26/01/2014 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

Politics. Ed Balls has gone socialist and

fiscal Conservative in one speech. He promises to balance the biggest

bit of the budget. And to bring back the 50p top tax rate. Political

masterstroke, or a return to old Labour?

If you go to work by public transport, chances are the price of

your ticket has just gone up - again. We'll speak to Transport

Secretary Patrick McLoughlin. He's our Sunday Interview.

And it's been another wet week our Sunday Interview.

across much of the UK, but what s the outlook according to this man?

This morning.This morning. Held in recent years by party

On the Sunday Politics in the North East...

And with me - as always - the political panel so fresh-faced,

entertaining and downright popular they make Justin Bieber look like a

boring old has-been just desperate to get your attention. Nick Watt,

Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, and they'll be tweeting quicker than a

yellow Lamborghini racing down Miami Beach. Being political nerds, they

have no idea what I'm talking about. Ed Balls sprung a surprise on us all

yesterday. We kinda thought Labour would head for the election with a

return to the 50p top rate of tax. But we didn't think he'd do it now.

He did! The polls say it's popular, Labour activists now have a spring

in their step. The Tories say it's a return to the bad old days of the

'70s, and bosses now think Labour is anti-business. Here's the Shadow

Chancellor speaking earlier this morning. I was part of a Government

which did very many things to open up markets, to make the Bank of

England independent, to work closely with business, but the reality is we

are in very difficult circumstances and because if I'm honest you,

George Osborne's failure in the last few years, those difficult

circumstances will last into the next Parliament. Business people

have said to me they want to get the deficit down, of course they do But

to cut the top rate... It is foolish and feeds resentment I want to do

the opposite and say look, pro-business, pro investment, pro

market, but pro fairness. Let's get this deficit down in a fairway and

make the reforms to make our economy work for the long term. What are the

political implications of Labour now in favour of a 50%, in practise 352%

top rate of tax? One of the political implications I don't think

exist is that they'll win new voters. I'm not sure many people out

there would think, I would love to vote for Ed Miliband but I'm not

sure if he wants to tax rich people enough. It will con Dale their

existing vote but I don't think it is the kind of, in the 1990s we

talked about triangulation, moving beyond your core vote, I don't think

it is a policy like that. If there has been a policy like that this

year, this month, it has been the Tories' move on minimum wage. I

thought Labour would come back with their own version, a centre-right

policy, and instead they have done this. I think we talk about the 35%

strategy that Labour supposed will have, I think it is a policy in that

direction rather than the thing Tony Blair or Gordon Brown would have

done. Where he was not clear is on how much it would raise. We know the

sum in the grand scheme of things isn't much, the bedroom tax was

about sending a message. What we are going to see is George Osborne and

Ed Balls lock as they try to push the other one into saying things

that are unpopular. The Tories, ?150,000 a year, that's exactly

where Ed Balls want them to be. All three main parties have roughly the

same plan, to run a current budget surplus by the end of the next

Parliament. George Osborne said ?12 billion of welfare cuts, hasn't said

how he is going to do it. Ed Balls is giving an idea that he is going

to restore this 50 persons rate The contribution of that will be

deminimus. It is not much, but what does it say about your values.

Because it is that package, it is cleverer than people think. Where

the challenge is is the question that Peter Mandelson posed at the

last election, which is can the Labour Party win a general election

if it doesn't have business on its side? That's the big challenge and

that's the question looking difficult for them this morning

Does it matter if Labour has business on its side. I thought the

most fascinating thing about this announcement is it came from the guy

mindful of business support, Ed Balls. When in opposition and when a

Minister and as a shadow as a result, he's been far more conscious

than Ed Miliband about the need not to alienate the CB Bill. In the

run-up of an election. This is a measure of Ed Miliband's strength in

the Labour Party, that his view of things can prevail so easily over a

guy who for the last 15 years has taken a different view. Eight out of

ten businesses according to the CBI don't want us to leave business

Business is in a bit of a cleft stick. Ed Miliband would like to see

businesses squealing, and Ed Balls is clearly not so comfortable on

that one. is clearly not so comfortable on

that. Mind you, they were squealing this morning from Davos. They

probably had hangovers as well. The other thing they would say is this

is not like Ed Balls thinks that 50p is the optimal rate forever, it what

go eventually. Isn't that what politicians said when income tax was

introduced? Yeah, in '97 Labour regarded 40 persons as the rate

where it would stay. It's been a bad week for the Lib

Dems. Again. Actually, it's been one of the worst weeks yet for Nick

Clegg and his party in recent memory, as they've gone from talking

confidently about their role in Government to facing a storm of

criticism over claims of inappropriate sexual behaviour by a

Lib Dem peer, Chris Rennard, and a Lib Dem MP, Mike Hancock. Here's

Giles with the story of the week. A challenge to Nick Clegg's authority

as he face as growing row over the Liberal Democrat... I want everyone

to be treated with respect by the Liberal Democrats. We are expecting

him to show moral leadership on our behalf. A good man has been publicly

destroyed by the media with the apparent support of Nick Clegg. I

would like Nick Clegg to show leadership and say, this has got to

stop. When Nick Clegg woke up on Monday morning he knew he was in

trouble, staring down the barrel of a stand justify with Lord Rennard

over allegations that the peer a stand justify with Lord Rennard

inappropriately touched a number of women. Chris Rennard

inappropriately touched a number of cleared. Nick Clegg wanted more I

said if he doesn't apologise, he should withdraw from the House of

Lords. If he does that today, what do you do then? I hope he doesn t. I

think no apology, no whip. 2014 was starting badly for the Liberal

Democrats. Chris Rennard refused to apologise, saying you can't say

sorry for something you haven't done. The and he was leaning towards

legal action. Butch us friends better defending Pym and publicly.

This is a good, decent man, who has been punished by the party, with the

leadership of the party that seems to be showing scant regard for due

process. But his accusers felt very differently. It is untenable for the

Lib Dems to have a credible voice on qualities and women's issues in the

future if Lord Rennard was allowed to be back on the Lib Dem benches in

the House of Lords. Therein lay the problem that exposed the weaknesses

of the Lib Dem leaders. The party's internal structures have all the

simplicity of a circuit diagram for a supercomputer, exposing the

complexity of who runs the Liberal Democrats? The simple question that

arose of that was can the leader of the Lib Dems remove a Lib Dem peer?

The simple answer is no. The Lib Dem whips in the Lords could do it but

if enough Lib Dem peers disagreed, they could overrule it. Some

long-stand ng friends of roar Rennard think he is either the

innocent victim of a media witch-hunt or at the least due

process has been ridden over rough shot by the leadership. Nobody ever

did spot Lord Rennard as he didn't turn up to the Lords, will citing

ill health. But issued a statement that ruled out an apology. He

refused to do so and refused to comply with the outcome of that

report, so there was no alternative but for the party to suspend his

membership today. On Wednesday Nick Clegg met Lib Dem peers, not for a

crunch decision, but to discuss the extraordinary prospect of legal

action against the party by the man long credited with building its

success. The situation was making the party look like a joke. One Tory

MP said to one of my colleagues this morning, the funny thing about the

Liberal Democrats, you managed to create a whole sex scandal without

any sex. And we can laugh at ourselves but actually it is rather

serious. And it got more serious, when an MP who had resigned the Lib

Dem whip last year was expanded from the party over a report into

allegations of serious and unwelcome sexual behaviour towards a

constituent. All of this leaves the Lib Dems desperately wishing these

sagas had been dealt with long ago and would now go away. Nick Clegg

ended the week still party leader. Lord Rennard, once one of their most

powerful players, ended the week, for now, no longer even in it.

Giles on the Lib Dems' disastrous week. Now, as you doubtless already

know, on Tuesday Lib Dem MPs will vote to choose a new deputy leader.

You didn't know that? You do now. The job of Nick Clegg's number two

is to speak with a genuine Lib Dem voice, untainted by the demands of

coalition Government. At this point in the show we had expected to speak

to all three candidates for the post, held in recent years by party

veterans like Vince Cable and Simon Hughes. We thought it being quite a

significant week for the party, they might have something to say. And

here they are. Well that's their pictures. For various reasons, all

three are now unavailable. Malcolm Bruce, he's reckoned to be the

outsider. His office said he had a "family commitment". Gordon

Birtwistle, the Burnley MP, was booked to appear but then told us,

"I was at an event last night with Lorely Burt" - she's one of the

candidates - "and she told me it was off". And Lorely Burt herself, seen

by many as the red hot favourite, told us: "Because of the Rennard

thing we don't want to put ourselves in a position where we have to

answer difficult questions." How refreshingly honest. Helen, how bad

politically is all this for the Lib Dems? What I think is the tragic

irony of the Lib Dems is they've been revealed as being too

democratic. In the same way that been revealed as being too

their party conference embarrassed Nick Clegg by voting sings that he

signed up to, and now everything has to be run past various

sub-committees first. Is it democratic or chaotic? It is

Byzantine. Mike Hancock was voluntarily suspended, and this week

he was properly suspended. It was new information into the public

domain that forced that. I'm already hearing Labour and Conservative

Party musing that if it is a long Parliament, we will form a minority

Government. It is a disaster for them. Voters like parties that

reflect and are interested this their concerns. Parties that are

self obsessed turn them off. The third party, if they carry on like

this, they'll be the fifth party in the European elections, so they have

got to draw a line under this. They do that, if they do, through

mediation. As I understand it, Chris Rennard,s who has go devoted his

entire life to the Liberal Democrats, and previously the

Liberal Party, is keen to draw a line under this. He is up for

mediation but he needs to know that the women that he has clearly

invaded their personal space, that there wouldn't be a possible legal a

action from them. The it is very difficult to see how you could

resolve that. Except he difficult to see how you could

these famous friends, to spill all the beans about all the party's sex

secrets. Isn't the danger for the Lib Dems, this haunts them through

to the European elections, where they'll get thumped in the European

elections? They'll get destroyed in the European elections, which keeps

it salient as a story over the summer. And it has implications for

Nick Clegg's leadership. He's done a good job until now, perhaps better

than David Cameron, of exercising authority over his party. He had a

good conference in September. Absolutely, and now the Lib Dems

have looked like a party without a leader or a leadership structure.

Part of that is down to the chaotic or Byzantine organisational

structure of the party. Part of it is Nick Clegg's failure to assert

himself and impose himself over events. Is it Byzantine or

Byzantine. It is labyrinthine. You don't get these words on the Today

programme. The cost of living has been back on the agenda this week as

Labour and the Tories argue over whether the value of money in your

pocket is going up or down. Well there's one cost which has been

racing ahead of inflation and that's the amount you have to pay to travel

by train, by bus and by air. Rail commuters have been hard hit over

the last four years, with the cost of the average season ticket going

up by 18% since January 2010, while wages have gone up by just 3.6% over

the same period. It wages have gone up by just 3.6% over

users are paying high prices wages have gone up by just 3.6% over

commuters from Kent shelling out more than ?5,000 per year from the

beginning of this month just to get to work in London. It doesn't

compare well with our European counterparts. In the UK the average

rail user spends 14% of their average income on trains. It is just

1.5% in Italy. Regulated fares like season tickets went up 3.1% at the

beginning of this month, and with ministers keen to make passengers

fought more of the bills, there are more fare rises coming down the

track. And Patrick McLoughlin joins me now for the Sunday Interview

Welcome. You claim to be in the party of hard-working people, so why

is it that since you came to power rail commuters have seen the cost of

their average season ticket going up in money terms by over 18% while

their pay has gone up in money terms by less than four? I would point out

that this is the first year in ten years that we have not had an above

inflation increase on fares. The Government accepts we have got to do

as much as we can to help the passengers. A big inflation increase

since 2010. This is the first year in ten years that it has not been

above RPI, but we are also investing huge amounts of money into the

railways, building new trains for the East Coast Main Line and the

great Western. We are spending 500 million at Birmingham station, this

is all increasing capacity, so we are seeing investments. Over the

next five years Network Rail will invest over ?38 billion in the

network structure. We also have an expensive railway and it is ordinary

people paying for it. A season ticket from Woking in Surrey,

commuter belt land in London, let's look at the figures. This is a

distance of over 25 miles, it cost over ?3000 per year. We have picked

similar distances to international cities.

The British commuter is being ripped off. The British commuter is seeing

record levels of investment in our railways. The investment has to be

paid for. We are investing huge amounts of money and I don't know

whether the figures you have got here... I'm sure they are likewise,

as you have managed to do... White -- ten times more than the Italian

equivalent. We have seen transformational changes in our

railway services and we need to carry on investing. We were paying

these prices even before you started investing. We have always paid a lot

more to commute in this country than our European equivalents. I'm not

quite sure I want to take on Italy is a great example. You would if you

were a commuter. You is a great example. You would if you

the other rates of taxation has to be paid as well. Isn't it the case

they are making profits out of these figures and using them to subsidise

cheaper fares back in their homeland? The overall profit margin

train companies make is 3%, a reasonable amount, and we have seen

a revolution as far as the railway industry is concerned.

a revolution as far as the railway 20 years we have seen passenger

journeys going from 750 million 20 years we have seen passenger

1.5 billion. That is a massive revolution in rail. Let me look

1.5 billion. That is a massive spokesperson for the German

government, the Ministry of transport.

They are charging huge fares in Britain to take that money back to

subsidise fares in Germany. What do you say to that? We are seeing

British companies winning contracts in Germany. The National Express are

winning contracts to the railways. What about the ordinary commuter?

They are paying through the nose so German commuters can travel more

cheaply. We are still subsidising the railways in this country, but

overall we want to reduce the subsidy we are giving. We are still

seeing growth in our railways and I want to see more people using them.

Why do you increase rail fares at the higher RPI measure than the

lower CPI measurement? That is what has always been done, and we have

stopped. This is the first time in ten years that we have not raised

the rail figures above RPI. You still link fares to RPI.

lower CPI figure when it suits you, lower CPI figure when it suits you,

to keep pension payments down for example, but the higher one when it

comes to increasing rail fares. We are still putting a huge subsidy

into the rail industry, there is still a huge amount of money going

from the taxpayer to support the rail industry. I am not asking you

about that, I am asking you why you link the figures to the higher RPI

vesture Mark if we are going to pay for the levels of investment, so all

the new trains being built at Newton Aycliffe for the East Coast Main

Line and the great Western, ?3. billion of investment, new rolling

stock coming online, then yes, we have to pay for it, and it is a

question of the taxpayer paying for it all the -- or the passenger.

You have capped parking fines until the next election, rail commuters we

have seen the cost of their ticket has gone up by nearly 20%, you are

the party of the drivers, not the passengers, aren't you?

We are trying to help everybody who has been struggling. I think we are

setting out long-term plans for our railways, investing heavily in them

and it is getting that balance right. But you have done more for

the driver than you have for the user of public transport. I don t

accept that. They are paying the same petrol prices as 2011. This is

the first time in ten years that there has not been an RPI plus

rise. We are investing record amounts. Bus fares are also rising,

4.2% in real terms in 2010, at a time when real take-home pay has

been falling. This hits commuters particularly workers who use buses

on low incomes, another cost of living squeeze. I was with

Stagecoach in Manchester on Friday, and I saw a bus company investing in

new buses. Last week First ordered new buses. Part of your hard-working

families you are always on about, they are the ones going to work

early in the morning, and yet you are making them pay more for their

buses in real terms than they did before. They would be happier if

they could travel more cheaply. It is about getting investment in

services, it has to be paid for Why not run the old buses for five more

years? Because then there is more pollution in the atmosphere, modern

buses have lower emissions, and we are still giving huge support

overall to the bus industry and that is very important because I fully

accept that the number of people, yes, use the train but a lot of

people use buses as well. High-speed two, it has been delayed because 877

pages of key evidence from your department were left on a computer

memory stick, part of the submission to environmental consultation. Your

department's economic case is now widely regarded as a joke, now you

do this. Is your department fit for purpose? Yes, and as far as what

happened with the memory stick, it is an acceptable and shouldn't have

happened, and therefore we have extended the time. There has been an

extension in the time for people to make representation, the bill for

this goes through Parliament in a different way to a normal bill. It

is vital HS2 provides what we want. What I am very pleased about is when

the paving bill was passed by Parliament just a few months ago,

there was overwhelming support, and I kept reading there was going to be

70 people voting against it, in the end 30 people voted against it and

there was a good majority in the House of Commons. So can you give a

guarantee that this legislation will get onto the statute books? I will

do all I can. I cannot tell you the exact Parliamentary time scale. The

bill will have started its progress through the House of Commons by

2015, and it may well have concluded. The new chairman of HS2

said he can bring the cost of the line substantially under the budget,

do you agree with that? The figure is ?42 billion with a large

contingency, and David Higgins, as chairman of HS2, is looking at the

whole cast and seeing if there are ways in which it can be built

faster. At the moment across London we are building Crossrail, ?14.

billion investment. There was a report last week saying what an

excellent job has been done. Crossrail started under Labour.

Actually it was Cecil Parkinson in the 1990 party conference. You may

get HS2 cheaper if you didn't pay people so much, why is the

nonexecutive chairman of HS2 on ?600,000? And the new chief

executive on ?750,000. These are very big projects and we need to

attract the best people become so we are going for the best engineers in

the world to engineer this project. It is a large salary, there is no

question about it, but I'm rather pleased that engineers rather than

bankers can be seen to get big rewards for delivering what will be

very important pieces of national infrastructure. I didn't have time

to ask you about your passenger duty so perhaps another time. We are

about to speak to Nigel Mills and all of these MPs on your side who

are rebelling against the Government, how would you handle

them? We have got to listen to what our colleagues are talking about and

try to respond it. Would you take them for a long walk off a short

pier? I'm sure I would have many conversations with them. An

immigration bill to tack the immigration into the UK. When limits

on migration from Bulgaria and Romania were lifted this year there

were warnings of a large influx of migrant workerses from the two new

European countries. So far it's been more of a dribble than a flood. Who

can forget Labour MP Keith Vaz greeting a handful of arrivals at

Luton Airport. But it is early days and it is one of the reasons the

Government's introduced a new Immigration Bill. The Prime Minister

is facing rebellion from backbenchers who want tougher action

on immigration from abroad. Nigel Mills would reimpose restrictions on

how many Romanians and Bulgarians can come here. Joining me is Nigel

Mills, Conservative MP behind the amendment and Labour MP Diane

Abbott. Welcome. Nigel Mills, there hasn't been an influx of Romanians

and Bulgarians. Why do you want to restore these, kick these

transitional controls way forward to 2019? I don't think any of us were

expecting a rush on January 1st Andrew. I think we were talking

about a range of 250,000 to 350 000 people over five years. That's

obviously a large amount of people, especially when you think net

migration to the UK was well in excess of the Government's target of

tens of thousands last year. The real concern is that it would be

ever increasing our population, attracting lots of low-skilled,

low-wage people, which keeps our people out of work and wages down.

Did you accept that if you were to accept this, it would be in breach

of the Treaty of Rome, the founding principle of the European Union We

were trying to keep the restrictions that Bulgaria and Romania accepted

for their first seven years of EU membership, on the basis that when

we signed the treaty we weren't aware that we would have a huge and

catastrophic recession we are still recovering from. But you would be in

breach of the law, correct? The UK Parliament has a right to say we

signed this deal before the terrible recession, and we need a bit longer

in our national interest. It is worth noting that Bulgaria and

Romania haven't met all their accession requirements. The

Bulgarian requirement passed a law... So if they break the law it

is alright for us to break the law? Is we should be focusing on trying

to get 2. 4 million of our own in work, and 1 million people not in

work... Let me bring in Diane Abbott. Will you vote for this

amendment and why? It is in breach of the treaty. While I deplore MPs

that try to cause trouble, these of the treaty. While I deplore MPs

have been particularly mindless because what they want to do

wouldn't be legal. However, it is a Tory internal brief, if I might say

so. Maybe you can cause trouble by voting for it. No, that would be

going too far. Underlying it is a real antagonism for David Cameron.

They have had to hold off on this bill until January. It was supposed

to be debating before Christmas As we speak they've not cut a deal so

it could be pretty grus om. Nigel Mills, what do you say to that I

think there is a recognition that there is a problem with the amount

of migration from EU countries that we need to tackle. We could try to

achieve an annual cap perhaps, longer limits on when countries get

free movement. I think the debate is moving in the right direction, but I

think those people who are trapped out of work and desperately looking

for work want something to be done now and not wait a few more years

while we have more assessments Andrews. People are worried about

the level of immigration. They I it is too high. That's the consensus in

the country. We spoke to to migration centre in Hackney and they

said they are struggling to cope with the number of people using

their services. These are people with problems with the law. In the

past years EU migrants put in more to the economy in taxation than they

take out in benefits. When it comes to free movement, which

take out in benefits. When it comes Nige em, that horse has bolted. We

signed a treaty. There is nothing people like Nigel Mills can do,

unless they want to rip their party apart, God forbid. Will you go as

far as to rip your party apart, Nigel Mills? Are you going to take

this all the way? Would you rather see this bill go down than your

amendment not be accepted? This is a very important bill. I think we all

want to see measures on the statute book, so the last thing we want to

see is this bill go down. We do need to set out clearly that we have real

concerns about the level of EU migration and something needs to be

done. Would you rather have the bill without your amendment or no bill at

all? I am hoping we can have the bill with the amendment. I know

all? I am hoping we can have the that, but if you can't? Is that will

depend on what the Labour Party decide to do. They are talking

tougher on immigration but will they take action on it? Your party has

been talking tough on immigration but I will be surprised if an Ed

Miliband Labour Party would vote for but I will be surprised if an Ed

egg in direct cameravention of the Treaty of Rome. It would make no

sense. Nigel Mills is wishing for the impossible. If I was a Tory I

would be wringing high hands. He hasn't ruled out crashing the bill.

That's incredible. Where will this That's incredible. Where will this

end, Nigel Mills? We'll end with a vote on Thursday. There's a lot of

amendments people can use to show their concern about migration. We

want limited and proportionate action, and that's what I am

proposing. I want to see the bill on action, and that's what I am

the statute book, I want the restrictions on people who shouldn't

be here getting bank accounts and driving licences. I don't want to

crash this bill but there's more measures we need in it. Nigel Mills

thank you. You are going to be - popping up I think on the Sunday

Politics East Midlands. Diane Abbott, thank you as well.

We're in for more heavy rain and high winds across the UK today. You

may remember that one UKIP high winds across the UK today. You

councillor - he's since been suspended - caused controversy last

weekend by blaming the recent flooding on the legalisation of gay

marriage. Why didn't I think of that? So who better than this man to

bring you the unofficial forecast. I'll be bringing you the late least

UKIP weather from your area. You're watching Sunday Politics

Also coming up in just over 20 minutes, I'll be looking at the week

ahead with our political panel. A warm welcome to the local part of

the show from the North East and Cumbria. The week has been dominated

by cuts to the fire services. We will discuss it with two local MPs.

Also, we hear the children are going hungry because she the parents have

had their benefits stopped. We ask whether government sanctions and

job`seekers are being efferent fairway. The economic boost was not

sheared with the new unemployment figures. We could not imagine

anything worse for the region. There is progress in the rest of the

country and at best, it is stagnating here or perhaps even

getting worse. The two areas in the most problem is the North East and

the south`west. We have two entries the likes of communication. I want

to get apprenticeships and new jobs in the area. We suffer from the loss

of jobs from the older industries and from the public sector. We were

warned that the government policies would affect the North East much

more and no we are of that. We could not sit and watch the public debt

grow and grow so public sector cuts were inevitable. However, I do not

see that the cuts will come anyway to balancing the books. It does mean

we have to work a lot harder for jobs in the North East and Vince

Cable has been doing that. There have been good signs underneath the

headlines. There is some hope the but a lot of the jobs have been

treated as Eagle awards contracts, low paid. Unemployment in the North

East is 20% worse than in any other region of the country, so it is dire

here. When I challenged Vince Cable about this, he did not have anything

to say. He talked about in regional growth fund, but that is not helping

to get money to the small and medium`size businesses who could be

growing the economy. The government need to be doing something. Letters

move on to another story. The political fallout from the cuts to

the fire service. One regional MP has called for a rethink on the

decision. The cuts will mean 150 redundancies. It is proving a hot

issue, if you permit the pun. In three years time, there will be no

fire station in the heart of Sunderland. What do people think of

that? My son is eight firemen. The consequences are grave. In response

times. It is a disgrace. It is the same with the police station.

Everything is going from Sunderland. This issue has put politicians and

tricky spots. It was taken by a Labour dominated Fire authority, but

the Labour MP is not pulling her punches. It is totally the wrong

decision. This was badly thought out and not consulted properly. This is

the worst possible scenario. We have to think again. Fires which affected

property on life. We responded to as quickly as they were before. The

location of the station is secondary to making sure we continue to have

good response times. All the cuts off at the headlines, there are a

lot cuts rate across the region. It will cost 131 jobs in the closing of

the fire stations. Cleveland could shed 60 firefighters and eight

station could close in Middlesbrough. Cumbria wants to cut

five engines and close one station. Give it back fire cuts even in their

own backyard or join the protesters? In Penrith, that is what happened.

Marches went onto the streets and outfront, the Labour MP. If there

was a big pile`up of cars on the M6, you simply would not be able to

respond quickly enough. When you have people protesting in the

streets and then even, they have to be paid attention to. What about NT

say? This fire burned for a fortnight. We have a number of fire

risk places in the region. I want the risks properly assessed. They

have to be fit for purpose for any eventuality. For some politicians,

the outgoing the party line scenario is going up in smoke. Let us talk to

the local MP. Who is to blame for this `the government or the

Labour`controlled fire authority? I think they are very culpable. The

authority has been placed in a very difficult situation. But we think

they did have options. They have the biggest reserves in England, that is

in their in their own words, and what they

have chosen is the worst case scenario. I was at the meeting, but

the reserves are like savings. If you depend, you might be OK this

year, but next year, you will have to find the money some other way. I

find it offensive that local politicians are making cheap

political points by finger`pointing at each other. There are people 's

lives and people 's livelihoods at stake here. At the meeting, the

language changed from we can use to the reserves to we choose not to.

When we are talking about station closures and the loss of jobs, we

feel that is unacceptable. Julian said the consultation was not

carried out correctly. Would we have to ask the same people again? With

respect, the petition was Ashley handed in by a member of the public.

The person involved collected hundreds of signatures. We have the

population of 1.1 million. I would guess at least 50% of those who

actually went to the meetings were probably families of firefighters. I

would not read too much into them. But for a consultation to take

place, it has to be meaningful. The public need to be able to take part.

They were not aware of what was going on. There was only 270

responses to the consultation. What should be happening? They should not

be using `` losing their jobs or losing the applications. They have

said they will be able to reclaim the good response times of the past.

We do not dispute that. We think it is misleading to say that they will

not change, however. If you take the fire station out of Sunderland, it

will be taking longer to get to a fire in the centre of Sunderland.

That is just common sense. They have taken the option which will lead to

the biggest possible chance of fatalities. Other fire authorities

have come to different decisions. This has not convinced the public.

This is not convinced people closest to the fire service. In

Northumberland, although our issues, there is a more effective

consultation. They were facing much less of a financial meltdown. 8.8

million pounds, because the rate the government has adjusted the funds,

it hits urban deprived areas because they cannot raise money from council

tax. Absolutely. So ugly just morning? Though I do not think they

having gauged with the public to make decisions about how they can

adjust. I think they have not consulted as to how they could best

be efficient. I know you have concerns about what is happening in

Cleveland, but on the face of it, you are getting off lightly? I would

not have thought so. He said is probably the biggest fire risk in

the continent, because of the eight chemical complexes in the region.

The decision to close the main fire service is a nonsense. But also to

sack 60 firefighters and rely on part`timers, we are increasing their

risk. What should be the attitude of Labour councillors? Become

complained about the cuts but still put them through. We have to

remember this is all the result of government cuts. Labour councils

have little choice? They do not. They have to do something. We try to

get a delegation to see the fire minister. I think they need to go

back and look again at executive pay, the car was allocated to senior

managers. We need to look at this again and consult properly, so the

public can understand what they are proposing and take the right

decisions so that people in petrochemical complexes and

elsewhere are kept safe. It is a bit rich for the local Conservative MP,

they are raising concerns when ultimately, they must have known

this was coming because of the week he government has cut funding. I

think Teessiders are a particular serious case. Ultimately, the

government has two deal with the financial mess we were left with.

But if you compare them to the south of the country, the settlements are

worse. That is the key? Through the last government, we found rule

counties had far worse settlements. This argument goes on all the time.

Some Labour authorities are doing better than others. Other

authorities another authorities have other parties have coped better. No,

what about economies of scale? Maybe merging fire services in

neighbouring counties? If we could share management costs, and save

some money in that way, and some of the other things which a colleague

suggested, then it could work. However, a bad merger with debtors

into the same problems we have heard. We have here the likes of

Private fire services, such as the John Lewis firefighters? Would that

work? I do not. But I do think there could be merger costs which could

work. Local authorities could cut the likes of human resources and

make savings in other ways. The government wants to deter people

from Ike abusing the benefits system. If you feel to attend an

interview, your allowance could be stopped. In extreme cases, this

could be up to three years. The government say the sanctions only

last resort. But the unions and accusing them of having politically

motivated decisions. One of the most deprived areas in England. Some

people here claim their jobseeker's allowance is being unfairly stopped

due to new benefit sanctions regime. I forgot it am not too an

appointment. I note the adviser. I phoned them up and said I forgot. My

benefit seemed fine. She said I will have to tell the Department of work

and persons. The letter and up on the 20th of December and I was

sanctioned over Christmas. I had to go begging for food at the church

hall. It was a genuine mistake. I have had to rely on food banks and I

also lost in the middle of winter, my gas and electricity. Under a new

tougher regime introduced in October, people can use their

allowance for up to four week 's and up to three years. Reasons are

leaving a job voluntarily through to failing to come up to an interview.

Between October 2012 and June of last year, there was a 6% increase

compared with the same period a year earlier. In this region, it means

nearly 17,500 people in the region had their allowance log stopped.

Nearly 16,000 in the Roman Tees Valley and 20,000 in Cumbria and

Lancashire. The Department of work and pensions say there are no

targets for sanctions. The unions say they been put under pressure to

sanction people. Staff are faced with the threat of sanctions

themselves, in the form of performance improvement plans. If

you look at the guidance for that, it clearly states that it is a major

against targets. We believe these are politically motivated targets.

Our staff are being forced to carry them out. People say the sanctions

are having a devastating effect. We had the Child here. Children's

services had called because they felt the child had not been eating.

It was true. The child had not been eating because the parent had been

sanctioned for three months. The government said sanctions are only

used at a last resort and there is a right of appeal. Supporters say the

sanctions are necessary. It is part of the government 's attempts to

stamp out the something for nothing culture which has been very damaging

in the country in recent years. If someone is out of work and looking

for work, they should get benefits, but there should be conditions

attached. With jobless figures falling nationally, there has been

good news for the government regarding unemployment. But critics

say poor communities are being made to buy the unfair application of

benefit sanctions. Alex, sanctions could be applied fairly, but if you

missed appointments or do not convince the job centre like you are

looking for work, why should we all fund that lifestyle? There has been

a 100 and 40% increase in sanctions. It is even greater for people with

disabilities. I have a lot of casework in my office because people

are coming to others who have been unfairly sanction. One person was in

a corner in the hospital when they were sanctioned. One person who was

let down by the local bus company was sanctioned. There are genuine

things happening out there. The staff in these places are under

pressure and I believe the have targets. Do you think this is

politically motivated? There are certainly targets. Whether there are

government driven or not I do not know. But we are seeing decisions

being taken very quickly and people treated unfairly. Is the eight bit

of pushing of the job centre to sanction people who should not be?

That is pushing for the right thing to be done. If people are clicking

money not trying to work, the taxpayer fits the bill for that. But

to these people sound like there? There are situations where the

system is unfair. I will take these cases up and we get the results. But

of a coincidence that this figure has suddenly gone up so much? It is

not a coincidence that the government is trying to crack down

on abuses of the system. Taxpayers do not have very much themselves.

They want the money to be going to people who are out of work and

genuinely looking for work. What about the Child who did not eat

because their parent maybe did something wrong. Should they be

suffering because of what the appeal in bed? No child should be suffering

in the system and in the circumstances. If there are real

problems, the God who a food bank can also get financial advice. What

we cannot have is people 's children being used as a means to excuse them

making no attempt to work. This system is breaking down. We had a

child who came to us who went to the job centre, tried to get onto a job

search, could not get on the internet because it was not working

and then got sanctioned. It is not a reason not to have a system which

protects the taxpayer. The problem for Labour is that if you protest

over time, it looks as if you are on the side of the benefit claimant,

not the taxpayer? This has been very restricted. We have the futures jobs

fund and new ideas, but. But voters see you protesting every benefit

change, every sanction. That is not true. We have been frustrated

because often the most vulnerable people suffer. We need a system that

sees people back into work. We need local authorities involved, instead

of huge organisations which have not done jobs corporately. One of the

MPs in the North confessed to being a passionate take that fans this

week. She said she shared her daughter 's musical tastes. It is

all part of her battle against ticket touting. Here is the news in

60 seconds. Kane fell in many parts of the country, but was up in

Northumbria. Teeside could have new drilling for shield gas. There has

been a call for action to tackle ticket touts. This happens week in

week out. This happens in Peter, comedy, sport up and down the

country. It is not just about large cities, but these things affect all

over the country. There is to be a further ?50 million worth of cuts at

Sunderland Council. There are plans to set up a combined authority

looking at jobs and transport. 4,000 people have signed a petition is to

further call plan should have an elected beer.

That is it from others. You can keep up`to`date in a variety of ways. All

the details online. Next week, we report from Whitehaven.

constituency, very pleased. Andrew, back to you.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage is never far away from controversy, but this

week he's been outdoing himself He was hit over the head with a placard

by a protester in Kent, provoked outrage by saying women with

children are worth less to city firms, and said the ban on owning

handguns was 'crackers'. He also seemed less than sure of his party's

own policies when I interviewed him on the Daily Politics. And

own policies when I interviewed him that got everyone talking was the

suggestion by a UKIP councillor that flooding is linked to gay marriage.

We'll talk about all of that in a moment, but first, over to Nigel

with the weather. Weather for all areas of the British Isles but

definitely not "Bongo Bongo Land." You may have heard about a storm in

a tea cup developed when you kip councillor in Oxfordshire blamed the

floods on the gay marriage Bill The old party is focusing on the view of

UKIP members like him, even though he had said a sell yuj of things

before when a Tory councillor. How quickly things change depending on

when the blouse. There are occasional barmy views by people of

all persuasions. In Whitby a Labour councillor claimed of fathered a

child with an extra terrorist ral, and said his real mother was a

foot green alien. And in Wales a councillor

thinking about heading off for the slopes, there were flurries of

embarrassment for the Tories after Aidan Burly organised a Nazi skiing

party in a resort. Anyone heading to Brussels, perhaps

on the gravy train, watch out for hot air.

In Britain temperatures are rising ahead of the European elections in

May. It could get stormy, so advise light aircraft. Watch out for

outbreaks of common sense, and no chance of cyclonic fruit cakes. Back

to you, Andrew, with the rest of the Sunday Politics.

Nick, if it was any other party that had bon through the past week it

would be in meltdown. And maybe it is harming UKIP and maybe it isn't.

What do you think? That just shows, that great weather forecast, Prince

Charles now has a rival to be an excellent weather forecaster, as

does the Duchess of Cornwall. It shows why Nigel Farage is the fefr

candidate to the European elections. Our invitation to the British people

to kick the establishment. The establishment have spent five years

that the European Parliament is a waste of time, so who are you going

to vote for? A Nigel Farage type of person. What was important about

your eadviceration of Nigel Farage on Daily Politics is that when it

came to the substance, they flounder. But the point about that

party is they may have the thinnest set of policies, but people know

what they stand for more than any other parties - get out of Europe, a

grammar school in every town. If any other leading politician called for

an end to the ban on handguns, at a time when we've seen these appalling

gun deaths in the United States now almost one every week in some

terrible siege in a school. It would be a crisis. It seems to wash off

him. He's got congenital foot-and-mouthitis. Straight into

another wild nothing to do with why people might vote UKIP. I don't

think people are desperate to have handgun licences back in this

country. It is such an unusual phenomenon, UKIP, that if this was a

Tory or a Labour or a Lib Dem saying it, we've seen the damage done to

the Lib Dems on a much more serious manner, we would say this is

terminal. But maybe it adds to this image that we are not like the other

parties. I think that is it. We keep waiting for these scandals and

embarrassments to do damage to UKIP's poll ratings, but it's not

working. It is ultimately because if you are an antiestablishment party,

if you are an anti-system party the rules of the game which apply to the

establishment parties don't apply to you. And the more ramshackle and

embarrassing you are, the more authentic you seem. It what be take

something for them not to finish second in May. Do they spend the

following 12 months sinking in the poll snoos And George Osborne's

strategy is fame everything as Labour versus the Conservatives The

electorate will have their fun in May. Maybe the Tories will be beat

into third place but in thejection is that -- but in the general

election it is Labour versus the Tories. The Conservative Party will

run around, 46 letters to Graham Brady, a leadership contest. That

sort of scenario. UKIP, if it rules well in the European elections,

could cause big trouble for Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg couldn't it?

The big point about this, David Cameron said this is not a political

party but a pressure group. This is the way to look at UKIP, and the way

it is used by people in the right of the party, who say we have to do

this. I like the policy of painting the trains in their old liveries. It

would be like my old train set. I like the bigger passports.

Pre-GNER... And London and Midland. I used to be a train spotter.

Pre-GNER... And London and Midland. phone. Good to know you are watching

but pity you are not here. He wanted to clarify he had constituency

commitments to prevent him coming on the show to talk about becoming

leader of the party, but he didn't dispute anything we said on the

show. Yesterday, Ed Balls said that

housing investment will be a central priority for the next Labour

Government. It's a big issue, as the lack of new homes pushes up the the

price of owning or renting. Well, tomorrow the Tories will announce

what they say is the most ambitious programme of affordable

housebuilding for 20 years. The Government sees housing as a really

important part of the economy. That's why we are announcing a 23

billion package for 165,000 new affordable homes. So individual

builders, councils, housing associations can bid for that money.

Phase one, which we are halfway through at the moment, we've built

170,000 houses. 99,000 already coming out of the ground, so we ve

made real progress on that. So, 165,000 new, affordable homes. It is

a lot. Let me add three more words. Over three years. It is not such a

lot. It is not, and Labour's commitment is 200,000 homes a year

and even that isn't enough. The problem here is that the vest

interest is with people who already have homes. They have a vote in the

system through the planning regulations.

system through the planning gap in the hedge through Richmond

Park through which you gap in the hedge through Richmond

able to see St Paul's Cathedral That's why you cannot build homes

where you want them. I don't think we want to build homes over Richmond

Park. He wasn't saying that. That's dies an Tyne -- that's Byzantine.

You've got to deal with supply, which is why Labour is talking about

200,000 a year, and what George Osborne has done with supply is

helping with demand. We know the Help to Buy Scheme is pretty

dangerous, and Mark Carney is keen to put the break on that. If you are

to deal with supply, you have to do radical things. Chris Huhne talked

about on brownfield sites you can tax people who are holding the land

as if the development has taken place. Then if you are really going

to deal with it you have to talk about the greenfield sites, and you

have to deal with the garden cities argument, which is too much for the

Tories. All the parties seem to agree building new houses is a

political winner. I hope that they are right. I'm not sure they are.

The housing market is the example of what economists call the insider

in-outsider problem. People who are already homeowners have no rational

incentive to vote for more housing stock. Even if you leave aside the

Conservative arable objections, if you are a

Conservative arable objections, if interest to stick with the planning

promise that we have. So then stuck between a rock and a hard

place. Not only are we growing at the moment but our population is

growing. I've seen projects that in quite quickly we will overtake

Germany and become the largest populated country in Europe. If

that's the case we've got to build homes. We have. If you look at Tower

Hamlets in London, the population is r ging higher than the number of

dwelling. Classically the theory's been young people are most affected

by this and they don't vote much. But when their parents have young

Johnny stuck at home at 37, that's an electoral issue. That's why the

garden cities project is interesting, because they finance

themselves. You zone it for development, it is worth ?2 million

an acre and then you can build on it. But who is going to want the

greenfield sites gone. And how quickly can we build garden cities

today? Some were started before the Town and Country Planning Act. I've

read stats about the way Chinese and Japanese are building houses and

they were slower than that. Here's a thought, sticking on the housing

theme. Ed Miliband came up with the energy freeze, a populist

interventionist move. Then the use it or lose it to land developers.

Then breaking up the banks. Now the 50p tax rate.

Then breaking up the banks. Now the on Labour coming up for rent

controls? That's already a big split. They are split already on it.

They have. In London it is a popular policy. It might not play well in

the rest of the country. I would say 50-50 on that. I think Labour

supporting rent controls like the Tories having a go at welfare. The

policy may be individually popular but it sends an impression about the

party which might be less attract active. It confirms underlying

suspicions that vote these guys into power and suddenly they are

tampering with the private economy. The memories of the '70s when

Governments tried and failed to do that. It is riskier than a

superficial reading of the polls would suggest. One to watch? I think

they are looking at it. That was the key message of the Ed Balls speech

on housing, is looking at supply and how you get to that 200,000 figure a

year, which is substantially more than what Kris Hopkins is talking

about. What we didn't get to talk about, remember we had Michael

Wilshaw on, the Chief Inspector of Schools. We all consumed was Mr

Gove's man, the Education Secretary's man. Now according to

the Sunday Times he is spitting blood about the way Mr Gove and his

office are speaking about him behind the scenes. We've checked the quotes

and he stands by them, so I think we'll have to have the head of

Ofsted back on the programme. If you are watching, we're here. All that

to the Lib Dems who didn't come on today.

to the Lib Dems who didn't come on That's all for today. Thanks to all

my guests. The Daily Politics is That's all for today. Thanks to all

and I'll be here again next week. Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the

Sunday Politics. Britain, with 120,000 soldiers

is now at war with Germany This would be the first

truly modern war.