09/03/2014 Sunday Politics North West

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan

Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.

And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.

Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's

getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with

his Coalition partners. In fact things are getting a wee bit nasty.

We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.

And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at

once. We'll be examining the art biggest social housing landlords.

Can Southwark Council really build 11,000 new homes in the next three

decades? And with me, as always, three of the

best and the brightest political panel in the business. At least

that's what it says in the Sunday Politics template. Back from the

Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes,

three camera-shy hacks, who've never taken a selfie in their life. We'll

be coming to that later. They just like to tweet. And they'll be doing

so throughout the programme. Welcome.

Now, first this morning, the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.

I know you speak of nothing else! The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't

made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.

Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib Dem default position. Here's Danny

Alexander speaking yesterday. Repairing the economy on its own

isn't enough. We have to do it fairly.

isn't enough. We have to do it the agenda a decision to cut taxes,

income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -

forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at

every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a

fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we

going to have to suffer 14 months of you and your colleagues desperately

trying to distance yourself from the Tories? It's not about distancing

ourselves. It's about saying, " this is what we as a party have achieved

in government together with the Conservatives". And saying, " this

is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the

fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we

promised in our manifesto in 20 0 but also that we want to go further

in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over a

2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties

to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst

also celebrating what we're achieving jointly in this Coalition,

particularly around the fact that we are, having taken very difficult

decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation

in this country, which is something I'm personally very proud and, as

the Coalition, we have achieved and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for

the decisions of the Liberal Democrats. Lets try and move on

You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now

seem more interested in Rowling with each other than running the country,

don't you? -- rowing with each other. I think we are making sure we

take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy on the

right track. Of course, there are lots of things where the

Conservatives have one view of the future and we have a different view

and it's quite proper that we should set those things out. There are big

differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives

just as there were big differences between the Liberal Democrats and

the Labour Party. I believe we're the only party that can marry that

commitment delivering a strong economy, which Labour can't do, and

that commitment to delivering a fairer society, which the Tories

can't be trusted to do by themselves. You are going out of

your way to pick fights with the Tories at the moment. It's a bit

like American wrestling. It is all show. Nobody is really getting hurt.

I've been compared to many things but an American wrestler is a

first! I don't see it like that It is right for us as a party to set

out what we've achieved and show people that what we promised on 2010

on income tax cuts is what this government is delivering. But nobody

seems convinced by these manufactured rows with the Tories.

You've just come last in a council by-election with 56 votes. You were

even bitten by an Elvis impersonator! Yes, that is true --

beaten. I could equally well quote council by-elections that we've won

recently, beating Conservatives the Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on

that is pretty good. You can always pick one that shows one or other

party in a poor light. Our party is having real traction with the

electric and the places where we have a real chance of winning. If

you're not an American wrestler maybe you should be an Elvis

impersonator! You told your spring forum... You don't want to hear me

sing! You want to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500 in the next

Parliament. Will you refuse to enter into Coalition with any party that

won't agree to that? What I said yesterday is that this will be

something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.

It's something that we will very much seek to achieve if we are

involved... We know that - will it be a red line? If you are a number

in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four

policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something

that is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats to deliver. For

the fifth time, will it be a red line? It will be, as I said, a very

high priority for the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament.

That's my language. We did that in the next election. The number-1

promise on our manifesto with a ?10,000 threshold and we've

delivered that in this Parliament. People can see that when we say

something is a top priority, we deliver it. Is it your claim... Are

you claiming that the Tories would not have raised the starting point

of income tax if it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats? If you

remember back in the leaders' debates in the 2010 election

campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly championing this idea and David

Cameron said it couldn't be afforded. Each step of the way in

the Coalition negotiations within government, we've had to fight for

that. The covert overtures have other priorities. -- the

Conservatives. I don't want to go back into history. I'd like to get

to the present. Have the Conservatives resisted every effort

to raise the starting point of income tax? As I said, we promised

this in 2010, they said it couldn't be done. We've made sure it was

delivered in the Coalition. Have they resisted it? We've argued for

big steps along the way and forced it on to the agenda. They've wanted

to deliver other things are so we've had to fight for our priority.. Did

the Conservatives resist every attempt? It has been resisted,

overall the things I'm talking about, by Conservatives, because

they have wanted to deliver other things and, of course, in a

Coalition you negotiate. Both parties have their priorities. Our

priority has been a very consistent one. Last year, they were arguing

about tax breaks for married couples. They were arguing in 2 10

for tax cuts for millionaires. Our priority in all these discussions

has been a consistent one, which is to say we want cutbacks for working

people. -- we want to cut tax for working people. That has been

delivered by both parties in the Coalition government full top So

what do you think when the Tories take credit for it? I understand why

they want to try to do that. Most people understand what we have just

said. Not if the polls are to be believed... You're under 10%. This

is one of the things, when I talk to people, but I find they know that

the Lib Dems have delivered in government. People know we promised

it in 2010 and we're the ones who forced this idea onto the agenda in

our election manifesto. You've said that five times in this interview

alone. The reality is, this is now a squabbling, loveless marriage. We're

getting bored with all your tests, the voters. Why don't you just

divorced? -- all your arguments I don't accept that. On a lot of

policy areas, the Coalition government has worked very well

together. We're delivering an awful lot of things that matter to this

country. Most importantly, the mess that Labour made of the economy we

are sorting out. We are getting our finances on the right track, making

our economy more competitive, creating jobs up and down this

country, supporting businesses to invest in growth. That is what this

Coalition was set up to do, what it is delivering, and both myself and

George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that

record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is

anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might

drive voter apathy up to record levels. There is a simple answer to

why they don't divorced - it's the agreement that Parliament will last

until 2015. MPs are bouncing around Westminster with very little to do.

They are looking for things to put in the Queen's Speech and we are

going to have rocks basically the 40 months and very little substantial

difference in policies. Do you believe Danny Alexander when he says

there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not

for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the lily. If you look back at papers are

written in 2001 suggesting precisely this policy, written by a Tory peer,

you see there are plenty of Tories which suggest there would have been

this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and

they need to show they've achieved something in government because they

are below 10% in the polls and finding it incredibly difficult to

get any traction at all. The other leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is

now to be explicitly the party of Europe and to be the vanguard of the

fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel

Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib

Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch

different. They are targeting a section of the electorate who are a

bit more amenable to their views than the rest. They wouldn't get 20%

of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do

disproportionately well amongst those and it will payoff and they

will end up with something like 15%. How many seats will the Lib Dems

losing the next election? Ten. 0. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that

on tape and see what actually happens!

The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a man on a mission.

He's undertaken the biggest overhaul in our welfare state since it was

invented way back in the black-and-white days of the late

1940s. A committed Roman Catholic, he's said he has a moral vision to

reverse the previous welfare system, which he believes didn't create

enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are

they fair? As he bitten off more than he can chew? In a moment, we'll

speak to the man himself but first, here's Adam.

Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just

be the most ambitious welfare secretary there's ever been. It s a

journey that started in the wind and rain on a Glasgow council estate 12

years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it

meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he

discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who

was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your

family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper

skill - that's what keeps you of poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants

to redefine the nature of what it means to be poor and how you get

away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate

the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people

on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last year, up

from around 1700 to around 1200 But the picture in his wider changes to

the welfare state is a bit more mixed. A cap on the total amount of

benefits a family can get, of ?26,000 a year, is hugely popular

but there have been howls of protest over cuts to housing benefit,

labelled the bedroom tax by some. Protests, too, about assessments for

people on disability benefits, inherited from the previous

government. Iain Duncan Smith has been accused of being heartless and

the company doing them, Atos, has pulled out. And then the big one -

and universal credit, a plan to roll six benefits into one monthly

payment, in a way designed to ensure that work always pays. Some of the

IT has been written off and the timetable seems to be slipping.

Outside the bubble of the stage-managed ministerial trip, a

local Labour MP reckons he's bitten off more than he can chew. The great

desire is to say, " let's have one simple one size fits all approach" .

And there isn't one size of person or family out there. People need to

change and they can challenge on the turn of a penny almost. One minute

they are doing the right thing, working hard. Next minute, they need

a level of support and if this simple system doesn't deliver that

for them, they're in a difficult position. And that's the flying

visit to the front line finished. He does not like to hang about and just

as well do - his overhaul of the entire benefits system still has

quite a long way to go. And Iain Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I

come onto the interview on welfare reform, is Danny Alexander right

when he claims the Lib Dems had to fight to get the Tories to raise the

income tax threshold? That is not my recollection of what happened. These

debates took place in the Coalition. The Conservatives are in

favour of reducing the overall burden of taxation, so the question

was how best do we do it? The conversation took place, they were

keen on raising the threshold, there were also other ways of doing it but

it is clear from the Conservatives that we always wanted to improve the

quality of life of those at the bottom so raising the threshold fit

within the overall plan. If it was a row, it was the kind of row you have

over a cup of tea round the breakfast table. We have got a lot

to cover. There are two criticisms mainly of what you are doing - will

they work, and will they be fair? Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers,

wants to know why so much has already been written off due to

failures of the universal credit system even though it has been

barely introduced. Relatively it has been a ?2 billion investment

project, in the private sector programmes are written off regularly

at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we are improving as we go along, the

key thing is to keep your eye on the parts that don't work and make sure

they don't create a problem for the programme. 140 million has been

wasted! The 40 million that was written off was just do with

security IT, and I took that decision over a year and a half ago

so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the

standard right down, the aggregation of cost over a period of time. The

computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.

Universal credit is rolling out we are doing the Pathfinders and

learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last

government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even

your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal

credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time

when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I

intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out

and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were

predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this

is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare

benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by

April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we

rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of

someone we brought from outside he said that you are better rolling it

out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for

rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the

timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so

that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works

properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of

claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong

thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything

about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you

do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in

the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written

off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,

so it is worth getting it right William Grant wants to know, when

will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody

who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal

credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because

it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,

but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's

allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of

them are already doing that now there are 200,000 people around the

country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when

everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit

will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.

Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.

The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right

now somebody has to go to work and there is a small job out there. They

won't take that because the way their benefits are withdrawn, it

will mean it is not worth doing it. Under the way we have got it in the

Pathfinders, the change is dramatic. A job-seeker can take a

small part time job while they are looking for work and it means

flexibility for business so it is a big change. Lets see if that is true

because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.

Let me show you a quote Minister in the last

-- in the last Tory conference. It has only come down to 76%. Actually

form own parents, before they get to the tax bracket it is well below

that. That is a decision the Government takes about the

withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your

reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra

pound, will pay a marginal rate of 76%. -- if they earn an extra pound.

The 98% he is talking about is a specific area to do with lone

parents but there are specific compound areas in the process that

mean people are better off staying at home then going to work. They

will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing

to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at

different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal

credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they

are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going

to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are

going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes

billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of

universal credit, I promise you and that level of withdrawal then

becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether

they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra

money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody

crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,

in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them

to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you

could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can

always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made

by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this

system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its

priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will

be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work

faster, doing more job searches and more likely to take work under

universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has

been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not

been a glorious success, has it That is wrong. Right now the work

programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the

order of 500,000 people have gone back into work as a result of the

programme. Around 280,000 people are in a sustained work over six

months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about

the work programme is that it is setup so that we make the private

sector, two things that are important, there is competition in

every area so that people can be sucked out of the programme and

others can move in. The important point here as well is this, that

actually they don't get paid unless they sustain somebody for six months

of employment. Under previous programmes under the last

government, they wasted millions paying companies who took the money

and didn't do enough to get people into work. The best performing

provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed

only 2%. It is young people. That report was on the early first months

of the work programme, it is a two-year point we are now and I can

give you the figures for this. They are above the line, the improvement

has been dramatic and the work programme is better than any other

back to work programme under the last government. So why is long term

unemployment rising? It is falling. We have the largest number of people

back in work, there is more women in work than ever before, more jobs

being created, 1.6 million new jobs being created. The work programme is

working, our back to work programmes are incredibly successful at below

cost so we are doing better than the last government ever did, and it

will continue to improve because this process is very important. The

competition is what drives up performance. We want the best

performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are

practising Catholic, Archbishop Vincent Nichols has attached your

reforms -- attack to your reforms, saying they are becoming more

punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't

agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these

attacks because most are not correct.

For the poorest temper sent in their society, they are now spending, as a

percentage of their income, less than they did before. I'm not quite

sure what he thinks welfare is about. Welfare is about stabilising

people but most of all making sure that households can achieve what

they need through work. The number of workless households under

previous governments arose consistently. It has fallen for the

first time in 30 years by nearly 18%. Something like a quarter of a

million children were growing up in workless households and are now in

households with work and they are three times more likely to grow up

with work than they would have been in workless households. Let me come

into something that he may have had in mind as being punitive - some

other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister

announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt

from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High

Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of

severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,

some may describe it, heartless We were originally going to appeal that

and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking

about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for

this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about

their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But

for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our

decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,

having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.

You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt

them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.

Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing

benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to

?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest

rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into

control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in

housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and

we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the

spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the

reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in

overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million

people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people

sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we

build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and

others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they

actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in

overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of

money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to

go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right

sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank

that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000

job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,

are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not

correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct

and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some

people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to

food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is

referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some

but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where

they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you

don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit

withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly

withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This

is a very small subset. But if you lose your job-seeker benefit

unfairly, you have no cash flow There is an immediate review within

seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is

reviewed. They are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there

is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion setup to help people,

through crisis, hardship funds and in many other ways. We've given more

than ?200 million to authorities to do face-to-face checks. This is not

a nasty, vicious system but a system that says, "look, we ask you to do

certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you

have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing

those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I

think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices

throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is

what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling

in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these

figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also

shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this

Parliament, and your government and will continue to rise. But never

mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be

400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament

ends. That isn't a projection but the actual figures. But the last

figures show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The

important point is... Can I just finished this point of? Child

poverty is measured against 60% of median income so this is an issue

about how we measure child poverty. You want to change the measure. I

made the decision not to publish our change figures at this point because

we've still got a bit more work to do on them but there is a big

consensus that the way we measure child poverty right now does not

measure exactly what requires to be done. For example, a family with an

individual parent who may be drug addicted and gets what we think is

enough money to be just over the line, their children may be living

in poverty but they won't be measured so we need to get a

measurement that looks at poverty in terms of how people live, not just

in terms of the income levels they have. You can see on that chart -

400,000 rising by the end of this Parliament - you are deciding over

an increase. Speedier I want to change it because under the last

government child poverty rose consistently from 2004 and they

ended up chucking huge sums of money into things like tax credits. In tax

credits, in six years before the last election, the last government

spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty target and they didn't achieve what

they set out to achieve. We don t want to continue down that line

where you simply put money into a welfare system to alter a marginal

income line. It doesn't make any sense. That's why we want to change

it, not because some projection says it might be going up. I will point

out again it isn't a projection up to 2013-14. You want it to make work

pay but more people in poverty are now in working families than in

workless families. For them, workers not paying. Those figures referred

to the last government's time in government. What is interesting

about it is that until 2010, under the last government, those in

working families - poverty in working families rose by half a

million. For the two years up to the end of those figures, it has been

flat, under this government. These are figures at the last

government... You inherited and it hasn't changed. The truth is, even

if you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if they are

in workless families, are three times more likely to be out of work

and to suffer real hardship. So in other words, moving people up the

scale, into work and then on is important. The problem with the last

government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain

hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you

progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But

those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's

tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left

people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through

all this. A lot more I'd like to talk about. I hope you will come

back. I will definitely come back. Thank you for joining us.

You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.

Hello. Welcome to the progr`mme Coming up:

And with you on today's polhtical journey, the Labour MP for Rochdale,

Simon Danczuk, and Michael Jones, the Conservative leader of Cheshire

East council. 30 years ago ht was the miners' strike.

We'll come to HS2 later. First, thousands of letters landed on

doormats earlier this week, telling parents which secondary school their

children will be going to in September. For more pupils than ever

before, that'll be an acadely. Simon ` academies... They were introduced

originally by the Labour government... Do you support them?

Very successful. They've improved performance for many pupils. I'm in

favour of them. It's all about leadership. That's important ` a

good headteacher with flexibility. I think they've done excellent work.

What about you Michael? Do xou want to see more opting out? We're all

pro`choice. You've got to think about leadership. But

performances... The bottom children who aren't doing well seem to drop

out. I'm concerned about th`t. Yes for them, but there are lessons to

be learned. Let's talk about academies ` state schools, but free

from the local education authority. Critics question the accountability

of some of the organisations that sponsor them and say return to local

authority control is what's needed. Education. Education. Acadelies

It's become a hot topic. Thd government is keen to press ahead

and encourage more schools to become academies. This school was one of

ten across the country stripped of its sponsor. I can't see how it can

be any good for them to pull out halfway through an academic year.

Meanwhile, there was opposition to one takeover. The NUT and the Labour

Party say performance isn't good enough. UCAT runs five acaddmies.

Ofsted has inspected those `nd rated two inadequate. Two missed the

minimum target for GCSE restlts Warrington hit the target btt only

took on academy status halfway through the year, so wasn't included

in government statistics. Wd end up with a completely unregulatdd

education system. You've got free schools, academies... It's `

fragmented system with no vhsion. They need to go back to loc`l

authority control. The topic will be a major talking point in thd run up

to the next general election. The main question will be about

accountability. Organisations like these ` who do they answer to? In a

statement, UCAT said... The chairman of this former academy

was also keen to stress the positives. Academies that h`ve

changed... They are schools that were in difficulties. Most `re

making good progress. How wd teach our children has been talked about

for decades. There have been many changes. Those in charge now have to

ensure they get it right. Wd're also joined by Dianne Lloyd, an dducation

lecturer at Liverpool John Loores University. She advised the Labour

government on the first set of academies. Dianne... What's going

wrong? I think one of the inevitabilities of this was the

chief inspector of Ofsted and his decision. He inspected chains.

Previously, it was only single schools. The decision was m`de in

December. These are large groups. Over 60! They are acting like a

formal local authority. But they don't have the accountability. These

chains... There are questions being asked about their vision and whether

they can provide the qualitx of education. Some people will know

that academies were created to drive up standard. They'll be surprised

it's got worse in some cases? Standards generally have improved

but it has been in local models I'm not against... People do not see a

problem with small groups of schools working locally together ` sharing

resources and expertise. Th`t's not a bad thing. The question h`s to be

asked about larger chains ` who are they accountable to? What inspection

regime are they under? Ofstdd need to address that. Michael, the

Northwich academy is in your part of the world. It's under the government

target. Not good enough? Cldarly not. Ofsted getting involved is

good. They have to get more out of schools. I mean... What do xou

say... These academies aren't working should be brought b`ck under

LEA authority? That's a last resort. Let's make sure things are hn place.

We don't want to take the choice away. My view is... The councillor

had it spot on. He said we have to think about the pupils and the

parents. That's the top lind. Ofsted have to investigate the companies.

There's also a role for the council and Secretary of State. The

Conservatives don't intervene.. But they have to. Part of the education

resolution has been to incrdase the number of academies. Labour targeted

schools that were failing. Do you think that's the right approach You

could argue they've moved too quickly... These are very shmilar to

LEA. Michael Gove is taking a poor approach. Pupils and parents are

being served by poorly performing academies. Not good enough. You

think the government are overlooking? Absolutely. Michael?

They are intervening. Hang on.. How in the case of UCAT? Ofsted... We've

given messages. Michael Govd is trying to put families first. It's

not about A`levels. Let's bd clear... These pupils... Thdy are

being failed now. They only get one chance. No second chances. We need

direct government action. Ldt Michael respond. The key thhng

here... The top academy produced good people for universities but we

need everybody ` people for apprentices and so on. We'rd failing

there... We're having a deb`te. . I want to talk about how you failed to

deliver in the last governmdnt. . We need to move on! Thank you Dianne!

Let's leave school being and accelerate towards a new battle for

high speed rail. So far it's been dominated by those who want HS2

against those who don't. But now there's a contest between two places

keen to get a station ` Stoke is making a late bid to kick Crewe to

the side. Whoever wins has implications for Manchester. It s

110 years since Crewe locomotive works produced their first railway.

Crewe has been a railway town for over 170 years. Thousands h`ve been

employed here. Today, a lot of the industry may have gone, but the

legacy lives on. Crewe is still a major railway junction. That's

partly why the company behind HS2 has included Crewe on its preferred

route. Some trains would stop here as they head between London and

Liverpool. It's the greatest junction! It's not been spohlt. Lots

of land waiting to be developed There's no other interchangd like

it. Perfect. But 15 miles down the road, there's a competitor. Stoke.

Leaders here want to drag the line away from Cheshire and have an HS2

station on this former industrial land. Under Stoke's plan, there

would also be a stop at Stockport, but not Manchester Airport. Stoke

says this would remove 87 khlometres through Cheshire and save ?4

billion. It would speed up the process by seven years. This would

make Stoke a core city. The amount of growth... Incredible. Thd

contribution the area can m`ke. . It's huge. Crewe's history light

have made it the butt of musical history, but visiting the town

recently, one minister suggdsted the bid should be taken seriously. ``

musical humour. It provides a great connection. They get the benefit.

Does Crewe make more sense? I'm trying not to close my mind. Ideas

are being brought forward... We ll analyse. In the countryside, we know

HS2 is unpopular. Two places are fighting for it... So is it worth

having? The government attitude .. While these places fight among

themselves, it steam rollers on HS2 is divisive for different rdasons.

We'll have to wait until December to find out what the government wants

to do. Phil joins us from the Stoke studio. How confident is Stoke?

Well... Leaders say they ard. This week, they've committed to spending

?100 million on the bid. Thd area needs regeneration. There's been

huge decline. Crewe would s`y the same. The leaders are not bdgging.

They say the city has econolic potential. They say HS2 can help.

There are compelling figures. What do you think the chances ard? Crewe

have the advantage of being named on the initial route. Stoke's plan

would need huge changes. But they say their bid would be cheaper and

quicker. That's in their favour Their line wouldn't go throtgh

Manchester Airport. That's ` big issue. Theresa May came to Crewe.

Was that a vote of confidence? Perhaps. But other places are in the

mix. Michael... Could Stoke be better value for money? Well if

they're spending ?100 million on their bid it's not value for money!

What is HS2 about? We think we've got a robust bid. ?100 millhon is

outrageous. They're wasting their bid. Outrageous. We know wh`t it's

all about. Crewe offers a lot. We offered a joint venture with Stoke.

They said no! Now they want in. Sure... But the Stoke plan would be

delivered earlier and cheapdr? Take it to Crewe earlier. We're the real

deal. I'm in favour of HS2. It's good for the economy. I think we

need a stop at Manchester Ahrport. I think it's critical. We've had

enough drifting from the government in terms of this. We need to get on

with it. We should meet in Birmingham at the same time. That

would make sense. One thing Labour has said... They want value for

money. Stoke? They haven't been lukewarm. We've always said we want

value for money. That is crhtical. HS2... Look at all the options. We

need to do that. You're confident Crewe will deliver? We are. But it's

a complex scheme. We'll spend money but not ?100 million! We've got a

robust plan. We're proceeding ahead as we should do. Staying with

trains... They're not much tse without carriages! This week it

emerged nine of the 70 trains used by First Pennine between Manchester

and Hull will next year movd south to Chilton. The move has bedn

described as an outrage. Thd Blackburn MP Jack Straw raised the

issue and asked this: TransPennine is to lose one in eight of hts

trains. I will look very carefully at that point. We have annotnced

plans to electrify the TransPennine line. That will make a diffdrence.

Carriages do get moved all `round the country. Is this a problem? It's

a disgrace. They're losing 03% of their carriages. Why is the north

being disadvantaged? It says all you need to know about this govdrnment.

What next? Nurses, doctors? I read trains servicing Gatwick will be

moved up? Absolutely. We've done it for years. This will be an tpgrade.

This is about people getting in Manchester... Leeds... Liverpool.

Cascading, that's what it's called. Well... I don't know... Network Rail

know best. She is quite cle`r this is serving the North badly. Let s

leave that there. What else has been in the news? Let's take a look in 60

Seconds. Children at risk of abuse on the Isle of Man are not being

given enough protection according to an independent watchdog. Thdy said

urgent action was needed. There were protests outside the town h`ll as

Liverpool City Council confhrmed cuts to services and jobs to save

?156 million. One local MP told the PM what she thought. What does it

say? I believe the funding reflects the needs. One Chief Executhve says

Liverpool's right about somdthing. The boss of William Hill saxs the

city should have the right to limit the number of bookmakers with fixed

odds betting terminals. The Greater Manchester Police Commissioner set

up an independent review of the way police deal with protests after

complaints by anti`fracking campaigners. And they've kissed and

made up. This councillor is in talks to return to the Labour Party after

leaving following a spat with a colleague. A lot of critics say it's

unfair that councils like Lhverpool are getting cuts while yours... Not

so much? We've taken 8%. So have they. We get less funding. Ht tells

you they need to look at wh`t they spend their money on. Simon? Places

like Rochdale are disadvant`ged They haven't been given support

This government cares for more rural areas. It's ridiculous... It is

It's a big issue. Thank you both very much. Back to Andrew.

Gove is right to focus. We've run out of time. Thanks for being here.

Andrew, back to you. Now, without further ado, more from

our political panel. Iain Martin, what did you make of Iain Duncan

Smith's response to the Danny Alexander point I'd put to him? I

thought it was a cheekily put response but actually, on Twitter,

people have been tweeting while on air that there are lots of examples

where the Tories have demanded the raising of the threshold. The 2 06

Forsyth tax omission is another example. Helen, on the bigger issue

of welfare reforms, is welfare reform, as we head into the

election, despite all the criticisms, still a plus for the

government? I don't think so. Whatever the opposite of a Midas

touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got it. David Cameron never talks about

universal credit any more. The record on personal independence

payment, for example... We didn t get onto that. Only one in six of

those notes have been paid. A toss pulling out of their condiment has

been a nightmare. It's a very big minus point for the Secretary of

State. -- Atos pulling out of bed contract. Welfare cuts are an

unambiguous point for the government but other points more ambiguous I

don't think it's technical complexity that makes IDS's reform a

problem. The IT gets moved out with time. But even if it's in fermented

perfectly, what it will achieve has been slightly oversold, I think and

simplified incredibly. All it does is improve incentives to work for

one section of the income scale and diminishes it at another. Basically,

you are encouraged to go from working zero hours to 16 hours but

your incentive to work beyond 1 goes down. That's not because it's a

horrendous policy but because in work benefits systems are

imperceptible. Most countries do worse than we do. -- benefits

systems cannot be perfected. They need to tone down how much this can

achieve even if it all goes flawlessly. There are clearly

problems, particularly within limitation, but Labour is still wary

of welfare reform. -- with implementation. Polls suggest it is

rather popular. People may not know what's involved were like the sound

of it. I think Janan is right to mark out the differences between

welfare cuts and welfare reforms. They are related but distinct. Are

we saying cuts are more popular than reform? They clearly are. The

numbers, when you present people numbers on benefit reductions, are

off the scale. Reform, for the reasons you explored in your

interview, is incredibly compensated. What's interesting is

that Labour haven't really definitively said what their

position is on this. I think they like - despite what they may see in

public occasionally - some of what universal credit might produce but

they don't want to be associated with it. We probably won't know

until if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister precisely what direction

Labour will go. Immigration is still a hot topic in Westminster and

throughout the country. This new Home Office minister, James

Brokenshire, made an intervention. Let's see what he had to say. For

too long, the benefits of immigration went to employers who

wanted an easy supply of cheap labour or to the wealthy

metropolitan elite who wanted cheap tradesmen and services, but not to

the ordinary hard-working people of this country. With the result that

the Prime Minister and everyone else has to tell us all whether they ve

now got Portuguese or whatever it is Nanny is. Is this the most

cack-handed intervention on an immigration issue in a long list? I

think it is and when I saw this being trailed the night before, I

worried for him. As soon as a minister of the Crown uses the

phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite" more likely we see it in recession.

We've just had the worst recession in several decades. It's no small

problem but compared to what ministers like James Brokenshire has

been saying for the past few years and also the reluctance to issue the

report earlier, I thought that, combined with the speech, made it

quite a bad week for the department. Was this a cack-handed attempt to

appeal to the UKIP voters? I think so and he's predecessor had to leave

the job because of having a foreign cleaner. It drew attention to the

Tories' biggest problem, the out of touch problem. Most people around

the country probably don't have a Portuguese nanny and you've just put

a big sign over David Cameron saying, this man can afford a

Portuguese Nanny. It is not the finest political operation ever

conducted and the speech was definitely given by the Home Office

to Number Ten but did Number Ten bother to read it? It was a complete

shambles. The basic argument that there is a divide between a wealthy

metropolitan elite and large parts of Middle Britain or the rest of the

country I think is basically sound. It is but they are on the wrong side

of it. What do you mean by that The Tory government is on the wrong

side. This is appealing to UKIP voters and we know that UKIP is

appealing to working-class voters who have previously voted Labour and

Tory. If you set up that divide make sure you are on the right side

stop When you talk about metropolitan members of the media

class, they say that it is rubbish and everyone has a Polish cleaner.

No, they don't. I do not have a clean! I don't clean behind the

fridge, either! Most people in the country don't have a cleaner. The

problem for the Tories on this is, why play that game? You can't

out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three years of sustained Tory effort to do

that, they will probably finish behind UKIP. Do we really want a

political system where it becomes an issue of where your nanny or your

cleaner is from, if you've got one? Unless, of course, they're illegal.

But Portuguese or Italian or Scottish... And intervention was

from Nick Clegg who said his wife was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and

his wife was Spanish. Not communism but who your cleaner is! It's the

McCarthy question! Where does your cleaner come from. A lot of people

will say are lucky to have a cleaner. I want to move onto selfies

but first, on the Nigel Farage Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with

the TV one. Who do you think will win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a

surprisingly good in debates and people have forgotten. I think Clegg

is going to win. I think Farage has peaked. We're going to keep that on

tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there. Selfies. Politicians are attempting

to show they're down with the kids. Let's look at some that we've seen

in recent days. Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm

so embarrassed you call me reading the SNP manifesto, as I do every

Saturday! They do it because it makes them seem authentic and that's

the big Lie that social media tells you - that you're seeing the real

person. You're not, you're seeing a very carefully manicured, more witty

person. That doesn't work for politicians. It looks so fake and

I'm still suffering the cringe I see every time I see Cameronserious

phone face. Does Mr Cameron really think it big Sim up because he's on

the phone to President Obama? Obama is not the personality he once was.

There is an international crisis in Ukraine - of course we are expecting

to be speaking to Obama! And if you were in any doubt about what a man

talking on the telephone looks like, here's a photo. I must confess, I

didn't take my own selfie. Did your nanny? My father-in-law took it

Where is your father-in-law from? Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I

think we've got one of you. The 1%! What a great telephone! Where did

you get that telephone? It looks like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's

what I go to bed in. It showed how excited Cameron was to be on the

phone to Obama. All our politicians think they are living a mini version

of US politics. President Obama goes on a big plane and we complain when

George Osborne goes first class on first Great Western. They want to be

big and important like American politics but it doesn't work. We'll

see your top at next week! That's it for this week. Faxed all

our guests. The Daily Politics is on all this week at lunchtime on BBC

Two. We'll be back here same time, same place next week. Remember, if

it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.