22/06/2014 Sunday Politics London

Welfare reform is one of the government's most popular policies.

So Labour says it would be even tougher than the Tories.

We'll be asking the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary if she's got

Even Labour supporters worry that Ed Miliband hasn't got what it takes

Labour grandees are increasingly vocal about their concerns.

Over 50% of Labour voters think they'd do better with a new leader.

And what of this leader? He's apparently "toxic" on the doorstep.

The polls say Nick Clegg's more unpopular than Gordon Brown,

We'll be asking a former Lib Dem leader:

promised an electric car revolution, why so little progress?

Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, the toxic tweeters

First, the deepening crisis in Iraq, where Sunni Islamists are now

largely in control of the Syrian-Iraq border, which means

they can now re-supply their forces in Iraq from their Syrian bases

Rather than moving on Baghdad, they are for the moment consolidating

their grip on the towns and cities they've already taken.

They also seem to be in effective control of Iraq's

biggest oil refinery, which supplies the capital.

And there are reports they might now have taken the power

Iraqi politicians are now admitting that ISIS,

the name of the Sunni insurgents, is better trained, better equipped and

far more battle-hardened than the US-trained Iraqi army fighting it.

Which leaves the fate of Baghdad increasingly in the hands

No good news coming out of there, Janan. No good news and no good

options either. The West's best strategy is to decide how much

support to give to the Iraqi government. The US is sending over

about 275 military personnel. Do they go further and contemplate

their support? General Petraeus argued against it as it might be

seen as the US serving as the force of Shia Iraqis -- continue their

support. Do we contemplate breaking up Iraq? It won't be easy. The Sunni

and Shia Muslim populations don't and Shia Muslim populations don t

live in clearly bordered areas, but in the longer term, do we deal with

it in the same way we dealt with the break-up of the Ottoman empire over

100 years ago? In the short-term and long-term, completely confounding.

Quite humiliating. If ISIS take Baghdad I can't think of a bigger

ignominy for foreign policy since Suez. If Iraq is partitioned, it

won't be up to us. It will be what is happening because of what is

happening on the ground. Everything does point to partition, and that

border, which ISIS control, between Syria and Iraq, that has been there

since it was drawn during the First World War. That is gone as well An

astonishingly humbling situation the West, and you can see the Kurds in

the North think this is a charge -- chance for authority. They think

this is the chance to get the autonomy they felt they deserved a

long time. Janan is right. We can't do much in the long term, but we

have to decide on the engagement. And the other people wish you'd be

talking turkey, because if there is some blowback and the fighters come

back, they are likely to come back from Turkey. Where is Iran in all of

this? There were reports last week that the Revolutionary guard, the

head of it, he was already in Baghdad with 67 advisers and there

might have been some brigades that have gone there as well. Where are

they? What has happened? I'm pretty sure the Prime Minister of Iraq is

putting more faith in Iran than the White House and the British. I think

they are running the show, in technical terms. John Kerry is

flying into Cairo this morning, and what is his message? It is twofold.

One is to Arab countries, do more to encourage an inclusive government in

Iraq, mainly Sunni Muslims in the government, and the Arab Gulf states

should stop funding insurgents in Iraq. You think, Iraq, it's

potentially going to break up, so this sounds a bit late in the day

and a bit weak. It gets fundamentally to the problem, what

can we do? Niall Ferguson has a big piece in the Sunday Times asking if

this is place where we cannot doing anything. He doesn't want to do

anything. By the way, that is what most Americans think. That is what

opinion polls are showing. You have George Osborne Michael Gold who

would love to get involved but they cannot because of the vote in

parliament on Syria lasted -- George Osborne and Michael Gove. This

government does not have the stomach for military intervention. We will

see how events unfold on the ground. All parties are agreed that

Britain's 60-year old multi-billion The Tory side of the Coalition think

their reforms are necessary and popular, though they haven't

always gone to time or to plan. In the eight months she's had since

she became Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves

has talked the talk about getting people off benefits, into work and

lowering the overall welfare bill. her first interview

in the job she threatened "We would But Labour has opposed just

about every change the Coalition has proposed to cut the cost

and change the culture of welfare. Child benefit, housing benefit,

the ?26,000 benefit cap - They've been lukewarm about

the government's flagship Universal Credit scheme - which rolls six

benefit payments into one - and And Labour has set out only

two modest welfare cuts. This week, Labour said young people

must have skills or be in training That will save ?65 million,

says Labour, though the cost And cutting winter fuel payments

for richer pensioners which will Not a lot in a total welfare bill

of around ?200 billion. And with welfare cuts popular among

even Labour voters, they will soon have to start spelling out exactly

what Labour welfare reform means. Welcome. Good morning. Why do you

want to be tougher than the Tories? We want to be tough in getting the

welfare bill down. Under this government, the bill will be ?1

million more than the government set out in 2010 and I don't think that

is acceptable. We should try to control the cost of Social Security.

But the welfare bill under the next Labour government will fall? It will

be smaller when you end the first parliament than when you started? We

signed up to the capping welfare but that doesn't see social security

costs ball, it sees them go up in line with with inflation or average

earnings -- costs fall. So where flair will rise? We have signed up

to the cap -- welfare will rise? flair will rise? We have signed up

to the cap -- welfare will rise We have signed up to the cap. We will

get the costs under control and they haven't managed to achieve it. The

government is spending ?13 billion more on Social Security and the

reason they are doing it is because the minimum wage has not kept pace

with the cost of living so people are reliant on tax credits. They are

not building houses and people are relying on housing benefit. We have

a record number of people on zero hours contracts. I'm still not clear

if you will cut welfare if you get in power. Nobody is saying that the

cost of welfare is going to fall. The welfare cap sees that happening

gradually. That is a Tory cap. And you've accepted it. You're being the

same as the Tories, not to. If they had a welfare cap, they would have

breached it in every year of the parliament. Social Security will be

higher than the government set out because they failed to control it.

You read the polls, and the party does lots of its own polling, and

you're scared of being seen as the welfare party. You don't really

believe all of this anti-welfare stuff? We are the party of work not

welfare. The Labour Party was set up in the first place because we

believe in the dignity of work and we believe that work should pay

wages can afford to live on. I make no apologies for being the party of

work. We are not the welfare party, we are the party of work. Even your

confidential strategy document admits that voters don't trust you

on immigration, the economy, this is your own people, and welfare. You

are not trusted on it. The most recent poll showed Labour slightly

ahead of the Conservative Party on Social Security, probably because

they have seen the incompetence and chaos at the Department for Work and

Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith. Your own internal document means

that the voters don't trust you on welfare reform. That is why we have

shown some of this tough things we will do like the announcement that

Ed Miliband made earlier this week, that young people without basic

qualifications won't be entitled to just sign on for benefits, they have

to sign up for training in order to receive support. That is the right

thing to do by that group of young people, because they need skills to

progress. We will, once that. - we progress. We will, once that. -- we

will, onto that. You say you criticise the government that it had

a cap and wouldn't have met it, but every money-saving welfare reform,

you voted against it. How is that being tougher? The most recent bout

was the cap on overall welfare expenditure, and we went through the

lobbies and voted for the Tories. You voted against the benefit cap,

welfare rating, you voted against, child benefit schemes, you voted

against. You can't say we voted against everything when we voted

with the Conservatives in the most recent bill with a cap on Social

Security. It's just not correct to say. The last time we voted, we

walked through the lobby with them. You voted on the principle of the

cap. You voted on every step that would allow the cap to be met. Every

single one. The most recent vote was not on the principle of the cap, it

was on a cap of Social Security in the next Parliament and we signed up

for that. It was Ed Miliband who called her that earlier on. Which

welfare reform did you vote for? We welfare reform did you vote for We

voted for the cap. Other than that? We have supported universal credit.

You voted against it in the third reading. We voted against some of

the specifics. If you look at universal credit, they have had to

write off nearly ?900 million of spending. I'm not on the rights and

wrongs, I'm trying to work out what you voted for. Some of the things we

are going to go further than the government with. For example,

cutting benefits for young people who don't sign of the training. The

government had introduced that. For example, saying that the richest

pensioners should not get the winter fuel allowance, that is something

the government haven't signed up. You would get that under Labour and

this government haven't signed up for it. ?100 million on the winter

fuel allowance and ?65 million on youth training. ?165 million.

fuel allowance and ?65 million on would apply to ?120 billion. And

you've saved 125 -- 165 million? Those are cuts that we said we would

do in government. If you look at the real prize from the changes Ed

Miliband announced in the youth allowance, it's not the short-term

savings, it's the fact that each of these young people, who are

currently on unemployment benefits without the skills we know they need

to succeed in life, they will cost the taxpayer ?2000 per year. I will

come onto that. You mentioned universal credit, which the

government regards as the flagship reform. It's had lots of troubles

with it and it merges six benefits into one. You voted against it in

the third reading and given lukewarm support in the past. We have not

said he would abandon it, but now you say you are for it. You are all

over the place. We set up the rescue committee in autumn of last year

because we have seen from the National Audit Office and the Public

Accounts Committee, report after report showing that the project is

massively overbudget and is not going to be delivered according to

the government timetable. We set up the committee because we believe in

the principle of universal credit and think it is the right thing to

do. Can you tell us now if you will keep it or not? Because there is no

transparency and we have no idea. We are awash with information. We are

not. The government, in the most recent National audit Forest --

National Audit Office statement said it was a reset project. This is

really important. This is a flagship government programme, and it's going

to cost ?12.8 billion to deliver, and we don't know what sort of state

it is in, so we have said that if we win at the next election, we will

pause that for three months and calling... Will you stop the pilots?

We don't know what status they will have. We would stop the build of the

system for three months, calling the National Audit Office to do awards

and all report. The government don't need to do this until the next

general election, they could do it today. Stop throwing good money

after bad and get a grip of this incredibly important programme. You

said you don't know enough to a view now. So when you were invited to a

job centre where universal credit is being rolled out to see how it was

working, you refused to go. Why? We asked were a meeting with Iain

Duncan Smith and he cancelled the meeting is three times. I'm talking

about the visit when you were offered to go to a job centre and

you refused. We had an appointment to meet Iain Duncan Smith at the

Department for Work and Pensions and said he cancelled and was not

available, but he wanted us to go to the job centre. We wanted to talk to

him and his officials, which she did. Would it be more useful to go

to the job centre and find out how it was working. He's going to tell

you it's working fine. Advice Bureau in Hammersmith, they

are working to help the people trying to claim universal credit.

Iain Duncan Smith cancelled three meetings. That is another issue, I

was asking about the job centre. meetings. That is another issue, I

was asking about the job centre It is not another issue because Iain

Duncan Smith fogged us off. This week you said that jobless

youngsters who won't take training will lose their welfare payments.

How many young people are not in work training or education? There

are 140,000 young people claiming benefits at the moment, but 850 000

young people who are not in work at the moment. This applies to around

100,000 young people. There are actually 975,000, 16-24 -year-olds,

not in work, training or education. Your proposal only applies to

100,000 of them, why? This is applying to young people who are

signing on for benefits rather than signing up for training. We want to

make sure that all young people... Why only 100,000? They are the ones

currently getting job-seeker's allowance. We are saying you can not

just sign up to... Can I get you to respond to this, the number of

people not in work, training or education fell last year by more

than you are planning to help. Long turn -- long-term unemployment is an

entrenched problem... This issue about an entrenched group of young

people. Young people who haven't got skills and are not in training we

know are much less likely to get a job so there are 140,018-24

-year-olds signing onto benefits at the moment. This is about trying to

address that problem to make sure all young people have the skills

they need to get a job. Your policy is to take away part of the dole

unless young unemployed people agree to study for level three

qualifications, the equivalent of an AS-level or an NVQ but 40% of these

people have the literary skills of a nine-year-old. After all that failed

education, how are you going to train them to a level standard? We

are saying that anyone who doesn't have that a level or equivalent

qualification will be required to go back to college. We are not saying

that within a year they have to get up to that level but these are

exactly the sorts of people... These people have been failed by your

education system. These people are, for the last four years, have been

educated under a Conservative government. 18 - 21-year-olds, most

of them have their education under a Labour government during which

300,000 people left with no GCSEs whatsoever. I don't understand how

training for one year can do what 11 years in school did not. We are not

saying that within one year everybody will get up to a level

three qualifications, but if you are one of those people who enters the

Labour market age 18 with the reading skills of a nine-year-old,

they are the sorts of people that should not the left languishing. I

should not the left languishing I went to college in Hackney if you

you are -- a few weeks ago and there was a dyslexic boy studying painting

and decorating. In school they decided he was a troublemaker and

that he didn't want to learn. He went back to college because he

wanted to get the skills. He said that it wasn't until he went back to

college that he could pick up a newspaper and read it, it made a

huge difference but too many people are let down by the system. I am

wondering how the training will make up for an education system that

failed them but let's move on to your leader. Look at this graph of

Ed Miliband's popularity. This is the net satisfaction with him, it is

dreadful. The trend continues to climb since he became leader of the

Labour Party, why? What you have seen is another 2300 Labour

councillors since Ed Miliband became the leader of the Labour Party. You

saw in the elections a month ago that... Why is the satisfaction rate

falling? We can look at polls or actual election results and the fact

that we have got another 2000 Labour councillors, more people voting

Labour, the opinion polls today show that if there was a general election

today we would have a majority of more than 40, he must be doing

something right. Why do almost 50% of voters want to replace him as

leader? Why do 50% and more think that he is not up to the job? The

more people see Ed Miliband, the less impressed they are. The British

people seem to like him less. The election strategy I suggest that

follows from that is that you should keep Ed Miliband under wraps until

the election. Let's look at actually what happens when people get a

chance to vote, when they get that opportunity we have seen more Labour

councillors, more Labour members of the European Parliament...

Oppositions always get more. The opinion polls today, one of them

shows Labour four points ahead. You have not done that well in local

government elections or European elections. Why don't people like

him? I think we have done incredibly well in elections. People must like

a lot of the things Labour and Ed Miliband are doing because we are

winning back support across the country. We won local councils in

places like Hammersmith and Fulham, Crawley, Hastings, key places that

Labour need to win back at the general election next year. Even you

have said traditional Labour supporters are abandoning the party.

That is what Ed Miliband has said as well. We have got this real concern

about what has happened. If you look at the elections in May, 60% of

people didn't even bother going to vote. That is a profound issue not

just for Labour. You said traditional voters who perhaps at

times we took for granted are now being offered an alternative. Why

did you take them for granted? This is what Ed Miliband said. I am not

saying anything Ed Miliband himself has not said. When he ran for the

leadership he said that we took too many people for granted and we

needed to give people positive reasons to vote Labour, he has been

doing that. He has been there for four years and you are saying you

still take them for granted. Why? I am saying that for too long we have

taken them for granted. We are on track to win the general election

next year and that will defy all the odds. You are going to win... Ed

Miliband will win next year and make a great Prime Minister.

Now to the Liberal Democrats, at the risk of intruding into private

grief. The party is still smarting from dire results in the European

and Local Elections. The only poll Nick Clegg has won in recent times

is to be voted the most unpopular leader of a party in modern British

history. No surprise there have been calls for him to go, though that

still looks unlikely. Here's Eleanor.

Liberal Democrats celebrating, something we haven't seen for a

while. This victory back in 1998 led while. This victory back in 199 led

to a decade of power for the Lib Dems in Liverpool. What a contrast

to the city's political landscape today. At its height the party had

69 local councillors, now down to just three. The scale of the

challenge facing Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems is growing. The party is

rock bottom in the polls, consistently in single figures. It

was wiped out in the European elections losing all but one of its

12 MEPs and in the local elections it lost 42% of the seats that it was

defending. But on Merseyside, Nick Clegg was putting on a brave face.

We did badly in Liverpool, Manchester and London in particular,

we did well in other places. But you are right, we did badly in some of

those big cities and I have initiated a review, quite

naturally, to understand what went wrong, what went right. As Lib Dems

across the country get on with some serious soul-searching, there is an

admission that his is the leader of the party who is failing to hit the

right notes. Knocking on doors in Liverpool, I have to tell you that

Nick Clegg is not a popular person. Some might use the word toxic and I

find this very difficult because I know Nick very well and I see a

principal person who passionately believes in what he is doing and he

is a nice guy. As a result of his popularity, what has happened to the

core vote? In parts of the country, we are down to just three

councillors like Liverpool for example. You also lose the

deliverers and fundraisers and the organisers and the members of course

so all of that will have to be rebuilt. As they start fermenting

process, local parties across the country and here in Liverpool have

been voting on whether there should be a leadership contest. We had two

choices to flush out and have a go at Nick Clegg or to positively

decide we would sharpen up the campaign and get back on the

streets, and by four to one ratio we decided to get back on the streets.

We are bruised and battered but we are still here, the orange flag is

still flying and one day it will fly over this building again, Liverpool

town hall. But do people want the Lib Dems back in charge in this

city? I certainly wouldn't vote for them. Their performance in

Government and the way they have left their promises down, I could

not vote for them again. I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of

the university tuition fees and I would never vote for them again

because they broke their promise. The Lib Dems are awful, broken

promises and what have you. I wouldn't vote for them. This is the

declaration of the results for the Northwest... Last month, as other

party celebrated in the north-west, the Lib Dems here lost their only

MEP, Chris Davies. Now there is concern the party doesn't know how

to turn its fortunes around. We don't have an answer to that, if we

did we would be grasping it with both hands. We will do our best to

hold onto the places where we still have seats but as for the rest of

the country where we have been hollowed out, we don't know how to

start again until the next general election is out of the way. After

their disastrous performance in the European elections, pressure is

growing for the party to shift its stance. I think there has to be a

lancing of the wound, there should in a referendum and the Liberal

Democrats should be calling it. The rest of Europe once this because

they are fed up with Britain being unable to make up its mind. The Lib

Dems are now suffering the effects of being in Government. The party's

problem, choosing the right course to regain political credibility.

We can now speak to form a Lib Dems leader Ming Campbell. Welcome back

to the Sunday Politics. Even your own activists say that Nick Clegg is

toxic. How will that change between now and the election? When you have

had disappointing results, but you have to do is to rebuild. You pick

yourself up and start all over again, and the reason why the

Liberal Democrats got 57, 56 seats in the House of Commons now is

because we picked ourselves up, we took every opportunity and we have

rebuilt from the bottom up. least popular leader in modern

history and more unpopular than your mate Gordon Brown. You are running

out of time. No one believes that being the leader of a modern

political party in the UK is an easy job. Both Ed Miliband and David

Cameron must have had cause to think, over breakfast this morning,

when they saw the headlines in some of the Sunday papers. Of course it

is a difficult job but it was pointed out a moment or two ago that

Nick Clegg is a man of principle and enormous resilience if you consider

what he had to put up with, and in my view, he is quite clearly the

person best qualified to lead the party between now and the general

election and through the election campaign, and beyond. So why don't

people like him? We have had to take some pretty difficult decisions,

some pretty difficult decisions and, of course, people didn't expect

that. If you look back to the rather heady days of the rose garden behind

ten Downing St, people thought it was all going to be sweetness and

light, but the fact is, we didn t light, but the fact is, we didn't

know then what we know now, about the extent of the economic crisis we

win, and a lot of difficult decisions have had to be taken in

order to restore economic stability. Look around you. You will see we are

not there yet but we are a long way better off than in 2010. You are not

getting the credit for it, the Tories are. We will be a little more

assertive about taking the credit. For example, the fact that 23

million people have had a tax cut of ?800 per year and we have taken 2

million people out of paying tax altogether. Ming Campbell, your

people say that on every programme like this. Because it is true. That

might be the case, but you are at seven or 8% in the polls, and nobody

is listening, or they don't believe it. Once

is listening, or they don't believe doubt that what we have achieved

will be much more easily recognised, and there is no doubt,

for example, in some of the recent polls, like the Ashcroft Pole,

something like 30% of those polled said that as a result at the next

something like 30% of those polled general election, they would prepare

their to be a coalition involving the Liberal Democrats. So there is

no question that the whole notion of coalition is still very much a live

one, and one which we have made work in the public interest. The problem

is people don't think that. People see you trying to have your cake and

eat it. On the one hand you want to get your share of the credit for the

turnaround in the economy, on the other hand you can't stop yourself

from distancing yourself from the Tories and things that you did not

like happening. You are trying to face both ways at once. If you

remember our fellow Scotsman famously said you cannot ride both

remember our fellow Scotsman to the terms -- terms of the

remember our fellow Scotsman coalition agreement, which is what

we signed up to in 2010. In addition, in furtherance of that

agreement, we have created things like the pupil premium and the

others I mentioned and you were rather dismissive. I'm not

dismissive, I'm just saying they don't make a difference to what

people think of you. We will do everything in our power to change

that between now and May 2015. The interesting thing is, going back to

the Ashcroft result, it demonstrated clearly that in constituencies where

we have MPs and we are well dug in, we are doing everything that the

public expects of us, and we are doing very well indeed. You aren't

sure fellow Lib Dems have been saying this for you -- you and your

fellow Liberal Dems have been saying this for a year or 18 months, and

since then you have lost all of your MEPs apart from one, you lost your

deposit in a by-election, you lost 310 councillor, including everyone

in Manchester or Islington. Mr Clegg leading you into the next general

election will be the equivalent of the charge of the light Brigade. I

the charge of the light Brigade I doubt that very much. The

implication behind that lit you rehearsed is that we should pack our

tents in the night and steal away. -- that litany. And if you heard in

that piece that preceded the discussion, people were saying, look

we have to start from the bottom and have to rebuild. That is exactly

what we will do. Nine months is a period of gestation. As you well

know. I wouldn't dismiss it quite so easily as that. I'm not here to say

we had a wonderful result or anything like it, but what I do say

is that the party is determined to turn it round, and that Nick Clegg

is the person best qualified to do it. Should your party adopt a

referendum about in or out on Europe? No, we should stick to the

coalition agreement. If there is any transfer of power from Westminster

to Brussels, that will be subject to a referendum. No change. And

finally, as a Lib Dem, you must be glad you are not fighting the next

election yourself? I've fought every election since 1974, so I've had a

few experiences, some good, some bad, but the one thing I have done

and the one thing a lot of other people have done is that they have

stuck to the task, and that is what will happen in May 2015. Ming

Campbell, thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35am, you're

watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,

the Week Ahead..First though,

the Sunday Politics where you are. Hello and welcome from us. This week

we have been looking for power, for our vehicle anyway. Five years after

the mayor promised an electric car revolution, why has there been so

little energy behind this initiative? That will be coming up

later, and discussing that will be my guests, Tory MP Mark Field. Let's

talk to verse about housing and homelessness, and the latest

government figures showing that homelessness has risen in London.

30,000 households approaching the local authority to be rehoused, 10%

example -- rise on last year. Is that an indictment? I think

London's housing across the board, which

London's housing across the board, but a terrible tragedy, and all that

is no rough sleeping has got worse in recent years and we can see that

from representing a central London seat, but also the whole issue with

higher taxes, stamp duty and the prospect of a mansion tax which will

be attacks on Londoners, because Londoners, those in growing

families, they want to be able to move. It's a hell of a mess and it

needs to be dealt with both that local government level and also

centrally. It is a problem under the Tory government, but it would be

made worse under yours. Mark is skirting around the issues.

Homelessness has gone up dramatically. Rough sleeping was

halved under the last government. It's gone up dramatically. The

reason that has happened is because Boris Johnson has taken the

responsibility for private landlords, when they are building,

to give a high enough proportion of housing towards social renting.

There are also a whole set of consequences around homeless people

being given shelter, to keep them off the streets. 4000 of them having

got rid of. Homeless charities have been shut down. When you add it all

up, all of those pressures, it's not surprising there is a crisis in

housing as well as homelessness. That's because the government took

their eye off the ball and Boris Johnson has not used his powers and

influence in order to increase the supply of social housing. Mark? I

don't want to get into a battle about what was happening under the

old regime. It did slow down, so give us some credit for that. You

have increased the number of people who are homeless. In my

constituency, 22,000 people are on waiting lists for 2000 properties

and homelessness is going up across London. What will you do about it?

We have seen that Boris Johnson has been trying to ensure that we get

more house building going on in the capital. But we are a global capital

and one of the problems we face is that we are attracting a huge amount

of money coming from across the world. House prices are at an

all-time high. A particular problem with the overheated housing market.

I think where Boris has a good initiative is to try to build more

social housing in some of the far-flung London boroughs. Part of

the difficulty is that there is a knot in my backyard factor, and the

sense that a lot of this takes time to build. But the truth is, there

has been a housing crisis for 4 or has been a housing crisis for 40 or

50 years and you won't serve it in double quick time -- solve it. There

is a massive supply issue across the country and we have promised to

build 200,000 homes in the next Parliament. We need to do more but

they government currently is not prioritising house-building. Let's

move on. Democracy is thriving in Tower Hamlets, so said the

independent mayor after more questions were raised this week

about the legitimacy of his election last month for a second term at the

helm in the borough. He has been served with a High Court petition

alleging electoral fraud in several guises.

A petition calling for last month mayoral election in Tower Hamlets to

be held again has been submitted to the High Court by four local

residents, alleging electoral fraud, corruption and political smears by

the mayor Atropos Tower Hamlets first party. We have received

allegations of corruption across the borough, and we are examining those

allegations. And our solicitor is collating information. It is claimed

the votes were cast in the name of people not entitled to be on the

electoral register. Voting papers were acquired and then marked in

favour of Mr Rahman. Campaigners also handed out leaflets and try to

make people vote for Mr Rahman. Allegations have also been made

against the returning officer, John Williams. He is alleged to have

allowed people to canvass votes in polling stations, to accompany

voters into the compartment when they cast their vote and to leave

campaign material in and around voting compartments. He has said he

will not comment specifically on the petition as he is taking legal

advice. However, he says the measures he put in place for the

elections were the toughest available within the current law.

However, should the court take a different view, it's possible that

the election could be rerun, a move welcomed by the losing Labour

candidate. I don't want to come across as a bad loser. I lost the

election, the result was declared, but if serious questions are being

asked, what they need to be explored. This petition is the

latest in a series of investigations into Tower Hamlets. The Metropolitan

Police is investigating 84 complaints into the election. It

said in the majority of cases, no criminal offences happened -- been

committed. The electoral commission has also launched a review into the

count. Mr Rahman was not available to join us, but is newly appointed

deputy is here. Welcome to you. Here is the petition. You have seen it.

Shall we just run down it? It alleges electoral fraud in a variety

of forms and casting votes in the name of people who weren't entitled

to be on the register. First of all, the petition is very thin in

evidence. We have not seen anything new in the petition which has not

been said previously by the opponent. Secondly, when they served

a notice, Mayor Rahman did not receive the petition before the

media have it. They did not just serve the petition, they had a press

Conference, then they served it to the mayor. That gives me reason to

believe that there may be other motives than genuine concern. That

is procedural, and we do take your point that there is an absence of

detail at the moment because there will have to be witness statements

taken, but the broad principle, it is being alleged that there were

people who should not have been on the electoral register that had

postal votes. Is there any evidence? There is no evidence. We have not

seen any evidence. The police have said there has been no criminal

activity taking place. There has not been any serious allegation made to

the police on the day. All of these allegations came after the election,

two or three days after, so if people had concerns on the day about

some of the things you heard in the report, people should have raised it

there and then with the police officers. You know there were 8

complaints. A case is being investigated and two people

arrested. One of them was a Tory candidate. This might be an easier

one to be more specific about, and to be put at the mayor's tour, which

is paying canvassers to go round and rally support. We have not paid

anybody to canvass for us. Even in my own board, two people allowed us

to use their living room on election day so people could, rest and take a

break. Those people did not charge us and nor did we pay anyone to

canvass or support us. What about around the polling stations? Agents

of your party, it is said, going into polling stations, leaving

material in the polling stations. Did that happen? I did not see

anything. There were police officers in and out of the polling station.

Where people were gathering, this is not new in Tower Hamlets. When I was

in the Labour Party, the same thing happened. People would gather

outside the polling stations, and they take a keen interest in

democratic process. Party and the Conservatives cannot

accept the Mayor Rahman has won the election fair and square in the

democratic process and they are not willing to accept the decision made

by people. We have one of the local MPs here with us, sour grapes. This

is a group of residents, one of them is a member, who have acted

independently and our mayoral candidate has on this programme

accepted, and accepted it at the time and on your programme, that he

has lost. If the public don't have confidence in what happened,

obviously that needs to be investigated and it is the subject

of an investigation by the Electoral Commission. So we don't know if

there is any evidence of wrongdoing. That is a matter for the

institutions doing those investigations. What I am concerned

about is this attitude which Ollie has expressed as well, which is that

whenever people raise concerns or complaints it is the fault of the

Labour Party or other parties. Actually, what we need to do is

focus on the things that the public are concerned about and all parties

need to make sure the public has confidence in the electoral process

and there were some serious concerns made about the account which I was

at on Sunday... There were issues around the account as well. Mark,

who are not on the petition, one of the councillors is helping to fund

it in the next stage. We have more councillors than we have had in 100

years. The truth really is, and I think it is very sad in Tower

Hamlets that it has become a watchword for corruption and

cronyism as a local authority. We saw the shambles with the count that

went on for days and there is It seems this second term has begun

with sleaze. This is an endorsement by the residents of Tower Hamlets

and the voters, and endorsement for all programmes for the next four

years. We are the only London borough still paying educational

maintenance allowance, still providing home care for our elderly

people. His government praised us for the education we are delivering

for young people in the borough and this is what we should be talking

about. If there is an issue or a concern, nobody is above the law,

but the issue here is that they are talking about the mayoral election

but on the same day there was a local authority election and a

European election. It is a coincidence that they are not

talking about the other two elections. That's right, we are

focusing on the mayoral election, but watch this space.

Five years ago the mayor said he intended to make, London's mayor of

course, London the electrical capital of Europe. Look at the

results now and observers say there has been a distinct lack of

progress. Just over five years ago the Mayor

launched an ambitious plan to make London the electric vehicle capital

of Europe. Electric vehicles are at last a technology that is on the

cusp of mass consumer participation. London should be the ideal place for

electric vehicles to pick up, you don't have to pay the congestion

charge and journeys tend to be shorts so you don't worry about

running out of battery but at least so far the pick-up has not been

great. The mayor said he wanted 100,000 electric vehicles on the

roads as soon as possible but five years on London has only made it up

to 3% of that target. At this Carla -- car dealership in Finchley they

say there are electric cars are set to be the biggest sellers of the

year. They are green but they do rely on this. I think the customers

thought that unless they are doing short journeys electric vehicles may

not be the answer. Could these be the answer? This is where you plug

in your electric vehicle to charge it. Five years ago the mayor said

there would be 25,000 on our streets, as it stands there are just

1500. Users complain that all too often they simply don't work. People

in this car club are regular users have and have experienced

difficulties. Where they have not been used, we have had incidents

where we have had to support them in terms of getting those posts fixed

and back up and running again. We decided to see for ourselves and

tested a random selection of the nearest available charging points.

Out of ten we tried, four didn't work. And they are not just

irregular. New figures from the Lib Dems on the London Assembly show

they are also hardly used. Over half were not used on a single occasion

they are also hardly used. Over half in the first three months of this

year. The Lib Dems say the mayor should have spent his money

elsewhere. Look at the black taxi fleets, there are very few electric

vehicles there. By investing in vehicles the mayor can influence,

taxis, ulcers, that will provide the stimulus for everyone else to

follow. There are some electric buses on London's wrote is

extraordinary. It just so happens there are not many of them. This is

one of two electric buses on London's roads out of

one of two electric buses on fleet of 8500. The difficulty is

that the battery life is such that you can only use them on relatively

short routes. The other difficulty is that they are not strong enough

yet to drive the double-decker. Transport for London have set taxes

from 2015 will have to be zero emissions capable. Already in Paris

they have nearly three times as many charging points and an electric car

club which has more registered vehicles when all of London's

drivers put together. That might be about to change, the company behind

Paris's scheme are set to work in London later this year.

This is what Isabelle De Dring told us about that target. We set out a

plan to achieve 100,000 electric vehicles in the capital, we are

still on track to get there. We always thought 2020 might be the

mark when that would be achievable. You say you want to see 100,000

vehicles by 2020, that is not what the mayor said back in 2009, he said

he wanted to see 100,000 vehicles on the road as soon as possible. The as

soon as possible figure was based on industry reports that were talking

about 2020 target so it is roughly based on that timescale. If you

roughly assume the doubling we are seeing at the moment continues,

100,000 will be the amount you get to in that time scale. To use

another target of yours that looks like it is very behind, it is the

charging posts. The mayor said there would be 25,000 by next year, there

are only 1500 in London. Our experience is that people are not

wanting to charge at these posts, they are very slow charging points.

We are bringing in support for people to charge at home and

bringing in a rapid charging network which is more like going to a petrol

station. Over half of the charging posts in London simply were not

used. We put them in, the initial 1500 and because they are not being

used and the industry is changing rapidly, it would be insane to

pursue more so we are trying to adapt. We are trying to be at the

forefront of the market but you do have to readjust as you go in order

to continue to be driving the market. Mark Field, what do you

drive? A Ford Mondeo. How do you get this electric car market going? I

think it is a good thing to try to do. We looked at this just as the

economic crisis was hitting so for a lot of people there will be a

question over the cost and the access. I think it is timely to get

a kick start to this, to get into the hands of a private provider. I

have some hopes that we will make progress. What do you drive? A mini

Cooper? I use public transport, I don't drive. Would you like to see

this being a priority? Absolutely. Boris Johnson promised 100000 and we

have 3000 and he is going along with the David Cameron green clap mantra

now. Before the election it was go blue, go green, but actually what we

have seen... That is unfair. You are putting a brave face on this because

it is a categorical failure. 50 million has to be returned to the

Treasury because that money has not been used to make the adaptation. We

will keep a very close eye on it. Time now for a look at the rest of

this week's political news in 60 seconds. The price of London's daily

congestion charge has risen to 11 congestion charge has risen to ?11

50, ?1 50 increase from ?10 is the first hike in the feed to drive in

central London since 2011. The London Assembly's housing committee

was told this week that financial constraints are leading boroughs and

developers towards deciding to demolish and rebuild social housing

estates rather than refurbish. Norman Baker the Home Office

minister has called on Boris Johnson to tell mollycoddling conductors to

back off and stop lecturing passengers about safety on London's

new buses. London Assembly member and Green party peer Jenny Jones has

discovered her actions have been recorded on a database of domestic

extremists by the Metropolitan police. Documents obtained by the

politician show that officers have been tracking her political

movements since 2001. Does that bother you, the police

tracking? Have they been doing that to you? I have no idea but it is

worrying when an elected representative is under that kind of

surveillance. It is worrying and as she pointed out, they should focus

on policing and not wasting their time by having surveillance on

people like her. That detail, e-mails and reports, attended a

rally, this and that, do you want people checking what you are up to?

Most people have Twitter accounts so you can find out fairly easily. I

wouldn't be too blase about it. The fact it has come out would suggest

it is not exactly top secret and I would suggest the London police

probably have better things to do. If you want to get hold of the

information, you can apply to them and they will be obliged to tell

you. Thanks for joining us. Andrew, back to you.

think you'd want to. Labour grandees are not queueing up to sing his

praises. Look at this. In my view, he is the leader we have and he is

the leader I support and he is somebody capable of leading the

party to victory. Ed Miliband will leave this to victory, and I believe

he can. If he doesn't, what would happen to the Labour Party? We could

be in the wilderness for 15 years. At the moment he has to convince

people he has the capacity to lead the country. That's not my view, but

people don't believe that. We had a leader of the Labour Party was

publicly embarrassed, because whoever was in charge of press

letting go through a process where we have councillors in Merseyside

resigning. It was a schoolboy error. Having policies without them being

drawn together into a convincing and vivid narrative and with what you do

the people in the country. You have to draw together, connect the

policies, link them back to the leader and give people a real sense

of where you are going. Somehow he has never quite managed to be

himself and create that identity with the public. And we are joined

by the president of you girls, Peter Kellner. Welcome to the Sunday

politics. -- YouGov. The Labour Party is six points ahead in your

poll this morning. So what is the Party is six points ahead in your

the next election. If the Party is six points ahead in your

were today and the figures held up, you would have a Labour government

with a narrow overall majority. One should not forget that. Let me make

three points. The first is, in past parliaments, opposition normally

lose ground and governments gain ground in the final few months. The

opposition should be further ahead than this. I don't think six is

enough. Secondly, Ed Miliband is behind David Cameron when people are

asked who they want as Prime Minister and Labour is behind the

Conservatives went people are asked who they trust on the economy. There

have been elections when the party has won by being behind on

leadership and other elections where they have won by being behind on the

economy. No party has ever won an election when it has been clearly

behind on both leadership and the economy. Let me have another go.

behind on both leadership and the economy. Let me have another go The

economy. Let me have another go. The Labour Party brand is a strong

brand. The Tory Bramleys week. The Labour brand is stronger. That is a

blast -- the Labour -- the Tory Bramleys week. A lot of the Tories

-- the Tory brand is weak. Cant you win on policies and a strong party

brand? If you have those too, you need the third factor which isn't

there. People believing that you have what it takes, competent

skills, determination, determination, whatever makes to

carry through. -- whatever mix. A lot of Ed Miliband policies, on the

banks, energy prices, Brent controls, people like them. But in

government, would they carry them through? They think they are not up

to it. -- rent controls. If people think you won't deliver what you

say, even if they like it, they were necessarily vote for you. That is

the missing third element. There is a strong Labour brand, but it's not

strong enough to overcome the feeling that the Labour leadership

is not up to it. Nick, you had some senior Labour figure telling you

that if Mr Miliband losing the next election he will have to resign

immediately and cannot fight another election the way Neil Kinnock did

after 1987. What was remarkable to me was that people were even

thinking along these lines, and even more remarkable that they would tell

you they were thinking along these lines? What is the problem? The

problem is, is that Ed Miliband says it would be unprecedented to win the

general election after the second worst result since 1918. They are

concerned about is the start of a script that he would say on the day

after losing the general election. Essentially what the people are

trying to do is get their argument in first and to say, you cannot do

what Neil Kinnock did in 1987. Don't forget that Neil Kinnock in 1987 was

forget that Neil Kinnock in 198 was in the middle of a very brave

process of modernisation and had one and fought a very campaign that was

professional but he lost again in 1992, and they wanted to get their

line in first. What some people are saying is that this is an election

that the Labour Party should be winning because the coalition is so

unpopular. If you don't win, I'm afraid to say, there is something

wrong with you. Don't you find it remarkable that people are prepared

to think along these lines at this stage, when Labour are ahead in the

polls, still the bookies favourite to win, and you start to speak

publicly, or in private to the public print, but we might have to

get rid of him if he doesn't win. Everything you say about labour in

this situation has been said about the Tories. We wondered whether

Boris Johnson would tie himself to the mask and he is the next leader

in waiting if Cameron goes. It's a mirror image of that. We talk about

things being unprecedented. It's unprecedented for a government to

gain seats. All the things you say about labour, you could say it the

Conservatives. That's what makes the next election so interesting. But in

the aftermath of the European elections and the local government

elections, in which the Conservatives did not do that well,

the issue was not Mr Cameron or the Tories doing well, the issue was the

Labour Party and how they had not done as well as they should have

done, and that conversation was fuelled by the kind of people who

have been speaking to nick from the Labour Party. Rachel Reeves cited

their real-life performance in elections as a reason for optimism.

When in fact their performance in the Europeans and locals was

disappointing for an opposition one year away from a general election.

What alarms me about labour is the way they react to criticisms about

Ed Miliband. Two years ago when he was attacked, they said they were 15

points ahead, and then a year ago there were saying they were nine or

ten ahead, and now they are saying we are still five or six ahead. The

trend is alarming. It points to a smaller Labour lead. Am I right in

detecting a bit of a class war going on in the Labour Party? There are a

lot of northern Labour MPs who think that Ed Miliband is to north London,

and there are too many metropolitan cronies around him must I think that

is right, Andrew. What I think is, being a pessimist in terms of their

prospects, I do think the Labour Party could win the next election. I

just don't think they can as they are going at the moment. But the

positioning for a possible defeat, what they should be talking about is

what do we need to change in the party and the way Ed Miliband

performs in order to secure victory. That is a debate they could have,

and they could make the changes. That is a debate they could have,

and they could make the changes I find it odd that they are being so

defeatist. Don't go away. Peter is a boffin when it comes to polls. That

is why we have a mod for the election prediction swings and

roundabouts. He is looking for what he calls the incumbency effect.

Don't know what is a back-up -- what that's about question don't worry,

here is an. Being in office is bad for your health. Political folk

wisdom has it that incumbency favours one party in particular,

wisdom has it that incumbency favours one party in particular the

Liberal Democrats. That is because their MPs have a reputation as

ferociously good local campaigners who do really well at holding on to

their seats. However, this time round, several big-name long serving

Liberal Democrats like Ming Campbell, David Heath and Don Foster

are standing down. Does that mean the incumbency effect disappears

like a puff of smoke? Then there is another theory, called the sophomore

surge. It might sound like a movie about US college kids, but it goes

like this. New MPs tend to do better in their second election than they

did in their first. That could favour the Tories because they have

lots of first-time MPs. The big question is, what does this mean for

the 7th of May 2015, the date of the next general election? The answer

is, who knows? I know a man who knows. Peter. What does it all mean?

You can go onto your PC now and draw down programmes which say that these

are the voting figures from a national poll, so what will the

seats look like? This is based on uniform swing. Every seat moving up

and down across the country in the same way. Historically, that's been

a pretty good guide. I think that's going to completely break down next

year, because the Lib Dems will probably hold on to more seats than

we predict from the national figures and I think fewer Tory seats will go

to the Labour Party than you would predict from the national figures.

The precise numbers, I'm not going to be too precise, but I would be

surprised, sorry, I would not be surprised if Labour fell 20 or 25

seats short on what we would expect on the uniform swing prediction.

Next year's election will be tight. Falling 20 seats short could well

mean the difference between victory and defeat. What you make of that,

Helen? I think you're right, especially taking into account the

UKIP effect. We have no idea about that. The conventional wisdom is

that will drain away back to the Conservatives, but nobody knows, and

Conservatives, but nobody knows and it makes the next election almost

impossible to call. It means it is a great target the people like Lord

Ashcroft with marginal polling, because people have never been so

interested. It is for party politics and we all assume that UKIP should

be well next year, but their vote went up from 17 up to 27%. Then that

17% went down to 3%, so they might only be five or 6% in the general

election, so they might not have the threat of depriving Conservatives of

their seats. Where the incumbency thing has an effect is the Liberal

Democrats. They have fortress seats where between 1992 and 1997 Liberal

Democrats seats fell, but their percentage went up. They are losing

the local government base though. True, but having people like Ming

Campbell standing down means they will struggle. We are used to

incumbency being an important factor in American politics. It's hard to

get rid of an incumbent unless it is a primary election, like we saw in

Virginia, but is it now becoming an important factor in British

politics, that if you own the seat you're more likely to hold on to it

than not? If it is, that's a remarkable thing. It's hard to be a

carpetbagger in America, but it is normal in British Parliamentary

constituencies to be represented by someone who did not grow up locally.

It is a special kind of achievement to have an incumbency effect where

you don't have deep roots in the constituency. I was going to ask

about the Lib Dems. If we are wrong, and they collapse in Parliamentary

representation as much as the share in vote collapses, is that not good

news is that the Conservatives? They would be in second place in the

majority of existing Lib Dems seats. For every seat where Labour are

second to the Lib Dems, there are two where the Conservatives are

second. If the Lib Dem representation collapses, that helps

the Conservatives. I'm assuming the Tories will gain about ten seats. If

they gain 20, if they'd had 20 more seats last time, they would have had

a majority government, just about. So 20 seats off the Lib Dem, do the

maths, as they say in America, and they could lose a handful to labour

and still be able to run a one party, minority government. The fate

of the Lib Dems could be crucial to the outcome to the politics of

light. On the 8th of May, it will be VE Day and victory in election day

as well as Europe. The Lib Dems will be apoplectic if they lose all of

the seats to their coalition partners. The great quote by Angela

Merkel, the little party always gets crushed. It's a well-established

idea that coalition politics. They can't take credit for the things

people like you may get lumbered with the ones they don't. They have

contributed most of this terrible idea that seized politics where you

say it, but you don't deliver it. Tuition fees is the classic example

of this Parliament. Why should you believe any promise you make? And Ed

Miliband is feeling that as well. But in 1974 the liberal Democrats

barely had any MPs but there were reporters outside Jeremy Thorpe s

home because they potentially held not the balance of power, but were

significantly in fourth. Bringing back memories Jeremy Thorpe, and we

will leave it there. Thanks to the panel. We are tomorrow on BBC Two.

At the earlier time of 11am because of Wimbledon. Yes, it's that time of

year again already. I will be back here at 11 o'clock next week.

Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.

to the beating heart of today's vibrant shops.