30/03/2014 Sunday Politics London

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Can Ed Davey keep the lights on Can he ever deliver cheaper power? Or

the investment our energy market badly needs? We'll be asking the

Energy Secretary. Why has the anti-independence Better

Together campaign suddenly got the jitters? We'll be quizzing Scottish

Secretary Alistair Carmichael. And whatever happened to the BNP?

They could be heading for electoral oblivion. We'll be asking why.

In London, changes to the authority which runs the capital's Fire

Service. The Mayor has a political move designed to silence his

critics. And with me, as always, the most

useless political panel in the business, who we're contractually

obliged to insult on a weekly basis. But not today, because they are our

chosen ones. They are the brightest and the best, we've even hired a

plane to prove it: Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt who'll be

tweeting throughout the programme. Right, left and centre of the

Westminster Establishment have been unanimous in saying there would be

no chance of monetary union with the rest of the UK for an independent

Scotland. Then an unnamed minister spoke to our Nick saying that wasn't

necessarily so, and that made the Guardian's front page. The SNP were

delighted and the anti-independence campaign rushed to limit the damage.

The faux pas has come at a time when the Better Together side was already

beginning to worry that things were going the Nationalists' way. Let's

speak to a leading light in that campaign, Scottish Secretary

Alistair Carmichael, who's in Aberdeen at the Scottish Liberal

Democrat spring conference. Alistair Carmichael, why is there a

sense of crisis now engulfing the no campaign? I think that is something

of an overstatement. What you have got is, I am getting my own voice

played back in my ear. What you have got here is one story from an

unnamed source, a minister who we are told, we do not know for

certain, who has speculated on the possibility of a currency union

actually happening. I do not think that is helpful but it is not any

big deal. You have to measure it against what we have got publicly

named on the record. We have got a detailed intervention of the

Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, outlining all the

reasons why a currency union would not be a good idea. And then you

have got independent advice from the permanent Secretary of the Treasury

himself saying actually, this is such a bad idea, that I would never

advise a chancellor to go ahead with it. You set one against the other

and you see that pretty much the force of argument is very much

against those of us who want to remain in the United Kingdom. All

the minister was saying is come the day, if Westminster is negotiating

with a new independent Scotland a deal is to be done, Faslane where

the nuclear deterrent is, there is nowhere else in the UK to put that

is, certainly not for the next 0 years, a deal would be done, the

nuclear weapons would stay in Faslane and Scotland would get a

monetary union with the rest of the UK. That is perfectly plausible

isn't it? No, I'm sorry, it is simply not plausible. The economy is

more important than anything else. What you have had here is very clear

advice from the treasury officials saying it is not in the economic

best interests of the people of England Wales, Northern Ireland any

more than it is in the interests of people in Scotland. Where do you put

the nukes? The outcome will not change. Where do you put the nukes

when the Nationalists kick you out? I do not believe that will be a

problem because I do not believe Scotland will vote for independence.

But you might be asking the Scottish Nationalists, who are apparently

promoting this, are they then not sincere when they say they want to

remove nuclear weapons from Scotland? It seems to be a curious

mixed message. As you know, I have not got the Nationalists, I have got

you, so let me ask you the questions. You are widely seen as

running a campaign which is too negative. The Nationalists are

narrowing the gap in the poll found you are squabbling among yourselves.

This campaign is going pear shaped, isn't it? No, let's deal with the

polls. All the polls show that the people of Scotland want to stay as

part of the United Kingdom. Yes there were a couple of polls last

week that said the gap was narrowing a little. The most recent poll of

all, the poll on Wednesday which actually polled people's voting

intentions on the question come September showed that only 28% of

people in Scotland were prepared to say they were voting yes, as opposed

to the 42% who were on our side of the argument saying they wish to

remain part of the UK. That poll said women were skewing towards a

yes vote and it showed that the don't knows were beginning to skew

towards a yes vote. That is why you yourself wrote this morning that if

your campaign does not get its act together, you would be sleepwalking

into a split to quote yourself. No, to quote myself I said it was not

impossible that the Nationalists could win that. That is absolutely

the case. The biggest danger for the United Kingdom camp in this whole

argument is people will look at the polls. They show us with a healthy

lead consistently. As a consequence, they think this will not happen It

can happen. I have got to tell everybody that it could, not least

because the Nationalists have an enormous advantage in terms of the

amount of money they have at their disposal to buy momentum. They will

be advertising in cinemas, in football matches and on social

media. We have got to realise what is coming and as a consequence, we

have got to get our arguments in place and our campaign as sharp as

theirs. Thank you for joining us. Nick, this unnamed minister who gave

you the story, did he or she know what they were doing? I do not think

they were sitting there wanting to blast this out there, because the

agreed government position was there will not be a currency union, if

there is a vote for independence. But what I was managing to get hold

of whether thoughts that are in the deeper recesses of people's minds,

when they are looking at the polls which have been narrowing, or there

was Alistair Carmichael quite rightly says, the pro-UK vote is

still ahead. People are looking down the line, what would happen after

the 18th of September this year not just the next day but the next

year, in those very lengthy negotiations that would take place,

when there would be a lot of moving places on the table. You talked

about Faslane, what would happen then and that is what I managed to

get hold of, that there are thoughts about all those pieces that would be

on the table. It is not surprising that some in Westminster think

that. Let's take the Shadow Chancellor Danny Alexander at his

word, they do not want a monetary union. But if they are faced with

giving the Scots a monetary union in a post-independent Scotland, or

having to remove the nuclear submarines from Faslane, where they

have nowhere else to put them, probably except North America, there

is a deal to be done. I think whatever minister gave Nick his

story is probably onto something. If the Scots vote for independence of

course a deal will be done about the currency because it is not in

London's interests to have a rancorous relationship with

Edinburgh. Even if the deal is not done, how does one country stop

another country using its. That is different. All London can really do

is prevent Scottish intervention on the monetary policy committee. The

interest rate would be set without any regard to the Scottish interest.

Even that is only a fatal problem if the Scottish economy becomes so out

of sync with the UK economy. Except it is a problem for Scotland's

financial system because if you go down that route there is no means of

injecting liquidity into the financial system in the financial

crisis. That is why they would rather have a monetary union. Is it

not remarkable to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland here that the

Nationalists are spending too much money, when he represents a campaign

which brings together all the major parties in the UK and all the

resources of the UK and he is bleating about the Nationalists

having more to spend? I did think that was a funny line and it was in

the Observer. It lays into Alex Salmond's plucky upstart idea that

he's taking on this big establishment. I thought it was a

bizarre open goal, I am losing my football metaphors, forgive me. The

polls are so in favour of a no vote. But the trend has been going

their way. We have six months left which is not enough to close the

gap. They always tell you Alex Salmond is a strong finisher. The

plucky upstarts have this funding from a millionaire. The Better

Together campaign are being incredibly cautious about where they

get their money from. They do not want to go to the City of London

Police say, give us a couple of million.

Being Energy Secretary used to be a bit of a dawdle, especially when

North Sea oil was flowing. Now it's very much a hot potato as Ed Davey

has been finding out the hard way. High household energy bills have

been top of his inbox. The big six energy companies account for 95 of

the market. Off Johnson -- Ofgem said there had been possible tacit

coordination in the timing of price rises and ordered an investigation

by the competition and markets authorities which will look at

whether the big six should be broken up. Where does that leave

investment? The boss of Centrica made the point that you would not

spend money building an extension if you knew in two years time your home

might be bulldozed. The spare margin, that is what is left in the

generating system to cope with a surge in demand on a cold winter's

night, is due to drop to historically low levels in 2016

according to Ofgem. Normally at around 15%, capacity could drop to

2% after the next election and that could lead to a surge in the sale of

candles. Now where is that light switch?

Energy Secretary Ed Davey, joins me now. Oh, we have found the light

switch! The gap between a peak winter demand and generating

capacity could possibly reach 2 next winter or the winter after We

will keep the lights on, that is for clear. When we came to power, energy

investment had been relatively low. The Labour Party had failed to deal

with the energy deficit. From day one we have been pushing up

massively. Investment has been billion a year. Last year was a

record. Spare capacity is now heading to 2%. Why are you allowing

it to get that no? Because we have been increasing investment

massively, last was a record level, we will be able to keep the lights

on. Some of the figures you are showing suggests we are not doing

anything. We have not only done enough in our last three years, we

have put in measures to stimulate huge amounts of extra investment. We

have the healthiest pipeline investment in our history. We will

come onto investment in a minute. None of that change is the fact that

we will be close to 2% next winter or the winter after that. We have

one major power station shut down, or a cold winter away from having

major problems with energy supply. It is still 2%. Let me explain. The

figures assume we are not doing anything but we are doing something.

Look at the National Grid. They are able to bring in energy from

interconnector is because we are connected up to Europe. They are

able to create a reserve so if we get to problems, they will have a

mothballed plant they can bring on. You have not agreed with anybody on

that. The decision was taken last July. But no supplier has agreed to

under mothball its plant. We would not expect them to do that yet. Our

plan is in place. On time, on schedule, as we already thought it

would be. But you have not got a single agreement with a power supply

who has mothballed plant to on the ball it. We did not expect to. Our

plan is in me National Grid will do an election to allow those plants to

come on. There is a huge amount of interest. There are gigawatts of

power that can come in to come on. There is a huge amount of interest.

There are gigawatts of power that can come into that auction and we

are not other measures we can take and that is just in the short term.

We have a plan for the medium-term. We will be running the first auction

for new capacity. The final decision will be taken and we have learned

lessons from what they do in North America and other European countries

so we can stay minute mothballed plants and new plants to be built. I

am absolutely clear there is not a problem. You only build 9000

megawatts of new capacity from 2011-13. You have closed almost

22,000 megawatts. Why would you be so cavalier with a nation's power

supply? The last Government was cavalier because we knew those

figures are happening because we've known for a long time a lot of power

plants were coming to the end of their life, coal power plants,

nuclear power plants, and we had to increase the rate of investment but

we... That shows clearly you are closing twice as much, you have to

date, closed twice as much as you have opened, hence the lack of spare

capacity. We knew a lot of them are coming back for the last Labour

Government knew. We have increased the new so that's increasing

significantly, far faster than under the last Government but also

remember, you were very wrong at the beginning of your clip, margins at

15% are very own usual. They are historically high. The average

margin was 25%. That was wasting a huge amount of money. But since

privatisation, we've had margins between 5% and 10%. Normally, high

margins historically, which is costly. Now we will have

historically low margins. People have to pay for that, so we make

sure the lights stay on, we have a short-term policy I have described

to you, and medium-term policy and a long-term policy. The long-term

policy comes huge investment between nuclear and optional,

policy comes huge investment between on. Ofgem, Independent, says the

chance of blackouts by 2016 has increased fourfold under your watch.

What they say, if you read the report, if we did nothing, they

would be problems. But we have been working with Ofgem. We have been

working with National Grid, and we have agreed that there will be a

reserve capacity which can come on if we get to the peak for the Best

not just on the supply side but demand and into connectors. You talk

about industry having to move to off-peak times. We say, they are

prepared to that you paid for it, and it makes commercial sense for

them, it's a sensible thing for the Wii will pay them to move to

off-peak. You have huge diesel parks for the you talk as if that

something new but it's been around for a long time for the 200 these

contracts out there. We want to expand that. You have hundreds of

diesel generators to click into haven't you? There's a whole range

of generators. Diesel generation, dirty fuel. There's a of mothballed

gas which can come. If you look at the increase of the independent

generators, many companies, a range of power companies who are building

a new power station and want to build new ones. This is a healthy

situation. You say you made over 100 billion new investment between now

and the end of the decade to restore capacity and meet renewable

targets. Now you have referred the Big Six to the competition

commission, how much of that to expect to come from them? We will

see what the market delivers. We have always expected independent

generators to do a lot more than is happening in the past. How much from

the Big Six? It's not for me to say it's going to be best from that

company. The real interest is we have huge amounts of companies

wanting to invest. If you look at independent analysis, they say

Britain is one of the best places to invest in energy in the world. We

are the worldly do in offshore wind, one of the best for

renewables, one of the only countries getting nuclear power

stations. Rather than the bleaker picture you're painting, the reverse

is the case. We are seeing an investment renaissance. You say

that. Let me give you some facts. Under this Government, only one gas

plant has been under construction, only one started under your watch

for the others were done under Labour. You have none in the

pipeline. The Big Six has pulled back from further investment

including new offshore wind investment and none of what you re

talking about will come before 020 anyway. That's simply not true. The

balance reserves I've talked about, the reserve planned: Making sure the

mothballed plant could come on, I capacity market incentivising new

power, will happen way before 2 20, so that's not true. But doesn't

answer the extra capacity. You have no answer between now and the end of

this decade. We have three answers. Let me repeat them for you. I said

permanent, not the short-term ones you are putting in place to try to

do with spare capacity. We have a short-term plan, of course, that's

very sensible. Medium-term plan auctioning for new power stations.

That can lead to both mothballed plant and when you plant, permanent

plant being built, and the long term plan, to stimulator long-term

investment, some of which will be built and come online way before the

end of the decade. I'm afraid, it's a far rosier picture than your

painting. It's also far more expensive, too. Let's look at how

you are replacing relatively cheap energy with much more expensive

sources of energy. Wholesale prices is ?50 per megawatt. You have done a

deal with EDF, nuclear, ?92 50. You have indexed it for 30 years at 2012

prices. All of that puts up our bills. First

of all, the support of the low Carbon is just 4% on bills. What has

been driving peoples bills over the last decade has been wholesale gas

prices. No one knows what guys prices are going to be in the future

-- gas prices. When you look at the Ukraine and other market indicators,

many people are worried that by the time nuclear power stations come

online for example, the price of gas could be significantly higher. You

have indexed linked that for them by the time you get any power from

this, it'll be up to ?125 per megawatt hour. The price of gas been

going up far higher. Not recently. Despite Iran, Ukraine, Libya, not

recently. The long-term forecast, Andrew, it's going to go higher but

more importantly than that, this is an area we could disagree on but

it's very important that power plants pay the cost of pollution. In

those prizes, all of those prices except the wholesale out a steep

price, you have those power stations paying the cost of air pollution. If

gas and coal where paying the proper carbon price, you would see nuclear

and renewables as competitive. It's very important that we ensure that

power plants pay the cost of the pollution. When you were last on

this programme to talk about this in May 2012, you said that the price of

offshore wind was coming down fast. You told me it would be down by 30%

in the next few years. That figure is 155, and for the deeper stuff,

it's going to be ?165. That's the first year of a limit control

framework which had it coming down. If you talk to many companies,

Siemens had invested with their partners, ?310 million with two new

factories. They are talking about lower prices because what they are

saying to me is that, rather than the 30% cost reductions I talked

about, I was wrong, they are targeting 40%. You said prices would

come down 30% in two years for that that was 2012 and they have gone

higher. I absolutely did not say that. Your exact quote was 30% in

the next few years. Your exact few years. You said two years, I sell a

few years. I haven't changed a single moment that you said two

years, I said a few years. That s what we are projecting. They will

come down. You have to invest in technology. Let me give you this

example. When people invest in mobile phones to start off with

they were expensive, and they were clunky and the costs were going down

for the one final question. You put the Big Six into investigation

because they made a 5% return on investment and you're done a deal

with EDF, nuclear power, which will guarantee them a return of 10% 15%

every year for 30 years. Doesn't that underline the shambles of your

energy policy? You have mixed up two separate things. The 5% Ofgem are

talking about is on the supply retail side. The percentage you

quoted for EDF is in the wholesale side of two different markets. It's

the same return. It's not. You are comparing apples and pears,

dangerous thing to do. You have to do have a high return but in the

retail market, with a 5% stake, there is less risk, says a low

return. Ed Davey, I'm sorry we haven't got more time. Thank you.

Have me back. We will. Whatever happened to the BNP? The far right

party looked as if it was on the verge of a major breakthrough not so

long ago. Now it seems to be going nowhere. In a moment we'll be

speaking to the party's press officer, Simon Derby. But first

here's Giles. His report contains some flash photography. For a moment

in 2009 Nick Griffin and the BNP had a spring in their step, smiling at

their success of winning two seats in the European Parliament. They

already were the second largest party in a London council and had a

London Assembly seat. Despite concerns from mainstream parties

their vote was up. Our vote increased up to 943,000. Savouring

success was brief that morning as anti-far right protestors invaded

and egged the press conference and forced the BNP MEPs into a hasty

retreat. What is more significant is that, in the years since, that

retreat has been matched internally, electorally and in the minds of

those who had given them that vote. For a number of years they were

performing better than the UK Independence Party and other smaller

parties like the Greens and respect. The problem for the BNP if they

didn't make any inroads into other groups, they didn't go into the

middle class, the young, they didn't go into women and ethnic minorities

for obvious reasons. So the party was quickly handicapped from the

outset. Not that you would have known that at the outset. In 20 6 in

Barking and Dagenham, the party won 12 council seats against a back drop

of discontent with the ruling Labour council and Government and picking

up on immigration and housing concerns in the borough. It's

because of all the different nationality people moving in the

area, they are taking over everything. My Nan and grandad lived

there all their lives. I thought I would vote for BNP. Hopefully, yeah,

they will get elected over here When I came to Barking, Dagenham and

Redbridge in 2006, the BNP with a second largest party in one of the

local councils. You can even find non-white people who voted BNP. Now

they have no counsellors, and even though can when you talk to people,

you will find among the older white working-class population concerned

that the BNP claim to represent everyone says they are nowhere. So

what happened to that about? On behalf of all the people in Britain,

we in Barking have not just beaten, that we have smashed the attempt of

extremist outsiders. The local Labour MP was as clear in 2010 as

she is now. I always knew if we could manage to ensure that wasn't a

single BNP councillor left on the council and I won my seat, it would

stop the process of disintegration. But what beat the BNP here in 2 10

was a mobilisation of the Labour vote. And today it is not hard to

find the same discontent over the same issues. It's just finding a new

political home. A couple of years ago, I used to vote Labour.

Obviously, they haven't done nothing around here as much now, with jobs

and unemployment, and housing and stuff like that about, basically,

BNP ain't around here no more. Now it's more about UKIP and I believe

that these UKIP are saying are true. If I thought BNP would make the

difference, I would vote but is not in the people behind them. They all

get bandaged with the same brush. I'm going to vote UKIP because BNP

didn't get anywhere. What they say in UKIP, with a bit of luck, they

will get somewhere. It's not racist but it's just that our kids haven't

got jobs. Nick Griffin's dislike of UKIP is mutual but his once fellow

MEP Andrew Brons who's now left the party issued a statement to this

programme saying BNP failure is closer to home post 2010. It was

after that election discontent arose amongst sections of the membership.

Those members who left or were thrown out by Nick Griffin had

already felt let down by his appearance on Question Time. It was

a national platform for the BNP something they felt they had the

right to through electoral success. This was no big breakthrough moment

for Griffin, unlike it was for John Marina pen when he appeared on

national television in France. He went on to mobilise a national

force. Despite there being some voters tuned to their message, for

the BNP, becoming such a force here has never looked quite so difficult.

And Simon Derby from the BNP joins me now. Welcome to the Sunday

Politics. It was not long ago you had 55 councillors up and down the

land, you now have two. You are on the brink of extinction. That is not

true. I have watched the film. It is very negative as I would expect The

party has faced a few problems. The main thing to bear in mind is that

the issues, the problems the country faces have gone away. We won nearly

a million votes in the European elections. We brought that mandate

to the establishment and we were denied. Let's face it, we would --

were denied any opportunity to take place in the political apparatus.

You have been destroyed by a pincer movement. UKIP has taken away or

more respectable voters and the EDL is better at anti-Muslim protests

and street thuggery. The EDL is not a political party. I take your point

about UKIP. The power structure took a look at us and so we were a threat

to power. We were not making this stuff up, we meant it and they have

co-opted our message. This shameless promotion of UKIP, you have evenly

had him presenting the weather on this programme. That is

unbelievable. That was a joke. Across Europe, in France, your

sister party the National front will probably do very well. You can see

the rise of the far right across Western Europe so why are you in

decline? We are not far right, I reject that label. How would you

describe yourselves nationalists and Patriots. Why are you in decline and

other similar parties to yours are on the rise? You mentioned Barking

and it is very interesting because I was involved in that campaign. What

Margaret Hodge and her Labour Party did, they replaced the white

indigenous population in Barking and Dagenham with Africans, that is how

they won that election. For that was true, you would be doing well

elsewhere. You have now got a leader who is declared bankrupt and your

party is heading for bankruptcy No, it is not. It is over. You would

like that. What I would like is irrelevant. Your membership is in

deep decline. All parties have highs and lows. In 2009 they said it is no

way you will win any seats in the European election. We did. And then

you lost them. Parties win and lose seats. The Lib Dems will be

annihilated. You deny you are far right. People used to say the BNP

were neo-Nazis. Then Nick Griffin appeared with Golden Dawn. They are

not neo-Nazis, they are Nazis. It is part and parcel of being in

politics. You have to appear with them? Of course we do, we have to

speak to ordinary people. I am perfectly happy speaking to you at

the BBC, the BBC have a terrible reputation but I am happy to be

here. Mr Griffin has asked me, when will the BBC apologised for trying

to put him in prison twice, merely for exposing a Muslim scandal. Why

can't Nick Griffin appear on TV and self? He would not appear. He was in

Syria. He literally flew out to Damascus and prevented a war. We

decided we would not interfere in Syria. The BBC never covered that.

Please do not make out we are just an ordinary political party you

cover like everybody else. It is completely different. All the signs

are, membership, performance at the polls, performance at elections the

problem with your leadership is you are now going the way of the

National front, heading for oblivion. As I said to you before,

that may be the case, if all the problems we had not highlighted and

how we got a huge vote so many years ago, six years ago now, five years

ago, in 2009, if they were not around. These things are only going

to get worse. We are looking at a prototype Islamic republic that is

going to be set up in this country. That will lead to huge problems

Only the British National Party are prepared to say that and deal with

it. Word leaked out that I was doing this interview with you before the

weekend. Isn't it a sign of how irrelevant you now are that not a

single person has turned up at New Broadcasting House this morning to

protest? Used to be hundreds would turn up when we said the BNP were

on. That is the left for you, they put the clocks forward and they

could not be bothered to get out of bed. I think they are still in bed.

Thank you. You're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday

Politics Scotland. Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead. First

though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome from us. I'm joined by Barry Gardner, Labour MP

for Brent North and Gary Barwell, MP for Croydon Central. Coming up

later, we look at a blazing row over the Mayor's proposal to change the

make-up of the body which the London Fire Brigade. Let's kick off with a

quick word on that other emergency service, the police. Met

Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe says he wants the law is a

recruitment change that for every white officer employed in London,

there must also be won from an ethnic minority. I would argue, make

it 50-50. Even though we are recruiting now, one in five of our

recruits will be from a minority, at that rate, we will not get there. I

think 50-50 for a short time would be a good idea. What you think of

that? I think you have got to analyse the problem the Commissioner

is trying to address. With only 10% of net officers from black and

ethnic minorities, yet the population in London that is black

and ethnic minority is actually 55%. That is substantially out of kilter

with the rest of the country where even there it is not good enough.

You have 5% police officers to 4% as a whole but in London it is

staggeringly out of kilter. It is not that these people are not coming

forward. People from ethnic minority groups are. 37 cents of applicants

are from ethnic minorities. I think it is an imaginative way of trying

to take some positive action and trying to send a message out to

ethnic minority communities that the Met Police wants to look like the

community it serves. Gary? I agree. It is a major issue for people in

London. People watching will be sceptical. If you have a police

force which represents the diverse communities which live in London, it

will be more trusted. It will be able to do a more effective job at

tackling crime. The Mets have made progress. I think it is an idea

worth looking at. It has been done in Northern Ireland. There is a

precedent as a temporary thing to change of these force which was out

of character with the community it is policing. I think this is a real

issue in London which needs addressing. Do both of you or either

of you also have concerns that it is not just the ethnicity of offices,

it is where they live increasingly. I heard of a senior officer say this

week that many of his officers do not live in London, they are in the

home counties so it is something they are having to do to people

Many people are commuting from outside. It puts a strain on them

because the public transport is not there when they are coming in on

shiftwork. I know when I was doing the police Parliamentary scheme

many of the people I was working alongside as an officer in the Met

at that time, were actually commuting in from the Home Counties.

There is a cost of living question as well. It is not criticism of

people who live in the Home Counties but I think it is a good think

longer term that the police force from the part of the country they

are policing. The Mayor Boris Johnson is trying to

change the make up of the body overseeing London's Fire Service.

His proposals are being described as a crude political manoeuvre to

stifle dissent and criticism. If you have ever wondered who runs

the Fire Brigade in London, here is your answer. These are the guys in

charge. The fire authority is made up of 17 members, eight London

Assembly members, seven London borough councillors and two macros

which are directly appointed by the Mayor. Boris Johnson would reduce

the number from eight to six. The Mayor wants to increased the number

he directly appoints from two to six. Conservative politicians and

mayoral appointees will be in the majority. According to critics it is

a naked power grab. I think it shows something about the Mayor's

leadership, hiding behind a majority of his appointees who he knows will

vote the way he wants them to vote. The Mayor, for his part, says he is

merely trying to Internet the recommendations of a House of

Commons committee last year. But with any decisions involving the

Fire Brigade being a matter of life and death, making sure the fire

authority works in the right way is a hugely important decision.

Sir Edward Lister joins me, the Mayor's chief of staff. Is this

because you were embarrassed by the authority voted against these fire

station closures? No, it is not that. The Mayor is elected to manage

among other things the Fire Service in London. He have to meet certain

budgetary requirements. He advised the fire authority of those

budgetary requirements. It took nigh on a year. They had lots of time to

put forward alternatives. Instead, the only option put forward was by a

highly respected Commissioner who voted against -- suggested the

closure of fire stations but they were voted against. Thank God we had

a public accountability lock. The authority said these are not safe.

But more importantly the Mayor was able to override it already. You

have the power to override it so why change the decision? The problem is,

LFPA do not understand if they are an executive responsible for the

Fire Service or a scrutiny body There are a bit schizoid about this.

One minute they want to be scrutinising, the next they have to

make a decision. You are not part of this view when you are a borough

Commissioner in 2006. What has changed since then? Hang on, Ken

Livingstone was the Mayor! No, I would argue very strongly that it is

the Mayor's job, the elected mayor of the day to implement his

policies. If the body which is responsible to him is not

implementing his policies, then he has every right to want to change it

to get those policies put in. Why not streamline it. He has got the

power to overrule it, what are they achieving, this Labour and Lib Dem

authority members voting against proposals? I had a letter not from

Sir Edward but it was from the Mayor's office, asking me to comment

on the proposals because we are in the consultation period at the

moment. I have to say it is the oddest letter I have ever received.

It asked on the basis of a lack of direct accountability that we should

then get rid of the councillors from the borough 's and the assembly and

put in place appointees by the Mayor. The argument that you used

was there was in the current arrangements, a lack of direct

accountability. Instead of saying at least we have got in direct

accountability, these people are elected by the population as a

whole, you wanted to take that away and put in appointees from the

Mayor. The accountability would just move to the London Assembly, who are

elected and that's what they're doing with the police now. Sir

Edward talked about the recommendation from the House of

Commons select committee. I would have my reservations about those,

but that the man's legislation. That is what Sir Edward and the Mayor are

saying is the position we ought to get to. That's fine if they want to

try to do that and they should go through the full scrutiny process of

the House of Commons, through primary legislation. Now what they

are doing is putting in an interim measure, which is not the same,

which absolutely abolishes any accountability. I think Londoners

pay council tax, the Mayor sets it for the fire authority and should

take the decisions. And the borough leaders should scrutinise those

decisions. You know you have to get a change in the law to make this

happen for sub you're going to win today's as an interim measure. No,

we are saying, long-term there is another solution to the whole thing.

In the short-term, no, we can't do it. We have got to ask the Secretary

of State to agree to this. It's something he has to agree to and has

to do a consultation on, but because we are very open about this, we are

doing some consultation now. To try to get a semblance of agreement and

indeed, we have extended our consultation period to allow London

councils an extra two weeks, because they want to come back with some

alternatives and ideas and we will see what happens. The main point is

this is not a scrutiny body. This is a body there to manage it. If

they're not going to manage it, then we have to take steps to bring it

down. Thank you very much for coming in today. Some dude the debate this

week as indicating UKIP has arrived. This symbolised the party going

mainstream. What other prospects in London? They're hoping to contest a

record number of seats in town hall elections, which are on the same day

as the Euro elections in May, and already have a few councillors. I'm

not claiming 29 million people have the bike to come to Britain. I'm

claiming 485 million people. The debate this week and next week will

be the first time many voters will afford but the fact there are local

elections this May. On the same day as the European elections, is also

elections in every council in London. The result of them is

largely expected to give Nigel Farage and UKIP power over London's

town halls in a way they've never seen before. I think they could win

dozens, not hundreds, but dozens of seats, and if they did that, it

would suggest London politics was moving away from the long-term

domination by the Conservatives and Labour. And who knows where that

could lead? Is London's Barking and Dagenham, Labour won every seat at

the last election, but we don't feel UKIP as the right policies for

multicultural Barking and Dagenham. As Labour prepared, they find

themselves in a weak position than they would have hoped. Four Labour

councillors have defected to UKIP in the last year, three of them have

deep been deselected by Labour when they made the jump. There's ex-party

members, doing this, because it s a flag of opportunism. Its

convenience. When they talk about their real policies, they haven t

got any policies, especially not at local level. Here are those three

ex-Labour councillors standing with another UKIP candidate. And a copy

of the local election manifesto UKIP say their councillors will not

be wept, and so, they won't have to do vote for any other pledges on it.

There won't be a web? There will be a free for all. UKIP don't have a

policy. Of course we have a policy. I'm holding the 2040 manifesto here.

-- whip. Our policy in terms of local agenda, is common sense party

with common-sense policies, not left-wing, not right-wing. We are a

common sense party with common-sense values and common-sense policies.

And across the capital this week, in west London's Hillingdon, UKIP were

taking their common-sense message to the streets but this time in a

Conservative councillor. UKIP only put up one candidate here, but this

time, they are contesting every single board, so they say they hope

to become the official opposition or even the power brokers in a split

authority. Which means the contents of this document, the manifesto for

Hillingdon, could well become reality. A Spanish mother. I'm

multicultural. Wouldn't you rather be here if you are poor? Local

policies here including the meditation of UKIP's sceptical

stance on immigration. We are quite clear social housing should go to

people with links to the area first. So obviously people who've got

family here, who have grandparents, they should get priority because at

the moment, we see is a system where it is a points system done on need.

Any UKIP councillors elected will not be wept. And won't have to do

vote for the contents of their manifesto. It means either the

public were to read all these documents on policy, it wouldn't

necessarily tell how their UKIP candidate was going to vote --

whipped. Lawrence Webb is London's first elected UKIP councillor. Hey

bring. Welcome to you. Let's kick off with two or three of the

policies you think will do well We saw the issue of housing. Now, the

criteria in my constituency is simple. You qualify for social

housing is livid that the two years. But if you have lived there for two

years. A lady I know fell on hard times, had to sell her House, she

moved in with a partner, in a neighbouring London Borough, for

three months, during that time, she was a carer for her ballot is coming

back three nights a week, but the situation with their partner

disintegrated. But the point is she has come back to the constituency

and has to wait two years to be eligible for social housing. Fair

enough. That is amazing issue. What else? -- that is a major issue. We

are not whipped, so we can vote with our conscience. It's not a free for

all. We have three other cancers with me. We sit down before the

meeting, that councillors. We discuss... We are offering you

freedom, we will say anything we like. We just had a policy where

parking has been introduced, parking charges, in one of the most

impoverished areas in the borough. It's only a small fee, but there's a

huge Tesco down the road with a car park. So those businesses are

suffering. What we would say is the Conservatives whipped everybody to

vote it through but we would say, no, you vote with your conscience.

Do you think, as some people suggest, your main hope here is to

fill a gap left by the BNP in areas like yours? No because the BNP had

never done well in our borough. Barking and Dagenham? There is a

valid point, where you have all the previous councils being Labour, it

is a democratic deficit, isn't it? Are you happy to get the votes of

former BNP people? When the votes are counted, there is no recognition

of how people voted. If you don t want Labour in Barking and Dagenham,

there is no other choice but UKIP is now becoming the alternative. We

have had Labour councils across the floor to UKIP. They are

opportunists, aren't they? People clinging desperately to their last

days of municipal... They have been deselected by their parties. You

have got the dregs. The no hopers. There are certain issues around

housing and the direction of the Labour Party, and they were

increasingly becoming distanced from the Labour Party. As you say,

somewhere deselected. Your party must be worried about what UKIP do

in the Euros for them are you worried by what they were doing a

local council? Yes and no. UKIP won't appeal in London as other

parts of the country. Your own leader feels uncomfortable when he

comes here. There is a danger. Nigel actually lives in London for the

peak commute every day. Do they have those concerns in Croydon? Most

Londoners love the fact its diverse, with people all over the world. I

think it's depressing to have a leader of a political party

pandering to racism. The main point I want to make, if you take Croydon,

they are only fielding a small number of candidates for the day

have no chance of winning the council. The danger is if

Conservative voters give one of their votes to UKIP, it could go to

labour and they would double our council tax. If people spread their

votes, they don't get the outcome they want. They let Labour back in.

Are they a threat to Labour? Can I just say, the point we give our

councillors freedom to go with their conscience, rather than be tied by

the manifesto, does your conscience not say, but when you make a pledge,

in your manifesto, does your conscience not say that you then

keep it? Now, this idea that you're giving your councillors freedom to

do what? To break their promise to the electorate. Let's be clear about

what are the things in the manifesto that I think people really do need

to know about. You know, if you look at Jonathan Stanley, the health

spokespeople, he said he wants flat fees for people who attend GP

practices. If you look at what's happening in the small-business

manifesto they have put out, they are saying that it should be a

matter for local decision, as to whether you get maternity benefits

from paternity, redundancy. On that point? Labour and Conservative have

no perfect buckler manifesto pledges. The manifesto was there for

a guide of what we want to achieve in the borough. But many things come

up. At council level for the it s not relevant to the manifesto. Do

you agree with the NHS point question a flat fee for GPs? Many

things councils vote on our introductions of... At what you

think? Should we have a new zebra crossing. But what do you think We

will wait and see and members will wait and see how the policies unfold

and make a decision at that time. Thank you very much for coming in.

What about the rest of the week 's poetical news? Here it is in 62

seconds. -- 60 seconds. Thousands of people turned out on Monday to pay

their respects to the RMT union leader Bob Crow. He died earlier

this month. Friends and colleagues lined the route ahead of a private

service. The London Assembly has backed plans to redevelop that the

docks. The Mayor will decide this Monday whether to green light the

plans. The ?1 billion scheme plans to build 3500 high-value homes at

Deptford Heritage campaigners are fighting to make developers include

more historic features. A whistle-blower who raised concerns

about the recording of crime statistics has resigned from the

metabolic and police. He said his decision to resign was directly

related to his treatment following making this disclosures. The cycle

superhighway from bow to Stratford has been partially closed for

resurfacing just five months after it opened. Transport for London says

the weather over the winter made the blue service -- surface in need of

repair. A year on, can we talk about the effect of housing benefit

changes? Research by the BBC done this week indicating among other

things, 10,000 people in arrears on housing benefit. One of the key

purposes, around 6% are moving to smaller properties. Your reaction? I

expect Gavin sees this in his surgery to. People come to me, a

woman the other day, she's brought up three daughters, she is disabled,

and for the past four years, she has been pleading with Metropolitan

Housing Association to move to a smaller property. They don't have

one. She can't do it. She is now, for the first time in her life, in

arrears. I get this in my surgery as well. The councils have been given

money, discretionary housing payments, to help people in these

circumstances and in Croydon, the council has a good record on that.

The fundamental problem is we haven't got enough social housing.

We need to build more, but it's right, to use the stock we have in

the best way to ensure people are better occupying a property to big

for them. I'm sure Barry has the same in his constituency. Huge

waiting lists, people in desperate need. This change is justified. 13

million out of the 40 million apparently available hasn't been

spent the summer apparently available hasn't been spent all

sorts these these authorities not be helping. That's an issue we need to

perceive. Those councils like Croydon who have used it would like

some of that money reallocated to them so we can do more to help

people. Some councils crying wolf have not used the money the

Government has given them. We are running out of time for them it

appears a cross-party political boundaries. Sorry, run out of time.

Thanks very much indeed. Andrew back to you.

Now let's get more from our political panel. If the BNP

finished? They were never spectacularly successful to begin

with but one of my childhood memories was a huge fuss in London

about the fact that they won a few council seat on the Isle of dogs

back in 1993. That was enough to cause a panic. As if they are

falling from a great tit and I think the big difference with the National

front in France is that they are building on decades of successful

that they finished second in the presence of elections in 2002, I

think. And, even in the 60s, they were versions of their politics So

they are building on a lot whereas the BNP are working with incredibly

few raw materials in this country. It is interesting that the BNP does

seem to be in decline in terms of its membership and financially, but

in France, the far right party, not as far right as the BNP, but pretty

far right, will probably do well in the second round of the French local

elections. You could say the same about Golden Dawn in Greece. Parties

prosper when the picture is pre-rolled for them. If mainstream

parties talk endlessly about immigration, saying you cannot get a

council house because it has gone to an immigrant instead of saying it is

because there are not enough council houses, that creates the conditions

in which the far right can thrive. We are lucky that all the members of

the BNP fell out with each other. As extreme members of the far right and

left do. You can see that with the comedian in France, he has got a lot

of support from people on the left as well. I asked Simon Derby was

here victim of a pincer movement that UKIP were taken away voters and

EDL has captured the Street protest. Yes, and Giles still not mention

that the Labour Party has got its act together. They got the act

together in Dagenham. Margaret Hodge and Jon Cruddas did a very good job.

I think UKIP would say, not a racist party but they are picking up votes

from people who would once have voted BNP. But it is interesting the

difference between Britain and France. Why is it that the Front

Nationale came second in 2002 when they are not far right? I think they

were on a five-year cycle because the next election was 2007. 200

they came second when Jean-Marie Le Pen came second. They are not as far

right as the BNP. Marine has put them -- cleaned them up a bit.

Diplomatically there is a much harder vote which spreads further

across the electorate in France than there is in this country. This is a

much more tolerant country. If Marine Le Pen does well today, she

will not win that many because the centre-right and centre-left will

always gang up against terror in the second round, but it sets the tone

for the European elections. It does and for the next French presidential

election as well. I think what she's doing masterfully is combining a far

right politics with what you might call a far left economic politics.

She's not just picking up votes from xenophobes, she is picking up votes

from who feel victimised from globalisation. They are people who

would be voting for socialists but are put off by the current

president. That is what I do not think the British far right parties

have been able to do. You sort Simon Derby try to tell you that the BNP

are not far right party. I think he was going to say if you look at

issues of protectionism, standing up against globalisation, they are

quite statist. That is where the phrase National Socialist comes

from. That is why a little bit of electoral success is often a killer

for far right parties. They get a few council seats and then they are

rubbish. They are not getting people's bins collected so they

become part of the system that people were voting against in the

first place. Lets go on to the Labour Party. If you are a Labour

Party supporter and you want to be cheered up, you pick up the Sunday

Times where you see a poll where the leader is up to seven points. If you

are Tory Lib Dem and you want to be cheered up, you pick up the

Observer, the left-wing paper, where the Labour leader is still 1%. I

have read in the paper that there is quite a lot of of the record

briefings going on at the top of the Labour Party. Give us a sense of the

mood. Clearly, they are unsettled. One pol looks OK but there has been

a run of polls where there is a lead over the Tories which is closing.

There are worrying number of people who are what are called the 35s and

they are people who thought all the Labour Party needs to do is sit

still because there are a number of Liberal Democrat voters who hate the

coalition. Because the Conservatives did not get through the boundary

changes they needed to win, we can sit tight and it will all be fine.

What a few wise old heads are concerned about is they feel this

has a feel of 1987 about it when the Labour Party was united. They had a

very good leader. The leader was impressive, the party was united and

then what happened? They met the British people and an election. The

British people said, terribly sorry, you are not occupying the party

political territory where we will vote for you. There are some people

from the Blair era who say it feels a bit complacent and there may be a

bit of a shock when they meet the voters. We talk about people being

unsettled but Ed Miliband is not unsettled. His defining

characteristic is you might call it steadiness or you might call it a

lack of agility. He could not respond to the pension stuff in the

budget which was thrown at him. But he's very good at separating the

signal from the noise. They may think this will all change in me.

The Tories may be on the back foot after the European elections. He has

the ability to set the political weather. He did it with the price

freeze. There is no doubt that Mr Davey would not be referring these

energy companies to the competition authorities if it had not been for

that speech by the Labour leader. And we read today he has come up

with another policy which will be attention grabbing to cut student

tuition fees. It is easy to forget that before he announced the price

freeze he was in as much vertical trouble as he is now. I think the

Labour poll lead will expand up to five or 6% by the summer, assuming

the Tories do badly. The question is, is five or 6% enough? Nick

through the analogy with 1987. This reminds me of the Conservatives in

2009/10. You have a steadily sinking poll lead, differences in what

campaign they should be running and personal animosity behind the

scenes. It led to them throwing away an election which seemed to be

winnable. There is an important difference with the 1980s which was

because you did not know when the election would be. Will it be in 87

or 88? They do not need to make up their mind until next year. What

they are telling the pollsters now, we do not like this government

because of course, you do not like the government. But next January or

February they will be making up their minds. Is there a lot of

animosity among the leading Labour figures behind-the-scenes? It must

be personal or tactical because there are not big ideological

differences between them, is there? Yes and no. What is striking is how

little support Miliband gets from the shadow cabinet. He does not have

outriders. That has been a continuous theme. Said he feels he

is on his own? That they feel they do not get support from him. There

was a column by Jenni Russell saying he is distant and detached. And

Andrew Walmsley touched on this in the Observer. One of the divisions

is Ed versus Ed. There is a terrible structural problem between those

two. It is a real problem. Ed Miliband believes Ed Balls has not

done enough to get economic red ability. Ed Balls believes Ed

Miliband is making airy fairy speeches and it will not cut with

the electorate. Neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Miller band took part in the

debate which happened earlier this week between the Lib Dems and UKIP.

We have got another one coming up on the BBC on Wednesday night. Let s

remind ourselves of what happened in last week's debate.

I will ask Nick to open the batting. We are better off in Europe...

Frankly not working any more. A referendum on Europe. I agree with

you. I agree with you. If you can read the small print. Pull up the

drawbridge, pool drawbridge up. . We have 485 million people... It is

simply not true! Not true. Not true. Not true. Identical with Nick. I

don't agree with Nick. Based on facts, facts, the facts, facts, the

facts... Thank God we did not listen to you. The food is getting better

here. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. You have never had a proper job. Great

not little England. Good night. I think it is seven o'clock BBC Two.

Helen, what was the outcome of that and how do we mark our card for this

week? It was not a great time for pundits. Everybody called the debate

for Nick and then they said actually, we think it has gone the

other way. Consensus emerged later on that Nick Clegg made a difficult

argument. I think the most important thing Nigel Farage said was he

distinguished out the immigration policy by saying we're not just

closing day over, we want people to come, we just do not want mass EU

immigration. That is an important thing for him to say to get away

from the echoes of the far right. I suspect Nick Clegg will not ask us

to read the small print. That was 11 turn he took. It compounded his

reputation for being sneaky. I slightly disagree about the pundits.

I say this as someone who thought far it would win. -- Nigel Farage

would win. The fact that the public disagree with you and the public

favoured Nigel Farage does not mean the public were wrong. The question

is, who is going to tune in for the second one? What is the answer to

that? Phil Collins argument is a man who is on 8% is fantastic. It is a

binary choice in this debate. Clearly they need to brush up on

opposite areas. Nigel Farage needs to brush up on facts and Nick Clegg

needs to brush up on the motions because he did not connect very

well. Where Nick Clegg may go after Nigel Farage is when the -- when he

said the EU has blood on its hands with Ukraine. He then came back to

talk about the vanity of EU foreign policy and said European Union had

made what was going on in Syria worse. It is one thing to say I do

not think the UK should be part of the joint European foreign policy,

it is part of another thing to say that Europe which will act with or

without the UK is responsible for blood on the streets of Kiev and

also responsible for exacerbating the Civil War in Syria. Maybe an

hour is too long for Nigel Farage's shtick? That may be the case but

Nick Clegg has precedence. He does that show and he has had to deal

with the worst thing with dealing with what is thrown at him so he has

honed his view consistently. We will see what happens in part two.

That's all for this week. The Daily Politics is on BBC Two at lunchtime

every day this week. I'll be here next week at the usual time of 1

o'clock. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.