:00:36. > :00:42.Welfare reform is one of the government's most popular policies.
:00:43. > :00:46.So Labour says it would be even tougher than the Tories.
:00:47. > :00:49.We'll be asking the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary if she's got
:00:50. > :00:56.Even Labour supporters worry that Ed Miliband hasn't got what it takes
:00:57. > :01:01.Labour grandees are increasingly vocal about their concerns.
:01:02. > :01:12.Over 50% of Labour voters think they'd do better with a new leader.
:01:13. > :01:16.And what of this leader? He's apparently "toxic" on the doorstep.
:01:17. > :01:18.The polls say Nick Clegg's more unpopular than Gordon Brown,
:01:19. > :01:24.We'll be asking a former Lib Dem leader:
:01:25. > :01:40.promised an electric car revolution, why so little progress?
:01:41. > :01:47.Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, the toxic tweeters
:01:48. > :01:55.First, the deepening crisis in Iraq, where Sunni Islamists are now
:01:56. > :01:57.largely in control of the Syrian-Iraq border, which means
:01:58. > :02:03.they can now re-supply their forces in Iraq from their Syrian bases
:02:04. > :02:06.Rather than moving on Baghdad, they are for the moment consolidating
:02:07. > :02:09.their grip on the towns and cities they've already taken.
:02:10. > :02:11.They also seem to be in effective control of Iraq's
:02:12. > :02:14.biggest oil refinery, which supplies the capital.
:02:15. > :02:17.And there are reports they might now have taken the power
:02:18. > :02:24.Iraqi politicians are now admitting that ISIS,
:02:25. > :02:27.the name of the Sunni insurgents, is better trained, better equipped and
:02:28. > :02:32.far more battle-hardened than the US-trained Iraqi army fighting it.
:02:33. > :02:35.Which leaves the fate of Baghdad increasingly in the hands
:02:36. > :02:52.No good news coming out of there, Janan. No good news and no good
:02:53. > :02:57.options either. The West's best strategy is to decide how much
:02:58. > :03:02.support to give to the Iraqi government. The US is sending over
:03:03. > :03:05.about 275 military personnel. Do they go further and contemplate
:03:06. > :03:11.their support? General Petraeus argued against it as it might be
:03:12. > :03:17.seen as the US serving as the force of Shia Iraqis -- continue their
:03:18. > :03:21.support. Do we contemplate breaking up Iraq? It won't be easy. The Sunni
:03:22. > :03:27.and Shia Muslim populations don't and Shia Muslim populations don t
:03:28. > :03:31.live in clearly bordered areas, but in the longer term, do we deal with
:03:32. > :03:36.it in the same way we dealt with the break-up of the Ottoman empire over
:03:37. > :03:42.100 years ago? In the short-term and long-term, completely confounding.
:03:43. > :03:46.Quite humiliating. If ISIS take Baghdad I can't think of a bigger
:03:47. > :03:53.ignominy for foreign policy since Suez. If Iraq is partitioned, it
:03:54. > :03:58.won't be up to us. It will be what is happening because of what is
:03:59. > :04:03.happening on the ground. Everything does point to partition, and that
:04:04. > :04:08.border, which ISIS control, between Syria and Iraq, that has been there
:04:09. > :04:13.since it was drawn during the First World War. That is gone as well An
:04:14. > :04:20.astonishingly humbling situation the West, and you can see the Kurds in
:04:21. > :04:25.the North think this is a charge -- chance for authority. They think
:04:26. > :04:30.this is the chance to get the autonomy they felt they deserved a
:04:31. > :04:35.long time. Janan is right. We can't do much in the long term, but we
:04:36. > :04:38.have to decide on the engagement. And the other people wish you'd be
:04:39. > :04:41.talking turkey, because if there is some blowback and the fighters come
:04:42. > :04:46.back, they are likely to come back from Turkey. Where is Iran in all of
:04:47. > :04:51.this? There were reports last week that the Revolutionary guard, the
:04:52. > :04:55.head of it, he was already in Baghdad with 67 advisers and there
:04:56. > :05:01.might have been some brigades that have gone there as well. Where are
:05:02. > :05:06.they? What has happened? I'm pretty sure the Prime Minister of Iraq is
:05:07. > :05:15.putting more faith in Iran than the White House and the British. I think
:05:16. > :05:20.they are running the show, in technical terms. John Kerry is
:05:21. > :05:25.flying into Cairo this morning, and what is his message? It is twofold.
:05:26. > :05:29.One is to Arab countries, do more to encourage an inclusive government in
:05:30. > :05:33.Iraq, mainly Sunni Muslims in the government, and the Arab Gulf states
:05:34. > :05:38.should stop funding insurgents in Iraq. You think, Iraq, it's
:05:39. > :05:43.potentially going to break up, so this sounds a bit late in the day
:05:44. > :05:47.and a bit weak. It gets fundamentally to the problem, what
:05:48. > :05:50.can we do? Niall Ferguson has a big piece in the Sunday Times asking if
:05:51. > :05:56.this is place where we cannot doing anything. He doesn't want to do
:05:57. > :06:01.anything. By the way, that is what most Americans think. That is what
:06:02. > :06:04.opinion polls are showing. You have George Osborne Michael Gold who
:06:05. > :06:08.would love to get involved but they cannot because of the vote in
:06:09. > :06:11.parliament on Syria lasted -- George Osborne and Michael Gove. This
:06:12. > :06:14.government does not have the stomach for military intervention. We will
:06:15. > :06:18.see how events unfold on the ground. All parties are agreed that
:06:19. > :06:20.Britain's 60-year old multi-billion The Tory side of the Coalition think
:06:21. > :06:26.their reforms are necessary and popular, though they haven't
:06:27. > :06:29.always gone to time or to plan. In the eight months she's had since
:06:30. > :06:33.she became Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves
:06:34. > :06:39.has talked the talk about getting people off benefits, into work and
:06:40. > :06:42.lowering the overall welfare bill. her first interview
:06:43. > :06:45.in the job she threatened "We would But Labour has opposed just
:06:46. > :06:49.about every change the Coalition has proposed to cut the cost
:06:50. > :06:53.and change the culture of welfare. Child benefit, housing benefit,
:06:54. > :06:55.the ?26,000 benefit cap - They've been lukewarm about
:06:56. > :07:02.the government's flagship Universal Credit scheme - which rolls six
:07:03. > :07:05.benefit payments into one - and And Labour has set out only
:07:06. > :07:12.two modest welfare cuts. This week, Labour said young people
:07:13. > :07:16.must have skills or be in training That will save ?65 million,
:07:17. > :07:21.says Labour, though the cost And cutting winter fuel payments
:07:22. > :07:27.for richer pensioners which will Not a lot in a total welfare bill
:07:28. > :07:34.of around ?200 billion. And with welfare cuts popular among
:07:35. > :07:37.even Labour voters, they will soon have to start spelling out exactly
:07:38. > :07:54.what Labour welfare reform means. Welcome. Good morning. Why do you
:07:55. > :07:57.want to be tougher than the Tories? We want to be tough in getting the
:07:58. > :08:02.welfare bill down. Under this government, the bill will be ?1
:08:03. > :08:06.million more than the government set out in 2010 and I don't think that
:08:07. > :08:11.is acceptable. We should try to control the cost of Social Security.
:08:12. > :08:14.But the welfare bill under the next Labour government will fall? It will
:08:15. > :08:20.be smaller when you end the first parliament than when you started? We
:08:21. > :08:23.signed up to the capping welfare but that doesn't see social security
:08:24. > :08:29.costs ball, it sees them go up in line with with inflation or average
:08:30. > :08:32.earnings -- costs fall. So where flair will rise? We have signed up
:08:33. > :08:34.to the cap -- welfare will rise? flair will rise? We have signed up
:08:35. > :08:38.to the cap -- welfare will rise We have signed up to the cap. We will
:08:39. > :08:43.get the costs under control and they haven't managed to achieve it. The
:08:44. > :08:45.government is spending ?13 billion more on Social Security and the
:08:46. > :08:51.reason they are doing it is because the minimum wage has not kept pace
:08:52. > :08:55.with the cost of living so people are reliant on tax credits. They are
:08:56. > :08:58.not building houses and people are relying on housing benefit. We have
:08:59. > :09:04.a record number of people on zero hours contracts. I'm still not clear
:09:05. > :09:08.if you will cut welfare if you get in power. Nobody is saying that the
:09:09. > :09:17.cost of welfare is going to fall. The welfare cap sees that happening
:09:18. > :09:21.gradually. That is a Tory cap. And you've accepted it. You're being the
:09:22. > :09:28.same as the Tories, not to. If they had a welfare cap, they would have
:09:29. > :09:30.breached it in every year of the parliament. Social Security will be
:09:31. > :09:35.higher than the government set out because they failed to control it.
:09:36. > :09:39.You read the polls, and the party does lots of its own polling, and
:09:40. > :09:41.you're scared of being seen as the welfare party. You don't really
:09:42. > :09:48.believe all of this anti-welfare stuff? We are the party of work not
:09:49. > :09:51.welfare. The Labour Party was set up in the first place because we
:09:52. > :09:54.believe in the dignity of work and we believe that work should pay
:09:55. > :09:58.wages can afford to live on. I make no apologies for being the party of
:09:59. > :10:03.work. We are not the welfare party, we are the party of work. Even your
:10:04. > :10:07.confidential strategy document admits that voters don't trust you
:10:08. > :10:12.on immigration, the economy, this is your own people, and welfare. You
:10:13. > :10:15.are not trusted on it. The most recent poll showed Labour slightly
:10:16. > :10:19.ahead of the Conservative Party on Social Security, probably because
:10:20. > :10:23.they have seen the incompetence and chaos at the Department for Work and
:10:24. > :10:27.Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith. Your own internal document means
:10:28. > :10:33.that the voters don't trust you on welfare reform. That is why we have
:10:34. > :10:39.shown some of this tough things we will do like the announcement that
:10:40. > :10:41.Ed Miliband made earlier this week, that young people without basic
:10:42. > :10:45.qualifications won't be entitled to just sign on for benefits, they have
:10:46. > :10:49.to sign up for training in order to receive support. That is the right
:10:50. > :10:50.thing to do by that group of young people, because they need skills to
:10:51. > :11:00.progress. We will, once that. - we progress. We will, once that. -- we
:11:01. > :11:05.will, onto that. You say you criticise the government that it had
:11:06. > :11:08.a cap and wouldn't have met it, but every money-saving welfare reform,
:11:09. > :11:16.you voted against it. How is that being tougher? The most recent bout
:11:17. > :11:20.was the cap on overall welfare expenditure, and we went through the
:11:21. > :11:25.lobbies and voted for the Tories. You voted against the benefit cap,
:11:26. > :11:30.welfare rating, you voted against, child benefit schemes, you voted
:11:31. > :11:32.against. You can't say we voted against everything when we voted
:11:33. > :11:36.with the Conservatives in the most recent bill with a cap on Social
:11:37. > :11:43.Security. It's just not correct to say. The last time we voted, we
:11:44. > :11:50.walked through the lobby with them. You voted on the principle of the
:11:51. > :11:55.cap. You voted on every step that would allow the cap to be met. Every
:11:56. > :11:58.single one. The most recent vote was not on the principle of the cap, it
:11:59. > :12:01.was on a cap of Social Security in the next Parliament and we signed up
:12:02. > :12:03.for that. It was Ed Miliband who called her that earlier on. Which
:12:04. > :12:10.welfare reform did you vote for? We welfare reform did you vote for We
:12:11. > :12:14.voted for the cap. Other than that? We have supported universal credit.
:12:15. > :12:19.You voted against it in the third reading. We voted against some of
:12:20. > :12:24.the specifics. If you look at universal credit, they have had to
:12:25. > :12:29.write off nearly ?900 million of spending. I'm not on the rights and
:12:30. > :12:34.wrongs, I'm trying to work out what you voted for. Some of the things we
:12:35. > :12:38.are going to go further than the government with. For example,
:12:39. > :12:42.cutting benefits for young people who don't sign of the training. The
:12:43. > :12:45.government had introduced that. For example, saying that the richest
:12:46. > :12:48.pensioners should not get the winter fuel allowance, that is something
:12:49. > :12:51.the government haven't signed up. You would get that under Labour and
:12:52. > :12:56.this government haven't signed up for it. ?100 million on the winter
:12:57. > :12:59.fuel allowance and ?65 million on youth training. ?165 million.
:13:00. > :13:11.fuel allowance and ?65 million on would apply to ?120 billion. And
:13:12. > :13:14.you've saved 125 -- 165 million? Those are cuts that we said we would
:13:15. > :13:19.do in government. If you look at the real prize from the changes Ed
:13:20. > :13:23.Miliband announced in the youth allowance, it's not the short-term
:13:24. > :13:25.savings, it's the fact that each of these young people, who are
:13:26. > :13:29.currently on unemployment benefits without the skills we know they need
:13:30. > :13:35.to succeed in life, they will cost the taxpayer ?2000 per year. I will
:13:36. > :13:40.come onto that. You mentioned universal credit, which the
:13:41. > :13:43.government regards as the flagship reform. It's had lots of troubles
:13:44. > :13:49.with it and it merges six benefits into one. You voted against it in
:13:50. > :13:53.the third reading and given lukewarm support in the past. We have not
:13:54. > :14:00.said he would abandon it, but now you say you are for it. You are all
:14:01. > :14:03.over the place. We set up the rescue committee in autumn of last year
:14:04. > :14:07.because we have seen from the National Audit Office and the Public
:14:08. > :14:12.Accounts Committee, report after report showing that the project is
:14:13. > :14:16.massively overbudget and is not going to be delivered according to
:14:17. > :14:18.the government timetable. We set up the committee because we believe in
:14:19. > :14:22.the principle of universal credit and think it is the right thing to
:14:23. > :14:28.do. Can you tell us now if you will keep it or not? Because there is no
:14:29. > :14:33.transparency and we have no idea. We are awash with information. We are
:14:34. > :14:39.not. The government, in the most recent National audit Forest --
:14:40. > :14:43.National Audit Office statement said it was a reset project. This is
:14:44. > :14:49.really important. This is a flagship government programme, and it's going
:14:50. > :14:54.to cost ?12.8 billion to deliver, and we don't know what sort of state
:14:55. > :14:57.it is in, so we have said that if we win at the next election, we will
:14:58. > :15:04.pause that for three months and calling... Will you stop the pilots?
:15:05. > :15:09.We don't know what status they will have. We would stop the build of the
:15:10. > :15:14.system for three months, calling the National Audit Office to do awards
:15:15. > :15:19.and all report. The government don't need to do this until the next
:15:20. > :15:23.general election, they could do it today. Stop throwing good money
:15:24. > :15:27.after bad and get a grip of this incredibly important programme. You
:15:28. > :15:32.said you don't know enough to a view now. So when you were invited to a
:15:33. > :15:38.job centre where universal credit is being rolled out to see how it was
:15:39. > :15:41.working, you refused to go. Why? We asked were a meeting with Iain
:15:42. > :15:44.Duncan Smith and he cancelled the meeting is three times. I'm talking
:15:45. > :15:48.about the visit when you were offered to go to a job centre and
:15:49. > :15:52.you refused. We had an appointment to meet Iain Duncan Smith at the
:15:53. > :15:56.Department for Work and Pensions and said he cancelled and was not
:15:57. > :15:59.available, but he wanted us to go to the job centre. We wanted to talk to
:16:00. > :16:05.him and his officials, which she did. Would it be more useful to go
:16:06. > :16:06.to the job centre and find out how it was working. He's going to tell
:16:07. > :16:24.you it's working fine. Advice Bureau in Hammersmith, they
:16:25. > :16:29.are working to help the people trying to claim universal credit.
:16:30. > :16:33.Iain Duncan Smith cancelled three meetings. That is another issue, I
:16:34. > :16:36.was asking about the job centre. meetings. That is another issue, I
:16:37. > :16:42.was asking about the job centre It is not another issue because Iain
:16:43. > :16:46.Duncan Smith fogged us off. This week you said that jobless
:16:47. > :16:50.youngsters who won't take training will lose their welfare payments.
:16:51. > :16:58.How many young people are not in work training or education? There
:16:59. > :17:05.are 140,000 young people claiming benefits at the moment, but 850 000
:17:06. > :17:14.young people who are not in work at the moment. This applies to around
:17:15. > :17:20.100,000 young people. There are actually 975,000, 16-24 -year-olds,
:17:21. > :17:28.not in work, training or education. Your proposal only applies to
:17:29. > :17:32.100,000 of them, why? This is applying to young people who are
:17:33. > :17:39.signing on for benefits rather than signing up for training. We want to
:17:40. > :17:44.make sure that all young people... Why only 100,000? They are the ones
:17:45. > :17:57.currently getting job-seeker's allowance. We are saying you can not
:17:58. > :18:02.just sign up to... Can I get you to respond to this, the number of
:18:03. > :18:10.people not in work, training or education fell last year by more
:18:11. > :18:21.than you are planning to help. Long turn -- long-term unemployment is an
:18:22. > :18:26.entrenched problem... This issue about an entrenched group of young
:18:27. > :18:32.people. Young people who haven't got skills and are not in training we
:18:33. > :18:36.know are much less likely to get a job so there are 140,018-24
:18:37. > :18:43.-year-olds signing onto benefits at the moment. This is about trying to
:18:44. > :18:48.address that problem to make sure all young people have the skills
:18:49. > :18:52.they need to get a job. Your policy is to take away part of the dole
:18:53. > :18:58.unless young unemployed people agree to study for level three
:18:59. > :19:03.qualifications, the equivalent of an AS-level or an NVQ but 40% of these
:19:04. > :19:10.people have the literary skills of a nine-year-old. After all that failed
:19:11. > :19:17.education, how are you going to train them to a level standard? We
:19:18. > :19:21.are saying that anyone who doesn't have that a level or equivalent
:19:22. > :19:27.qualification will be required to go back to college. We are not saying
:19:28. > :19:32.that within a year they have to get up to that level but these are
:19:33. > :19:35.exactly the sorts of people... These people have been failed by your
:19:36. > :19:39.education system. These people are, for the last four years, have been
:19:40. > :19:46.educated under a Conservative government. 18 - 21-year-olds, most
:19:47. > :19:51.of them have their education under a Labour government during which
:19:52. > :19:56.300,000 people left with no GCSEs whatsoever. I don't understand how
:19:57. > :20:01.training for one year can do what 11 years in school did not. We are not
:20:02. > :20:05.saying that within one year everybody will get up to a level
:20:06. > :20:09.three qualifications, but if you are one of those people who enters the
:20:10. > :20:13.Labour market age 18 with the reading skills of a nine-year-old,
:20:14. > :20:19.they are the sorts of people that should not the left languishing. I
:20:20. > :20:25.should not the left languishing I went to college in Hackney if you
:20:26. > :20:30.you are -- a few weeks ago and there was a dyslexic boy studying painting
:20:31. > :20:35.and decorating. In school they decided he was a troublemaker and
:20:36. > :20:40.that he didn't want to learn. He went back to college because he
:20:41. > :20:44.wanted to get the skills. He said that it wasn't until he went back to
:20:45. > :20:49.college that he could pick up a newspaper and read it, it made a
:20:50. > :20:55.huge difference but too many people are let down by the system. I am
:20:56. > :20:59.wondering how the training will make up for an education system that
:21:00. > :21:04.failed them but let's move on to your leader. Look at this graph of
:21:05. > :21:09.Ed Miliband's popularity. This is the net satisfaction with him, it is
:21:10. > :21:16.dreadful. The trend continues to climb since he became leader of the
:21:17. > :21:20.Labour Party, why? What you have seen is another 2300 Labour
:21:21. > :21:25.councillors since Ed Miliband became the leader of the Labour Party. You
:21:26. > :21:33.saw in the elections a month ago that... Why is the satisfaction rate
:21:34. > :21:38.falling? We can look at polls or actual election results and the fact
:21:39. > :21:42.that we have got another 2000 Labour councillors, more people voting
:21:43. > :21:47.Labour, the opinion polls today show that if there was a general election
:21:48. > :21:54.today we would have a majority of more than 40, he must be doing
:21:55. > :22:00.something right. Why do almost 50% of voters want to replace him as
:22:01. > :22:06.leader? Why do 50% and more think that he is not up to the job? The
:22:07. > :22:13.more people see Ed Miliband, the less impressed they are. The British
:22:14. > :22:18.people seem to like him less. The election strategy I suggest that
:22:19. > :22:22.follows from that is that you should keep Ed Miliband under wraps until
:22:23. > :22:27.the election. Let's look at actually what happens when people get a
:22:28. > :22:31.chance to vote, when they get that opportunity we have seen more Labour
:22:32. > :22:38.councillors, more Labour members of the European Parliament...
:22:39. > :22:45.Oppositions always get more. The opinion polls today, one of them
:22:46. > :22:49.shows Labour four points ahead. You have not done that well in local
:22:50. > :22:55.government elections or European elections. Why don't people like
:22:56. > :23:00.him? I think we have done incredibly well in elections. People must like
:23:01. > :23:04.a lot of the things Labour and Ed Miliband are doing because we are
:23:05. > :23:09.winning back support across the country. We won local councils in
:23:10. > :23:15.places like Hammersmith and Fulham, Crawley, Hastings, key places that
:23:16. > :23:19.Labour need to win back at the general election next year. Even you
:23:20. > :23:25.have said traditional Labour supporters are abandoning the party.
:23:26. > :23:31.That is what Ed Miliband has said as well. We have got this real concern
:23:32. > :23:36.about what has happened. If you look at the elections in May, 60% of
:23:37. > :23:41.people didn't even bother going to vote. That is a profound issue not
:23:42. > :23:46.just for Labour. You said traditional voters who perhaps at
:23:47. > :23:51.times we took for granted are now being offered an alternative. Why
:23:52. > :23:56.did you take them for granted? This is what Ed Miliband said. I am not
:23:57. > :24:03.saying anything Ed Miliband himself has not said. When he ran for the
:24:04. > :24:07.leadership he said that we took too many people for granted and we
:24:08. > :24:11.needed to give people positive reasons to vote Labour, he has been
:24:12. > :24:14.doing that. He has been there for four years and you are saying you
:24:15. > :24:20.still take them for granted. Why? I am saying that for too long we have
:24:21. > :24:24.taken them for granted. We are on track to win the general election
:24:25. > :24:34.next year and that will defy all the odds. You are going to win... Ed
:24:35. > :24:38.Miliband will win next year and make a great Prime Minister.
:24:39. > :24:43.Now to the Liberal Democrats, at the risk of intruding into private
:24:44. > :24:47.grief. The party is still smarting from dire results in the European
:24:48. > :24:51.and Local Elections. The only poll Nick Clegg has won in recent times
:24:52. > :24:55.is to be voted the most unpopular leader of a party in modern British
:24:56. > :24:59.history. No surprise there have been calls for him to go, though that
:25:00. > :24:59.still looks unlikely. Here's Eleanor.
:25:00. > :25:02.Liberal Democrats celebrating, something we haven't seen for a
:25:03. > :25:08.while. This victory back in 1998 led while. This victory back in 199 led
:25:09. > :25:12.to a decade of power for the Lib Dems in Liverpool. What a contrast
:25:13. > :25:19.to the city's political landscape today. At its height the party had
:25:20. > :25:23.69 local councillors, now down to just three. The scale of the
:25:24. > :25:29.challenge facing Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems is growing. The party is
:25:30. > :25:33.rock bottom in the polls, consistently in single figures. It
:25:34. > :25:38.was wiped out in the European elections losing all but one of its
:25:39. > :25:45.12 MEPs and in the local elections it lost 42% of the seats that it was
:25:46. > :25:51.defending. But on Merseyside, Nick Clegg was putting on a brave face.
:25:52. > :25:56.We did badly in Liverpool, Manchester and London in particular,
:25:57. > :26:01.we did well in other places. But you are right, we did badly in some of
:26:02. > :26:06.those big cities and I have initiated a review, quite
:26:07. > :26:12.naturally, to understand what went wrong, what went right. As Lib Dems
:26:13. > :26:16.across the country get on with some serious soul-searching, there is an
:26:17. > :26:21.admission that his is the leader of the party who is failing to hit the
:26:22. > :26:26.right notes. Knocking on doors in Liverpool, I have to tell you that
:26:27. > :26:31.Nick Clegg is not a popular person. Some might use the word toxic and I
:26:32. > :26:35.find this very difficult because I know Nick very well and I see a
:26:36. > :26:41.principal person who passionately believes in what he is doing and he
:26:42. > :26:52.is a nice guy. As a result of his popularity, what has happened to the
:26:53. > :26:55.core vote? In parts of the country, we are down to just three
:26:56. > :27:00.councillors like Liverpool for example. You also lose the
:27:01. > :27:04.deliverers and fundraisers and the organisers and the members of course
:27:05. > :27:09.so all of that will have to be rebuilt. As they start fermenting
:27:10. > :27:14.process, local parties across the country and here in Liverpool have
:27:15. > :27:20.been voting on whether there should be a leadership contest. We had two
:27:21. > :27:25.choices to flush out and have a go at Nick Clegg or to positively
:27:26. > :27:29.decide we would sharpen up the campaign and get back on the
:27:30. > :27:34.streets, and by four to one ratio we decided to get back on the streets.
:27:35. > :27:40.We are bruised and battered but we are still here, the orange flag is
:27:41. > :27:46.still flying and one day it will fly over this building again, Liverpool
:27:47. > :27:50.town hall. But do people want the Lib Dems back in charge in this
:27:51. > :27:54.city? I certainly wouldn't vote for them. Their performance in
:27:55. > :28:00.Government and the way they have left their promises down, I could
:28:01. > :28:06.not vote for them again. I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of
:28:07. > :28:12.the university tuition fees and I would never vote for them again
:28:13. > :28:15.because they broke their promise. The Lib Dems are awful, broken
:28:16. > :28:19.promises and what have you. I wouldn't vote for them. This is the
:28:20. > :28:23.declaration of the results for the Northwest... Last month, as other
:28:24. > :28:29.party celebrated in the north-west, the Lib Dems here lost their only
:28:30. > :28:34.MEP, Chris Davies. Now there is concern the party doesn't know how
:28:35. > :28:40.to turn its fortunes around. We don't have an answer to that, if we
:28:41. > :28:48.did we would be grasping it with both hands. We will do our best to
:28:49. > :28:53.hold onto the places where we still have seats but as for the rest of
:28:54. > :28:57.the country where we have been hollowed out, we don't know how to
:28:58. > :29:01.start again until the next general election is out of the way. After
:29:02. > :29:04.their disastrous performance in the European elections, pressure is
:29:05. > :29:15.growing for the party to shift its stance. I think there has to be a
:29:16. > :29:22.lancing of the wound, there should in a referendum and the Liberal
:29:23. > :29:26.Democrats should be calling it. The rest of Europe once this because
:29:27. > :29:32.they are fed up with Britain being unable to make up its mind. The Lib
:29:33. > :29:36.Dems are now suffering the effects of being in Government. The party's
:29:37. > :29:44.problem, choosing the right course to regain political credibility.
:29:45. > :29:48.We can now speak to form a Lib Dems leader Ming Campbell. Welcome back
:29:49. > :29:54.to the Sunday Politics. Even your own activists say that Nick Clegg is
:29:55. > :29:59.toxic. How will that change between now and the election? When you have
:30:00. > :30:04.had disappointing results, but you have to do is to rebuild. You pick
:30:05. > :30:09.yourself up and start all over again, and the reason why the
:30:10. > :30:14.Liberal Democrats got 57, 56 seats in the House of Commons now is
:30:15. > :30:16.because we picked ourselves up, we took every opportunity and we have
:30:17. > :30:28.rebuilt from the bottom up. least popular leader in modern
:30:29. > :30:33.history and more unpopular than your mate Gordon Brown. You are running
:30:34. > :30:37.out of time. No one believes that being the leader of a modern
:30:38. > :30:40.political party in the UK is an easy job. Both Ed Miliband and David
:30:41. > :30:45.Cameron must have had cause to think, over breakfast this morning,
:30:46. > :30:48.when they saw the headlines in some of the Sunday papers. Of course it
:30:49. > :30:53.is a difficult job but it was pointed out a moment or two ago that
:30:54. > :30:56.Nick Clegg is a man of principle and enormous resilience if you consider
:30:57. > :31:00.what he had to put up with, and in my view, he is quite clearly the
:31:01. > :31:03.person best qualified to lead the party between now and the general
:31:04. > :31:09.election and through the election campaign, and beyond. So why don't
:31:10. > :31:10.people like him? We have had to take some pretty difficult decisions,
:31:11. > :31:14.some pretty difficult decisions and, of course, people didn't expect
:31:15. > :31:21.that. If you look back to the rather heady days of the rose garden behind
:31:22. > :31:23.ten Downing St, people thought it was all going to be sweetness and
:31:24. > :31:27.light, but the fact is, we didn t light, but the fact is, we didn't
:31:28. > :31:31.know then what we know now, about the extent of the economic crisis we
:31:32. > :31:34.win, and a lot of difficult decisions have had to be taken in
:31:35. > :31:40.order to restore economic stability. Look around you. You will see we are
:31:41. > :31:44.not there yet but we are a long way better off than in 2010. You are not
:31:45. > :31:52.getting the credit for it, the Tories are. We will be a little more
:31:53. > :31:56.assertive about taking the credit. For example, the fact that 23
:31:57. > :31:59.million people have had a tax cut of ?800 per year and we have taken 2
:32:00. > :32:03.million people out of paying tax altogether. Ming Campbell, your
:32:04. > :32:09.people say that on every programme like this. Because it is true. That
:32:10. > :32:14.might be the case, but you are at seven or 8% in the polls, and nobody
:32:15. > :32:22.is listening, or they don't believe it. Once
:32:23. > :32:23.is listening, or they don't believe doubt that what we have achieved
:32:24. > :32:27.will be much more easily recognised, and there is no doubt,
:32:28. > :32:31.for example, in some of the recent polls, like the Ashcroft Pole,
:32:32. > :32:39.something like 30% of those polled said that as a result at the next
:32:40. > :32:41.something like 30% of those polled general election, they would prepare
:32:42. > :32:45.their to be a coalition involving the Liberal Democrats. So there is
:32:46. > :32:49.no question that the whole notion of coalition is still very much a live
:32:50. > :32:54.one, and one which we have made work in the public interest. The problem
:32:55. > :32:58.is people don't think that. People see you trying to have your cake and
:32:59. > :33:01.eat it. On the one hand you want to get your share of the credit for the
:33:02. > :33:04.turnaround in the economy, on the other hand you can't stop yourself
:33:05. > :33:09.from distancing yourself from the Tories and things that you did not
:33:10. > :33:14.like happening. You are trying to face both ways at once. If you
:33:15. > :33:28.remember our fellow Scotsman famously said you cannot ride both
:33:29. > :33:28.remember our fellow Scotsman to the terms -- terms of the
:33:29. > :33:30.remember our fellow Scotsman coalition agreement, which is what
:33:31. > :33:34.we signed up to in 2010. In addition, in furtherance of that
:33:35. > :33:37.agreement, we have created things like the pupil premium and the
:33:38. > :33:41.others I mentioned and you were rather dismissive. I'm not
:33:42. > :33:45.dismissive, I'm just saying they don't make a difference to what
:33:46. > :33:50.people think of you. We will do everything in our power to change
:33:51. > :33:56.that between now and May 2015. The interesting thing is, going back to
:33:57. > :34:01.the Ashcroft result, it demonstrated clearly that in constituencies where
:34:02. > :34:04.we have MPs and we are well dug in, we are doing everything that the
:34:05. > :34:10.public expects of us, and we are doing very well indeed. You aren't
:34:11. > :34:15.sure fellow Lib Dems have been saying this for you -- you and your
:34:16. > :34:19.fellow Liberal Dems have been saying this for a year or 18 months, and
:34:20. > :34:22.since then you have lost all of your MEPs apart from one, you lost your
:34:23. > :34:28.deposit in a by-election, you lost 310 councillor, including everyone
:34:29. > :34:34.in Manchester or Islington. Mr Clegg leading you into the next general
:34:35. > :34:36.election will be the equivalent of the charge of the light Brigade. I
:34:37. > :34:41.the charge of the light Brigade I doubt that very much. The
:34:42. > :34:45.implication behind that lit you rehearsed is that we should pack our
:34:46. > :34:51.tents in the night and steal away. -- that litany. And if you heard in
:34:52. > :34:54.that piece that preceded the discussion, people were saying, look
:34:55. > :35:08.we have to start from the bottom and have to rebuild. That is exactly
:35:09. > :35:13.what we will do. Nine months is a period of gestation. As you well
:35:14. > :35:17.know. I wouldn't dismiss it quite so easily as that. I'm not here to say
:35:18. > :35:22.we had a wonderful result or anything like it, but what I do say
:35:23. > :35:26.is that the party is determined to turn it round, and that Nick Clegg
:35:27. > :35:31.is the person best qualified to do it. Should your party adopt a
:35:32. > :35:36.referendum about in or out on Europe? No, we should stick to the
:35:37. > :35:40.coalition agreement. If there is any transfer of power from Westminster
:35:41. > :35:46.to Brussels, that will be subject to a referendum. No change. And
:35:47. > :35:51.finally, as a Lib Dem, you must be glad you are not fighting the next
:35:52. > :35:57.election yourself? I've fought every election since 1974, so I've had a
:35:58. > :36:01.few experiences, some good, some bad, but the one thing I have done
:36:02. > :36:04.and the one thing a lot of other people have done is that they have
:36:05. > :36:07.stuck to the task, and that is what will happen in May 2015. Ming
:36:08. > :36:10.Campbell, thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35am, you're
:36:11. > :36:13.watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:36:14. > :36:16.in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,
:36:17. > :36:19.the Week Ahead..First though,
:36:20. > :36:37.the Sunday Politics where you are. Hello and welcome from us. This week
:36:38. > :36:41.we have been looking for power, for our vehicle anyway. Five years after
:36:42. > :36:43.the mayor promised an electric car revolution, why has there been so
:36:44. > :36:48.little energy behind this initiative? That will be coming up
:36:49. > :36:56.later, and discussing that will be my guests, Tory MP Mark Field. Let's
:36:57. > :37:02.talk to verse about housing and homelessness, and the latest
:37:03. > :37:06.government figures showing that homelessness has risen in London.
:37:07. > :37:10.30,000 households approaching the local authority to be rehoused, 10%
:37:11. > :37:15.example -- rise on last year. Is that an indictment? I think
:37:16. > :37:18.London's housing across the board, which
:37:19. > :37:22.London's housing across the board, but a terrible tragedy, and all that
:37:23. > :37:26.is no rough sleeping has got worse in recent years and we can see that
:37:27. > :37:31.from representing a central London seat, but also the whole issue with
:37:32. > :37:35.higher taxes, stamp duty and the prospect of a mansion tax which will
:37:36. > :37:38.be attacks on Londoners, because Londoners, those in growing
:37:39. > :37:43.families, they want to be able to move. It's a hell of a mess and it
:37:44. > :37:48.needs to be dealt with both that local government level and also
:37:49. > :37:53.centrally. It is a problem under the Tory government, but it would be
:37:54. > :37:55.made worse under yours. Mark is skirting around the issues.
:37:56. > :37:59.Homelessness has gone up dramatically. Rough sleeping was
:38:00. > :38:02.halved under the last government. It's gone up dramatically. The
:38:03. > :38:06.reason that has happened is because Boris Johnson has taken the
:38:07. > :38:10.responsibility for private landlords, when they are building,
:38:11. > :38:13.to give a high enough proportion of housing towards social renting.
:38:14. > :38:20.There are also a whole set of consequences around homeless people
:38:21. > :38:25.being given shelter, to keep them off the streets. 4000 of them having
:38:26. > :38:31.got rid of. Homeless charities have been shut down. When you add it all
:38:32. > :38:35.up, all of those pressures, it's not surprising there is a crisis in
:38:36. > :38:38.housing as well as homelessness. That's because the government took
:38:39. > :38:41.their eye off the ball and Boris Johnson has not used his powers and
:38:42. > :38:47.influence in order to increase the supply of social housing. Mark? I
:38:48. > :38:53.don't want to get into a battle about what was happening under the
:38:54. > :38:58.old regime. It did slow down, so give us some credit for that. You
:38:59. > :39:02.have increased the number of people who are homeless. In my
:39:03. > :39:06.constituency, 22,000 people are on waiting lists for 2000 properties
:39:07. > :39:12.and homelessness is going up across London. What will you do about it?
:39:13. > :39:16.We have seen that Boris Johnson has been trying to ensure that we get
:39:17. > :39:20.more house building going on in the capital. But we are a global capital
:39:21. > :39:24.and one of the problems we face is that we are attracting a huge amount
:39:25. > :39:29.of money coming from across the world. House prices are at an
:39:30. > :39:35.all-time high. A particular problem with the overheated housing market.
:39:36. > :39:39.I think where Boris has a good initiative is to try to build more
:39:40. > :39:44.social housing in some of the far-flung London boroughs. Part of
:39:45. > :39:48.the difficulty is that there is a knot in my backyard factor, and the
:39:49. > :39:52.sense that a lot of this takes time to build. But the truth is, there
:39:53. > :39:57.has been a housing crisis for 4 or has been a housing crisis for 40 or
:39:58. > :40:03.50 years and you won't serve it in double quick time -- solve it. There
:40:04. > :40:06.is a massive supply issue across the country and we have promised to
:40:07. > :40:10.build 200,000 homes in the next Parliament. We need to do more but
:40:11. > :40:15.they government currently is not prioritising house-building. Let's
:40:16. > :40:17.move on. Democracy is thriving in Tower Hamlets, so said the
:40:18. > :40:21.independent mayor after more questions were raised this week
:40:22. > :40:25.about the legitimacy of his election last month for a second term at the
:40:26. > :40:28.helm in the borough. He has been served with a High Court petition
:40:29. > :40:36.alleging electoral fraud in several guises.
:40:37. > :40:41.A petition calling for last month mayoral election in Tower Hamlets to
:40:42. > :40:45.be held again has been submitted to the High Court by four local
:40:46. > :40:49.residents, alleging electoral fraud, corruption and political smears by
:40:50. > :40:55.the mayor Atropos Tower Hamlets first party. We have received
:40:56. > :40:59.allegations of corruption across the borough, and we are examining those
:41:00. > :41:04.allegations. And our solicitor is collating information. It is claimed
:41:05. > :41:07.the votes were cast in the name of people not entitled to be on the
:41:08. > :41:16.electoral register. Voting papers were acquired and then marked in
:41:17. > :41:23.favour of Mr Rahman. Campaigners also handed out leaflets and try to
:41:24. > :41:26.make people vote for Mr Rahman. Allegations have also been made
:41:27. > :41:29.against the returning officer, John Williams. He is alleged to have
:41:30. > :41:32.allowed people to canvass votes in polling stations, to accompany
:41:33. > :41:36.voters into the compartment when they cast their vote and to leave
:41:37. > :41:40.campaign material in and around voting compartments. He has said he
:41:41. > :41:44.will not comment specifically on the petition as he is taking legal
:41:45. > :41:46.advice. However, he says the measures he put in place for the
:41:47. > :41:50.elections were the toughest available within the current law.
:41:51. > :41:54.However, should the court take a different view, it's possible that
:41:55. > :41:57.the election could be rerun, a move welcomed by the losing Labour
:41:58. > :42:01.candidate. I don't want to come across as a bad loser. I lost the
:42:02. > :42:04.election, the result was declared, but if serious questions are being
:42:05. > :42:08.asked, what they need to be explored. This petition is the
:42:09. > :42:12.latest in a series of investigations into Tower Hamlets. The Metropolitan
:42:13. > :42:16.Police is investigating 84 complaints into the election. It
:42:17. > :42:19.said in the majority of cases, no criminal offences happened -- been
:42:20. > :42:24.committed. The electoral commission has also launched a review into the
:42:25. > :42:29.count. Mr Rahman was not available to join us, but is newly appointed
:42:30. > :42:34.deputy is here. Welcome to you. Here is the petition. You have seen it.
:42:35. > :42:39.Shall we just run down it? It alleges electoral fraud in a variety
:42:40. > :42:44.of forms and casting votes in the name of people who weren't entitled
:42:45. > :42:47.to be on the register. First of all, the petition is very thin in
:42:48. > :42:51.evidence. We have not seen anything new in the petition which has not
:42:52. > :42:57.been said previously by the opponent. Secondly, when they served
:42:58. > :43:07.a notice, Mayor Rahman did not receive the petition before the
:43:08. > :43:11.media have it. They did not just serve the petition, they had a press
:43:12. > :43:14.Conference, then they served it to the mayor. That gives me reason to
:43:15. > :43:21.believe that there may be other motives than genuine concern. That
:43:22. > :43:23.is procedural, and we do take your point that there is an absence of
:43:24. > :43:27.detail at the moment because there will have to be witness statements
:43:28. > :43:30.taken, but the broad principle, it is being alleged that there were
:43:31. > :43:35.people who should not have been on the electoral register that had
:43:36. > :43:39.postal votes. Is there any evidence? There is no evidence. We have not
:43:40. > :43:43.seen any evidence. The police have said there has been no criminal
:43:44. > :43:48.activity taking place. There has not been any serious allegation made to
:43:49. > :43:54.the police on the day. All of these allegations came after the election,
:43:55. > :43:59.two or three days after, so if people had concerns on the day about
:44:00. > :44:02.some of the things you heard in the report, people should have raised it
:44:03. > :44:06.there and then with the police officers. You know there were 8
:44:07. > :44:09.complaints. A case is being investigated and two people
:44:10. > :44:15.arrested. One of them was a Tory candidate. This might be an easier
:44:16. > :44:20.one to be more specific about, and to be put at the mayor's tour, which
:44:21. > :44:26.is paying canvassers to go round and rally support. We have not paid
:44:27. > :44:33.anybody to canvass for us. Even in my own board, two people allowed us
:44:34. > :44:40.to use their living room on election day so people could, rest and take a
:44:41. > :44:45.break. Those people did not charge us and nor did we pay anyone to
:44:46. > :44:51.canvass or support us. What about around the polling stations? Agents
:44:52. > :44:57.of your party, it is said, going into polling stations, leaving
:44:58. > :45:02.material in the polling stations. Did that happen? I did not see
:45:03. > :45:07.anything. There were police officers in and out of the polling station.
:45:08. > :45:10.Where people were gathering, this is not new in Tower Hamlets. When I was
:45:11. > :45:14.in the Labour Party, the same thing happened. People would gather
:45:15. > :45:16.outside the polling stations, and they take a keen interest in
:45:17. > :45:59.democratic process. Party and the Conservatives cannot
:46:00. > :46:03.accept the Mayor Rahman has won the election fair and square in the
:46:04. > :46:10.democratic process and they are not willing to accept the decision made
:46:11. > :46:20.by people. We have one of the local MPs here with us, sour grapes. This
:46:21. > :46:24.is a group of residents, one of them is a member, who have acted
:46:25. > :46:29.independently and our mayoral candidate has on this programme
:46:30. > :46:34.accepted, and accepted it at the time and on your programme, that he
:46:35. > :46:37.has lost. If the public don't have confidence in what happened,
:46:38. > :46:42.obviously that needs to be investigated and it is the subject
:46:43. > :46:47.of an investigation by the Electoral Commission. So we don't know if
:46:48. > :46:50.there is any evidence of wrongdoing. That is a matter for the
:46:51. > :46:59.institutions doing those investigations. What I am concerned
:47:00. > :47:03.about is this attitude which Ollie has expressed as well, which is that
:47:04. > :47:08.whenever people raise concerns or complaints it is the fault of the
:47:09. > :47:14.Labour Party or other parties. Actually, what we need to do is
:47:15. > :47:18.focus on the things that the public are concerned about and all parties
:47:19. > :47:22.need to make sure the public has confidence in the electoral process
:47:23. > :47:28.and there were some serious concerns made about the account which I was
:47:29. > :47:34.at on Sunday... There were issues around the account as well. Mark,
:47:35. > :47:39.who are not on the petition, one of the councillors is helping to fund
:47:40. > :47:45.it in the next stage. We have more councillors than we have had in 100
:47:46. > :47:50.years. The truth really is, and I think it is very sad in Tower
:47:51. > :47:55.Hamlets that it has become a watchword for corruption and
:47:56. > :47:56.cronyism as a local authority. We saw the shambles with the count that
:47:57. > :48:48.went on for days and there is It seems this second term has begun
:48:49. > :48:57.with sleaze. This is an endorsement by the residents of Tower Hamlets
:48:58. > :49:02.and the voters, and endorsement for all programmes for the next four
:49:03. > :49:06.years. We are the only London borough still paying educational
:49:07. > :49:12.maintenance allowance, still providing home care for our elderly
:49:13. > :49:16.people. His government praised us for the education we are delivering
:49:17. > :49:20.for young people in the borough and this is what we should be talking
:49:21. > :49:26.about. If there is an issue or a concern, nobody is above the law,
:49:27. > :49:30.but the issue here is that they are talking about the mayoral election
:49:31. > :49:35.but on the same day there was a local authority election and a
:49:36. > :49:38.European election. It is a coincidence that they are not
:49:39. > :49:42.talking about the other two elections. That's right, we are
:49:43. > :49:47.focusing on the mayoral election, but watch this space.
:49:48. > :49:57.Five years ago the mayor said he intended to make, London's mayor of
:49:58. > :50:00.course, London the electrical capital of Europe. Look at the
:50:01. > :50:04.results now and observers say there has been a distinct lack of
:50:05. > :50:10.progress. Just over five years ago the Mayor
:50:11. > :50:15.launched an ambitious plan to make London the electric vehicle capital
:50:16. > :50:20.of Europe. Electric vehicles are at last a technology that is on the
:50:21. > :50:25.cusp of mass consumer participation. London should be the ideal place for
:50:26. > :50:30.electric vehicles to pick up, you don't have to pay the congestion
:50:31. > :50:35.charge and journeys tend to be shorts so you don't worry about
:50:36. > :50:40.running out of battery but at least so far the pick-up has not been
:50:41. > :50:43.great. The mayor said he wanted 100,000 electric vehicles on the
:50:44. > :50:49.roads as soon as possible but five years on London has only made it up
:50:50. > :50:56.to 3% of that target. At this Carla -- car dealership in Finchley they
:50:57. > :51:05.say there are electric cars are set to be the biggest sellers of the
:51:06. > :51:11.year. They are green but they do rely on this. I think the customers
:51:12. > :51:15.thought that unless they are doing short journeys electric vehicles may
:51:16. > :51:20.not be the answer. Could these be the answer? This is where you plug
:51:21. > :51:25.in your electric vehicle to charge it. Five years ago the mayor said
:51:26. > :51:31.there would be 25,000 on our streets, as it stands there are just
:51:32. > :51:38.1500. Users complain that all too often they simply don't work. People
:51:39. > :51:40.in this car club are regular users have and have experienced
:51:41. > :51:48.difficulties. Where they have not been used, we have had incidents
:51:49. > :51:53.where we have had to support them in terms of getting those posts fixed
:51:54. > :51:57.and back up and running again. We decided to see for ourselves and
:51:58. > :52:02.tested a random selection of the nearest available charging points.
:52:03. > :52:07.Out of ten we tried, four didn't work. And they are not just
:52:08. > :52:12.irregular. New figures from the Lib Dems on the London Assembly show
:52:13. > :52:17.they are also hardly used. Over half were not used on a single occasion
:52:18. > :52:19.they are also hardly used. Over half in the first three months of this
:52:20. > :52:24.year. The Lib Dems say the mayor should have spent his money
:52:25. > :52:30.elsewhere. Look at the black taxi fleets, there are very few electric
:52:31. > :52:37.vehicles there. By investing in vehicles the mayor can influence,
:52:38. > :52:41.taxis, ulcers, that will provide the stimulus for everyone else to
:52:42. > :52:46.follow. There are some electric buses on London's wrote is
:52:47. > :52:52.extraordinary. It just so happens there are not many of them. This is
:52:53. > :52:59.one of two electric buses on London's roads out of
:53:00. > :52:59.one of two electric buses on fleet of 8500. The difficulty is
:53:00. > :53:06.that the battery life is such that you can only use them on relatively
:53:07. > :53:10.short routes. The other difficulty is that they are not strong enough
:53:11. > :53:16.yet to drive the double-decker. Transport for London have set taxes
:53:17. > :53:26.from 2015 will have to be zero emissions capable. Already in Paris
:53:27. > :53:30.they have nearly three times as many charging points and an electric car
:53:31. > :53:35.club which has more registered vehicles when all of London's
:53:36. > :53:42.drivers put together. That might be about to change, the company behind
:53:43. > :53:49.Paris's scheme are set to work in London later this year.
:53:50. > :53:54.This is what Isabelle De Dring told us about that target. We set out a
:53:55. > :53:59.plan to achieve 100,000 electric vehicles in the capital, we are
:54:00. > :54:03.still on track to get there. We always thought 2020 might be the
:54:04. > :54:08.mark when that would be achievable. You say you want to see 100,000
:54:09. > :54:15.vehicles by 2020, that is not what the mayor said back in 2009, he said
:54:16. > :54:20.he wanted to see 100,000 vehicles on the road as soon as possible. The as
:54:21. > :54:26.soon as possible figure was based on industry reports that were talking
:54:27. > :54:30.about 2020 target so it is roughly based on that timescale. If you
:54:31. > :54:35.roughly assume the doubling we are seeing at the moment continues,
:54:36. > :54:40.100,000 will be the amount you get to in that time scale. To use
:54:41. > :54:44.another target of yours that looks like it is very behind, it is the
:54:45. > :54:52.charging posts. The mayor said there would be 25,000 by next year, there
:54:53. > :54:56.are only 1500 in London. Our experience is that people are not
:54:57. > :55:01.wanting to charge at these posts, they are very slow charging points.
:55:02. > :55:06.We are bringing in support for people to charge at home and
:55:07. > :55:12.bringing in a rapid charging network which is more like going to a petrol
:55:13. > :55:19.station. Over half of the charging posts in London simply were not
:55:20. > :55:24.used. We put them in, the initial 1500 and because they are not being
:55:25. > :55:31.used and the industry is changing rapidly, it would be insane to
:55:32. > :55:36.pursue more so we are trying to adapt. We are trying to be at the
:55:37. > :55:40.forefront of the market but you do have to readjust as you go in order
:55:41. > :55:50.to continue to be driving the market. Mark Field, what do you
:55:51. > :55:56.drive? A Ford Mondeo. How do you get this electric car market going? I
:55:57. > :56:01.think it is a good thing to try to do. We looked at this just as the
:56:02. > :56:06.economic crisis was hitting so for a lot of people there will be a
:56:07. > :56:12.question over the cost and the access. I think it is timely to get
:56:13. > :56:16.a kick start to this, to get into the hands of a private provider. I
:56:17. > :56:24.have some hopes that we will make progress. What do you drive? A mini
:56:25. > :56:30.Cooper? I use public transport, I don't drive. Would you like to see
:56:31. > :56:38.this being a priority? Absolutely. Boris Johnson promised 100000 and we
:56:39. > :56:42.have 3000 and he is going along with the David Cameron green clap mantra
:56:43. > :56:51.now. Before the election it was go blue, go green, but actually what we
:56:52. > :56:57.have seen... That is unfair. You are putting a brave face on this because
:56:58. > :57:03.it is a categorical failure. 50 million has to be returned to the
:57:04. > :57:07.Treasury because that money has not been used to make the adaptation. We
:57:08. > :57:13.will keep a very close eye on it. Time now for a look at the rest of
:57:14. > :57:19.this week's political news in 60 seconds. The price of London's daily
:57:20. > :57:25.congestion charge has risen to 11 congestion charge has risen to ?11
:57:26. > :57:31.50, ?1 50 increase from ?10 is the first hike in the feed to drive in
:57:32. > :57:35.central London since 2011. The London Assembly's housing committee
:57:36. > :57:39.was told this week that financial constraints are leading boroughs and
:57:40. > :57:43.developers towards deciding to demolish and rebuild social housing
:57:44. > :57:48.estates rather than refurbish. Norman Baker the Home Office
:57:49. > :57:52.minister has called on Boris Johnson to tell mollycoddling conductors to
:57:53. > :57:58.back off and stop lecturing passengers about safety on London's
:57:59. > :58:03.new buses. London Assembly member and Green party peer Jenny Jones has
:58:04. > :58:08.discovered her actions have been recorded on a database of domestic
:58:09. > :58:12.extremists by the Metropolitan police. Documents obtained by the
:58:13. > :58:21.politician show that officers have been tracking her political
:58:22. > :58:28.movements since 2001. Does that bother you, the police
:58:29. > :58:34.tracking? Have they been doing that to you? I have no idea but it is
:58:35. > :58:38.worrying when an elected representative is under that kind of
:58:39. > :58:43.surveillance. It is worrying and as she pointed out, they should focus
:58:44. > :58:48.on policing and not wasting their time by having surveillance on
:58:49. > :58:53.people like her. That detail, e-mails and reports, attended a
:58:54. > :58:58.rally, this and that, do you want people checking what you are up to?
:58:59. > :59:03.Most people have Twitter accounts so you can find out fairly easily. I
:59:04. > :59:09.wouldn't be too blase about it. The fact it has come out would suggest
:59:10. > :59:14.it is not exactly top secret and I would suggest the London police
:59:15. > :59:19.probably have better things to do. If you want to get hold of the
:59:20. > :59:24.information, you can apply to them and they will be obliged to tell
:59:25. > :59:41.you. Thanks for joining us. Andrew, back to you.
:59:42. > :59:47.think you'd want to. Labour grandees are not queueing up to sing his
:59:48. > :59:51.praises. Look at this. In my view, he is the leader we have and he is
:59:52. > :59:55.the leader I support and he is somebody capable of leading the
:59:56. > :00:02.party to victory. Ed Miliband will leave this to victory, and I believe
:00:03. > :00:07.he can. If he doesn't, what would happen to the Labour Party? We could
:00:08. > :00:11.be in the wilderness for 15 years. At the moment he has to convince
:00:12. > :00:17.people he has the capacity to lead the country. That's not my view, but
:00:18. > :00:19.people don't believe that. We had a leader of the Labour Party was
:00:20. > :00:26.publicly embarrassed, because whoever was in charge of press
:00:27. > :00:35.letting go through a process where we have councillors in Merseyside
:00:36. > :00:39.resigning. It was a schoolboy error. Having policies without them being
:00:40. > :00:50.drawn together into a convincing and vivid narrative and with what you do
:00:51. > :00:55.the people in the country. You have to draw together, connect the
:00:56. > :01:02.policies, link them back to the leader and give people a real sense
:01:03. > :01:08.of where you are going. Somehow he has never quite managed to be
:01:09. > :01:13.himself and create that identity with the public. And we are joined
:01:14. > :01:24.by the president of you girls, Peter Kellner. Welcome to the Sunday
:01:25. > :01:26.politics. -- YouGov. The Labour Party is six points ahead in your
:01:27. > :01:32.poll this morning. So what is the Party is six points ahead in your
:01:33. > :01:35.the next election. If the Party is six points ahead in your
:01:36. > :01:39.were today and the figures held up, you would have a Labour government
:01:40. > :01:44.with a narrow overall majority. One should not forget that. Let me make
:01:45. > :01:49.three points. The first is, in past parliaments, opposition normally
:01:50. > :01:55.lose ground and governments gain ground in the final few months. The
:01:56. > :02:01.opposition should be further ahead than this. I don't think six is
:02:02. > :02:04.enough. Secondly, Ed Miliband is behind David Cameron when people are
:02:05. > :02:07.asked who they want as Prime Minister and Labour is behind the
:02:08. > :02:11.Conservatives went people are asked who they trust on the economy. There
:02:12. > :02:14.have been elections when the party has won by being behind on
:02:15. > :02:18.leadership and other elections where they have won by being behind on the
:02:19. > :02:22.economy. No party has ever won an election when it has been clearly
:02:23. > :02:25.behind on both leadership and the economy. Let me have another go.
:02:26. > :02:25.behind on both leadership and the economy. Let me have another go The
:02:26. > :02:29.economy. Let me have another go. The Labour Party brand is a strong
:02:30. > :02:36.brand. The Tory Bramleys week. The Labour brand is stronger. That is a
:02:37. > :02:46.blast -- the Labour -- the Tory Bramleys week. A lot of the Tories
:02:47. > :02:54.-- the Tory brand is weak. Cant you win on policies and a strong party
:02:55. > :02:57.brand? If you have those too, you need the third factor which isn't
:02:58. > :03:02.there. People believing that you have what it takes, competent
:03:03. > :03:08.skills, determination, determination, whatever makes to
:03:09. > :03:15.carry through. -- whatever mix. A lot of Ed Miliband policies, on the
:03:16. > :03:19.banks, energy prices, Brent controls, people like them. But in
:03:20. > :03:24.government, would they carry them through? They think they are not up
:03:25. > :03:29.to it. -- rent controls. If people think you won't deliver what you
:03:30. > :03:33.say, even if they like it, they were necessarily vote for you. That is
:03:34. > :03:38.the missing third element. There is a strong Labour brand, but it's not
:03:39. > :03:44.strong enough to overcome the feeling that the Labour leadership
:03:45. > :03:48.is not up to it. Nick, you had some senior Labour figure telling you
:03:49. > :03:52.that if Mr Miliband losing the next election he will have to resign
:03:53. > :03:56.immediately and cannot fight another election the way Neil Kinnock did
:03:57. > :03:59.after 1987. What was remarkable to me was that people were even
:04:00. > :04:03.thinking along these lines, and even more remarkable that they would tell
:04:04. > :04:10.you they were thinking along these lines? What is the problem? The
:04:11. > :04:16.problem is, is that Ed Miliband says it would be unprecedented to win the
:04:17. > :04:20.general election after the second worst result since 1918. They are
:04:21. > :04:22.concerned about is the start of a script that he would say on the day
:04:23. > :04:26.after losing the general election. Essentially what the people are
:04:27. > :04:31.trying to do is get their argument in first and to say, you cannot do
:04:32. > :04:33.what Neil Kinnock did in 1987. Don't forget that Neil Kinnock in 1987 was
:04:34. > :04:36.forget that Neil Kinnock in 198 was in the middle of a very brave
:04:37. > :04:41.process of modernisation and had one and fought a very campaign that was
:04:42. > :04:46.professional but he lost again in 1992, and they wanted to get their
:04:47. > :04:52.line in first. What some people are saying is that this is an election
:04:53. > :04:55.that the Labour Party should be winning because the coalition is so
:04:56. > :04:59.unpopular. If you don't win, I'm afraid to say, there is something
:05:00. > :05:02.wrong with you. Don't you find it remarkable that people are prepared
:05:03. > :05:05.to think along these lines at this stage, when Labour are ahead in the
:05:06. > :05:10.polls, still the bookies favourite to win, and you start to speak
:05:11. > :05:15.publicly, or in private to the public print, but we might have to
:05:16. > :05:18.get rid of him if he doesn't win. Everything you say about labour in
:05:19. > :05:21.this situation has been said about the Tories. We wondered whether
:05:22. > :05:25.Boris Johnson would tie himself to the mask and he is the next leader
:05:26. > :05:30.in waiting if Cameron goes. It's a mirror image of that. We talk about
:05:31. > :05:33.things being unprecedented. It's unprecedented for a government to
:05:34. > :05:37.gain seats. All the things you say about labour, you could say it the
:05:38. > :05:41.Conservatives. That's what makes the next election so interesting. But in
:05:42. > :05:44.the aftermath of the European elections and the local government
:05:45. > :05:48.elections, in which the Conservatives did not do that well,
:05:49. > :05:51.the issue was not Mr Cameron or the Tories doing well, the issue was the
:05:52. > :05:54.Labour Party and how they had not done as well as they should have
:05:55. > :05:57.done, and that conversation was fuelled by the kind of people who
:05:58. > :06:03.have been speaking to nick from the Labour Party. Rachel Reeves cited
:06:04. > :06:06.their real-life performance in elections as a reason for optimism.
:06:07. > :06:11.When in fact their performance in the Europeans and locals was
:06:12. > :06:15.disappointing for an opposition one year away from a general election.
:06:16. > :06:19.What alarms me about labour is the way they react to criticisms about
:06:20. > :06:23.Ed Miliband. Two years ago when he was attacked, they said they were 15
:06:24. > :06:26.points ahead, and then a year ago there were saying they were nine or
:06:27. > :06:31.ten ahead, and now they are saying we are still five or six ahead. The
:06:32. > :06:37.trend is alarming. It points to a smaller Labour lead. Am I right in
:06:38. > :06:42.detecting a bit of a class war going on in the Labour Party? There are a
:06:43. > :06:46.lot of northern Labour MPs who think that Ed Miliband is to north London,
:06:47. > :06:53.and there are too many metropolitan cronies around him must I think that
:06:54. > :06:57.is right, Andrew. What I think is, being a pessimist in terms of their
:06:58. > :07:02.prospects, I do think the Labour Party could win the next election. I
:07:03. > :07:05.just don't think they can as they are going at the moment. But the
:07:06. > :07:12.positioning for a possible defeat, what they should be talking about is
:07:13. > :07:15.what do we need to change in the party and the way Ed Miliband
:07:16. > :07:18.performs in order to secure victory. That is a debate they could have,
:07:19. > :07:20.and they could make the changes. That is a debate they could have,
:07:21. > :07:26.and they could make the changes I find it odd that they are being so
:07:27. > :07:30.defeatist. Don't go away. Peter is a boffin when it comes to polls. That
:07:31. > :07:35.is why we have a mod for the election prediction swings and
:07:36. > :07:41.roundabouts. He is looking for what he calls the incumbency effect.
:07:42. > :07:45.Don't know what is a back-up -- what that's about question don't worry,
:07:46. > :07:54.here is an. Being in office is bad for your health. Political folk
:07:55. > :07:57.wisdom has it that incumbency favours one party in particular,
:07:58. > :07:59.wisdom has it that incumbency favours one party in particular the
:08:00. > :08:02.Liberal Democrats. That is because their MPs have a reputation as
:08:03. > :08:07.ferociously good local campaigners who do really well at holding on to
:08:08. > :08:10.their seats. However, this time round, several big-name long serving
:08:11. > :08:17.Liberal Democrats like Ming Campbell, David Heath and Don Foster
:08:18. > :08:20.are standing down. Does that mean the incumbency effect disappears
:08:21. > :08:26.like a puff of smoke? Then there is another theory, called the sophomore
:08:27. > :08:31.surge. It might sound like a movie about US college kids, but it goes
:08:32. > :08:35.like this. New MPs tend to do better in their second election than they
:08:36. > :08:39.did in their first. That could favour the Tories because they have
:08:40. > :08:44.lots of first-time MPs. The big question is, what does this mean for
:08:45. > :08:51.the 7th of May 2015, the date of the next general election? The answer
:08:52. > :08:59.is, who knows? I know a man who knows. Peter. What does it all mean?
:09:00. > :09:02.You can go onto your PC now and draw down programmes which say that these
:09:03. > :09:07.are the voting figures from a national poll, so what will the
:09:08. > :09:10.seats look like? This is based on uniform swing. Every seat moving up
:09:11. > :09:15.and down across the country in the same way. Historically, that's been
:09:16. > :09:20.a pretty good guide. I think that's going to completely break down next
:09:21. > :09:23.year, because the Lib Dems will probably hold on to more seats than
:09:24. > :09:29.we predict from the national figures and I think fewer Tory seats will go
:09:30. > :09:33.to the Labour Party than you would predict from the national figures.
:09:34. > :09:38.The precise numbers, I'm not going to be too precise, but I would be
:09:39. > :09:43.surprised, sorry, I would not be surprised if Labour fell 20 or 25
:09:44. > :09:51.seats short on what we would expect on the uniform swing prediction.
:09:52. > :09:53.Next year's election will be tight. Falling 20 seats short could well
:09:54. > :09:59.mean the difference between victory and defeat. What you make of that,
:10:00. > :10:03.Helen? I think you're right, especially taking into account the
:10:04. > :10:07.UKIP effect. We have no idea about that. The conventional wisdom is
:10:08. > :10:09.that will drain away back to the Conservatives, but nobody knows, and
:10:10. > :10:13.Conservatives, but nobody knows and it makes the next election almost
:10:14. > :10:17.impossible to call. It means it is a great target the people like Lord
:10:18. > :10:22.Ashcroft with marginal polling, because people have never been so
:10:23. > :10:26.interested. It is for party politics and we all assume that UKIP should
:10:27. > :10:33.be well next year, but their vote went up from 17 up to 27%. Then that
:10:34. > :10:38.17% went down to 3%, so they might only be five or 6% in the general
:10:39. > :10:42.election, so they might not have the threat of depriving Conservatives of
:10:43. > :10:45.their seats. Where the incumbency thing has an effect is the Liberal
:10:46. > :10:50.Democrats. They have fortress seats where between 1992 and 1997 Liberal
:10:51. > :10:55.Democrats seats fell, but their percentage went up. They are losing
:10:56. > :10:59.the local government base though. True, but having people like Ming
:11:00. > :11:03.Campbell standing down means they will struggle. We are used to
:11:04. > :11:07.incumbency being an important factor in American politics. It's hard to
:11:08. > :11:12.get rid of an incumbent unless it is a primary election, like we saw in
:11:13. > :11:15.Virginia, but is it now becoming an important factor in British
:11:16. > :11:20.politics, that if you own the seat you're more likely to hold on to it
:11:21. > :11:25.than not? If it is, that's a remarkable thing. It's hard to be a
:11:26. > :11:27.carpetbagger in America, but it is normal in British Parliamentary
:11:28. > :11:31.constituencies to be represented by someone who did not grow up locally.
:11:32. > :11:35.It is a special kind of achievement to have an incumbency effect where
:11:36. > :11:39.you don't have deep roots in the constituency. I was going to ask
:11:40. > :11:42.about the Lib Dems. If we are wrong, and they collapse in Parliamentary
:11:43. > :11:47.representation as much as the share in vote collapses, is that not good
:11:48. > :11:51.news is that the Conservatives? They would be in second place in the
:11:52. > :11:55.majority of existing Lib Dems seats. For every seat where Labour are
:11:56. > :11:58.second to the Lib Dems, there are two where the Conservatives are
:11:59. > :12:06.second. If the Lib Dem representation collapses, that helps
:12:07. > :12:11.the Conservatives. I'm assuming the Tories will gain about ten seats. If
:12:12. > :12:14.they gain 20, if they'd had 20 more seats last time, they would have had
:12:15. > :12:20.a majority government, just about. So 20 seats off the Lib Dem, do the
:12:21. > :12:24.maths, as they say in America, and they could lose a handful to labour
:12:25. > :12:27.and still be able to run a one party, minority government. The fate
:12:28. > :12:34.of the Lib Dems could be crucial to the outcome to the politics of
:12:35. > :12:39.light. On the 8th of May, it will be VE Day and victory in election day
:12:40. > :12:41.as well as Europe. The Lib Dems will be apoplectic if they lose all of
:12:42. > :12:48.the seats to their coalition partners. The great quote by Angela
:12:49. > :12:52.Merkel, the little party always gets crushed. It's a well-established
:12:53. > :12:55.idea that coalition politics. They can't take credit for the things
:12:56. > :12:59.people like you may get lumbered with the ones they don't. They have
:13:00. > :13:02.contributed most of this terrible idea that seized politics where you
:13:03. > :13:08.say it, but you don't deliver it. Tuition fees is the classic example
:13:09. > :13:12.of this Parliament. Why should you believe any promise you make? And Ed
:13:13. > :13:17.Miliband is feeling that as well. But in 1974 the liberal Democrats
:13:18. > :13:19.barely had any MPs but there were reporters outside Jeremy Thorpe s
:13:20. > :13:25.home because they potentially held not the balance of power, but were
:13:26. > :13:28.significantly in fourth. Bringing back memories Jeremy Thorpe, and we
:13:29. > :13:32.will leave it there. Thanks to the panel. We are tomorrow on BBC Two.
:13:33. > :13:37.At the earlier time of 11am because of Wimbledon. Yes, it's that time of
:13:38. > :13:41.year again already. I will be back here at 11 o'clock next week.
:13:42. > :14:38.Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.
:14:39. > :14:43.to the beating heart of today's vibrant shops.