:00:36. > :00:42.Welfare reform is one of the government's most popular policies.
:00:43. > :00:46.So Labour says it would be even tougher than the Tories.
:00:47. > :00:49.We'll be asking the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary if she's got
:00:50. > :00:56.Even Labour supporters worry that Ed Miliband hasn't got what it takes
:00:57. > :01:00.Labour grandees are increasingly vocal about their concerns.
:01:01. > :01:12.Over 50% of Labour voters think they'd do better with a new leader.
:01:13. > :01:25.We speak to a new political party apparently "toxic" on the doorstep.
:01:26. > :01:26.We speak to a new political party campaigning for regional government
:01:27. > :01:28.in the north`east. promised an electric car revolution,
:01:29. > :01:40.why so little progress? Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and
:01:41. > :01:46.Janan Ganesh, the toxic tweeters First, the deepening crisis in Iraq,
:01:47. > :01:55.where Sunni Islamists are now largely in control of
:01:56. > :01:57.the Syrian-Iraq border, which means they can now re-supply their forces
:01:58. > :02:03.in Iraq from their Syrian bases Rather than moving on Baghdad, they
:02:04. > :02:06.are for the moment consolidating their grip on the towns
:02:07. > :02:08.and cities they've already taken. They also seem to be
:02:09. > :02:11.in effective control of Iraq's biggest oil refinery,
:02:12. > :02:14.which supplies the capital. And there are reports they
:02:15. > :02:17.might now have taken the power Iraqi politicians are now admitting
:02:18. > :02:23.that ISIS, the name of the Sunni insurgents, is
:02:24. > :02:26.better trained, better equipped and far more battle-hardened than the
:02:27. > :02:32.US-trained Iraqi army fighting it. Which leaves the fate of Baghdad
:02:33. > :02:50.increasingly in the hands No good news coming out of there,
:02:51. > :02:55.Janan. No good news and no good options either. The West's best
:02:56. > :02:59.strategy is to decide how much support to give to the Iraqi
:03:00. > :03:03.government. The US is sending over about 275 military personnel. Do
:03:04. > :03:09.they go further and contemplate their support? General Petraeus
:03:10. > :03:15.argued against it as it might be seen as the US serving as the force
:03:16. > :03:21.of Shia Iraqis -- continue their support. Do we contemplate breaking
:03:22. > :03:27.up Iraq? It won't be easy. The Sunni and Shia Muslim populations don t
:03:28. > :03:31.live in clearly bordered areas, but in the longer term, do we deal with
:03:32. > :03:36.it in the same way we dealt with the break-up of the Ottoman empire over
:03:37. > :03:41.100 years ago? In the short-term and long-term, completely confounding.
:03:42. > :03:46.Quite humiliating. If ISIS take Baghdad I can't think of a bigger
:03:47. > :03:53.ignominy for foreign policy since Suez. If Iraq is partitioned, it
:03:54. > :03:58.won't be up to us. It will be what is happening because of what is
:03:59. > :04:03.happening on the ground. Everything does point to partition, and that
:04:04. > :04:08.border, which ISIS control, between Syria and Iraq, that has been there
:04:09. > :04:13.since it was drawn during the First World War. That is gone as well An
:04:14. > :04:20.astonishingly humbling situation the West, and you can see the Kurds in
:04:21. > :04:25.the North think this is a charge -- chance for authority. They think
:04:26. > :04:30.this is the chance to get the autonomy they felt they deserved a
:04:31. > :04:35.long time. Janan is right. We can't do much in the long term, but we
:04:36. > :04:38.have to decide on the engagement. And the other people wish you'd be
:04:39. > :04:41.talking turkey, because if there is some blowback and the fighters come
:04:42. > :04:46.back, they are likely to come back from Turkey. Where is Iran in all of
:04:47. > :04:51.this? There were reports last week that the Revolutionary guard, the
:04:52. > :04:55.head of it, he was already in Baghdad with 67 advisers and there
:04:56. > :05:01.might have been some brigades that have gone there as well. Where are
:05:02. > :05:05.they? What has happened? I'm pretty sure the Prime Minister of Iraq is
:05:06. > :05:15.putting more faith in Iran than the White House and the British. I think
:05:16. > :05:20.they are running the show, in technical terms. John Kerry is
:05:21. > :05:25.flying into Cairo this morning, and what is his message? It is twofold.
:05:26. > :05:29.One is to Arab countries, do more to encourage an inclusive government in
:05:30. > :05:33.Iraq, mainly Sunni Muslims in the government, and the Arab Gulf states
:05:34. > :05:38.should stop funding insurgents in Iraq. You think, Iraq, it's
:05:39. > :05:43.potentially going to break up, so this sounds a bit late in the day
:05:44. > :05:47.and a bit weak. It gets fundamentally to the problem, what
:05:48. > :05:50.can we do? Niall Ferguson has a big piece in the Sunday Times asking if
:05:51. > :05:56.this is place where we cannot doing anything. He doesn't want to do
:05:57. > :06:01.anything. By the way, that is what most Americans think. That is what
:06:02. > :06:04.opinion polls are showing. You have George Osborne Michael Gold who
:06:05. > :06:08.would love to get involved but they cannot because of the vote in
:06:09. > :06:11.parliament on Syria lasted -- George Osborne and Michael Gove. This
:06:12. > :06:14.government does not have the stomach for military intervention. We will
:06:15. > :06:18.see how events unfold on the ground. All parties are agreed that
:06:19. > :06:20.Britain's 60-year old multi-billion The Tory side of the Coalition think
:06:21. > :06:26.their reforms are necessary and popular, though they haven't
:06:27. > :06:28.always gone to time or to plan. In the eight months she's had since
:06:29. > :06:33.she became Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves
:06:34. > :06:39.has talked the talk about getting people off benefits, into work and
:06:40. > :06:42.lowering the overall welfare bill. her first interview
:06:43. > :06:45.in the job she threatened "We would But Labour has opposed just
:06:46. > :06:48.about every change the Coalition has proposed to cut the cost
:06:49. > :06:53.and change the culture of welfare. Child benefit, housing benefit,
:06:54. > :06:55.the ?26,000 benefit cap - They've been lukewarm about
:06:56. > :07:02.the government's flagship Universal Credit scheme - which rolls six
:07:03. > :07:05.benefit payments into one - and And Labour has set out only
:07:06. > :07:12.two modest welfare cuts. This week, Labour said young people
:07:13. > :07:16.must have skills or be in training That will save ?65 million,
:07:17. > :07:21.says Labour, though the cost And cutting winter fuel payments
:07:22. > :07:27.for richer pensioners which will Not a lot in a total welfare bill
:07:28. > :07:34.of around ?200 billion. And with welfare cuts popular among
:07:35. > :07:37.even Labour voters, they will soon have to start spelling out exactly
:07:38. > :07:54.what Labour welfare reform means. Welcome. Good morning. Why do you
:07:55. > :07:57.want to be tougher than the Tories? We want to be tough in getting the
:07:58. > :08:02.welfare bill down. Under this government, the bill will be ?1
:08:03. > :08:05.million more than the government set out in 2010 and I don't think that
:08:06. > :08:11.is acceptable. We should try to control the cost of Social Security.
:08:12. > :08:14.But the welfare bill under the next Labour government will fall? It will
:08:15. > :08:20.be smaller when you end the first parliament than when you started? We
:08:21. > :08:23.signed up to the capping welfare but that doesn't see social security
:08:24. > :08:28.costs ball, it sees them go up in line with with inflation or average
:08:29. > :08:34.earnings -- costs fall. So where flair will rise? We have signed up
:08:35. > :08:38.to the cap -- welfare will rise We have signed up to the cap. We will
:08:39. > :08:42.get the costs under control and they haven't managed to achieve it. The
:08:43. > :08:45.government is spending ?13 billion more on Social Security and the
:08:46. > :08:51.reason they are doing it is because the minimum wage has not kept pace
:08:52. > :08:55.with the cost of living so people are reliant on tax credits. They are
:08:56. > :08:58.not building houses and people are relying on housing benefit. We have
:08:59. > :09:04.a record number of people on zero hours contracts. I'm still not clear
:09:05. > :09:08.if you will cut welfare if you get in power. Nobody is saying that the
:09:09. > :09:16.cost of welfare is going to fall. The welfare cap sees that happening
:09:17. > :09:21.gradually. That is a Tory cap. And you've accepted it. You're being the
:09:22. > :09:28.same as the Tories, not to. If they had a welfare cap, they would have
:09:29. > :09:30.breached it in every year of the parliament. Social Security will be
:09:31. > :09:35.higher than the government set out because they failed to control it.
:09:36. > :09:39.You read the polls, and the party does lots of its own polling, and
:09:40. > :09:41.you're scared of being seen as the welfare party. You don't really
:09:42. > :09:48.believe all of this anti-welfare stuff? We are the party of work not
:09:49. > :09:51.welfare. The Labour Party was set up in the first place because we
:09:52. > :09:54.believe in the dignity of work and we believe that work should pay
:09:55. > :09:58.wages can afford to live on. I make no apologies for being the party of
:09:59. > :10:03.work. We are not the welfare party, we are the party of work. Even your
:10:04. > :10:07.confidential strategy document admits that voters don't trust you
:10:08. > :10:12.on immigration, the economy, this is your own people, and welfare. You
:10:13. > :10:15.are not trusted on it. The most recent poll showed Labour slightly
:10:16. > :10:18.ahead of the Conservative Party on Social Security, probably because
:10:19. > :10:23.they have seen the incompetence and chaos at the Department for Work and
:10:24. > :10:27.Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith. Your own internal document means
:10:28. > :10:33.that the voters don't trust you on welfare reform. That is why we have
:10:34. > :10:39.shown some of this tough things we will do like the announcement that
:10:40. > :10:41.Ed Miliband made earlier this week, that young people without basic
:10:42. > :10:45.qualifications won't be entitled to just sign on for benefits, they have
:10:46. > :10:48.to sign up for training in order to receive support. That is the right
:10:49. > :10:56.thing to do by that group of young people, because they need skills to
:10:57. > :11:03.progress. We will, once that. - we will, onto that. You say you
:11:04. > :11:07.criticise the government that it had a cap and wouldn't have met it, but
:11:08. > :11:14.every money-saving welfare reform, you voted against it. How is that
:11:15. > :11:17.being tougher? The most recent bout was the cap on overall welfare
:11:18. > :11:24.expenditure, and we went through the lobbies and voted for the Tories.
:11:25. > :11:26.You voted against the benefit cap, welfare rating, you voted against,
:11:27. > :11:31.child benefit schemes, you voted against. You can't say we voted
:11:32. > :11:35.against everything when we voted with the Conservatives in the most
:11:36. > :11:41.recent bill with a cap on Social Security. It's just not correct to
:11:42. > :11:45.say. The last time we voted, we walked through the lobby with them.
:11:46. > :11:51.You voted on the principle of the cap. You voted on every step that
:11:52. > :11:56.would allow the cap to be met. Every single one. The most recent vote was
:11:57. > :12:00.not on the principle of the cap it was on a cap of Social Security in
:12:01. > :12:03.the next Parliament and we signed up for that. It was Ed Miliband who
:12:04. > :12:10.called her that earlier on. Which welfare reform did you vote for We
:12:11. > :12:14.voted for the cap. Other than that? We have supported universal credit.
:12:15. > :12:19.You voted against it in the third reading. We voted against some of
:12:20. > :12:24.the specifics. If you look at universal credit, they have had to
:12:25. > :12:29.write off nearly ?900 million of spending. I'm not on the rights and
:12:30. > :12:34.wrongs, I'm trying to work out what you voted for. Some of the things we
:12:35. > :12:38.are going to go further than the government with. For example,
:12:39. > :12:42.cutting benefits for young people who don't sign of the training. The
:12:43. > :12:45.government had introduced that. For example, saying that the richest
:12:46. > :12:48.pensioners should not get the winter fuel allowance, that is something
:12:49. > :12:51.the government haven't signed up. You would get that under Labour and
:12:52. > :12:56.this government haven't signed up for it. ?100 million on the winter
:12:57. > :13:02.fuel allowance and ?65 million on youth training. ?165 million. How
:13:03. > :13:11.big is the welfare budget? The cap would apply to ?120 billion. And
:13:12. > :13:14.you've saved 125 -- 165 million Those are cuts that we said we would
:13:15. > :13:19.do in government. If you look at the real prize from the changes Ed
:13:20. > :13:22.Miliband announced in the youth allowance, it's not the short-term
:13:23. > :13:25.savings, it's the fact that each of these young people, who are
:13:26. > :13:29.currently on unemployment benefits without the skills we know they need
:13:30. > :13:35.to succeed in life, they will cost the taxpayer ?2000 per year. I will
:13:36. > :13:39.come onto that. You mentioned universal credit, which the
:13:40. > :13:43.government regards as the flagship reform. It's had lots of troubles
:13:44. > :13:49.with it and it merges six benefits into one. You voted against it in
:13:50. > :13:53.the third reading and given lukewarm support in the past. We have not
:13:54. > :14:00.said he would abandon it, but now you say you are for it. You are all
:14:01. > :14:03.over the place. We set up the rescue committee in autumn of last year
:14:04. > :14:07.because we have seen from the National Audit Office and the Public
:14:08. > :14:12.Accounts Committee, report after report showing that the project is
:14:13. > :14:16.massively overbudget and is not going to be delivered according to
:14:17. > :14:18.the government timetable. We set up the committee because we believe in
:14:19. > :14:22.the principle of universal credit and think it is the right thing to
:14:23. > :14:28.do. Can you tell us now if you will keep it or not? Because there is no
:14:29. > :14:33.transparency and we have no idea. We are awash with information. We are
:14:34. > :14:39.not. The government, in the most recent National audit Forest --
:14:40. > :14:43.National Audit Office statement said it was a reset project. This is
:14:44. > :14:49.really important. This is a flagship government programme, and it's going
:14:50. > :14:53.to cost ?12.8 billion to deliver, and we don't know what sort of state
:14:54. > :14:57.it is in, so we have said that if we win at the next election, we will
:14:58. > :15:04.pause that for three months and calling... Will you stop the pilots?
:15:05. > :15:09.We don't know what status they will have. We would stop the build of the
:15:10. > :15:14.system for three months, calling the National Audit Office to do awards
:15:15. > :15:19.and all report. The government don't need to do this until the next
:15:20. > :15:23.general election, they could do it today. Stop throwing good money
:15:24. > :15:27.after bad and get a grip of this incredibly important programme. You
:15:28. > :15:32.said you don't know enough to a view now. So when you were invited to a
:15:33. > :15:38.job centre where universal credit is being rolled out to see how it was
:15:39. > :15:41.working, you refused to go. Why We asked were a meeting with Iain
:15:42. > :15:44.Duncan Smith and he cancelled the meeting is three times. I'm talking
:15:45. > :15:48.about the visit when you were offered to go to a job centre and
:15:49. > :15:52.you refused. We had an appointment to meet Iain Duncan Smith at the
:15:53. > :15:56.Department for Work and Pensions and said he cancelled and was not
:15:57. > :15:59.available, but he wanted us to go to the job centre. We wanted to talk to
:16:00. > :16:05.him and his officials, which she did. Would it be more useful to go
:16:06. > :16:06.to the job centre and find out how it was working. He's going to tell
:16:07. > :16:24.you it's working fine. Advice Bureau in Hammersmith, they
:16:25. > :16:29.are working to help the people trying to claim universal credit.
:16:30. > :16:36.Iain Duncan Smith cancelled three meetings. That is another issue I
:16:37. > :16:42.was asking about the job centre It is not another issue because Iain
:16:43. > :16:46.Duncan Smith fogged us off. This week you said that jobless
:16:47. > :16:50.youngsters who won't take training will lose their welfare payments.
:16:51. > :16:58.How many young people are not in work training or education? There
:16:59. > :17:05.are 140,000 young people claiming benefits at the moment, but 850 000
:17:06. > :17:13.young people who are not in work at the moment. This applies to around
:17:14. > :17:20.100,000 young people. There are actually 975,000, 16-24 -year-olds,
:17:21. > :17:28.not in work, training or education. Your proposal only applies to
:17:29. > :17:32.100,000 of them, why? This is applying to young people who are
:17:33. > :17:39.signing on for benefits rather than signing up for training. We want to
:17:40. > :17:44.make sure that all young people .. Why only 100,000? They are the ones
:17:45. > :17:57.currently getting job-seeker's allowance. We are saying you can not
:17:58. > :18:02.just sign up to... Can I get you to respond to this, the number of
:18:03. > :18:10.people not in work, training or education fell last year by more
:18:11. > :18:21.than you are planning to help. Long turn -- long-term unemployment is an
:18:22. > :18:26.entrenched problem... This issue about an entrenched group of young
:18:27. > :18:32.people. Young people who haven't got skills and are not in training we
:18:33. > :18:36.know are much less likely to get a job so there are 140,018-24
:18:37. > :18:43.-year-olds signing onto benefits at the moment. This is about trying to
:18:44. > :18:47.address that problem to make sure all young people have the skills
:18:48. > :18:52.they need to get a job. Your policy is to take away part of the dole
:18:53. > :18:58.unless young unemployed people agree to study for level three
:18:59. > :19:03.qualifications, the equivalent of an AS-level or an NVQ but 40% of these
:19:04. > :19:10.people have the literary skills of a nine-year-old. After all that failed
:19:11. > :19:17.education, how are you going to train them to a level standard? We
:19:18. > :19:21.are saying that anyone who doesn't have that a level or equivalent
:19:22. > :19:27.qualification will be required to go back to college. We are not saying
:19:28. > :19:31.that within a year they have to get up to that level but these are
:19:32. > :19:35.exactly the sorts of people... These people have been failed by your
:19:36. > :19:38.education system. These people are, for the last four years, have been
:19:39. > :19:46.educated under a Conservative government. 18 - 21-year-olds, most
:19:47. > :19:51.of them have their education under a Labour government during which
:19:52. > :19:56.300,000 people left with no GCSEs whatsoever. I don't understand how
:19:57. > :20:01.training for one year can do what 11 years in school did not. We are not
:20:02. > :20:05.saying that within one year everybody will get up to a level
:20:06. > :20:09.three qualifications, but if you are one of those people who enters the
:20:10. > :20:13.Labour market age 18 with the reading skills of a nine-year-old,
:20:14. > :20:21.they are the sorts of people that should not the left languishing I
:20:22. > :20:27.went to college in Hackney if you you are -- a few weeks ago and there
:20:28. > :20:32.was a dyslexic boy studying painting and decorating. In school they
:20:33. > :20:38.decided he was a troublemaker and that he didn't want to learn. He
:20:39. > :20:42.went back to college because he wanted to get the skills. He said
:20:43. > :20:47.that it wasn't until he went back to college that he could pick up a
:20:48. > :20:52.newspaper and read it, it made a huge difference but too many people
:20:53. > :20:56.are let down by the system. I am wondering how the training will make
:20:57. > :21:01.up for an education system that failed them but let's move on to
:21:02. > :21:07.your leader. Look at this graph of Ed Miliband's popularity. This is
:21:08. > :21:12.the net satisfaction with him, it is dreadful. The trend continues to
:21:13. > :21:18.climb since he became leader of the Labour Party, why? What you have
:21:19. > :21:22.seen is another 2300 Labour councillors since Ed Miliband became
:21:23. > :21:30.the leader of the Labour Party. You saw in the elections a month ago
:21:31. > :21:35.that... Why is the satisfaction rate falling? We can look at polls or
:21:36. > :21:40.actual election results and the fact that we have got another 2000 Labour
:21:41. > :21:44.councillors, more people voting Labour, the opinion polls today show
:21:45. > :21:49.that if there was a general election today we would have a majority of
:21:50. > :21:57.more than 40, he must be doing something right. Why do almost 0%
:21:58. > :22:04.of voters want to replace him as leader? Why do 50% and more think
:22:05. > :22:09.that he is not up to the job? The more people see Ed Miliband, the
:22:10. > :22:15.less impressed they are. The British people seem to like him less. The
:22:16. > :22:19.election strategy I suggest that follows from that is that you should
:22:20. > :22:25.keep Ed Miliband under wraps until the election. Let's look at actually
:22:26. > :22:29.what happens when people get a chance to vote, when they get that
:22:30. > :22:36.opportunity we have seen more Labour councillors, more Labour members of
:22:37. > :22:43.the European Parliament... Oppositions always get more. The
:22:44. > :22:47.opinion polls today, one of them shows Labour four points ahead. You
:22:48. > :22:52.have not done that well in local government elections or European
:22:53. > :22:57.elections. Why don't people like him? I think we have done incredibly
:22:58. > :23:03.well in elections. People must like a lot of the things Labour and Ed
:23:04. > :23:07.Miliband are doing because we are winning back support across the
:23:08. > :23:12.country. We won local councils in places like Hammersmith and Fulham,
:23:13. > :23:18.Crawley, Hastings, key places that Labour need to win back at the
:23:19. > :23:22.general election next year. Even you have said traditional Labour
:23:23. > :23:28.supporters are abandoning the party. That is what Ed Miliband has said as
:23:29. > :23:33.well. We have got this real concern about what has happened. If you look
:23:34. > :23:39.at the elections in May, 60% of people didn't even bother going to
:23:40. > :23:43.vote. That is a profound issue not just for Labour. You said
:23:44. > :23:47.traditional voters who perhaps at times we took for granted are now
:23:48. > :23:54.being offered an alternative. Why did you take them for granted? This
:23:55. > :24:00.is what Ed Miliband said. I am not saying anything Ed Miliband himself
:24:01. > :24:05.has not said. When he ran for the leadership he said that we took too
:24:06. > :24:08.many people for granted and we needed to give people positive
:24:09. > :24:12.reasons to vote Labour, he has been doing that. He has been there for
:24:13. > :24:17.four years and you are saying you still take them for granted. Why? I
:24:18. > :24:21.am saying that for too long we have taken them for granted. We are on
:24:22. > :24:31.track to win the general election next year and that will defy all the
:24:32. > :24:34.odds. You are going to win... Ed Miliband will win next year and make
:24:35. > :24:41.a great Prime Minister. Now to the Liberal Democrats, at the
:24:42. > :24:45.risk of intruding into private grief. The party is still smarting
:24:46. > :24:49.from dire results in the European and Local Elections. The only poll
:24:50. > :24:53.Nick Clegg has won in recent times is to be voted the most unpopular
:24:54. > :24:57.leader of a party in modern British history. No surprise there have been
:24:58. > :24:59.calls for him to go, though that still looks unlikely. Here's
:25:00. > :25:02.Eleanor. Liberal Democrats celebrating,
:25:03. > :25:08.something we haven't seen for a while. This victory back in 199 led
:25:09. > :25:12.to a decade of power for the Lib Dems in Liverpool. What a contrast
:25:13. > :25:19.to the city's political landscape today. At its height the party had
:25:20. > :25:23.69 local councillors, now down to just three. The scale of the
:25:24. > :25:29.challenge facing Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems is growing. The party is
:25:30. > :25:33.rock bottom in the polls, consistently in single figures. It
:25:34. > :25:38.was wiped out in the European elections losing all but one of its
:25:39. > :25:45.12 MEPs and in the local elections it lost 42% of the seats that it was
:25:46. > :25:51.defending. But on Merseyside, Nick Clegg was putting on a brave face.
:25:52. > :25:56.We did badly in Liverpool, Manchester and London in particular,
:25:57. > :26:01.we did well in other places. But you are right, we did badly in some of
:26:02. > :26:06.those big cities and I have initiated a review, quite
:26:07. > :26:12.naturally, to understand what went wrong, what went right. As Lib Dems
:26:13. > :26:16.across the country get on with some serious soul-searching, there is an
:26:17. > :26:21.admission that his is the leader of the party who is failing to hit the
:26:22. > :26:26.right notes. Knocking on doors in Liverpool, I have to tell you that
:26:27. > :26:31.Nick Clegg is not a popular person. Some might use the word toxic and I
:26:32. > :26:35.find this very difficult because I know Nick very well and I see a
:26:36. > :26:40.principal person who passionately believes in what he is doing and he
:26:41. > :26:52.is a nice guy. As a result of his popularity, what has happened to the
:26:53. > :26:55.core vote? In parts of the country, we are down to just three
:26:56. > :26:59.councillors like Liverpool for example. You also lose the
:27:00. > :27:03.deliverers and fundraisers and the organisers and the members of course
:27:04. > :27:09.so all of that will have to be rebuilt. As they start fermenting
:27:10. > :27:13.process, local parties across the country and here in Liverpool have
:27:14. > :27:20.been voting on whether there should be a leadership contest. We had two
:27:21. > :27:25.choices to flush out and have a go at Nick Clegg or to positively
:27:26. > :27:29.decide we would sharpen up the campaign and get back on the
:27:30. > :27:34.streets, and by four to one ratio we decided to get back on the streets.
:27:35. > :27:40.We are bruised and battered but we are still here, the orange flag is
:27:41. > :27:46.still flying and one day it will fly over this building again, Liverpool
:27:47. > :27:50.town hall. But do people want the Lib Dems back in charge in this
:27:51. > :27:54.city? I certainly wouldn't vote for them. Their performance in
:27:55. > :28:00.Government and the way they have left their promises down, I could
:28:01. > :28:06.not vote for them again. I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of
:28:07. > :28:12.the university tuition fees and I would never vote for them again
:28:13. > :28:15.because they broke their promise. The Lib Dems are awful, broken
:28:16. > :28:19.promises and what have you. I wouldn't vote for them. This is the
:28:20. > :28:23.declaration of the results for the Northwest... Last month, as other
:28:24. > :28:29.party celebrated in the north-west, the Lib Dems here lost their only
:28:30. > :28:34.MEP, Chris Davies. Now there is concern the party doesn't know how
:28:35. > :28:40.to turn its fortunes around. We don't have an answer to that, if we
:28:41. > :28:48.did we would be grasping it with both hands. We will do our best to
:28:49. > :28:52.hold onto the places where we still have seats but as for the rest of
:28:53. > :28:57.the country where we have been hollowed out, we don't know how to
:28:58. > :29:01.start again until the next general election is out of the way. After
:29:02. > :29:04.their disastrous performance in the European elections, pressure is
:29:05. > :29:15.growing for the party to shift its stance. I think there has to be a
:29:16. > :29:22.lancing of the wound, there should in a referendum and the Liberal
:29:23. > :29:26.Democrats should be calling it. The rest of Europe once this because
:29:27. > :29:32.they are fed up with Britain being unable to make up its mind. The Lib
:29:33. > :29:36.Dems are now suffering the effects of being in Government. The party's
:29:37. > :29:43.problem, choosing the right course to regain political credibility
:29:44. > :29:48.We can now speak to form a Lib Dems leader Ming Campbell. Welcome back
:29:49. > :29:54.to the Sunday Politics. Even your own activists say that Nick Clegg is
:29:55. > :29:59.toxic. How will that change between now and the election? When you have
:30:00. > :30:04.had disappointing results, but you have to do is to rebuild. You pick
:30:05. > :30:09.yourself up and start all over again, and the reason why the
:30:10. > :30:14.Liberal Democrats got 57, 56 seats in the House of Commons now is
:30:15. > :30:16.because we picked ourselves up, we took every opportunity and we have
:30:17. > :30:28.rebuilt from the bottom up. least popular leader in modern
:30:29. > :30:33.history and more unpopular than your mate Gordon Brown. You are running
:30:34. > :30:37.out of time. No one believes that being the leader of a modern
:30:38. > :30:40.political party in the UK is an easy job. Both Ed Miliband and David
:30:41. > :30:45.Cameron must have had cause to think, over breakfast this morning,
:30:46. > :30:48.when they saw the headlines in some of the Sunday papers. Of course it
:30:49. > :30:53.is a difficult job but it was pointed out a moment or two ago that
:30:54. > :30:56.Nick Clegg is a man of principle and enormous resilience if you consider
:30:57. > :30:59.what he had to put up with, and in my view, he is quite clearly the
:31:00. > :31:03.person best qualified to lead the party between now and the general
:31:04. > :31:08.election and through the election campaign, and beyond. So why don't
:31:09. > :31:12.people like him? We have had to take some pretty difficult decisions
:31:13. > :31:19.and, of course, people didn't expect that. If you look back to the rather
:31:20. > :31:22.heady days of the rose garden behind ten Downing St, people thought it
:31:23. > :31:27.was all going to be sweetness and light, but the fact is, we didn t
:31:28. > :31:31.know then what we know now, about the extent of the economic crisis we
:31:32. > :31:34.win, and a lot of difficult decisions have had to be taken in
:31:35. > :31:40.order to restore economic stability. Look around you. You will see we are
:31:41. > :31:44.not there yet but we are a long way better off than in 2010. You are not
:31:45. > :31:51.getting the credit for it, the Tories are. We will be a little more
:31:52. > :31:56.assertive about taking the credit. For example, the fact that 23
:31:57. > :31:59.million people have had a tax cut of ?800 per year and we have taken 2
:32:00. > :32:03.million people out of paying tax altogether. Ming Campbell, your
:32:04. > :32:09.people say that on every programme like this. Because it is true. That
:32:10. > :32:14.might be the case, but you are at seven or 8% in the polls, and nobody
:32:15. > :32:22.is listening, or they don't believe it. Once
:32:23. > :32:23.is listening, or they don't believe doubt that what we have achieved
:32:24. > :32:27.will be much more easily recognised, and there is no doubt,
:32:28. > :32:31.for example, in some of the recent polls, like the Ashcroft Pole,
:32:32. > :32:38.something like 30% of those polled said that as a result at the next
:32:39. > :32:41.something like 30% of those polled general election, they would prepare
:32:42. > :32:45.their to be a coalition involving the Liberal Democrats. So there is
:32:46. > :32:49.no question that the whole notion of coalition is still very much a live
:32:50. > :32:54.one, and one which we have made work in the public interest. The problem
:32:55. > :32:58.is people don't think that. People see you trying to have your cake and
:32:59. > :33:01.eat it. On the one hand you want to get your share of the credit for the
:33:02. > :33:04.turnaround in the economy, on the other hand you can't stop yourself
:33:05. > :33:08.from distancing yourself from the Tories and things that you did not
:33:09. > :33:14.like happening. You are trying to face both ways at once. If you
:33:15. > :33:27.remember our fellow Scotsman famously said you cannot ride both
:33:28. > :33:28.remember our fellow Scotsman to the terms -- terms of the
:33:29. > :33:30.remember our fellow Scotsman coalition agreement, which is what
:33:31. > :33:34.we signed up to in 2010. In addition, in furtherance of that
:33:35. > :33:37.agreement, we have created things like the pupil premium and the
:33:38. > :33:41.others I mentioned and you were rather dismissive. I'm not
:33:42. > :33:45.dismissive, I'm just saying they don't make a difference to what
:33:46. > :33:50.people think of you. We will do everything in our power to change
:33:51. > :33:56.that between now and May 2015. The interesting thing is, going back to
:33:57. > :34:01.the Ashcroft result, it demonstrated clearly that in constituencies where
:34:02. > :34:04.we have MPs and we are well dug in, we are doing everything that the
:34:05. > :34:09.public expects of us, and we are doing very well indeed. You aren't
:34:10. > :34:15.sure fellow Lib Dems have been saying this for you -- you and your
:34:16. > :34:19.fellow Liberal Dems have been saying this for a year or 18 months, and
:34:20. > :34:22.since then you have lost all of your MEPs apart from one, you lost your
:34:23. > :34:28.deposit in a by-election, you lost 310 councillor, including everyone
:34:29. > :34:34.in Manchester or Islington. Mr Clegg leading you into the next general
:34:35. > :34:40.election will be the equivalent of the charge of the light Brigade I
:34:41. > :34:44.doubt that very much. The implication behind that lit you
:34:45. > :34:49.rehearsed is that we should pack our tents in the night and steal away.
:34:50. > :34:52.-- that litany. And if you heard in that piece that preceded the
:34:53. > :34:56.discussion, people were saying, look we have to start from the bottom and
:34:57. > :35:09.have to rebuild. That is exactly what we will do. Nine months is a
:35:10. > :35:16.period of gestation. As you well know. I wouldn't dismiss it quite so
:35:17. > :35:19.easily as that. I'm not here to say we had a wonderful result or
:35:20. > :35:24.anything like it, but what I do say is that the party is determined to
:35:25. > :35:29.turn it round, and that Nick Clegg is the person best qualified to do
:35:30. > :35:34.it. Should your party adopt a referendum about in or out on
:35:35. > :35:37.Europe? No, we should stick to the coalition agreement. If there is any
:35:38. > :35:43.transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels, that will be subject to
:35:44. > :35:47.a referendum. No change. And finally, as a Lib Dem, you must be
:35:48. > :35:54.glad you are not fighting the next election yourself? I've fought every
:35:55. > :35:59.election since 1974, so I've had a few experiences, some good, some
:36:00. > :36:02.bad, but the one thing I have done and the one thing a lot of other
:36:03. > :36:06.people have done is that they have stuck to the task, and that is what
:36:07. > :36:10.will happen in May 2015. Ming Campbell, thank you for joining us.
:36:11. > :36:13.It's just gone 11.35am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:36:14. > :36:34.Hello and welcome. This week, the in Scotland who leave us now
:36:35. > :36:37.Hello and welcome. This week, the problems of attracting and retaining
:36:38. > :36:41.headteachers. Is pressure from Ofsted and interference frol Michael
:36:42. > :36:46.Gove to blame? We have a spdcial report. By two guests in thd studio
:36:47. > :36:55.are from rival parties but they are both trying to unseat a conservative
:36:56. > :37:00.at next year's general election More from them in a moment. Let s
:37:01. > :37:06.start with a new political party. Launched in Durham this week, it is
:37:07. > :37:09.called the north`east party. It wants the region to have its own
:37:10. > :37:15.elected assembly with powers similar to those on offer in Wales `nd
:37:16. > :37:18.Scotland. The party intends to field candidates in 12 constituencies at
:37:19. > :37:23.the general election. Susan MacDonald is a former Labour Party
:37:24. > :37:27.member and plans to stand. She says the region is getting a raw deal. I
:37:28. > :37:30.don't think we have strong political representation. In fact, if you
:37:31. > :37:34.remember when we had a lot of the cabinet members in the north`east,
:37:35. > :37:38.we didn't have strong representation then either. What does it s`y about
:37:39. > :37:43.Westminster? I would suggest it doesn't think a lot. With md now is
:37:44. > :37:51.the chairman of the party, Hilton Dawson. There are plenty of people
:37:52. > :37:56.within existing parties who don t get the best deal for Westmhnster.
:37:57. > :38:00.Why set up a new one? Simplx because we don't believe that any of the
:38:01. > :38:04.established parties, the Westminster `based parties, are capable of
:38:05. > :38:10.delivering regional devoluthon. We have good evidence for this. There
:38:11. > :38:15.has been successful devoluthon in Scotland and Wales but that has been
:38:16. > :38:17.achieved through the efforts of dedicated parties campaigning for a
:38:18. > :38:23.base in those countries. Yot say that but it was a Labour government
:38:24. > :38:34.that delivered that devoluthon. They are the only ones of who can deliver
:38:35. > :38:38.it. We are going to stand c`ndidates across the north`east, in at least
:38:39. > :38:41.12 constituencies at the next general election, to put prdssure on
:38:42. > :38:46.the established parties and to hopefully get people elected to
:38:47. > :38:51.Westminster, to make these points. Another memory for you, 2004, a vote
:38:52. > :38:54.on the regional assembly in the north`east. It was overwhellingly
:38:55. > :38:59.rejected. Very little support for it. Why will people change their
:39:00. > :39:09.minds now? They did in Wales. It took 18 years. In 1979, Walds voted
:39:10. > :39:13.almost exactly the same proportion as the north`east against
:39:14. > :39:18.devolution. In 1997, they voted in favour. Over that time, a dddicated
:39:19. > :39:22.party had campaigned to empower the people of Wales. That is wh`t we are
:39:23. > :39:26.going to do. Do you think pdople in the north`east are worried `bout
:39:27. > :39:32.jobs, hospitals and so on, that getting a bunch of politici`ns to
:39:33. > :39:36.sit in Durham is better than those in Westminster? That is exactly why
:39:37. > :39:40.we wanted. This region is the most neglected in England. We have the
:39:41. > :39:44.highest unemployment, the worst social deprivation, the gre`test
:39:45. > :39:50.poverty, some of the worst health, some of the poorest standards in
:39:51. > :39:58.education. We need a much bdtter deal from the north`east for what
:39:59. > :40:03.was rich ` because we are one of the richest countries in the world. This
:40:04. > :40:08.is a comment on labour, isn't it? A lot of the people are ex`Labour
:40:09. > :40:18.supporters. We have to look at the Conservatives's record on this.
:40:19. > :40:22.We've had the scrapping of One North East and there is already a party
:40:23. > :40:25.which are standing in for the needs of those in the north`east `nd it is
:40:26. > :40:29.called the Labour Party. Thdse people have seen what the L`bour
:40:30. > :40:33.Party has delivered. They are not confident you will deliver on your
:40:34. > :40:37.promises. They think you nedd a bit of a poke from a new party. There is
:40:38. > :40:39.that and some of the concerns are well founded about the negldct of
:40:40. > :40:51.this region. I think that we can have thhs
:40:52. > :40:55.argument about structures btt people out there are struggling. I don t
:40:56. > :40:58.think we need to be arguing about structures. We need to be arguing
:40:59. > :41:05.about issues which affect pdople 's lives. The Liberal Democrats are
:41:06. > :41:08.always the party on deliverhng local power to local people. Rathdr than
:41:09. > :41:15.turning to you, they are setting up their own party. That is right. I
:41:16. > :41:18.have a lot of sympathy with Hilton's situation and what he has
:41:19. > :41:24.done. What I would like to see more of and may be you starting tp this
:41:25. > :41:31.party is going to provide the platform for it to arise th`t it is
:41:32. > :41:40.the people themselves feeling that the north`east has been badly
:41:41. > :41:42.neglected. I do believe that there are some things we have dond in
:41:43. > :41:46.coalition government around the regional growth fund and th`t kind
:41:47. > :41:51.of thing, setting up institttions. There is still a perceived `nd a
:41:52. > :41:57.natural divide between North and South. Is the answer to work within
:41:58. > :42:04.the political parties? Prestmably you would prefer that. Is a pattern
:42:05. > :42:06.of people turning away from West Mr parties. They don't see the
:42:07. > :42:12.Westminster parties as doing anything. We have to wake up to
:42:13. > :42:20.this. As Liberal Democrats, we believe in greater devolution of
:42:21. > :42:25.powers. What is local is re`l and immediate to people. I do bdlieve in
:42:26. > :42:29.greater devolution of powers. You've had a huge opportunity in government
:42:30. > :42:32.delivered some of it through the delivered some of it through the
:42:33. > :42:35.local is a Mac. Powers have been handed to communities through that
:42:36. > :42:39.and it will take a while for that to work its way through. It is all
:42:40. > :42:48.relatively new. There are things there that can handle greatdr power
:42:49. > :43:01.to people. Like I say, I do have something the ` some sympathy. How
:43:02. > :43:05.will you judge your success here? Have you any realistic proposition
:43:06. > :43:10.of winning? I think the first thing you're going to do, definitdly, is
:43:11. > :43:13.to revitalise the debate. Wd will get more people engaged in politics.
:43:14. > :43:17.We will hopefully get more people voting. I think we are good for
:43:18. > :43:27.democracy. We are a breath of fresh air to the local political scene.
:43:28. > :43:32.What we are absolutely aimed to do, is to make the case for the
:43:33. > :43:36.north`east. We will see what happens next. Let's
:43:37. > :43:40.talk about another big issud. Schools and education. In the
:43:41. > :43:43.north`east, they are facing problems recruiting the next generathon of
:43:44. > :43:47.head teachers. More than half of their heads in the region who
:43:48. > :43:51.replied to a survey said thdy were considering leaving the profession
:43:52. > :43:55.early. They blame government reforms and rising workloads. Ministers
:43:56. > :44:01.insists they are making school leadership more attractive by giving
:44:02. > :44:05.heads greater control. Whether it is keeping order in the
:44:06. > :44:09.playground or keeping up st`ndards in the classroom, the job of head
:44:10. > :44:14.teacher has always come with heavy responsibilities. But for hdads like
:44:15. > :44:17.this one, the pressure has grown. Over the weekend, there was a lot of
:44:18. > :44:22.work to be done with making sure we have classes in place. We asked her
:44:23. > :44:28.to keep a diary of her schedule over the last seven days. It camd to 56
:44:29. > :44:32.hours, which was more than H had expected, but when you think about
:44:33. > :44:35.things like the evening work, the work that gets done at weekdnds and
:44:36. > :44:44.out of school hours... One thing that is important is that wd have
:44:45. > :44:47.long hours. But she sees thd real problem is the constant uncdrtainty
:44:48. > :44:53.created by everything from Ofsted inspections to government rdforms.
:44:54. > :44:57.There has been a fast rate of change in education. The headteachdr is
:44:58. > :45:00.ultimately responsible. Somdtimes we feel like football managers, in
:45:01. > :45:06.fact, if something goes wrong, you are going to be the head of roles.
:45:07. > :45:11.This might put off middle ldadership from moving further. For all that,
:45:12. > :45:15.she is happy in her job but others seem less so. More than 100
:45:16. > :45:25.headteachers responded to a survey by the teachers network, Schools
:45:26. > :45:28.North East. Among the most commonly cited reasons for wanting to leave
:45:29. > :45:33.early, work workload, polithcal interference under pressure from
:45:34. > :45:37.Ofsted. Good quality school leadership in the north`east. We
:45:38. > :45:40.need those leaders to be taking up those posts and staying in them We
:45:41. > :45:44.are hearing from governors that they are not getting the applications and
:45:45. > :45:46.people are not up for that challenge because of the instability that we
:45:47. > :45:50.have in the system currentlx. We need a period of stability, to make
:45:51. > :45:55.sure that we can grow those new leaders. Is there a danger we put
:45:56. > :45:59.people off from wanting to run schools like this one? The
:46:00. > :46:03.government rejects any suggdstion of an impending crisis in head teacher
:46:04. > :46:07.recruitment and retention. Ht points out that vacancy rates are very low
:46:08. > :46:11.and it says by giving extra powers and freedoms to heads, throtgh the
:46:12. > :46:15.academy programme, it is making the job more attractive, not less. What
:46:16. > :46:19.we need is more heads to cole into the system but we are doing that by
:46:20. > :46:23.making it a situation where academies are more availabld to
:46:24. > :46:26.people, there is a greater degree of freedom and we want to get out of
:46:27. > :46:35.the way of headteachers werd doing all they can to support peoples We
:46:36. > :46:39.do that by giving them more money. Could this be part of the solution?
:46:40. > :46:46.David Baldwin is executive headteacher of two schools. This
:46:47. > :46:49.secondary and another in Sotth Shields. It's an approach hd says
:46:50. > :46:58.helps nurture the heads of the future. It allows a people who you
:46:59. > :47:01.might see as assistant heads, they can have an opportunity to test out
:47:02. > :47:08.their own leadership skills in a safe environment, with someone who
:47:09. > :47:12.has the experience and will take the ultimate depravity. They can then
:47:13. > :47:19.work with that person to experience the excitement of what headship is
:47:20. > :47:23.all about. How the young ard taught remains a hot debate among
:47:24. > :47:27.politicians and the public `like. But that education also depdnds on
:47:28. > :47:33.the people leading our schools. How to retain and recruit them hs a
:47:34. > :47:36.frightful calculation. You are a school governor, H
:47:37. > :47:42.believe. Does this tally with your experience? There is a lot of
:47:43. > :47:47.pressure at the moment on hdads It was interesting that you had to
:47:48. > :47:54.report there, one from a prhmary school and the other a secondary
:47:55. > :47:57.school. There are different problems for both those sectors. Secondary
:47:58. > :48:03.school heads typically speaking they are able to take advantage of
:48:04. > :48:06.greater freedoms. Even though they are ultimately accountable, there
:48:07. > :48:13.are more layers underneath them and can share power. The problel is
:48:14. > :48:17.really at primary level, whdre headteachers, typically those
:48:18. > :48:21.schools are not able to convert to academies because they are not big
:48:22. > :48:25.enough to be able to do it `nd have the confidence to do it with a
:48:26. > :48:29.structure behind them. Thosd headteachers, I think, are feeling
:48:30. > :48:34.the stress. Hopefully, things like the alliances which we have set up,
:48:35. > :48:39.through the coalition government, are helping. Schools working
:48:40. > :48:54.together, making a big diffdrence to standards. Most of us if asked would
:48:55. > :48:57.want to retire early. These are high`pressure jobs but parthcularly
:48:58. > :49:00.in rule schools, we are finding headteachers who are looking at two
:49:01. > :49:06.schools, headteachers who h`ve to look at the budgets, manage staff
:49:07. > :49:11.and also have to teach. The problem that we have, that we are f`cing, is
:49:12. > :49:14.that the best teachers don't want to come within a mile of these jobs and
:49:15. > :49:18.it is because of the reforms that we are seeing. It's because of the
:49:19. > :49:23.pressure of Ofsted. The two pledges made by the sitting MP for Hexham,
:49:24. > :49:28.that we should get out of the way, they are actually doing the
:49:29. > :49:32.opposite. Isn't it Michael Gove saying, I want the best education
:49:33. > :49:37.possible for the children of this country? That is fair enough, isn't
:49:38. > :49:42.it? You do that by working with heads, not by setting up thhs system
:49:43. > :49:48.which is like a top`down, dictatorial system. He has removed
:49:49. > :49:54.?400 million from the budgets to spend on free schools. This puts
:49:55. > :50:03.extra pressure on heads. Thd coalition... We are in coalhtion but
:50:04. > :50:08.we do have our own distinct policies when it comes to education. Do you
:50:09. > :50:14.like what Michael Gove is doing Most people would probably `gree
:50:15. > :50:21.with that. David laws has achieved a lot. One of the major things we have
:50:22. > :50:24.achieved is the pupil premitm, where we are directly targeting ftnding at
:50:25. > :50:29.disadvantaged children to m`ke sure they can achieve just as well as
:50:30. > :50:32.their peers. That is massivdly significant. The other thing liberal
:50:33. > :50:35.democrats are very concerned about is harnessing the power of the
:50:36. > :50:42.professionals and working whth professionals as much as possible.
:50:43. > :50:50.And investing in them, giving them more responsibility. I would say we
:50:51. > :50:53.are quite distinct in that way. The problem is, a change of govdrnment
:50:54. > :50:57.will not solve this. Labour will come in with their next set of
:50:58. > :51:01.ideas, with constant revolution under more pressure. I've worked as
:51:02. > :51:04.a teacher for a lot of years and I've seen the effects of thhs. What
:51:05. > :51:11.we need is the best heads working in the most challenged schools. Heads
:51:12. > :51:14.are put off going into challenging schools because Ofsted can come in
:51:15. > :51:21.at no notice and brand them. Rather than having to plan for months and
:51:22. > :51:26.months before Ofsted, they just have to run a good school. They do. David
:51:27. > :51:32.laws has headed up the free school programme and is diverging funds. He
:51:33. > :51:38.is the schools minister. He has to take responsible at it. What we are
:51:39. > :51:43.seeing is Lib Dems tried to distance themselves from conservativds. They
:51:44. > :51:45.voted for all these policies. We are a Democratic party and you will see
:51:46. > :51:51.from the record of our confdrences that we voted against free schools.
:51:52. > :51:54.As far as the pity concerned... You are not going to agree on is so
:51:55. > :51:58.let's leave it there for thd moment, while we search for solutions.
:51:59. > :52:06.When the sun is shining, it is easy to forget flooded homes which
:52:07. > :52:09.dominated the news last winter. Ministers say they are spending more
:52:10. > :52:15.than ever on flood prevention. That doesn't satisfy MPs on the select
:52:16. > :52:18.committee this week. On a rdport, they said works such as rivdr
:52:19. > :52:22.dredging is at a bare minimtm and they have warned that staffhng costs
:52:23. > :52:27.in the environment agency are putting communities at risk. And
:52:28. > :52:32.Mackintosh chairs the committee While there is a role for physical
:52:33. > :52:37.flood defences, they are not the most cost`effective so therd must be
:52:38. > :52:44.regular dredging and maintenance. For every ?1 spent, we must get ?8
:52:45. > :52:50.saved. There must be walked reliance on natural flood defences. @mongst
:52:51. > :52:54.those hit by flooding were Simon and Julian. They were forced to leave
:52:55. > :52:57.their home in County Durham in 012 and have only recently been able to
:52:58. > :53:02.return. Our correspondent wdnt to see them.
:53:03. > :53:10.My daughter lost all her toxs, she lost her birthday presents. It was
:53:11. > :53:15.devastating. I had to take plaster off the walls. I had to takd them
:53:16. > :53:20.floors up. Everything had to go out of this house. The kitchen was
:53:21. > :53:28.ripped out and everything. Ht looked like a bonsai. ` bomb site. When we
:53:29. > :53:35.came in the next day, the w`ter came up to about here. There was a tidal
:53:36. > :53:39.mark. We need more flood protection because I think it will defhnitely
:53:40. > :53:42.happen again. They need to think about the people that it is
:53:43. > :53:49.affecting. If they don't invest in it, it will have them all the more
:53:50. > :54:01.and it will wipe out all peoples lives.
:54:02. > :54:06.MPs from all parties are on this committee and they have all
:54:07. > :54:11.criticised the investment. We are undergoing the process of climate
:54:12. > :54:18.change. We have now got to step up to the challenge that it brhngs
:54:19. > :54:22.There is going to be more flooding. There is a lot more we need to do.
:54:23. > :54:27.More money or do we have to manage expectations but what we can do In
:54:28. > :54:31.the ideal world, yes, more loney but we are working in very stringent
:54:32. > :54:35.times. Hopefully, down the line there will be more money whdn the
:54:36. > :54:38.economy is improving. It is improving now and hopefully there
:54:39. > :54:42.will be more money down the line. In the meantime, we can be smarter with
:54:43. > :54:47.the money we've got. Some of the recommendations in the report around
:54:48. > :54:53.greater localisation of funding so that actually, the people who know
:54:54. > :54:57.that area where the river is or where the sea is coming in `nd
:54:58. > :55:06.flooding, they have greater local knowledge about how to addrdss those
:55:07. > :55:11.issues. That is one thing. The government is spending a record
:55:12. > :55:14.amount, ?3.5 billion, on flood protection but every time, the
:55:15. > :55:18.Labour Party says more needs to be done. There is no blank chepue but
:55:19. > :55:23.one of the acts of this govdrnment was to cut flood defence spdnding by
:55:24. > :55:27.?100 million. This is a short`term is. We can see that spending on
:55:28. > :55:30.flood defences is one thing but then having to clear up the mess that
:55:31. > :55:35.these floods create and the damage that these floods due to peoples
:55:36. > :55:39.lives costs more than that. This is an investment in the future. It s
:55:40. > :55:46.not as simple as. If you cotld predict, you would be a millionaire!
:55:47. > :55:49.To say we need more money, that s not the solution. They are spending
:55:50. > :55:56.more than any other governmdnt has ever done. You cannot keep spending
:55:57. > :56:00.more. Well, I was in a vill`ge just north of Hexham which has bden
:56:01. > :56:05.affected. The communities are doing their best. People are fillhng
:56:06. > :56:10.sandbags. These communities have been let down badly. They are
:56:11. > :56:16.sacking environment agency workers, whose job it is to mitigate these
:56:17. > :56:19.issues. Litigation against the effects of climate change is cheaper
:56:20. > :56:28.than dealing with the mess that it leaves behind. Haven't politicians
:56:29. > :56:34.got to be more honest? Therd is an awful lot more that can be done
:56:35. > :56:38.However much we spend, therd are some communities which identified.
:56:39. > :56:44.There is a lot more that we need to do in addressing climate ch`nge
:56:45. > :56:55.about how you spend more ` spend money more smartly. You can
:56:56. > :57:03.mitigate. You confident that the coalition government is doing enough
:57:04. > :57:09.about climate change? There is a lot that we are doing. This report does
:57:10. > :57:13.point out ways forward for ts that we will be adopting. It is `bout
:57:14. > :57:16.prevention because we do know these events are going to happen lore and
:57:17. > :57:20.more. We have to think much more long form about how we mitigate
:57:21. > :57:23.against the effects of flooding That is in prevention, rathdr than
:57:24. > :57:28.in cleaning up as my colleague was saying.
:57:29. > :57:31.Thank you very much. The de`ths of two teenage girls in the River Wear
:57:32. > :57:34.last summer prompted an MP to wait raise the issue of water safety in
:57:35. > :57:53.the Commons this week. Farmers could lose out on ilportant
:57:54. > :57:58.payments because the process has to be done online, according to the MP
:57:59. > :58:01.for Bishop Auckland. She told a Commons debate that poor rural
:58:02. > :58:06.Internet connections are ond of the main problems. Newcastle cotncillors
:58:07. > :58:10.warned another ?40 million of cuts will have to be made from 2015. It
:58:11. > :58:14.won't be until the autumn that more details emerge. Washington `nd
:58:15. > :58:17.Sunderland West MP says prilary schools must do much more to teach
:58:18. > :58:25.swimming, following the deaths of two teenage girls. Almost 20% of
:58:26. > :58:28.schools and 25% of academies don't know their swimming attainmdnt rates
:58:29. > :58:34.or don't offer swimming at `ll. 51% of primary school children `re
:58:35. > :58:39.unable to swim 25 metres by the time they leave primary school. The NHS
:58:40. > :58:45.trust in North Cumbria has ` deficit of more than ?23 million, according
:58:46. > :58:47.to new figures released this week. South Tees and South Tyneside are
:58:48. > :58:56.also in the red. That is about it from us. If you
:58:57. > :58:59.live on Teeside, there is a chance to put your question to the
:59:00. > :59:04.transport minister next Friday morning. The Minister, also the MP
:59:05. > :59:15.for Scarborough and Whitby, will be in the hot seat, your calls. We will
:59:16. > :59:18.be back next week. I hope you can join us then. Goodbye.
:59:19. > :59:24.information, you can apply to them and they will be obliged to tell
:59:25. > :59:41.you. Thanks for joining us. Andrew, back to you.
:59:42. > :59:47.think you'd want to. Labour grandees are not queueing up to sing his
:59:48. > :59:51.praises. Look at this. In my view, he is the leader we have and he is
:59:52. > :59:55.the leader I support and he is somebody capable of leading the
:59:56. > :00:02.party to victory. Ed Miliband will leave this to victory, and I believe
:00:03. > :00:07.he can. If he doesn't, what would happen to the Labour Party? We could
:00:08. > :00:11.be in the wilderness for 15 years. At the moment he has to convince
:00:12. > :00:17.people he has the capacity to lead the country. That's not my view but
:00:18. > :00:19.people don't believe that. We had a leader of the Labour Party was
:00:20. > :00:26.publicly embarrassed, because whoever was in charge of press
:00:27. > :00:35.letting go through a process where we have councillors in Merseyside
:00:36. > :00:39.resigning. It was a schoolboy error. Having policies without them being
:00:40. > :00:49.drawn together into a convincing and vivid narrative and with what you do
:00:50. > :00:55.the people in the country. You have to draw together, connect the
:00:56. > :01:02.policies, link them back to the leader and give people a real sense
:01:03. > :01:07.of where you are going. Somehow he has never quite managed to be
:01:08. > :01:13.himself and create that identity with the public. And we are joined
:01:14. > :01:24.by the president of you girls, Peter Kellner. Welcome to the Sunday
:01:25. > :01:28.politics. -- YouGov. The Labour Party is six points ahead in your
:01:29. > :01:32.poll this morning. So what is the problem? On this basis he will win
:01:33. > :01:36.the next election. If the election were today and the figures held up,
:01:37. > :01:41.you would have a Labour government with a narrow overall majority. One
:01:42. > :01:48.should not forget that. Let me make three points. The first is, in past
:01:49. > :01:53.parliaments, opposition normally lose ground and governments gain
:01:54. > :01:56.ground in the final few months. The opposition should be further ahead
:01:57. > :02:02.than this. I don't think six is enough. Secondly, Ed Miliband is
:02:03. > :02:05.behind David Cameron when people are asked who they want as Prime
:02:06. > :02:09.Minister and Labour is behind the Conservatives went people are asked
:02:10. > :02:12.who they trust on the economy. There have been elections when the party
:02:13. > :02:16.has won by being behind on leadership and other elections where
:02:17. > :02:20.they have won by being behind on the economy. No party has ever won an
:02:21. > :02:25.election when it has been clearly behind on both leadership and the
:02:26. > :02:29.economy. Let me have another go The Labour Party brand is a strong
:02:30. > :02:35.brand. The Tory Bramleys week. The Labour brand is stronger. That is a
:02:36. > :02:46.blast -- the Labour -- the Tory Bramleys week. A lot of the Tories
:02:47. > :02:54.-- the Tory brand is weak. Cant you win on policies and a strong party
:02:55. > :02:57.brand? If you have those too, you need the third factor which isn t
:02:58. > :03:02.there. People believing that you have what it takes, competent
:03:03. > :03:08.skills, determination, determination, whatever makes to
:03:09. > :03:15.carry through. -- whatever mix. A lot of Ed Miliband policies, on the
:03:16. > :03:19.banks, energy prices, Brent controls, people like them. But in
:03:20. > :03:24.government, would they carry them through? They think they are not up
:03:25. > :03:28.to it. -- rent controls. If people think you won't deliver what you
:03:29. > :03:32.say, even if they like it, they were necessarily vote for you. That is
:03:33. > :03:38.the missing third element. There is a strong Labour brand, but it's not
:03:39. > :03:44.strong enough to overcome the feeling that the Labour leadership
:03:45. > :03:48.is not up to it. Nick, you had some senior Labour figure telling you
:03:49. > :03:51.that if Mr Miliband losing the next election he will have to resign
:03:52. > :03:56.immediately and cannot fight another election the way Neil Kinnock did
:03:57. > :03:59.after 1987. What was remarkable to me was that people were even
:04:00. > :04:03.thinking along these lines, and even more remarkable that they would tell
:04:04. > :04:10.you they were thinking along these lines? What is the problem? The
:04:11. > :04:15.problem is, is that Ed Miliband says it would be unprecedented to win the
:04:16. > :04:20.general election after the second worst result since 1918. They are
:04:21. > :04:22.concerned about is the start of a script that he would say on the day
:04:23. > :04:26.after losing the general election. Essentially what the people are
:04:27. > :04:31.trying to do is get their argument in first and to say, you cannot do
:04:32. > :04:34.what Neil Kinnock did in 1987. Don't forget that Neil Kinnock in 198 was
:04:35. > :04:40.in the middle of a very brave process of modernisation and had one
:04:41. > :04:43.and fought a very campaign that was professional but he lost again in
:04:44. > :04:50.1992, and they wanted to get their line in first. What some people are
:04:51. > :04:53.saying is that this is an election that the Labour Party should be
:04:54. > :04:56.winning because the coalition is so unpopular. If you don't win, I'm
:04:57. > :05:00.afraid to say, there is something wrong with you. Don't you find it
:05:01. > :05:03.remarkable that people are prepared to think along these lines at this
:05:04. > :05:07.stage, when Labour are ahead in the polls, still the bookies favourite
:05:08. > :05:11.to win, and you start to speak publicly, or in private to the
:05:12. > :05:16.public print, but we might have to get rid of him if he doesn't win.
:05:17. > :05:19.Everything you say about labour in this situation has been said about
:05:20. > :05:23.the Tories. We wondered whether Boris Johnson would tie himself to
:05:24. > :05:28.the mask and he is the next leader in waiting if Cameron goes. It's a
:05:29. > :05:31.mirror image of that. We talk about things being unprecedented. It's
:05:32. > :05:34.unprecedented for a government to gain seats. All the things you say
:05:35. > :05:39.about labour, you could say it the Conservatives. That's what makes the
:05:40. > :05:42.next election so interesting. But in the aftermath of the European
:05:43. > :05:45.elections and the local government elections, in which the
:05:46. > :05:49.Conservatives did not do that well, the issue was not Mr Cameron or the
:05:50. > :05:52.Tories doing well, the issue was the Labour Party and how they had not
:05:53. > :05:56.done as well as they should have done, and that conversation was
:05:57. > :06:01.fuelled by the kind of people who have been speaking to nick from the
:06:02. > :06:05.Labour Party. Rachel Reeves cited their real-life performance in
:06:06. > :06:09.elections as a reason for optimism. When in fact their performance in
:06:10. > :06:12.the Europeans and locals was disappointing for an opposition one
:06:13. > :06:17.year away from a general election. What alarms me about labour is the
:06:18. > :06:21.way they react to criticisms about Ed Miliband. Two years ago when he
:06:22. > :06:24.was attacked, they said they were 15 points ahead, and then a year ago
:06:25. > :06:29.there were saying they were nine or ten ahead, and now they are saying
:06:30. > :06:35.we are still five or six ahead. The trend is alarming. It points to a
:06:36. > :06:39.smaller Labour lead. Am I right in detecting a bit of a class war going
:06:40. > :06:44.on in the Labour Party? There are a lot of northern Labour MPs who think
:06:45. > :06:49.that Ed Miliband is to north London, and there are too many metropolitan
:06:50. > :06:55.cronies around him must I think that is right, Andrew. What I think is,
:06:56. > :07:00.being a pessimist in terms of their prospects, I do think the Labour
:07:01. > :07:04.Party could win the next election. I just don't think they can as they
:07:05. > :07:08.are going at the moment. But the positioning for a possible defeat,
:07:09. > :07:13.what they should be talking about is what do we need to change in the
:07:14. > :07:18.party and the way Ed Miliband performs in order to secure victory.
:07:19. > :07:22.That is a debate they could have, and they could make the changes I
:07:23. > :07:28.find it odd that they are being so defeatist. Don't go away. Peter is a
:07:29. > :07:32.boffin when it comes to polls. That is why we have a mod for the
:07:33. > :07:36.election prediction swings and roundabouts. He is looking for what
:07:37. > :07:43.he calls the incumbency effect. Don't know what is a back-up -- what
:07:44. > :07:52.that's about question don't worry, here is an. Being in office is bad
:07:53. > :07:57.for your health. Political folk wisdom has it that incumbency
:07:58. > :08:01.favours one party in particular the Liberal Democrats. That is because
:08:02. > :08:04.their MPs have a reputation as ferociously good local campaigners
:08:05. > :08:09.who do really well at holding on to their seats. However, this time
:08:10. > :08:14.round, several big-name long serving Liberal Democrats like Ming
:08:15. > :08:18.Campbell, David Heath and Don Foster are standing down. Does that mean
:08:19. > :08:23.the incumbency effect disappears like a puff of smoke? Then there is
:08:24. > :08:28.another theory, called the sophomore surge. It might sound like a movie
:08:29. > :08:32.about US college kids, but it goes like this. New MPs tend to do better
:08:33. > :08:36.in their second election than they did in their first. That could
:08:37. > :08:42.favour the Tories because they have lots of first-time MPs. The big
:08:43. > :08:45.question is, what does this mean for the 7th of May 2015, the date of the
:08:46. > :08:56.next general election? The answer is, who knows? I know a man who
:08:57. > :09:01.knows. Peter. What does it all mean? You can go onto your PC now and draw
:09:02. > :09:03.down programmes which say that these are the voting figures from a
:09:04. > :09:08.national poll, so what will the seats look like? This is based on
:09:09. > :09:12.uniform swing. Every seat moving up and down across the country in the
:09:13. > :09:18.same way. Historically, that's been a pretty good guide. I think that's
:09:19. > :09:21.going to completely break down next year, because the Lib Dems will
:09:22. > :09:27.probably hold on to more seats than we predict from the national figures
:09:28. > :09:30.and I think fewer Tory seats will go to the Labour Party than you would
:09:31. > :09:35.predict from the national figures. The precise numbers, I'm not going
:09:36. > :09:42.to be too precise, but I would be surprised, sorry, I would not be
:09:43. > :09:47.surprised if Labour fell 20 or 5 seats short on what we would expect
:09:48. > :09:52.on the uniform swing prediction Next year's election will be tight.
:09:53. > :09:56.Falling 20 seats short could well mean the difference between victory
:09:57. > :10:01.and defeat. What you make of that, Helen? I think you're right,
:10:02. > :10:05.especially taking into account the UKIP effect. We have no idea about
:10:06. > :10:09.that. The conventional wisdom is that will drain away back to the
:10:10. > :10:13.Conservatives, but nobody knows and it makes the next election almost
:10:14. > :10:17.impossible to call. It means it is a great target the people like Lord
:10:18. > :10:22.Ashcroft with marginal polling, because people have never been so
:10:23. > :10:26.interested. It is for party politics and we all assume that UKIP should
:10:27. > :10:33.be well next year, but their vote went up from 17 up to 27%. Then that
:10:34. > :10:38.17% went down to 3%, so they might only be five or 6% in the general
:10:39. > :10:41.election, so they might not have the threat of depriving Conservatives of
:10:42. > :10:45.their seats. Where the incumbency thing has an effect is the Liberal
:10:46. > :10:50.Democrats. They have fortress seats where between 1992 and 1997 Liberal
:10:51. > :10:55.Democrats seats fell, but their percentage went up. They are losing
:10:56. > :10:58.the local government base though. True, but having people like Ming
:10:59. > :11:03.Campbell standing down means they will struggle. We are used to
:11:04. > :11:07.incumbency being an important factor in American politics. It's hard to
:11:08. > :11:12.get rid of an incumbent unless it is a primary election, like we saw in
:11:13. > :11:15.Virginia, but is it now becoming an important factor in British
:11:16. > :11:20.politics, that if you own the seat you're more likely to hold on to it
:11:21. > :11:25.than not? If it is, that's a remarkable thing. It's hard to be a
:11:26. > :11:27.carpetbagger in America, but it is normal in British Parliamentary
:11:28. > :11:31.constituencies to be represented by someone who did not grow up locally.
:11:32. > :11:35.It is a special kind of achievement to have an incumbency effect where
:11:36. > :11:39.you don't have deep roots in the constituency. I was going to ask
:11:40. > :11:42.about the Lib Dems. If we are wrong, and they collapse in Parliamentary
:11:43. > :11:46.representation as much as the share in vote collapses, is that not good
:11:47. > :11:51.news is that the Conservatives? They would be in second place in the
:11:52. > :11:54.majority of existing Lib Dems seats. For every seat where Labour are
:11:55. > :11:58.second to the Lib Dems, there are two where the Conservatives are
:11:59. > :12:06.second. If the Lib Dem representation collapses, that helps
:12:07. > :12:11.the Conservatives. I'm assuming the Tories will gain about ten seats. If
:12:12. > :12:14.they gain 20, if they'd had 20 more seats last time, they would have had
:12:15. > :12:19.a majority government, just about. So 20 seats off the Lib Dem, do the
:12:20. > :12:24.maths, as they say in America, and they could lose a handful to labour
:12:25. > :12:27.and still be able to run a one party, minority government. The fate
:12:28. > :12:34.of the Lib Dems could be crucial to the outcome to the politics of
:12:35. > :12:39.light. On the 8th of May, it will be VE Day and victory in election day
:12:40. > :12:41.as well as Europe. The Lib Dems will be apoplectic if they lose all of
:12:42. > :12:47.the seats to their coalition partners. The great quote by Angela
:12:48. > :12:52.Merkel, the little party always gets crushed. It's a well-established
:12:53. > :12:55.idea that coalition politics. They can't take credit for the things
:12:56. > :12:59.people like you may get lumbered with the ones they don't. They have
:13:00. > :13:02.contributed most of this terrible idea that seized politics where you
:13:03. > :13:07.say it, but you don't deliver it. Tuition fees is the classic example
:13:08. > :13:12.of this Parliament. Why should you believe any promise you make? And Ed
:13:13. > :13:17.Miliband is feeling that as well. But in 1974 the liberal Democrats
:13:18. > :13:19.barely had any MPs but there were reporters outside Jeremy Thorpe s
:13:20. > :13:25.home because they potentially held not the balance of power, but were
:13:26. > :13:27.significantly in fourth. Bringing back memories Jeremy Thorpe, and we
:13:28. > :13:32.will leave it there. Thanks to the panel. We are tomorrow on BBC Two.
:13:33. > :13:37.At the earlier time of 11am because of Wimbledon. Yes, it's that time of
:13:38. > :13:41.year again already. I will be back here at 11 o'clock next week.
:13:42. > :14:38.Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.
:14:39. > :14:43.to the beating heart of today's vibrant shops.