Collins this morning, climate systems

expert, saying, actually, the jet stream is not operating further

south because of climate change Or if it is, it is beyond our

knowledge. He flies in the face of what Ed Miliband as saying. He's

saying the wet weather is caused by global warming, the head of science

at Exeter University says the IPCC originally looked at whether climate

change could affect what happens to the jet stream and, because it had

no evidence it had any effect, it decided not to include it at all in

the IPCC report. The problem we have got is that any individual

phenomenon is difficult to attribute to climate change. But the Labour

Leader just have? And The Met Office have done the same thing. It's a

fragile in, but overall we can say we are getting more extreme weather

than ever. The most extreme weather, hurricanes and tropical storm is,

they have been in decline. Equally, we have had ten of the hottest

summers in the last ten years since 1998. Overall, there is a case that

can be made that we are getting more. Each individual thing is

difficult to say. Until recently, almost everyone agreed with that

case. Now the parties are reflecting differences. I wanted to move on,

what did you make of two interesting things that happened with the

interview with UKIP and the Tories, one Cory saying I am voting to come

out, and the UKIP chap saying we are maxed out on Tory defectors, we

can't get any more? I think that was a dangerous admission from Patrick

O'Flynn from UKIP, essentially saying that their vote has peaked.

Looking at the by-elections, I'm not sure that was a particularly wise

reflection on that. They got 18 , 23% last year. The case he is making

is that there are more votes to be gained by attracting former Labour

voters than former Tories. I'm not sure that red UKIP, the bit of UKIP

that tries to make benefit protection and some other kind of

social issues at the heart really sits comfortably with their

insurgent, anti-state message. I don't think it will do particularly

well. This is why they are pushing the message, it is their response to

the idea and suggestion of a Tory rallying cry that they vote for

Nigel Farage, and it is really a vote for Ed Miliband. Patrick is a

very good journalist, a very good commentator. He answered almost as a

commentator rather than head of communications for a political

party. The Government are still trying to rid itself of troublesome

priests, an attack on welfare reforms from the Catholic Archbishop

of Westminster. Let's have a look and see what he said. The basic

safety net that was there to guarantee that people would not be

left in hunger or in destitution has actually been torn apart. It no

longer exists. And it is a real real, dramatic crisis. The second is

that, in this context, the administration of social assistance,

I am told, has become more and more punitive. If applicants do not get

it right, they have to wait and they have to wait for ten days, two

weeks, with nothing. Has the basic safety net disappeared? I don't see

how it is possible to argue that. It is certainly the case that there

have been reductions in various benefits, some benefits have been

scrapped and there is a welfare reform programme. But this country

is still spending ?94 billion a year on working age benefits. Excluding

pensions? The idea that this equates to some sort of wiping out of the

safety net is... He has gone on a full frontal assault on the Tory

reforms, not the kind of attack that Labour would be prepared to make?

No, they know that it doesn't play very well in the country. He's not

up for election. Whether or not you agree about the safety net, I think

the welfare reforms have been poorly managed and I don't think that is a

full dispute. Universal credit, it is in some very long grass. It had

some stupid ideas, like the idea that it would be paid monthly,

instead of weekly, meaning that people are more likely to run out of

money by the end of the month. It's interesting, in the past, when

members of the cloth have attacked the government for welfare reforms,

the Government have responded by trying to paint them as lefties

ideological driven. I think that is hard in this case, an assault made

deliberately in the Telegraph from somebody who feels they come from a

centre-right position. I think there will be a bit of awkwardness about

this intervention. It is not the kind of thing they wanted to see. Is

it politically damaging for the Government? It is if it makes them

look mean-spirited. But that is the problem with welfare reforms. You

can say all sorts of things about Iain Duncan Smith's competence. But

the whole thing springs from a moral mission, as he sees it, to liberate

the poor and extend opportunity One of the worst moments for the Tories

was blaming the low level of voting in Wythenshawe and sale in the fact

that the constituency had, in the words of one senior Tory, the

largest council estate in Europe inside its constituency boundary.

The point being what? Because you live in a council estate you don't

vote? That they don't see people living in council estate as one of

them, not an impulse that Margaret Thatcher would have had. I think

it's dangerous if they are painting is people as opponents rather than

trying to win them over. When they do vote, they determine elections!

The idea that there is no such thing as a working-class Tory is toxic. I

want to show you a picture. There we go. It is behind me, on the 5th of

February, it is all men. And then, on the next, look at that, the 2th,

there are a few women. Not exactly many, but some. It is an

improvement. But it is so transparent, isn't it? We phoned up

one of the women that sat behind David Cameron to ask, why the sudden

change? They said, I don't know why you are bothering to ask, it is

completely natural, we didn't do anything to stage manage it. Did his

nose gets longer? It is something that is very transparent and

depressing about the way politicians choose to react to these moments.

Every week they put two women behind David Cameron, so that a tight shot

shows them. It is called the doughnut. They don't have many women

to shuffle around, there are only four among 14 in the Shadow Cabinet.

Also, the fact that women, younger women in particular, are much less

likely to vote Tory than five or ten years ago. David Cameron, it drives

and furious, he is obviously aware this is one of the biggest potential

demographic problem is that they have. It also reminds us of how the

public can actually see the wiring behind a lot of the stuff. Do they

really think your blog so stupid that they will not notice that the

following week the front bench is packed with women? I think it just

increases contempt for the entire rocket. It is an issue where Labour

seem to have pulled ahead of the other parties. We are being told

that 50% of candidates in their 100 target seats will be female. It

looks like the composition of Labour continues to go towards a kind of

rough 50-50 split, eventually. Although that is true, I think the

faces we see on the telly, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Chris Leslie,

they are almost always men. There is a Rachel Reeves, a prominent female

face that goes up a lot. But really, the number of e-mails they put up is

proportionally a lot smaller. Is the Miliband team still a men's club?

Behind the scenes, it is very blokey. It's been described as a

kind of seminar room at a university. I think that is true.

The Observer did the cutout and keep of the people behind Mr Miliband. As

opposed to the Shadow Cabinet, with lots of women in it, it was very

male. The one reason Labour have all of these women to put up in

constituencies is all women short lists is. If Tories want to change

things, I know they can be prone to minute -- and in relation, but they

work. In ten years time, I think it will give Labour an immense

advantage. By then, I think they will have a woman leader. Who will

that be? Potentially somebody not even yet in the Commons. You can see

how quickly people can rise to the top, but the Labour Party is going

to be increasingly donated by women. Do you think there will be a Labour

Leader before Theresa May becomes leader of the Conservatives? I think

it is ultimately about Osborne trying to stop Boris. I think I

would be astonished if she managed it. The first female Labour Leader?

I would pick Rachel Reeves the way it is currently going, she knows her

stuff and does well on TV. That is all for this week. We have a week

off now. I'll be back in the week after next. Remember, if it is

Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics, unless it's a Parliamentary recess.