:00:37. > :00:44.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:45. > :00:46.He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan
:00:47. > :00:50.Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.
:00:51. > :00:55.And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.
:00:56. > :00:58.Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's
:00:59. > :01:03.getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with
:01:04. > :01:06.his Coalition partners. In fact things are getting a wee bit nasty.
:01:07. > :01:10.We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.
:01:11. > :01:13.And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:14. > :01:29.once. We'll be examining the art biggest social housing landlords.
:01:30. > :01:31.Can Southwark Council really build 11,000 new homes in the next three
:01:32. > :01:38.decades? And with me, as always, three of the
:01:39. > :01:43.best and the brightest political panel in the business. At least
:01:44. > :01:46.that's what it says in the Sunday Politics template. Back from the
:01:47. > :01:51.Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes,
:01:52. > :01:54.three camera-shy hacks, who've never taken a selfie in their life. We'll
:01:55. > :01:57.be coming to that later. They just like to tweet. And they'll be doing
:01:58. > :01:59.so throughout the programme. Welcome.
:02:00. > :02:05.Now, first this morning, the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.
:02:06. > :02:08.I know you speak of nothing else! The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't
:02:09. > :02:13.made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.
:02:14. > :02:18.Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib Dem default position. Here's Danny
:02:19. > :02:22.Alexander speaking yesterday. Repairing the economy on its own
:02:23. > :02:31.isn't enough. We have to do it fairly.
:02:32. > :02:31.isn't enough. We have to do it the agenda a decision to cut taxes,
:02:32. > :02:39.income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -
:02:40. > :02:44.forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at
:02:45. > :02:45.every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a
:02:46. > :02:58.fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we
:02:59. > :03:00.going to have to suffer 14 months of you and your colleagues desperately
:03:01. > :03:07.trying to distance yourself from the Tories? It's not about distancing
:03:08. > :03:10.ourselves. It's about saying, " this is what we as a party have achieved
:03:11. > :03:17.in government together with the Conservatives". And saying, " this
:03:18. > :03:23.is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the
:03:24. > :03:26.fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we
:03:27. > :03:32.promised in our manifesto in 20 0 but also that we want to go further
:03:33. > :03:38.in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over a
:03:39. > :03:42.2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties
:03:43. > :03:45.to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst
:03:46. > :03:50.also celebrating what we're achieving jointly in this Coalition,
:03:51. > :03:56.particularly around the fact that we are, having taken very difficult
:03:57. > :03:59.decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation
:04:00. > :04:03.in this country, which is something I'm personally very proud and, as
:04:04. > :04:05.the Coalition, we have achieved and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for
:04:06. > :04:10.the decisions of the Liberal Democrats. Lets try and move on
:04:11. > :04:14.You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now
:04:15. > :04:19.seem more interested in Rowling with each other than running the country,
:04:20. > :04:28.don't you? -- rowing with each other. I think we are making sure we
:04:29. > :04:32.take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy on the
:04:33. > :04:35.right track. Of course, there are lots of things where the
:04:36. > :04:39.Conservatives have one view of the future and we have a different view
:04:40. > :04:43.and it's quite proper that we should set those things out. There are big
:04:44. > :04:46.differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives
:04:47. > :04:50.just as there were big differences between the Liberal Democrats and
:04:51. > :04:52.the Labour Party. I believe we're the only party that can marry that
:04:53. > :04:57.commitment delivering a strong economy, which Labour can't do, and
:04:58. > :05:00.that commitment to delivering a fairer society, which the Tories
:05:01. > :05:03.can't be trusted to do by themselves. You are going out of
:05:04. > :05:07.your way to pick fights with the Tories at the moment. It's a bit
:05:08. > :05:12.like American wrestling. It is all show. Nobody is really getting hurt.
:05:13. > :05:19.I've been compared to many things but an American wrestler is a
:05:20. > :05:22.first! I don't see it like that It is right for us as a party to set
:05:23. > :05:27.out what we've achieved and show people that what we promised on 2010
:05:28. > :05:32.on income tax cuts is what this government is delivering. But nobody
:05:33. > :05:36.seems convinced by these manufactured rows with the Tories.
:05:37. > :05:40.You've just come last in a council by-election with 56 votes. You were
:05:41. > :05:52.even bitten by an Elvis impersonator! Yes, that is true --
:05:53. > :05:55.beaten. I could equally well quote council by-elections that we've won
:05:56. > :06:02.recently, beating Conservatives the Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on
:06:03. > :06:06.that is pretty good. You can always pick one that shows one or other
:06:07. > :06:09.party in a poor light. Our party is having real traction with the
:06:10. > :06:13.electric and the places where we have a real chance of winning. If
:06:14. > :06:18.you're not an American wrestler maybe you should be an Elvis
:06:19. > :06:24.impersonator! You told your spring forum... You don't want to hear me
:06:25. > :06:28.sing! You want to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500 in the next
:06:29. > :06:33.Parliament. Will you refuse to enter into Coalition with any party that
:06:34. > :06:36.won't agree to that? What I said yesterday is that this will be
:06:37. > :06:41.something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.
:06:42. > :06:47.It's something that we will very much seek to achieve if we are
:06:48. > :06:53.involved... We know that - will it be a red line? If you are a number
:06:54. > :06:57.in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four
:06:58. > :07:02.policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something
:07:03. > :07:07.that is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats to deliver. For
:07:08. > :07:13.the fifth time, will it be a red line? It will be, as I said, a very
:07:14. > :07:16.high priority for the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament.
:07:17. > :07:21.That's my language. We did that in the next election. The number-1
:07:22. > :07:24.promise on our manifesto with a ?10,000 threshold and we've
:07:25. > :07:27.delivered that in this Parliament. People can see that when we say
:07:28. > :07:34.something is a top priority, we deliver it. Is it your claim... Are
:07:35. > :07:38.you claiming that the Tories would not have raised the starting point
:07:39. > :07:42.of income tax if it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats? If you
:07:43. > :07:47.remember back in the leaders' debates in the 2010 election
:07:48. > :07:49.campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly championing this idea and David
:07:50. > :07:56.Cameron said it couldn't be afforded. Each step of the way in
:07:57. > :08:01.the Coalition negotiations within government, we've had to fight for
:08:02. > :08:07.that. The covert overtures have other priorities. -- the
:08:08. > :08:11.Conservatives. I don't want to go back into history. I'd like to get
:08:12. > :08:14.to the present. Have the Conservatives resisted every effort
:08:15. > :08:19.to raise the starting point of income tax? As I said, we promised
:08:20. > :08:25.this in 2010, they said it couldn't be done. We've made sure it was
:08:26. > :08:29.delivered in the Coalition. Have they resisted it? We've argued for
:08:30. > :08:34.big steps along the way and forced it on to the agenda. They've wanted
:08:35. > :08:41.to deliver other things are so we've had to fight for our priority.. Did
:08:42. > :08:47.the Conservatives resist every attempt? It has been resisted,
:08:48. > :08:50.overall the things I'm talking about, by Conservatives, because
:08:51. > :08:55.they have wanted to deliver other things and, of course, in a
:08:56. > :08:59.Coalition you negotiate. Both parties have their priorities. Our
:09:00. > :09:02.priority has been a very consistent one. Last year, they were arguing
:09:03. > :09:11.about tax breaks for married couples. They were arguing in 2 10
:09:12. > :09:14.for tax cuts for millionaires. Our priority in all these discussions
:09:15. > :09:20.has been a consistent one, which is to say we want cutbacks for working
:09:21. > :09:25.people. -- we want to cut tax for working people. That has been
:09:26. > :09:28.delivered by both parties in the Coalition government full top So
:09:29. > :09:34.what do you think when the Tories take credit for it? I understand why
:09:35. > :09:41.they want to try to do that. Most people understand what we have just
:09:42. > :09:45.said. Not if the polls are to be believed... You're under 10%. This
:09:46. > :09:52.is one of the things, when I talk to people, but I find they know that
:09:53. > :09:56.the Lib Dems have delivered in government. People know we promised
:09:57. > :10:01.it in 2010 and we're the ones who forced this idea onto the agenda in
:10:02. > :10:06.our election manifesto. You've said that five times in this interview
:10:07. > :10:13.alone. The reality is, this is now a squabbling, loveless marriage. We're
:10:14. > :10:19.getting bored with all your tests, the voters. Why don't you just
:10:20. > :10:23.divorced? -- all your arguments I don't accept that. On a lot of
:10:24. > :10:26.policy areas, the Coalition government has worked very well
:10:27. > :10:30.together. We're delivering an awful lot of things that matter to this
:10:31. > :10:35.country. Most importantly, the mess that Labour made of the economy we
:10:36. > :10:38.are sorting out. We are getting our finances on the right track, making
:10:39. > :10:42.our economy more competitive, creating jobs up and down this
:10:43. > :10:46.country, supporting businesses to invest in growth. That is what this
:10:47. > :10:49.Coalition was set up to do, what it is delivering, and both myself and
:10:50. > :10:53.George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that
:10:54. > :11:00.record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is
:11:01. > :11:02.anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might
:11:03. > :11:11.drive voter apathy up to record levels. There is a simple answer to
:11:12. > :11:14.why they don't divorced - it's the agreement that Parliament will last
:11:15. > :11:17.until 2015. MPs are bouncing around Westminster with very little to do.
:11:18. > :11:22.They are looking for things to put in the Queen's Speech and we are
:11:23. > :11:27.going to have rocks basically the 40 months and very little substantial
:11:28. > :11:30.difference in policies. Do you believe Danny Alexander when he says
:11:31. > :11:34.there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not
:11:35. > :11:42.for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the lily. If you look back at papers are
:11:43. > :11:48.written in 2001 suggesting precisely this policy, written by a Tory peer,
:11:49. > :11:54.you see there are plenty of Tories which suggest there would have been
:11:55. > :11:59.this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and
:12:00. > :12:02.they need to show they've achieved something in government because they
:12:03. > :12:08.are below 10% in the polls and finding it incredibly difficult to
:12:09. > :12:12.get any traction at all. The other leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is
:12:13. > :12:17.now to be explicitly the party of Europe and to be the vanguard of the
:12:18. > :12:21.fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel
:12:22. > :12:28.Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib
:12:29. > :12:54.Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch
:12:55. > :12:56.different. They are targeting a section of the electorate who are a
:12:57. > :13:03.bit more amenable to their views than the rest. They wouldn't get 20%
:13:04. > :13:05.of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do
:13:06. > :13:10.disproportionately well amongst those and it will payoff and they
:13:11. > :13:16.will end up with something like 15%. How many seats will the Lib Dems
:13:17. > :13:25.losing the next election? Ten. 0. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that
:13:26. > :13:28.on tape and see what actually happens!
:13:29. > :13:32.The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a man on a mission.
:13:33. > :13:35.He's undertaken the biggest overhaul in our welfare state since it was
:13:36. > :13:39.invented way back in the black-and-white days of the late
:13:40. > :13:44.1940s. A committed Roman Catholic, he's said he has a moral vision to
:13:45. > :13:48.reverse the previous welfare system, which he believes didn't create
:13:49. > :13:52.enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are
:13:53. > :13:56.they fair? As he bitten off more than he can chew? In a moment, we'll
:13:57. > :14:01.speak to the man himself but first, here's Adam.
:14:02. > :14:03.Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just
:14:04. > :14:09.be the most ambitious welfare secretary there's ever been. It s a
:14:10. > :14:13.journey that started in the wind and rain on a Glasgow council estate 12
:14:14. > :14:16.years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it
:14:17. > :14:22.meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he
:14:23. > :14:26.discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who
:14:27. > :14:32.was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your
:14:33. > :14:36.family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper
:14:37. > :14:42.skill - that's what keeps you of poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants
:14:43. > :14:48.to redefine the nature of what it means to be poor and how you get
:14:49. > :14:51.away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate
:14:52. > :14:55.the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people
:14:56. > :15:03.on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last year, up
:15:04. > :15:06.from around 1700 to around 1200 But the picture in his wider changes to
:15:07. > :15:12.the welfare state is a bit more mixed. A cap on the total amount of
:15:13. > :15:16.benefits a family can get, of ?26,000 a year, is hugely popular
:15:17. > :15:20.but there have been howls of protest over cuts to housing benefit,
:15:21. > :15:25.labelled the bedroom tax by some. Protests, too, about assessments for
:15:26. > :15:28.people on disability benefits, inherited from the previous
:15:29. > :15:33.government. Iain Duncan Smith has been accused of being heartless and
:15:34. > :15:38.the company doing them, Atos, has pulled out. And then the big one -
:15:39. > :15:42.and universal credit, a plan to roll six benefits into one monthly
:15:43. > :15:46.payment, in a way designed to ensure that work always pays. Some of the
:15:47. > :15:51.IT has been written off and the timetable seems to be slipping.
:15:52. > :15:53.Outside the bubble of the stage-managed ministerial trip, a
:15:54. > :15:59.local Labour MP reckons he's bitten off more than he can chew. The great
:16:00. > :16:04.desire is to say, " let's have one simple one size fits all approach" .
:16:05. > :16:09.And there isn't one size of person or family out there. People need to
:16:10. > :16:12.change and they can challenge on the turn of a penny almost. One minute
:16:13. > :16:16.they are doing the right thing, working hard. Next minute, they need
:16:17. > :16:20.a level of support and if this simple system doesn't deliver that
:16:21. > :16:25.for them, they're in a difficult position. And that's the flying
:16:26. > :16:31.visit to the front line finished. He does not like to hang about and just
:16:32. > :16:36.as well do - his overhaul of the entire benefits system still has
:16:37. > :16:44.quite a long way to go. And Iain Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I
:16:45. > :16:48.come onto the interview on welfare reform, is Danny Alexander right
:16:49. > :16:55.when he claims the Lib Dems had to fight to get the Tories to raise the
:16:56. > :17:00.income tax threshold? That is not my recollection of what happened. These
:17:01. > :17:04.debates took place in the Coalition. The Conservatives are in
:17:05. > :17:09.favour of reducing the overall burden of taxation, so the question
:17:10. > :17:15.was how best do we do it? The conversation took place, they were
:17:16. > :17:20.keen on raising the threshold, there were also other ways of doing it but
:17:21. > :17:24.it is clear from the Conservatives that we always wanted to improve the
:17:25. > :17:28.quality of life of those at the bottom so raising the threshold fit
:17:29. > :17:34.within the overall plan. If it was a row, it was the kind of row you have
:17:35. > :17:45.over a cup of tea round the breakfast table. We have got a lot
:17:46. > :17:50.to cover. There are two criticisms mainly of what you are doing - will
:17:51. > :17:57.they work, and will they be fair? Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers,
:17:58. > :18:00.wants to know why so much has already been written off due to
:18:01. > :18:09.failures of the universal credit system even though it has been
:18:10. > :18:15.barely introduced. Relatively it has been a ?2 billion investment
:18:16. > :18:21.project, in the private sector programmes are written off regularly
:18:22. > :18:26.at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we are improving as we go along, the
:18:27. > :18:30.key thing is to keep your eye on the parts that don't work and make sure
:18:31. > :18:40.they don't create a problem for the programme. 140 million has been
:18:41. > :18:45.wasted! The 40 million that was written off was just do with
:18:46. > :18:49.security IT, and I took that decision over a year and a half ago
:18:50. > :18:56.so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the
:18:57. > :19:05.standard right down, the aggregation of cost over a period of time. The
:19:06. > :19:10.computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.
:19:11. > :19:14.Universal credit is rolling out we are doing the Pathfinders and
:19:15. > :19:22.learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last
:19:23. > :19:29.government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even
:19:30. > :19:35.your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal
:19:36. > :19:39.credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time
:19:40. > :19:45.when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I
:19:46. > :19:50.intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out
:19:51. > :19:56.and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were
:19:57. > :20:02.predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this
:20:03. > :20:06.is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare
:20:07. > :20:12.benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by
:20:13. > :20:22.April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we
:20:23. > :20:25.rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of
:20:26. > :20:31.someone we brought from outside he said that you are better rolling it
:20:32. > :20:35.out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for
:20:36. > :20:39.rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the
:20:40. > :20:44.timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so
:20:45. > :20:51.that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works
:20:52. > :20:57.properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of
:20:58. > :21:01.claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong
:21:02. > :21:07.thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything
:21:08. > :21:10.about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you
:21:11. > :21:17.do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in
:21:18. > :21:24.the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written
:21:25. > :21:30.off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,
:21:31. > :21:36.so it is worth getting it right William Grant wants to know, when
:21:37. > :21:42.will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody
:21:43. > :21:49.who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal
:21:50. > :21:54.credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because
:21:55. > :22:00.it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,
:22:01. > :22:05.but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's
:22:06. > :22:09.allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of
:22:10. > :22:15.them are already doing that now there are 200,000 people around the
:22:16. > :22:27.country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when
:22:28. > :22:32.everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit
:22:33. > :22:36.will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.
:22:37. > :22:42.Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.
:22:43. > :22:48.The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right
:22:49. > :22:52.now somebody has to go to work and there is a small job out there. They
:22:53. > :22:56.won't take that because the way their benefits are withdrawn, it
:22:57. > :23:01.will mean it is not worth doing it. Under the way we have got it in the
:23:02. > :23:05.Pathfinders, the change is dramatic. A job-seeker can take a
:23:06. > :23:10.small part time job while they are looking for work and it means
:23:11. > :23:15.flexibility for business so it is a big change. Lets see if that is true
:23:16. > :23:24.because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.
:23:25. > :23:40.Let me show you a quote Minister in the last
:23:41. > :23:52.-- in the last Tory conference. It has only come down to 76%. Actually
:23:53. > :23:57.form own parents, before they get to the tax bracket it is well below
:23:58. > :24:00.that. That is a decision the Government takes about the
:24:01. > :24:06.withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your
:24:07. > :24:13.reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra
:24:14. > :24:22.pound, will pay a marginal rate of 76%. -- if they earn an extra pound.
:24:23. > :24:28.The 98% he is talking about is a specific area to do with lone
:24:29. > :24:34.parents but there are specific compound areas in the process that
:24:35. > :24:40.mean people are better off staying at home then going to work. They
:24:41. > :24:43.will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing
:24:44. > :24:50.to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at
:24:51. > :24:54.different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal
:24:55. > :25:02.credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they
:25:03. > :25:11.are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going
:25:12. > :25:17.to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are
:25:18. > :25:21.going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes
:25:22. > :25:26.billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of
:25:27. > :25:28.universal credit, I promise you and that level of withdrawal then
:25:29. > :25:36.becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether
:25:37. > :25:42.they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra
:25:43. > :25:47.money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody
:25:48. > :25:52.crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,
:25:53. > :25:58.in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them
:25:59. > :26:03.to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you
:26:04. > :26:11.could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can
:26:12. > :26:17.always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made
:26:18. > :26:22.by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this
:26:23. > :26:25.system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its
:26:26. > :26:32.priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will
:26:33. > :26:38.be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work
:26:39. > :26:45.faster, doing more job searches and more likely to take work under
:26:46. > :26:53.universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has
:26:54. > :27:00.been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not
:27:01. > :27:05.been a glorious success, has it That is wrong. Right now the work
:27:06. > :27:10.programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the
:27:11. > :27:16.order of 500,000 people have gone back into work as a result of the
:27:17. > :27:20.programme. Around 280,000 people are in a sustained work over six
:27:21. > :27:26.months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about
:27:27. > :27:30.the work programme is that it is setup so that we make the private
:27:31. > :27:35.sector, two things that are important, there is competition in
:27:36. > :27:40.every area so that people can be sucked out of the programme and
:27:41. > :27:45.others can move in. The important point here as well is this, that
:27:46. > :27:50.actually they don't get paid unless they sustain somebody for six months
:27:51. > :27:53.of employment. Under previous programmes under the last
:27:54. > :27:58.government, they wasted millions paying companies who took the money
:27:59. > :28:04.and didn't do enough to get people into work. The best performing
:28:05. > :28:13.provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed
:28:14. > :28:18.only 2%. It is young people. That report was on the early first months
:28:19. > :28:23.of the work programme, it is a two-year point we are now and I can
:28:24. > :28:27.give you the figures for this. They are above the line, the improvement
:28:28. > :28:31.has been dramatic and the work programme is better than any other
:28:32. > :28:41.back to work programme under the last government. So why is long term
:28:42. > :28:47.unemployment rising? It is falling. We have the largest number of people
:28:48. > :28:53.back in work, there is more women in work than ever before, more jobs
:28:54. > :29:00.being created, 1.6 million new jobs being created. The work programme is
:29:01. > :29:03.working, our back to work programmes are incredibly successful at below
:29:04. > :29:08.cost so we are doing better than the last government ever did, and it
:29:09. > :29:13.will continue to improve because this process is very important. The
:29:14. > :29:18.competition is what drives up performance. We want the best
:29:19. > :29:23.performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are
:29:24. > :29:28.practising Catholic, Archbishop Vincent Nichols has attached your
:29:29. > :29:32.reforms -- attack to your reforms, saying they are becoming more
:29:33. > :29:39.punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't
:29:40. > :29:41.agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these
:29:42. > :29:52.attacks because most are not correct.
:29:53. > :29:56.For the poorest temper sent in their society, they are now spending, as a
:29:57. > :30:01.percentage of their income, less than they did before. I'm not quite
:30:02. > :30:07.sure what he thinks welfare is about. Welfare is about stabilising
:30:08. > :30:10.people but most of all making sure that households can achieve what
:30:11. > :30:14.they need through work. The number of workless households under
:30:15. > :30:21.previous governments arose consistently. It has fallen for the
:30:22. > :30:25.first time in 30 years by nearly 18%. Something like a quarter of a
:30:26. > :30:28.million children were growing up in workless households and are now in
:30:29. > :30:31.households with work and they are three times more likely to grow up
:30:32. > :30:36.with work than they would have been in workless households. Let me come
:30:37. > :30:41.into something that he may have had in mind as being punitive - some
:30:42. > :30:44.other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister
:30:45. > :30:48.announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt
:30:49. > :30:55.from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High
:30:56. > :30:59.Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of
:31:00. > :31:04.severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,
:31:05. > :31:10.some may describe it, heartless We were originally going to appeal that
:31:11. > :31:13.and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking
:31:14. > :31:18.about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for
:31:19. > :31:21.this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about
:31:22. > :31:26.their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But
:31:27. > :31:30.for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our
:31:31. > :31:36.decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,
:31:37. > :31:40.having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.
:31:41. > :31:44.You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt
:31:45. > :31:49.them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.
:31:50. > :31:52.Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing
:31:53. > :32:00.benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to
:32:01. > :32:03.?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest
:32:04. > :32:07.rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into
:32:08. > :32:12.control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in
:32:13. > :32:14.housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and
:32:15. > :32:19.we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the
:32:20. > :32:23.spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the
:32:24. > :32:25.reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in
:32:26. > :32:28.overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million
:32:29. > :32:32.people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people
:32:33. > :32:36.sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we
:32:37. > :32:40.build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and
:32:41. > :32:43.others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they
:32:44. > :32:47.actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in
:32:48. > :32:49.overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of
:32:50. > :32:54.money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to
:32:55. > :32:58.go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right
:32:59. > :33:05.sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank
:33:06. > :33:09.that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000
:33:10. > :33:17.job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,
:33:18. > :33:22.are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not
:33:23. > :33:26.correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct
:33:27. > :33:32.and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some
:33:33. > :33:36.people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to
:33:37. > :33:42.food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is
:33:43. > :33:45.referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some
:33:46. > :33:50.but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where
:33:51. > :33:53.they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you
:33:54. > :33:56.don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit
:33:57. > :34:00.withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly
:34:01. > :34:05.withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This
:34:06. > :34:10.is a very small subset. But if you lose your job-seeker benefit
:34:11. > :34:16.unfairly, you have no cash flow There is an immediate review within
:34:17. > :34:20.seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is
:34:21. > :34:24.reviewed. They are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there
:34:25. > :34:29.is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion setup to help people,
:34:30. > :34:35.through crisis, hardship funds and in many other ways. We've given more
:34:36. > :34:40.than ?200 million to authorities to do face-to-face checks. This is not
:34:41. > :34:45.a nasty, vicious system but a system that says, "look, we ask you to do
:34:46. > :34:48.certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you
:34:49. > :34:51.have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing
:34:52. > :34:57.those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I
:34:58. > :34:59.think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices
:35:00. > :35:04.throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is
:35:05. > :35:11.what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling
:35:12. > :35:18.in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these
:35:19. > :35:22.figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also
:35:23. > :35:26.shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this
:35:27. > :35:30.Parliament, and your government and will continue to rise. But never
:35:31. > :35:37.mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be
:35:38. > :35:41.400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament
:35:42. > :35:46.ends. That isn't a projection but the actual figures. But the last
:35:47. > :35:50.figures show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The
:35:51. > :35:56.important point is... Can I just finished this point of? Child
:35:57. > :36:01.poverty is measured against 60% of median income so this is an issue
:36:02. > :36:05.about how we measure child poverty. You want to change the measure. I
:36:06. > :36:09.made the decision not to publish our change figures at this point because
:36:10. > :36:12.we've still got a bit more work to do on them but there is a big
:36:13. > :36:16.consensus that the way we measure child poverty right now does not
:36:17. > :36:21.measure exactly what requires to be done. For example, a family with an
:36:22. > :36:24.individual parent who may be drug addicted and gets what we think is
:36:25. > :36:27.enough money to be just over the line, their children may be living
:36:28. > :36:31.in poverty but they won't be measured so we need to get a
:36:32. > :36:34.measurement that looks at poverty in terms of how people live, not just
:36:35. > :36:41.in terms of the income levels they have. You can see on that chart -
:36:42. > :36:44.400,000 rising by the end of this Parliament - you are deciding over
:36:45. > :36:47.an increase. Speedier I want to change it because under the last
:36:48. > :36:52.government child poverty rose consistently from 2004 and they
:36:53. > :36:59.ended up chucking huge sums of money into things like tax credits. In tax
:37:00. > :37:04.credits, in six years before the last election, the last government
:37:05. > :37:09.spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty target and they didn't achieve what
:37:10. > :37:11.they set out to achieve. We don t want to continue down that line
:37:12. > :37:16.where you simply put money into a welfare system to alter a marginal
:37:17. > :37:20.income line. It doesn't make any sense. That's why we want to change
:37:21. > :37:31.it, not because some projection says it might be going up. I will point
:37:32. > :37:38.out again it isn't a projection up to 2013-14. You want it to make work
:37:39. > :37:41.pay but more people in poverty are now in working families than in
:37:42. > :37:47.workless families. For them, workers not paying. Those figures referred
:37:48. > :37:53.to the last government's time in government. What is interesting
:37:54. > :37:58.about it is that until 2010, under the last government, those in
:37:59. > :38:03.working families - poverty in working families rose by half a
:38:04. > :38:07.million. For the two years up to the end of those figures, it has been
:38:08. > :38:10.flat, under this government. These are figures at the last
:38:11. > :38:17.government... You inherited and it hasn't changed. The truth is, even
:38:18. > :38:21.if you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if they are
:38:22. > :38:26.in workless families, are three times more likely to be out of work
:38:27. > :38:30.and to suffer real hardship. So in other words, moving people up the
:38:31. > :38:36.scale, into work and then on is important. The problem with the last
:38:37. > :38:39.government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain
:38:40. > :38:43.hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you
:38:44. > :38:47.progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But
:38:48. > :38:52.those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's
:38:53. > :38:58.tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left
:38:59. > :39:02.people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through
:39:03. > :39:05.all this. A lot more I'd like to talk about. I hope you will come
:39:06. > :39:10.back. I will definitely come back. Thank you for joining us.
:39:11. > :39:13.You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:39:14. > :39:27.in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.
:39:28. > :39:48.Hello. Welcome to the progr`mme Coming up:
:39:49. > :39:53.And with you on today's polhtical journey, the Labour MP for Rochdale,
:39:54. > :40:08.Simon Danczuk, and Michael Jones, the Conservative leader of Cheshire
:40:09. > :40:19.East council. 30 years ago ht was the miners' strike.
:40:20. > :40:24.We'll come to HS2 later. First, thousands of letters landed on
:40:25. > :40:27.doormats earlier this week, telling parents which secondary school their
:40:28. > :40:31.children will be going to in September. For more pupils than ever
:40:32. > :40:33.before, that'll be an acadely. Simon ` academies... They were introduced
:40:34. > :40:35.originally by the Labour government... Do you support them?
:40:36. > :40:39.Very successful. They've improved performance for many pupils. I'm in
:40:40. > :40:50.favour of them. It's all about leadership. That's important ` a
:40:51. > :40:53.good headteacher with flexibility. I think they've done excellent work.
:40:54. > :40:58.What about you Michael? Do xou want to see more opting out? We're all
:40:59. > :41:00.pro`choice. You've got to think about leadership. But
:41:01. > :41:12.performances... The bottom children who aren't doing well seem to drop
:41:13. > :41:15.out. I'm concerned about th`t. Yes for them, but there are lessons to
:41:16. > :41:18.be learned. Let's talk about academies ` state schools, but free
:41:19. > :41:21.from the local education authority. Critics question the accountability
:41:22. > :41:24.of some of the organisations that sponsor them and say return to local
:41:25. > :41:39.authority control is what's needed. Education. Education. Acadelies
:41:40. > :41:42.It's become a hot topic. Thd government is keen to press ahead
:41:43. > :41:45.and encourage more schools to become academies. This school was one of
:41:46. > :41:50.ten across the country stripped of its sponsor. I can't see how it can
:41:51. > :41:53.be any good for them to pull out halfway through an academic year.
:41:54. > :41:59.Meanwhile, there was opposition to one takeover. The NUT and the Labour
:42:00. > :42:06.Party say performance isn't good enough. UCAT runs five acaddmies.
:42:07. > :42:18.Ofsted has inspected those `nd rated two inadequate. Two missed the
:42:19. > :42:21.minimum target for GCSE restlts Warrington hit the target btt only
:42:22. > :42:29.took on academy status halfway through the year, so wasn't included
:42:30. > :42:32.in government statistics. Wd end up with a completely unregulatdd
:42:33. > :42:42.education system. You've got free schools, academies... It's `
:42:43. > :42:50.fragmented system with no vhsion. They need to go back to loc`l
:42:51. > :42:54.authority control. The topic will be a major talking point in thd run up
:42:55. > :42:56.to the next general election. The main question will be about
:42:57. > :42:59.accountability. Organisations like these ` who do they answer to? In a
:43:00. > :43:20.statement, UCAT said... The chairman of this former academy
:43:21. > :43:29.was also keen to stress the positives. Academies that h`ve
:43:30. > :43:36.changed... They are schools that were in difficulties. Most `re
:43:37. > :43:40.making good progress. How wd teach our children has been talked about
:43:41. > :43:44.for decades. There have been many changes. Those in charge now have to
:43:45. > :43:47.ensure they get it right. Wd're also joined by Dianne Lloyd, an dducation
:43:48. > :43:52.lecturer at Liverpool John Loores University. She advised the Labour
:43:53. > :44:01.government on the first set of academies. Dianne... What's going
:44:02. > :44:04.wrong? I think one of the inevitabilities of this was the
:44:05. > :44:10.chief inspector of Ofsted and his decision. He inspected chains.
:44:11. > :44:21.Previously, it was only single schools. The decision was m`de in
:44:22. > :44:29.December. These are large groups. Over 60! They are acting like a
:44:30. > :44:38.formal local authority. But they don't have the accountability. These
:44:39. > :44:41.chains... There are questions being asked about their vision and whether
:44:42. > :44:56.they can provide the qualitx of education. Some people will know
:44:57. > :45:09.that academies were created to drive up standard. They'll be surprised
:45:10. > :45:18.it's got worse in some cases? Standards generally have improved
:45:19. > :45:28.but it has been in local models I'm not against... People do not see a
:45:29. > :45:38.problem with small groups of schools working locally together ` sharing
:45:39. > :45:46.resources and expertise. Th`t's not a bad thing. The question h`s to be
:45:47. > :45:52.asked about larger chains ` who are they accountable to? What inspection
:45:53. > :46:01.regime are they under? Ofstdd need to address that. Michael, the
:46:02. > :46:11.Northwich academy is in your part of the world. It's under the government
:46:12. > :46:21.target. Not good enough? Cldarly not. Ofsted getting involved is
:46:22. > :46:32.good. They have to get more out of schools. I mean... What do xou
:46:33. > :46:45.say... These academies aren't working should be brought b`ck under
:46:46. > :46:51.LEA authority? That's a last resort. Let's make sure things are hn place.
:46:52. > :47:04.We don't want to take the choice away. My view is... The councillor
:47:05. > :47:14.had it spot on. He said we have to think about the pupils and the
:47:15. > :47:23.parents. That's the top lind. Ofsted have to investigate the companies.
:47:24. > :47:37.There's also a role for the council and Secretary of State. The
:47:38. > :47:43.Conservatives don't intervene.. But they have to. Part of the education
:47:44. > :47:51.resolution has been to incrdase the number of academies. Labour targeted
:47:52. > :47:56.schools that were failing. Do you think that's the right approach You
:47:57. > :48:11.could argue they've moved too quickly... These are very shmilar to
:48:12. > :48:18.LEA. Michael Gove is taking a poor approach. Pupils and parents are
:48:19. > :48:25.being served by poorly performing academies. Not good enough. You
:48:26. > :48:34.think the government are overlooking? Absolutely. Michael?
:48:35. > :48:44.They are intervening. Hang on.. How in the case of UCAT? Ofsted... We've
:48:45. > :48:55.given messages. Michael Govd is trying to put families first. It's
:48:56. > :49:06.not about A`levels. Let's bd clear... These pupils... Thdy are
:49:07. > :49:14.being failed now. They only get one chance. No second chances. We need
:49:15. > :49:21.direct government action. Ldt Michael respond. The key thhng
:49:22. > :49:24.here... The top academy produced good people for universities but we
:49:25. > :49:35.need everybody ` people for apprentices and so on. We'rd failing
:49:36. > :49:43.there... We're having a deb`te. . I want to talk about how you failed to
:49:44. > :49:54.deliver in the last governmdnt. . We need to move on! Thank you Dianne!
:49:55. > :49:57.Let's leave school being and accelerate towards a new battle for
:49:58. > :50:02.high speed rail. So far it's been dominated by those who want HS2
:50:03. > :50:06.against those who don't. But now there's a contest between two places
:50:07. > :50:09.keen to get a station ` Stoke is making a late bid to kick Crewe to
:50:10. > :50:17.the side. Whoever wins has implications for Manchester. It s
:50:18. > :50:23.110 years since Crewe locomotive works produced their first railway.
:50:24. > :50:31.Crewe has been a railway town for over 170 years. Thousands h`ve been
:50:32. > :50:36.employed here. Today, a lot of the industry may have gone, but the
:50:37. > :50:40.legacy lives on. Crewe is still a major railway junction. That's
:50:41. > :50:45.partly why the company behind HS2 has included Crewe on its preferred
:50:46. > :50:50.route. Some trains would stop here as they head between London and
:50:51. > :51:00.Liverpool. It's the greatest junction! It's not been spohlt. Lots
:51:01. > :51:11.of land waiting to be developed There's no other interchangd like
:51:12. > :51:16.it. Perfect. But 15 miles down the road, there's a competitor. Stoke.
:51:17. > :51:19.Leaders here want to drag the line away from Cheshire and have an HS2
:51:20. > :51:25.station on this former industrial land. Under Stoke's plan, there
:51:26. > :51:31.would also be a stop at Stockport, but not Manchester Airport. Stoke
:51:32. > :51:38.says this would remove 87 khlometres through Cheshire and save ?4
:51:39. > :51:45.billion. It would speed up the process by seven years. This would
:51:46. > :51:56.make Stoke a core city. The amount of growth... Incredible. Thd
:51:57. > :52:08.contribution the area can m`ke. . It's huge. Crewe's history light
:52:09. > :52:11.have made it the butt of musical history, but visiting the town
:52:12. > :52:19.recently, one minister suggdsted the bid should be taken seriously. ``
:52:20. > :52:33.musical humour. It provides a great connection. They get the benefit.
:52:34. > :52:39.Does Crewe make more sense? I'm trying not to close my mind. Ideas
:52:40. > :52:48.are being brought forward... We ll analyse. In the countryside, we know
:52:49. > :52:59.HS2 is unpopular. Two places are fighting for it... So is it worth
:53:00. > :53:04.having? The government attitude .. While these places fight among
:53:05. > :53:08.themselves, it steam rollers on HS2 is divisive for different rdasons.
:53:09. > :53:13.We'll have to wait until December to find out what the government wants
:53:14. > :53:25.to do. Phil joins us from the Stoke studio. How confident is Stoke?
:53:26. > :53:30.Well... Leaders say they ard. This week, they've committed to spending
:53:31. > :53:37.?100 million on the bid. Thd area needs regeneration. There's been
:53:38. > :53:47.huge decline. Crewe would s`y the same. The leaders are not bdgging.
:53:48. > :54:01.They say the city has econolic potential. They say HS2 can help.
:54:02. > :54:07.There are compelling figures. What do you think the chances ard? Crewe
:54:08. > :54:19.have the advantage of being named on the initial route. Stoke's plan
:54:20. > :54:25.would need huge changes. But they say their bid would be cheaper and
:54:26. > :54:28.quicker. That's in their favour Their line wouldn't go throtgh
:54:29. > :54:41.Manchester Airport. That's ` big issue. Theresa May came to Crewe.
:54:42. > :54:56.Was that a vote of confidence? Perhaps. But other places are in the
:54:57. > :55:01.mix. Michael... Could Stoke be better value for money? Well if
:55:02. > :55:05.they're spending ?100 million on their bid it's not value for money!
:55:06. > :55:12.What is HS2 about? We think we've got a robust bid. ?100 millhon is
:55:13. > :55:28.outrageous. They're wasting their bid. Outrageous. We know wh`t it's
:55:29. > :55:40.all about. Crewe offers a lot. We offered a joint venture with Stoke.
:55:41. > :55:51.They said no! Now they want in. Sure... But the Stoke plan would be
:55:52. > :55:59.delivered earlier and cheapdr? Take it to Crewe earlier. We're the real
:56:00. > :56:07.deal. I'm in favour of HS2. It's good for the economy. I think we
:56:08. > :56:20.need a stop at Manchester Ahrport. I think it's critical. We've had
:56:21. > :56:31.enough drifting from the government in terms of this. We need to get on
:56:32. > :56:38.with it. We should meet in Birmingham at the same time. That
:56:39. > :56:52.would make sense. One thing Labour has said... They want value for
:56:53. > :57:06.money. Stoke? They haven't been lukewarm. We've always said we want
:57:07. > :57:18.value for money. That is crhtical. HS2... Look at all the options. We
:57:19. > :57:27.need to do that. You're confident Crewe will deliver? We are. But it's
:57:28. > :57:40.a complex scheme. We'll spend money but not ?100 million! We've got a
:57:41. > :57:47.robust plan. We're proceeding ahead as we should do. Staying with
:57:48. > :57:50.trains... They're not much tse without carriages! This week it
:57:51. > :57:54.emerged nine of the 70 trains used by First Pennine between Manchester
:57:55. > :58:08.and Hull will next year movd south to Chilton. The move has bedn
:58:09. > :58:17.described as an outrage. Thd Blackburn MP Jack Straw raised the
:58:18. > :58:29.issue and asked this: TransPennine is to lose one in eight of hts
:58:30. > :58:35.trains. I will look very carefully at that point. We have annotnced
:58:36. > :58:43.plans to electrify the TransPennine line. That will make a diffdrence.
:58:44. > :58:50.Carriages do get moved all `round the country. Is this a problem? It's
:58:51. > :58:59.a disgrace. They're losing 03% of their carriages. Why is the north
:59:00. > :59:11.being disadvantaged? It says all you need to know about this govdrnment.
:59:12. > :59:19.What next? Nurses, doctors? I read trains servicing Gatwick will be
:59:20. > :59:32.moved up? Absolutely. We've done it for years. This will be an tpgrade.
:59:33. > :59:42.This is about people getting in Manchester... Leeds... Liverpool.
:59:43. > :00:01.Cascading, that's what it's called. Well... I don't know... Network Rail
:00:02. > :00:08.know best. She is quite cle`r this is serving the North badly. Let s
:00:09. > :00:15.leave that there. What else has been in the news? Let's take a look in 60
:00:16. > :00:19.Seconds. Children at risk of abuse on the Isle of Man are not being
:00:20. > :00:24.given enough protection according to an independent watchdog. Thdy said
:00:25. > :00:27.urgent action was needed. There were protests outside the town h`ll as
:00:28. > :00:34.Liverpool City Council confhrmed cuts to services and jobs to save
:00:35. > :00:40.?156 million. One local MP told the PM what she thought. What does it
:00:41. > :00:44.say? I believe the funding reflects the needs. One Chief Executhve says
:00:45. > :00:48.Liverpool's right about somdthing. The boss of William Hill saxs the
:00:49. > :00:52.city should have the right to limit the number of bookmakers with fixed
:00:53. > :00:55.odds betting terminals. The Greater Manchester Police Commissioner set
:00:56. > :00:57.up an independent review of the way police deal with protests after
:00:58. > :01:10.complaints by anti`fracking campaigners. And they've kissed and
:01:11. > :01:14.made up. This councillor is in talks to return to the Labour Party after
:01:15. > :01:21.leaving following a spat with a colleague. A lot of critics say it's
:01:22. > :01:29.unfair that councils like Lhverpool are getting cuts while yours... Not
:01:30. > :01:36.so much? We've taken 8%. So have they. We get less funding. Ht tells
:01:37. > :01:51.you they need to look at wh`t they spend their money on. Simon? Places
:01:52. > :01:59.like Rochdale are disadvant`ged They haven't been given support
:02:00. > :02:14.This government cares for more rural areas. It's ridiculous... It is
:02:15. > :02:17.It's a big issue. Thank you both very much. Back to Andrew.
:02:18. > :02:20.Gove is right to focus. We've run out of time. Thanks for being here.
:02:21. > :02:37.Andrew, back to you. Now, without further ado, more from
:02:38. > :02:40.our political panel. Iain Martin, what did you make of Iain Duncan
:02:41. > :02:46.Smith's response to the Danny Alexander point I'd put to him? I
:02:47. > :02:50.thought it was a cheekily put response but actually, on Twitter,
:02:51. > :02:52.people have been tweeting while on air that there are lots of examples
:02:53. > :02:58.where the Tories have demanded the raising of the threshold. The 2 06
:02:59. > :03:05.Forsyth tax omission is another example. Helen, on the bigger issue
:03:06. > :03:11.of welfare reforms, is welfare reform, as we head into the
:03:12. > :03:15.election, despite all the criticisms, still a plus for the
:03:16. > :03:19.government? I don't think so. Whatever the opposite of a Midas
:03:20. > :03:25.touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got it. David Cameron never talks about
:03:26. > :03:27.universal credit any more. The record on personal independence
:03:28. > :03:34.payment, for example... We didn t get onto that. Only one in six of
:03:35. > :03:41.those notes have been paid. A toss pulling out of their condiment has
:03:42. > :03:44.been a nightmare. It's a very big minus point for the Secretary of
:03:45. > :03:57.State. -- Atos pulling out of bed contract. Welfare cuts are an
:03:58. > :04:02.unambiguous point for the government but other points more ambiguous I
:04:03. > :04:07.don't think it's technical complexity that makes IDS's reform a
:04:08. > :04:12.problem. The IT gets moved out with time. But even if it's in fermented
:04:13. > :04:17.perfectly, what it will achieve has been slightly oversold, I think and
:04:18. > :04:21.simplified incredibly. All it does is improve incentives to work for
:04:22. > :04:26.one section of the income scale and diminishes it at another. Basically,
:04:27. > :04:31.you are encouraged to go from working zero hours to 16 hours but
:04:32. > :04:34.your incentive to work beyond 1 goes down. That's not because it's a
:04:35. > :04:38.horrendous policy but because in work benefits systems are
:04:39. > :04:48.imperceptible. Most countries do worse than we do. -- benefits
:04:49. > :04:51.systems cannot be perfected. They need to tone down how much this can
:04:52. > :04:53.achieve even if it all goes flawlessly. There are clearly
:04:54. > :05:00.problems, particularly within limitation, but Labour is still wary
:05:01. > :05:05.of welfare reform. -- with implementation. Polls suggest it is
:05:06. > :05:12.rather popular. People may not know what's involved were like the sound
:05:13. > :05:15.of it. I think Janan is right to mark out the differences between
:05:16. > :05:22.welfare cuts and welfare reforms. They are related but distinct. Are
:05:23. > :05:29.we saying cuts are more popular than reform? They clearly are. The
:05:30. > :05:37.numbers, when you present people numbers on benefit reductions, are
:05:38. > :05:41.off the scale. Reform, for the reasons you explored in your
:05:42. > :05:46.interview, is incredibly compensated. What's interesting is
:05:47. > :05:51.that Labour haven't really definitively said what their
:05:52. > :05:57.position is on this. I think they like - despite what they may see in
:05:58. > :05:59.public occasionally - some of what universal credit might produce but
:06:00. > :06:07.they don't want to be associated with it. We probably won't know
:06:08. > :06:12.until if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister precisely what direction
:06:13. > :06:16.Labour will go. Immigration is still a hot topic in Westminster and
:06:17. > :06:19.throughout the country. This new Home Office minister, James
:06:20. > :06:25.Brokenshire, made an intervention. Let's see what he had to say. For
:06:26. > :06:29.too long, the benefits of immigration went to employers who
:06:30. > :06:33.wanted an easy supply of cheap labour or to the wealthy
:06:34. > :06:35.metropolitan elite who wanted cheap tradesmen and services, but not to
:06:36. > :06:41.the ordinary hard-working people of this country. With the result that
:06:42. > :06:45.the Prime Minister and everyone else has to tell us all whether they ve
:06:46. > :06:49.now got Portuguese or whatever it is Nanny is. Is this the most
:06:50. > :06:54.cack-handed intervention on an immigration issue in a long list? I
:06:55. > :07:01.think it is and when I saw this being trailed the night before, I
:07:02. > :07:02.worried for him. As soon as a minister of the Crown uses the
:07:03. > :07:38.phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite" more likely we see it in recession.
:07:39. > :07:45.We've just had the worst recession in several decades. It's no small
:07:46. > :07:49.problem but compared to what ministers like James Brokenshire has
:07:50. > :07:53.been saying for the past few years and also the reluctance to issue the
:07:54. > :07:58.report earlier, I thought that, combined with the speech, made it
:07:59. > :08:02.quite a bad week for the department. Was this a cack-handed attempt to
:08:03. > :08:06.appeal to the UKIP voters? I think so and he's predecessor had to leave
:08:07. > :08:11.the job because of having a foreign cleaner. It drew attention to the
:08:12. > :08:15.Tories' biggest problem, the out of touch problem. Most people around
:08:16. > :08:21.the country probably don't have a Portuguese nanny and you've just put
:08:22. > :08:26.a big sign over David Cameron saying, this man can afford a
:08:27. > :08:28.Portuguese Nanny. It is not the finest political operation ever
:08:29. > :08:32.conducted and the speech was definitely given by the Home Office
:08:33. > :08:38.to Number Ten but did Number Ten bother to read it? It was a complete
:08:39. > :08:42.shambles. The basic argument that there is a divide between a wealthy
:08:43. > :08:48.metropolitan elite and large parts of Middle Britain or the rest of the
:08:49. > :08:53.country I think is basically sound. It is but they are on the wrong side
:08:54. > :08:58.of it. What do you mean by that The Tory government is on the wrong
:08:59. > :09:03.side. This is appealing to UKIP voters and we know that UKIP is
:09:04. > :09:06.appealing to working-class voters who have previously voted Labour and
:09:07. > :09:11.Tory. If you set up that divide make sure you are on the right side
:09:12. > :09:14.stop When you talk about metropolitan members of the media
:09:15. > :09:21.class, they say that it is rubbish and everyone has a Polish cleaner.
:09:22. > :09:26.No, they don't. I do not have a clean! I don't clean behind the
:09:27. > :09:31.fridge, either! Most people in the country don't have a cleaner. The
:09:32. > :09:42.problem for the Tories on this is, why play that game? You can't
:09:43. > :09:45.out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three years of sustained Tory effort to do
:09:46. > :09:52.that, they will probably finish behind UKIP. Do we really want a
:09:53. > :09:57.political system where it becomes an issue of where your nanny or your
:09:58. > :10:02.cleaner is from, if you've got one? Unless, of course, they're illegal.
:10:03. > :10:07.But Portuguese or Italian or Scottish... And intervention was
:10:08. > :10:15.from Nick Clegg who said his wife was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and
:10:16. > :10:20.his wife was Spanish. Not communism but who your cleaner is! It's the
:10:21. > :10:25.McCarthy question! Where does your cleaner come from. A lot of people
:10:26. > :10:32.will say are lucky to have a cleaner. I want to move onto selfies
:10:33. > :10:35.but first, on the Nigel Farage Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with
:10:36. > :10:43.the TV one. Who do you think will win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a
:10:44. > :10:47.surprisingly good in debates and people have forgotten. I think Clegg
:10:48. > :10:57.is going to win. I think Farage has peaked. We're going to keep that on
:10:58. > :11:03.tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there. Selfies. Politicians are attempting
:11:04. > :11:05.to show they're down with the kids. Let's look at some that we've seen
:11:06. > :11:51.in recent days. Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm
:11:52. > :11:57.so embarrassed you call me reading the SNP manifesto, as I do every
:11:58. > :12:00.Saturday! They do it because it makes them seem authentic and that's
:12:01. > :12:04.the big Lie that social media tells you - that you're seeing the real
:12:05. > :12:08.person. You're not, you're seeing a very carefully manicured, more witty
:12:09. > :12:15.person. That doesn't work for politicians. It looks so fake and
:12:16. > :12:20.I'm still suffering the cringe I see every time I see Cameronserious
:12:21. > :12:25.phone face. Does Mr Cameron really think it big Sim up because he's on
:12:26. > :12:34.the phone to President Obama? Obama is not the personality he once was.
:12:35. > :12:38.There is an international crisis in Ukraine - of course we are expecting
:12:39. > :12:41.to be speaking to Obama! And if you were in any doubt about what a man
:12:42. > :12:46.talking on the telephone looks like, here's a photo. I must confess, I
:12:47. > :12:53.didn't take my own selfie. Did your nanny? My father-in-law took it
:12:54. > :13:07.Where is your father-in-law from? Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I
:13:08. > :13:15.think we've got one of you. The 1%! What a great telephone! Where did
:13:16. > :13:21.you get that telephone? It looks like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's
:13:22. > :13:25.what I go to bed in. It showed how excited Cameron was to be on the
:13:26. > :13:30.phone to Obama. All our politicians think they are living a mini version
:13:31. > :13:34.of US politics. President Obama goes on a big plane and we complain when
:13:35. > :13:37.George Osborne goes first class on first Great Western. They want to be
:13:38. > :13:43.big and important like American politics but it doesn't work. We'll
:13:44. > :13:47.see your top at next week! That's it for this week. Faxed all
:13:48. > :13:52.our guests. The Daily Politics is on all this week at lunchtime on BBC
:13:53. > :13:56.Two. We'll be back here same time, same place next week. Remember, if
:13:57. > :14:01.it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.