21/09/2014 Sunday Politics London

Good morning from Manchester, where the Labour Party are gathering

for their annual conference as British politics adjusts to what

the rest of the UK. in Scotland might mean for

Scotland's decision to vote 'no means more powers heading north

But what about Home Rule for England?

Independence for Scotland has been his life's work. Alex Salmond tells

us why he is stepping down after losing Thursday's vote. And we've

got an exclusive survey of what the people who want to be Labour MPs

think about immigration, the cue and their party. We will ask the Shadow

Business Secretary if he agrees In London, thoughts of more tax-raising

powers and more freedom to spend. But what is the next devolution step

for the capital? With me, the best and brightest political panel in the

business, at least that is what they pay me to say every week. Nick Watt,

Helen Lewis and, this week, we have done some devolution ourselves to

other areas, and we have Sam Coates from the times. The union survived,

but only at the cost of more powers for the Scottish parliament and

enshrining the formula that gives Scotland a privileged position when

it comes to public spending, which has MPs on both sides of the Commons

of in arms. The Scottish question has been answered for now. Suddenly,

the English question takes centre stage, doesn't it? Absolutely. It

has a grubby feel, when that vow was put to the Scottish people, that

they hoped would swing the vote there was nothing about English only

votes. It was unconditional? The Tory proposal did talk very core

justly about looking at the proposals by a former clerk of the

House of Commons that looked at this issue. That was very cautious. -

cautiously. These proposals will not get through Westminster unless David

Cameron addresses the English-only issue. You look at people like Chris

Grayling in the Sunday Telegraph. Alistair Darling on the Andrew Marr

Show said you could not have a link between what you are giving Holyrood

and English-only MPs. Back on says, is welshing on the deal. -- comic he

They were furious that he gave away these tax powers and inscribed the

Barnett formula. They said they weren't going to vote for it. It is

a shameless piece of opportunism. Now they can say that Labour are the

ones that don't trust you and don't want to give you more powers. He

knows it is going to be a tight timetable. The idea of getting a

draft of this out by Burns Night, most people would say, given they

had six years to set up Scottish parliament, the idea we will solve

these huge constitutional questions in four months is absurd. But they

don't care about the constitutional questions, the one they care about

is English votes? There is a simple reason they won that. If you look at

the MPs in England alone, the Tories have a majority of 59, an

overwhelming bias, and if you strip out Wales Scotland and Northern

Ireland, so this has become a partisan issue. The question is

whether David Cameron can follow through on the promise. He said he

would link the two Scottish powers, but it's not clear you will get

either before the general election. It's not but the purpose is to cause

Labour Party discomfort, and it is. You can see with date -- Ed Miliband

this morning, they find it very hard to answer the question, why

shouldn't there be English votes for English laws? Ed Miliband this

morning was saying how London MPs get to vote on London transport and

English MPs don't outside of London and it is confusing, but Labour is

in a difficult position. They were before the Prime Minister made his

announcement. The yes side triumphed in Glasgow, the largest city in

Scotland, a Labour heartland, and the Prime Minister is saying that if

Labour don't agree to this by the time of the general election, he is

handing a gift to the SNP, that that would be the party that the natural

Labour voters would vote for to see off the plan. It's not just Tory

backbenchers. There are Labour backbenchers saying there should be

in which bodes for English laws Even people in the Shadow Cabinet

think it is right. The cases unarguable. If you say her chewing a

partisan way, you can't sell it to the country. Ed Miliband is on

course to have a majority of about 20, and you take the 40 English MPs,

and he hasn't got it. This is a coalition government where the

Conservatives haven't got really to be in charge, they have put in

sweeping laws. Labour should probably take the bullet on this

one. Let's leave it for the moment. But don't go away. As they struggle

to keep the United Kingdom in one piece, David Cameron, Ed Miliband

and Nick Clegg promised to keep something called the Barnett

Formula. It wasn't invented in Barnet,

but by man called Joel Barnett. And it's how

the UK government decides how much public money to spend in Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland. It's controversial,

because it's led to public spending being typically 20% higher

in Scotland than in England. Well, some English MPs

aren't happy about that. I'm joined now by the

Tory MP Dominic Raab. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. How

can the Prime Minister scrap the Barnett Formula when he has just

about to keep it on the front page of a major Scottish newspaper? If we

are going to see financial devolution to Scotland, more powers

of tax and spend, it's impossible not to look at the impact on the

wider union, and there have been promises made to the Scottish and we

should do our best to deliver them, but there have been promises made to

the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If you look at the Barnett

Formula which allocates revenue across the UK, it is massively

prejudicial to those other parts. We have double the number of ambulance

staff and nurses compared to England. The regional breakdown is

more stark with double the amount spent on social housing in Scotland

than in Yorkshire and the North West and the Midlands. The Welsh do very

poorly on social services for the elderly. What are we saying? That

they need our children, patients and the elderly are worth less than the

Scots? That's not the way to have a sustainable solution. I understand

the distribution impact of the Barnett Formula, but Westminster

politicians are already held in contempt by a lot of people and to

rat on such a public pledge would confirm their worst fears. Your

leader would have secured the union on a false prospectus. First of

all, it's clear from the Ashcroft poll that the offer made in the

Scottish newspaper had zero effect and if anything was

counter-productive to the overall result because two thirds of swing

voters in the last few days voted for independence. But we can't keep

proceeding without looking at the promises made to the English. We

said in the referendum that we would have English laws -- English votes

on English issues. The Liberal Democrats, in their manifesto,

pledged to scrap the Barnett Formula. We have to reconcile all of

the promises to all parts of the UK, and Alex Salmond talks about a

Westminster stitch up, but what he's trying to do is, with gross double

standards, is in French stitch up in rapid time, which would be grossly

unfair to the rest of the rest of UK -- is contrive stitch up. What is

unfair about the current spending formula? The extra money Scotland

gets from Barnet, is covered by the oil revenues it sends to London.

oil revenues it sends to London Scotland is only getting back on

spending what it pays in tax. There is no analysis out there that

suggests it is the same amount. Having voted to stay in the UK. Let

me give you the figures. Last year revenues were 4.5 billion, and the

Barnett Formula was worth 4.5 billion to Scotland. It is awash. A

huge amount of British taxpayer investment has gone into extracting

North Sea oil, and if we move to a more federal system, we would need

to look at things like the allocation of resources, but the

Barnett Formula has been lambasted as a national embarrassment and

grossly unfair by its Labour Party architect, Lord Barnett. So what we

need is to change this mechanism so it is based on need. The irony is,

when the Scots allocate Avenue to the -- revenue to their local

authorities, it's done on a needs basis, and what is good for Scotland

must be good for the rest of Britain. One final question. The

Prime Minister is now making his promise of more home rule for

Scotland conditional on English votes for English laws. Why didn't

he spell out the condition when he made his bow to the Scottish people?

Why has this condition been tacked on by the Prime Minister? In the

heat of the referendum debate lots of things were said, but the truth

is that Parliament must also look at this and make its views known, and

English MPs as well. You will find that conservative as well as a lot

of Labour MPs would say, we cannot just rush through a deal that is

unsustainable. It has to be good for all parts of Britain. Yes, we should

deliver on our promises for more devolution to Scotland, but let's

devolution to Scotland, but let s deliver on promises to be English,

and Northern Irish. Why are they locked out of the debate? Let's

leave it there. Thank you for joining us.

The man responsible for taking Scottish nationalism from

the political fringes to within touching distance of victory, Alex

Salmond, has a flair for dramatic announcements, and he gave us

another on Friday when he revealed he's to stand

Friends and foes have paid tribute to his extraordinary career.

In a moment I'll be speaking to Alex Salmond,

but first here's Adam Fleming with the story of the vote that broke

The BBC's HQ on the Clyde, the whole place converted into a studio for

Scotland's big night. You know what you need for big events, big

screens, and there are loads of them here. That one is three stories

high, and this is the one Jeremy Vine uses for his graphics. The

other thing that is massive is the turnout in the referendum, it is

enormous. It was around 85% of the electorate, that is 4 million ballot

papers. First to declare Clackmannanshire. No, 19,000. 19,000

and 36. The first Noel of the night, and there were plenty more. -- the

first no vote. The better together campaigners were over the moon, like

Jim Murphy, who had campaigned in 100 different towns. I don't want to

sound schmaltzy, but it makes you think more of Scotland. It makes you

small tree. Yes, 194,779. Around five a.m., the Yes campaign

applauded as they won Scotland's biggest city, Glasgow. Dundee went

their way as well, but just for areas out of 32 opted for

independence. How many copies have you had? This is my second cup of

tea on the morning -- how many copies. He was enjoying the

refreshments on offer, but the yes campaigners were not in a happy

place. We are in the bowels of one of the parts of the British

establishment that, I've got to say, has probably done its job in this

referendum, because I think the BBC has been critical in shoring up the

establishment and have supported the no campaign as best as they could.

But there was no arguing with the numbers, and by sunrise, the BBC

called it. Scotland has voted no in this referendum on independence.

called it. Scotland has voted no in this referendum on independence The

this referendum on independence. The result, in Fife, has taken the no

campaign over the line and the official result of this referendum

is a no. There we go, on a screen three stories high, Scotland has

said no to independence. As soon as the newsprint was driving north of

the border, the focus shifted south as the Prime Minister pledged more

devolution for Scotland but only if it happened everywhere else as well.

Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish

Parliament on their issues of tax, spending on welfare, so to England,

as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on

these issues, and all this must take place in tandem with and at the same

pace as the settlement for Scotland. It began to dawn on us all that we

might end up doing this again. See you for an English referendum soon?

Northern Ireland. There could be another one in Scotland. But not

next weekend? Give me a break. There was no break for Nick, because Alex

Salmond came up with one last twist, his resignation was as leader, my

time is nearly over. But the Scotland, the campaign continues,

and the dream shall never die. So, the referendum settled, the

Constitution in flux, and a leader gone. All in a night work.

Alex Salmond is to stand down as First Minister of Scotland. He shows

no signs of going quietly. Last night, I spoke to the SNP leader in

Aberdeen and began by asking him if it was always his intention to

resign if he lost the referendum. I certainly have thought about it

Andrew. But for most of the referendum campaign I thought we

were going to win. So, I was... Yeah, maybe a few months back I

considered it. But I only finally made up my mind on Friday lunch

time. Did you agonise over the decision to stand down? I'm not

really an agonising person. When you get beaten in a referendum, you have

to consider standing down as a real possibility. Taking responsibility

and politics has gone out of fashion but there is an aspect, if you need

a campaign, and I was the leader of the Yes Campaign, and you don't win,

you have to contemplate if you are the best person to lead future

political campaigns. In my judgement, it was time for the SNP

and the broader yes movement, the National movement of Scotland, they

would benefit from new leadership. In your heart of hearts, through the

campaign, as referendum on day approached, you did think you were

going to win? Yes, I did. I thought for most of the last month of the

campaign, we were in with a real chance. In the last week I thought

we had pulled ahead. I thought the decisive aspect wasn't so much the

fear mongering, the scaremongering, the kitchen sink being thrown at

Scotland by orchestration from Downing Street, I thought the real

thing was the pledge, the vow, the offer of something else. A lot of

people that had been moving across to independence saw within that, a

reason to say, well, we can get something anyway without the

perceived risks that were being festooned upon them. You were only

five points away from your dream. You won Scotland's largest city.

There is now the prospect of more power. Why not stay and be an

enhanced First Minister? Well, it is a good phrase. I'm not going away,

though. I'm still going to be part of the political process. In

Scotland, if people in Aberdeenshire wish to keep electing me, that is

what I will do. But I don't have to be First Minister of Scotland,

leader of the Yes Campaign, to see that achieved. The SNP is a strong

and powerful leadership team. There are a number of people that would do

a fantastic job as leader of the party and First Minister. I've been

leader of the party for the last 24 years, I think it is time to give

somebody else a shot. There are many able-bodied people that will do that

well. -- many able people that will do that well. I'm still part of the

national movement, arguing to take this forward. I think you are right,

the question, one of the irony is developing so quickly after the

referendum, it might be those that lost on Thursday end up as the

political winners and those that won end up as the losers. When we met

just for the vote, a couple of days before the vote, you said to me that

there was very little you would change about the campaign strategy.

Is that still your view? Yes. There are one or two things, like any

campaign, there is no such thing as a pitcher campaign. I would refer

not to dwell on such things. I will leave of my book, which will be

called 100 Days, coming out before Christmas. Once you read that, I

will probably reveal the things I would have changed. Basically,

broadly, this was an extraordinary campaign. Not just a political

campaign, but a campaign involving the grassroots of Scotland in an

energising, empowering way, the like of which in on of us have witnessed.

It was an extraordinary phenomenon of grassroots campaigning, which

carried the Yes Campaign so far, carried the Yes Campaign so far

almost to victory. If Rupert Murdoch put his Scottish Sun behind you,

put his Scottish Sun behind you would have that made the difference?

If ifs and ands were pots and pans... Why did he not? I would not

say that, you have form with him that I do not have. I'm not sure

about that. I was very encouraged. The coverage, not in the other

papers, The Times, which was extremely hostile to Scottish

independence, but the coverage in the Scottish Sun was fair, balanced

and we certainly got a very fair kick of the ball. In newspapers I

would settle for no editorial line and just balanced coverage. We

certainly got that from the Scottish Sun and that was an encouragement. I

think you saw from his tweets, certainly in his heart he would have

liked to have seen a move forward in Scotland and I like that. He said if

you lost, that was it, referendum wise, for a generation, which he

defined as about 20 years. Is that still your view? Yes, it is. It has

always been my view. It's a personal view. There are always things that

can change in politics. If the UK moved out of the European Union, for

moved out of the European Union for example, that would be the sort of

circumstance. Some people would argue with Westminster parties, and

I'm actually not surprised that they are reneging on commitments, I am

just surprised by the speed they are doing it. They seem to be totally

shameless in these matters. You don't think they will meet the vow?

You don't think there will keep to their vow? They are not, for that

essential reason you saw developing on Friday. The Prime Minister wants

to link change in Scotland to change in England. He wants to do that

because he has difficulty in carrying his backbenchers on this

and they are under pressure from UKIP. The Labour leadership are

frightened of any changes in England which leave them without a majority

in the House of Commons on English matters. I would not call it an

irresistible force and immovable object, one is resistible and one is

movable. They are at loggerheads. The vow, I think, was something

cooked up in desperation for the last few days of the campaign. I

think everybody in Scotland now engines that. -- recognises that. It

was the people that were persuaded to vote no that word tricked,

effectively. They are the ones that are really angry. Ed Miliband and

David Cameron, if they are watching this, I would be more worried about

the anger of the no voters than the opinion of the Yes Vote on that

matter. If independence is on the back burner for now, what would you

advise your successor's strategy for the SNP to be? I would advise him or

her not to listen to advice from their predecessor. A new leader

brings forward a new strategy. I think this is, for the SNP, a very

favourable political time. There have been 5000 new members joined

since Thursday. That is about a 25% increase in the party membership in

the space of a few days. More than that, I think this is an opportunity

for the SNP. But my goal is the opportunity for Scotland. I would

repeat I am not retiring from politics. I'm standing down as First

Minister of Scotland. On Friday, coming back to the north-east of

Scotland, I passed through Dundee, which voted yes by a stud --

substantial margin. There was a line of a song I couldn't get out of my

head, and old Jacobite song, rewritten by Robert Burns, the last

line is, so, tremble falls wakes, in the midst of your glee, you've not

seen the last of my bonnets and me. So you are staying a member of the

Scottish Parliament, shall we see you again in the House of Commons?

What does the future hold for you? Membership of Scottish Parliament is

dependent on the good folk of Aberdeenshire east. If they choose

to elect me, I will be delighted to serve. I've always loved being a

constituency member of Parliament, I have known some front line

politicians that regarded that as a chore. I'm not saying they didn t do

it properly, I am sure they did. But I love it. You get distilled wisdom

from being a constituency member of Parliament that helps you keep your

feet on the ground and have a good observation as to what matters to

people. I have no difficulty with being a constituent member of

Parliament. Can you promise me it will never be Lord Salmond? Yes!

will never be Lord Salmond? Yes Thanks for joining us. Great

pleasure, thank you. Now, the independence referendum is over, the

next big electoral test is a general election. It is just over seven

months away. In a moment I will be talking to Chuka Umunna, but what

are the political views of the men and women fighting to win seats for

the Labour Party? The Sunday Politics has commissioned an

exclusive survey of the Parliamentary candidates.

Six out of seven Labour candidates say that the level of public

spending during their last period of office was about right. 40% of them

want a Labour government to raise taxes to reduce the budget deficit.

18% favour cutting spending. On immigration, just 15% think that the

number coming to Britain is too high. Only 7% say we generous to

immigrants. Three in ten candidates believe the party relationship with

trade unions is not close enough. Not that we spoke to think it is too

close. Or than half of the candidates say want to scrap the

nuclear deterrent, Trident. Four in five want to nationalise the

railways. If they are after a change of leader, Yvette Cooper was their

preferred choice. Chuka Umunna came in fourth. And he joins me now for

the Sunday interview. Why is Labour choosing so many

left-wing candidates? I don't think I accept the characterisation of

candidates being left wing. I don't think your viewers see politics in

terms of what is left and right. think your viewers see politics in

terms of what is left and right I terms of what is left and right. I

think they see it in terms of what is right and wrong. Obviously, many

of the things we have been talking about, how we ensure that the next

generation can do better than the last, how we raise the wages of your

viewers, who are currently working very hard but not making a wage they

can live off, that is what they are talking about and that is what the

public will judge them on. But they want to raise taxes, they don't want

to cut public spending, they want to re-nationalise the railways, they

don't think there is too much immigration, they want to scrap

Trident. These are all positions clearly to the left of current party

policy. But that is your characterisation. If you look at our

policy to increase the top rate of tax to 50% for people earning over

?150,000, that is a central position. It is something that

enjoys the support of the majority of the public. Trident? If you talk

to the British public about immigration, yes, there are concerns

about the numbers coming in and out, yes people want to see integration,

yes, people want to see people putting a contribution before they

take out, the people recognise, if you look at our multicultural

nation, we have derived a lot of benefits from immigration. I don't

think your characterisation of those positions, that is your view... It's

not, it is their view. They are saying... You describe it... You

described those positions as left wing positions. I am saying to you

that I actually think a lot of those positions are centrist positions

that would enjoy the support of the majority of your viewers. I don t

think your viewers think the idea of the broadest shoulders bearing the

heaviest burden in forms of tax are going to see it as a way out,

radical principle. They want to scrap Trident, not party policy? It

scrap Trident, not party policy It isn't.

I think that 73... Well, we will have 400 Parliamentary candidates at

the time of the next general election, not including current MPs.

This is 73 out of over 400 of them. I think we also need to treat the

survey with a bit of caution. They are not representative? You are

basically quoting the results of a small percentage of our

Parliamentary candidates. It's pretty safe to say when you look at

their views, they might be right or wrong, that's not my point, it's

fairly safe to say that new Labour is dead? Again, I don't think people

see things in terms of gold -- old or new Labour. We are standing at a

Labour Party. We are a great country, but we have big challenges.

We want to make sure that people can achieve their dreams and aspirations

in this country. Too many people are not in that position. Too many

people worry about the prospects of their children. Too many people do

not earn a wage they can live off. Too many people are worried about

the change. We have to make sure we are giving people a stake in the

future. That is a Labour thing, you want to call it old or new come I

don't care. It's a choice between Labour and the Conservatives in

terms of who runs the next government. That one of your

candidate we spoke to things that the party's relationship with the

unions is to close. 30% of them think it should be closer. You have

spoken to 73 out of 400 candidates. Why should the others be any

different? It's a fairly representative Sample. Many people

working on this set are the member of the union, the National union of

journalists. People that came here to this Conference would have been

brought here by trade union members. Do you think the relationship should

be closer? I think it is where it should be. It should not be closer?

I think that trade unions help create wealth in our country. If you

look at some other success stories we are in the north-west, GM

Vauxhall is there because you have trade unions working in partnership

with government and local employees to make sure we kept producing cars.

I'm not asking if unions are good or bad, I'm asking if Labour should be

closer. You are presupposing, by the tone of your question, that our

relationship is a problem. Let's turn to the English question. Why do

you need a constitutional conversation where you have to

discuss whether English people voting on English matters is

unfair? We want to give the regions and cities in England more voice,

but let's get it into perspective, we have had a situation where the

Scottish people, as desired buying rich people, have to remain part of

the UK -- by English people. What is the answer to the question? I don't

want to get to a situation where people have voted for solidarity

where you have a prime ministers talking about dividing up the UK

Parliament. Let me put this point you. Most Scottish voters think it

is unfair that Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters. That comes

out in Scottish polls. Why don't you see it as unfair? If the Scots see

it as unfair, why don't you? This is an age-old conundrum that has been

around for 100 years and it's not so simple. You're talking about making

a fundamental change to the British constitution on a whim. It's not

just an issue, in respect of Scottish MPs. As a London MP, I can

vote on matters relating to the transport of England and transport

is a devolved matter in London. In Wales, there are a number of

competencies that Welsh MPs can vote on and they've been devolved to

them. So with all of these different votes, you will exclude different

MPs? I think the solution is not necessarily to obsess about what is

happening between MPs in Westminster. That turns people

politics. We need to devolve more. I think we should be giving the cities

and regions of England more autonomy in the way that we are doing in

Scotland, but I've got to say, Andrew, it's dishonourable and in

bad faith for the Prime Minister to now seek to link what he agreed

before the referendum to this issue of English votes for English MPs.

That is totally dishonourable and in bad faith. You have promised to

devolve more tax powers to Scotland. What would they be? This is being

decided at the moment. I cannot give you the exact detail of what the tax

powers would be. Could you give us a rough idea? There is a White Paper

being produced before November and there will be draft legislation put

forward in January. Your leader has vowed that this will happen. And you

haven't got a policy? You can't tell us what the tax powers will be? I

can't tell you on this programme right now. But we have accepted the

principle on further devolution on tax, spending on welfare and we will

have further details in due course. Your leader promised to maintain the

Barnett Formula for the foreseeable future. Why is that fair when it

enshrines more per capita spending for Scotland than it does for Wales,

which is poorer, and more than many of the poorer regions in England

get? Why is that fair? We have said that in terms of looking at go --

that in terms of looking at go - local government spending playing

out in this Parliament, we have looked at what the government has

done which is having already deprived communities having money

taken away from them and wealthier communities are getting more. We

accept that the Barnett Formula has worked well. How has it works well?

There is a cross parliamentary consensus as they don't know what to

do about it. Why has it works well, when Wales, clearly loses out? I'm

not sure by I accept that when you look at overall underspend --

government spending. It is per capita spending in Scotland, which

is way ahead of per capita spending in Wales, but per capita incomes in

Scotland are way ahead of Wales. Why is that fair Labour politician? We

have said we want to have more equitable distribution. You haven't,

you have said you will keep the Barnett Formula. I'm not sure

necessarily punishing Scotland is the way to go. The way that this

debate is going, what message does it send to the Scottish people? I

want to be clear, I am delighted with the result we have got. The

unity and solidarity where maintaining across the nations of

the United Kingdom. All of this separatist talk, setting up

different nations of the UK against each other goes completely against

what we've all been campaigning for over the last two years, and we

shouldn't have any truck with it. Coming onto the announcement on the

minimum wage, you would increase it by ?1 50 to take it to ?8, which

would be over five years. That is all you are going to do over five

years. Have you worked out how much of this increase will be clawed back

in taxation and fewer benefits? Work has been done on it. How much? I

can't give you an exact figure. The policy pays for itself. The way we

have looked at this, we looked at the government figures, and if

people are earning more, they would therefore be paying more in income

tax and they will be receiving less in benefit and will pay out less in

tax credits, so we are confident that this will pay for itself. I'm

not asking about the pavement, I'm asking what it means for low paid

workers will stop they will get an extra 30p per hour -- about the

payment. How much of the 30p to they get to keep? In terms of what they

get in the first instance, somebody on the minimum wage now, with our

proposal, would get in the region of ?3000 a year more than they are at

the moment. That is before tax and benefits. How much do they keep? I

cannot give you an exact figure Why don't you give me an exact figure if

you've done the modelling? We are talking about some of the lowest

paid people in the country, and I would suggest to you that going down

this route, they would face a marginal rate of tax of 50 or 6 %

marginal rate of tax of 50 or 60% and they will not keep most of this

increase you are talking about. I don't accept your figures. But you

haven't got any of your own. I just don't have any in my head I can give

you right now. Don't you think out policies before you announce them?

Of course we think our policies before we announce them but we are

confident people have more in their pocket and will be better off with

the changes proposed, and we are also seeking to incentivise

employers to pay a living wage as well. At the end of the day, as I

said, the economy is recovering, great, but we know, at the moment,

it's still not delivering for a huge number of your viewers and we're

determined to do something about it. The status quo is not an option. And

even joining me. Twice in three days. You can't have too much of a

good thing. I am mad. He said that, not me.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics. We

say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for

Coming up here in twenty minutes, we'll be joined by John Prescott to

talk about the challenge facing Labour as their conference starts

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Here, we'll be trying to work out what the devolutionary deal

With my guests today, Kate Hoey for Labour and Bob Stewart

according to some polling, the Labour leader Ed Miliband lags

Bob Stewart first, people saying that your leader already is

beginning to renege on the process of devolution and the promises made

to Scotland. What do you say? I hope not. The point is that we promised

that Scotland gets more power, but are they, as a London MP, want power

to the English at the same time. We cannot just give more tax-raising

power particularly, and spending power, to Scotland without actually

considering the English question. This West Lothian question has been

going on for too long, and we have to sort it, but we have very little

time to do it. The question has been going on for so long, but Ed

Miliband doesn't have an answer or does not want to answer it. He's not

answering it today, and we assume his position remains the case, that

he does not think there should be English votes on English laws. What

do you say? I support very much the idea that Scottish MPs should not

vote on English-only matters, but we have to try and separate that out

from the important issue of getting the Scottish agreement which was

decided without any of us being involved through first. The point

made by Ed Miliband this morning talks about London. You have

transport devolved in London, and London MPs being allowed to talk

about transport and vote on that, but you don't have any

responsibility. On major issues like the health service and education we

do, and not transport, we have a role in the rest of transport

outside the London area. I don't think transport has fully devolved

to London. We will talk a lot more about this in the course of the next

20 minutes. Let's try and find out

a bit more about what might happen, Just as the people of Scotland will

have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of

England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs.

The Prime Minister's speech on Friday morning was historic,

signalling a new constitutional settlement to the UK. But, as

politicians and pundits scrambled onto the airwaves, none were able to

say exactly what it would all mean. So it seems that more devolution is

on the cards, but the debate going on at the moment, unlikely to go one

per month still, is exactly what form it will take. -- and the one

likely to go on for a month. In his speech he spoke about more powers

for the Scottish parliament, name checked the Welsh and Northern

Ireland assembly, but did not mention the regional assembly that

was left out, the one at City Hall. Does it mean that the mayor and City

Hall will miss out in the devolution giveaway? According to senior

Conservatives, the focus should be on empowering a new English

Parliament. I don't think it would be right to give the powers to

London that go to Scotland as a whole. I think they should reside

for England as a whole, and that is what my postbag is telling people

want justice to England on we fed up with a country not being on the map

and a voice. -- and we are fed up. What are the new powers up for

grabs? Much is at the discussion, but key areas are setting tax

levels, control over the NHS and welfare. The mayor has argued for

years that London needs greater control over taxation. That idea is

there and is a brilliant idea, and a simple way of encouraging devolution

in the motor of the UK economy. At the moment 93p in every pound of tax

raised is handed over to the national government. In New York, it

is more like 50 cents in the dollar. For London to get closer to those

level it could mean that property tax and even income tax were set and

retrain -- retained at a citywide level. What might they spend it on

question north of the border, the leaders of the three parties

promised Scotland would control spending on health. Although it s

not clear what the promise to give Scotland power over the NHS would

mean in practice, there is already a call from people in London to say

that whatever powers Scotland gets, we should get as well. Do we need

something less like a national health service and more like a

London health service? I'm just going to take your blood pressure.

This doctor is a Labour member on the London assembly and also a

practising GP. He thinks the current system is too conjugated, to

diffuse, and the capital will be better off with somebody in charge

of the NHS in London -- to complicated. We have the strategic

authority of London which had been disbanded and there is this

coordination and fragmentation of services, and across London we would

be better if they were well co-ordinated by a central body and

for London to determine needs locally. London has roughly twice

the population of Scotland and an economy almost three times as large.

But whether that persuades people that we would all be better off with

a capital going it alone is a different question altogether.

In Westminster is Phillip Blond from the think tank ResPublica who's

just written a report on more devolution to Manchester.

Welcome to you. Just outline the main recommendation, the main thrust

of this report. The main point is that if we want the people who rely

on public services to get public services that actually transform

their lives, which is what the hope and intention of them are, is

actually that they don't work delivered from the central state. We

have argued that the full amount of public sector spending in greater

Manchester, that is 22.5 billion, needs to be devolved down to

Manchester so that Manchester can integrate public services and it's

only by integrating that you can get the outcomes you want. The reason we

have the health service failing and the health service failing -- and

education failing is that things are fragmented. Problems are in the

round but nothing addresses them in the round. Would it save money, and

what would you do that -- do with that? Could you invested back to

grow the local economy? All the evidence shows it would save

an enormous answer money. Then stand Young did a study where they argued

the national returns over five years from these whole place pilots,,

everything in one place, could be anywhere between nine billion and 20

billion. Eric Pickles, the current secretary of state for communities

said he thought it was somewhere in between, say about 15 billion. That

is massive. You would invest that back, potentially. Why Manchester? I

note in the report you said that Manchester has got a plan which has

gone further than any other city. That is a comment on Manchester, but

That is a comment on Manchester but also London? I don't think London is

particularly effective in terms of public services. We have the

boroughs, the Greater London authority and the Mayor. The Mayor

and the Greater London authority don't really have powers to

integrate public services across London, which is why so many are not

what they should be. Even without an elected Mayor in Manchester, are you

saying they have found and validate system, a senator, really, of the

local council leaders in the areas around Manchester, they are proving

they have an effective form of government that has grown

organically, which could put them ahead of the queue for genuine

devolution? Nobody will say it publicly, but privately, I think

most people accept that. Most people accept that Manchester's capacity is

more developed than anywhere else. In our report, myself and one of the

authors of the report, argued that Manchester needs to have a directly

elected Mayor and an assembly. The trouble with the London model is

that the boroughs and assembly are not coterminous, they are different

layers of bureaucracy, and the Mayor doesn't have power over the

boroughs. We know that discussions are going on with the Treasury and

the people of Manchester. You will know that comic that is why you will

have written a report. Is this going to happen, be announced in the

Autumn Statement or before the next election? I would be very surprised

if the broad thrust of our report wasn't in some way incorporated in

Government policy. Will that be seen as Manchester almost jumping ahead?

It is going around London, isn't it? Well, I don't think it is

either-or. What we argue is the city 's best able to handle the type of

devolution that we really need in this country should be the ones that

get it. I think London is well positioned. But I think its powers

need to be refashioned. Manchester is well positioned. All of the other

city regions want it. The point about the West Lothian question that

you were discussing with your studio guest 's earlier is that it is a red

herring. What people want is real power. If you look at the Scottish

referendum, they are in areas of economic deprivation. There are

people that feel just as distant from Westminster. All that the

present proposals would do is give Westminster more power. That is not

what people want. They want the ability to control their own cities

to improve the lives of them and their children. Bob Stewart, what do

you think about this? Do you agree that there are inadequacies to the

London devolution settlement and would you like it to be able to, not

would you like it to be able to not just spend over a wider area, but as

we know the London Finance commission has suggested, raise a

lot more taxes? To be honest, I know there are problems between the

London assembly and the boroughs. I am in a big London Borough myself,

Bromley. I don't know the answer, neither does anybody. But I think we

should investigate it very fast. I should investigate it very fast I

don't see why we shouldn't try and refine it. If Manchester looks like

a good model and has a way ahead, let us look at it and apply it, if

necessary, to London. It might seem a simple is to question, it is, but

time is limited. You will get a simplistic answer! Do you think

there is something in this, that Manchester, it's important for the

Conservatives to make more headway, show that it feels more genuinely

about northern cities, that this will be somewhere that goes ahead of

London in a devolution race? I don't think we care if it does, but what

we want is the best model to provide the best services. If this is a

model that will show us the way ahead, why not take Manchester as a

model and then apply it elsewhere? Not just in London, but in other

cities as well. That is his point, if this works, there may be a lag of

time, but soon those powers would come to London as well. I mean, it

is not a problem that there are debates going on in parallel. Are

you happy with the other recommendations? I do think that the

devolved nature will come through cities and areas around the cities.

That is what has to happen. What I don't want to see is another layer,

another group of politicians. That is the real worry. We do need to

look at the way the London assembly works. Do we really get value for

money for the assembly and how it works in terms of the powers they

have got over the scrutiny of the Mayor and local councils. Would you

get rid of the body and replace it with leaders for London boroughs? I

would like to separate out the Scottish thing and also separate out

the English, in Westminster, Scottish MPs not voting. SNP members

don't at the moment, they tend not to vote in English only matters.

don't at the moment, they tend not to vote in English only matters We

to vote in English only matters. We do need to look much more carefully

and that is where we do think there needs to be more time than we have

got at the moment to see how London would work properly. It is a huge

city and it's crucial that it is able to take the levers that bring

the investment. If we are going to believe David Cameron, that he says

this is an opportunity... Believe it, you mean set. But then

presumably it is a no brain that London should be able to raise more

taxation, have control of stamp duty, take the cap of council tax?

It is a no-brainer that I want to see the English have more of a say.

In London, yes. But, quite frankly, if we can have better improvement

between the assembly and the boroughs, that is great, and we get

more efficiency across the whole of London. Why not? I think bringing

the leaders of the London boroughs together would be a much better way

than having an assembly that is collected. Fiddle around with the

existing structures, you are not necessarily thinking there is a need

for an ability for the Mayor to take over the funding of health, for

instance, or have some influence there? I would be reluctant for

health to be something that was devolved to London. You see the

people that move from hospitals outside London into specialist

hospitals in London. That is a complicated issue and I don't think

that can happen. There are other things that can happen. I think we

need to look at the role of the assembly and if we need an assembly.

Are we not moving in the direction in terms of devolution, or merging

of health, on this big question of adult social care, that we need to

take more money from the Health Service and perhaps give it to local

authorities to ensure they coordinate. It's happening already.

We are starting to go that way already. They are doing their best.

London is trying hard, to try to get the very best deal for the money

they have got. We are trying. London is trying, the assembly is trying

and I certainly know that Romney is as well. The one thing you probably

agree on is that it doesn't look like something that will happen

quickly? Not the London details I don't think it can. So we have to go

ahead with the Scottish devolution issues first? For me, they go in

tandem. Won't that be seen as reneging? It won't be, we need to

make English laws be voted on by English MPs. The Scottish thing is

separate. They have been promised these things, which probably, on

reflection, they should not have been. The Sunday Telegraph reports

today on some polling that suggests that Ed Miliband has something of an

image problem in Scotland. There is polling ins the Reid -- polling in

London that suggests he likes behind the party in London.

Labour did well in the elections, winning a majority of London

boroughs, reinforcing a common perception that London is a Labour

city. But the elections did not involve voting Ed Miliband for Prime

Minister. Peepholes worse than the Labour Party do, David Cameron polls

better than the Conservative Party do. It's one of the paradoxes that

will help decide the election. Will people who want a Labour Government

think they want to back Labour even though Ed Miliband is not my first

choice for Prime Minister? Beyond question is that some voters have

about his Prime Minister qualities, some Labour policies poll worse in

the capital than the rest of the UK. When they talk about a mansion tax

affecting houses worth ?1 million, to a voter in the north-east that

sounds like an absurd price. It must be a huge mansion. A voter living in

central London, that could be a modest family home that might top ?1

million in a few years. I declare Boris Johnson to be elected as the

Mayor of London. Notwithstanding Labour's recent successes in London,

it has failed to inject Boris Johnson from City Hall. Ed Miliband

faces a big challenge, catching up with his party, delivering London

for Labour and winning the next general election.

What do you think the problem is? I think we should look back and think

of 1979, when Margaret Thatcher first got elected. She was a very

unpopular in terms of the polling, as the leader of the Conservative

Party. You know, you cannot assume that just because the leader of the

party is not polling well for whatever reason at the moment, that

it will make a difference to how people actually vote on the day If

people actually vote on the day. If the policies are there and there is

a feeling that the party would carry out its manifesto commitments, that

is why the Conference is so important this week, we get a real

feeling of what Labour is going to do. The minimum wage was a start,

although in London it was actually not going to be very high. Bob

Stewart, what do you think? I think it is rather sad, some of the

pictures that show politicians like that, some of these pictures of Ed

Miliband are deliberately chosen to make him look bad. Is this a certain

section of the media? The Conservatives, in concert with your

party? No, no. I think the media quite like taking a bad photograph

of any politician. It goes better that way. Would you say, would you

believe, that the way to victory for you next year is by focusing on

attributes of Ed Miliband's leadership? That is what the people

around Cameron are planning? I hope not, I hope we are focusing on

getting the policies right so we can appeal and get policies that we can

definitely guarantee this time to implement. You hope not, what do you

think? More than hope, I think it would be crazy to start that sort of

game. You think it would be a backlash? Yes. I don't use that

word, but the fact of the matter is, you would start going down that kind

of approach and it would backfire. Let us get the policies, let's argue

on the policies. Kate Hoey, finally, you would argue there is still a job

to be done? He is a metropolitan individual, state school educated.

There is a problem with all political leaders, quite honestly,

that the public don't see them as understanding them, speaking their

language, saying what they really mean. There is always this

flanneling around, and he needs to do what he wants to do rather than

feeling he's part of this machine and froth. The rest of the news in

60 seconds. Punters will have to cough up ?10 to

go on the New Year's Eve fireworks. The first time they have been forced

to pay. The Mayor's office says it is necessary for safety reasons.

to pay. The Mayor's office says it is necessary for safety reasons The

time has come to recognise that this event is now colossal and we need to

ticket it. Since Tuesday, people can use bank cards to get through ticket

barriers on the tube, DLR and London Overground train networks instead of

Oyster cards. And London has been named the worst place for childhood

obesity in a global survey of ten similar cities. Worse than New

York, Sydney or Paris. More than a third of kids are overweight by the

time they leave primary school. Transport for London plans could see

some tube stations in London Blues over half of their staff, at least

according to Labour on the London assembly. TfL say nevertheless they

will be more staff visible to passengers and available to help.

constituency wander down to the river on New Year's Eve. Ten years

-- ten quid now. The problem is whether they can get in or out of

their houses, and if they go out, and the police to let them back in.

-- don't let them back in. I think it will be very unpopular. At a time

of the economic situation we have, I don't think we need these huge

firework displays. But you understand the charge? I know from

my own dealings with what have happened, the police have been

concerned that it is far too big. This is a way of having a ticketing

arrangements. I don't like it. I think the poorest people won't be

able to go, the richest people will. That doesn't appeal to me No

reductions were children or anything. But the mayor has said

that the police are warning there have been too many people going in

the last couple of years. That is a problem, but I still don't like the

idea. It is hopeless but children anyway because you are so massed

together, you could still watch from further along the river and see a

lot of it. So, Kate Hoey is backing the Conservative mayor's policy No

more time I'm afraid. Andrew, back to you.

Welcome back the to Labour conference, where we're joined

by the latest hot new stand-up comedian on the Manchester circuit.

I speak of course of former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.

In between giving tub-thumping speeches to rally

the party faithful this week, he's appearing at the Comedy Store.

He was also of course the man behind the last attempt to solve

Our political panel is with me as well. John, we have got Scottish

votes for Scottish laws, and more Scottish votes for Scottish laws,

why not English votes for English laws? That's an English parliament

in a major constitutional change and that is what has started. I

certainly don't agree with that I certainly don't agree with that. I

campaign for powers to be given to the regions. When I first tested it

in the Northeast, I lost. Why? Because they said they were not the

same powers you are giving to Scotland. So, basically, we must do

that, decentralised, not just with a Westminster Parliament. As you know,

in 32 years I produce the alternative. You've kept that for 32

years? I took it off my shelf and everybody was talking about it now,

but they weren't in 1982. This was my five plan. 200 meetings all

around the country -- five-year plan. You wrote this morning, not 35

years ago, that this was a plot to turn Westminster into a Tory

dominated English parliament. But if that is how England had voted, it's

not a plot, it's democracy. You can get reform in a more federal

structure, and even English parliament does fit into the federal

structure and that is what the Liberals say, but you need a fairer

representation. It might be quite radical, and we could get rid of the

Lord's, and have representation in the region there. It can't be done

in two weeks. Alex Salmond, he's assuming he has been sold out, and

it was less than a week ago they remain the announcement. We have to

get it carried out will stop but don't connect it to the English

parliament that fixes it in their favour. It may be pretty low

politics from David Cameron to come up with something that was not in

the vowel -- a bow on the front page of the daily record, but if they do

not agree with what he said at the time of the general election, he

will say two in which voters, if you want real protection in England,

vote Conservative, and if you want Scottish MPs deciding on your level

of taxation, vote Labour. He is scared to death of UKIP may have

been saying it for a while. In the constitutional changes have to see

what is fair and equitable, the same with the Barnett fallen -- formula.

But what you have to do is get a fair system. It takes time to

discuss it. I was doing a 32 years ago and nobody wanted to know. We

had better start a debate, and don't mixed up the constitutional type of

English parliament with what we are promising in Scotland. It is about

trust and politics. So the turnout of the north-east regional assembly

and they voted against it. The turnout that the police and crime

commissioners was low. How'd you get people interested in the process and

it doesn't feel like a conversation in smoky rooms and you go back to

British people and tell them what you decided? If you look at the

turnout in Scotland whether they were interested in, now it is

phenomenally interesting. It is about real power, having real

influence. What they said to me in the north-east, they said we know

you have an idea for devolution and you will give us assemblies but it

doesn't have the power of Scotland, but now we are talking about

equity, similar distribution of power and similar resources. The

English people are entitled to that. They have been robbed of it for too

long. Labour has long struggled with what it should do over devolving

power to the regions and you came up with regional assemblies. Ed

Miliband has a different idea of city regions. Aren't they the same

idea of yours but without a democratic accountability? Can we

really trust the greater region of Manchester or Birmingham to deliver

if there is not the same kind of democratic link with the people?

if there is not the same kind of democratic link with the people I

democratic link with the people? I live in whole, and it stops on the

boundary of the Pennines -- the city of Hull. We have city regions from

Labour because I failed in the north-east to get the assemblies in,

and now we have to look at those options. Do you work through city

regions? Mainly in the north, I might say. Even the federal

structure they talk about my be in the North or Midlands with

Birmingham, but there are a number of options and that is where I

believe that what the White Paper should do is to put those options

in. Instead of having to put them together, state what you want to do

in the English regions. Leave it to the legislation, which is what will

happen with the Scottish, and once you've agreed it, you do it after.

You have to start the radical debate about giving the English regions,

not centralised in London, but decentralised. Do you need to have a

separate English parliament? Wouldn't it just satisfy the English

if you simply said to MPs, when it's in English matter in the House of

Commons, stop interfering? I would disagree with that. I would say put

the option in the White Paper. The White Paper seems to be talking

about Scotland. If you don't put the commitments to what you want to do

with the English regions, people might say I'm not supporting that.

Put the framework in the White Paper, but a different timetable.

Devolution in this country has been to a different timetable, whether

it's Wales, Northern Ireland. Start looking fundamentally at it and the

Labour Party should be leading the debate. Let's come the no campaign

lost Glasgow. The cradle of British socialism. -- let's come to

something that happened with the referendum as the no campaign lost

Glasgow. Is it a sign that the Labour Party are finding it hard to

what -- hold on to their traditional working class vote question mark its

different in Manchester. They would say it is a message about

decentralisation. If we change the message a bit maybe. We have been

thinking that now it is that either the Labour Party to recognise it is

not the old message and old areas that will win it. I remember

covering the 1997 referendum in Scotland and you gave a tub thumping

speech in a big hall in Hamilton and you really connected. Obviously it

was a different referendum because that was about a parliament, not

independence and Alex Salmond was on your side, but you, and Ingush MP,

an English minister, connected to the core Labour voters in a way that

Ed Miliband is failing to do -- an English MP. You make a fair point.

In the big rally, I had to point out I was Welsh. Enough of this. Get on

with it. What I was saying there was that I supported you, as I did for

30 odd years when Labour MPs were against any thinker Scotland. I

support you, but I expect you to come in with your Scottish MPs and

make sure the English get their share of the powers and resources

and that is what that speech was about, and by God, it's as relevant

today as it was then. I haven't got any Scottish MPs, I live in

Knightsbridge. Did you get the vote? No. What would you have done? I

can't tell you. You would have voted yes, come on. I'm interested. What

do you want to hear from the speech by Ed Miliband? People are wondering

about where Labour stands. There are many issues we have flown around,

and we've done the discussion just now. What he has got to do where he

started off on the minimum wage. now. What he has got to do where he

started off on the minimum wage You started off on the minimum wage. You

are trying to deal with those left behind. Those are the bottom. That

is the Labour message. The National Health Service is our creation and

we have to say it will be saved If you can save all of these bankers

with all the money and say you haven't got the money for the NHS,

say where we stand. That will be the priority. The third one, housing. I

have had a revolutionary idea that you can buy a house without a

deposit and without the interest or paying the stamp duty, and you buy

it by rent. The government gives ?150 billion guaranteed housing for

up to 600,000. Get down to ordinary people who can use their rent to buy

the house. It's happening in the north-east. Why are they not

listening to you? You have said more to connect with ordinary people in

three minutes than we will probably hear in an hour. I've been telling

them, made, and we have a commission coming out. People don't want

commissions, they want action. I say, I know what we do, housing,

health, the people. That is our language. That is why we are Labour.

That a lot of people run away. I think in Glasgow, they wondered

about that. If you turn up on the same three platforms, and I know

it's a critical thing to say, they think in Scotland it is a coalition.

I don't like coalitions. It looks like a coalition, didn't it? Maybe

it was saved because Rupert Murdoch started the The Times about the

polls and he couldn't even get the sun to say that they wanted. We

haven't got time. I wondered how long it would take is to get to

repot Murdoch. You beat the record. -- to Rupert Murdoch. Labour is

quite behind on the economy, and people are looking at Labour, trying

to work out if they can trust you to the stewards of the economy given

2010. Under Labour 's plans there is 20 billion of cuts to make in the

next Parliament. Will we hear anything about that? It is about the

proportion of debt to GDP. I know it sounds historic, but our debt when

we came in in 1997 was a proportion of GDP, and you must know this, and

that was less than Thatcher's. Why did we get done on debt? You guys

run around saying a lot about it, but the fact is it was worse under

Thatcher. Thatcher is now seen as a hero. If you look at the debt, it is

still a problem. Gordon Brown did an awful lot to solve those problems,

but they were still left with us. What we have to have is a sensible

discussion like we had on devolution and now we are talking about

finances. Let's look at the public sector debt and the price we pay. We

need to be putting the record straight. The problem is they tell

me, John, we have to look to the future not the past. We are getting

screwed on the past and we have to change it and perhaps Gordon Brown

coming in could do something. Finishing on the future, when we did

a poll of the Labour candidates you were watching on the big screen,

were watching on the big screen when it came up that their favourite

to succeed Ed Miliband was Yvette Cooper, why did you shout no! That

is alive. -- alive. -- that is not true. I know resistance is not

strong. What did that mean? You can't get away with anything at

a Conference, John. I was dropping comments them to pick up everywhere,

I do not wear -- nowhere they got that one from. Good to have you

back. Round of applause for former Deputy Prime Minister. That's it for

today. Don't applaud them, they are useless.

my guests. I'll be back here at Labour conference for the Daily

11:30am tomorrow when we'll bring you live coverage of the speech by

We're here all week, and next Sunday you can find us in Birmingham for

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