29/06/2014 Sunday Politics North West

No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.

But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?

Doctors want to ban smoking outright.

A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all

And in the North West: Should we build on the Green Belt?

And the Conservative blueprhnt for a global northern powerhouse,

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political

panel in the business Nick Watt Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in

Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence

He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made

it big in the world of European politic.

I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg

He'll soon be President of the European Commission,

He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.

But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up

on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.

-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist

So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes

of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?

Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr

Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got

harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The

majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts

power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right

cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European

Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European

countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of

Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on

how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the

mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming

European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The

Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to

integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.

What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at

different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new

Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the

approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime

Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general

acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to

the single currency will want to press forward with closer

integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country

in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern

that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with

28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the

extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and

integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable

geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is

that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the

slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which

backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that

there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to

seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the

election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the

British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the

British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will

take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron

secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,

not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with

Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't

think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of

reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do

put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission

to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers

around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things

cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger

of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of

work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of

countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election

results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing

parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing

real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch

decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the

condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would

have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.

Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role

in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed

up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from

that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I

think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and

it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament

to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.

They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are

the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms

of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The

current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The

Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?

We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at

the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on

whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you

think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest but

also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't

challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.

Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of

State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the

existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He

doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is

the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the

position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a

distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government

now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and

the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that

important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and

that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a

whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going

to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in

2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today For

one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press

ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done

in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain

outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of

migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this

week and we should welcome that Very briefly, finally, when will

you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the

government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the

election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg

speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,

more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is

all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's

not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in

the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries

those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories

and I'm sure the Prime Minister as we get towards the general election,

will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and

perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank

you for joining us this morning The harsh reality of this is that there

is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring

back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I

think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,

those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay

regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on

renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would

vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20

years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only

stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be

re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the

referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single

biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not

what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure

to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against

Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr

Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only

because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these

changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that

would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the

biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of

coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of

benefits, and he might get that He wants to restrict freedom of

movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is

a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is

also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was

encouraged because it said, let s look at closer union, but it did not

say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted

in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The

fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when

he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling

to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela

Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the

European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,

he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this

basic stitch up by the European Parliament that meant he was

presented, and when Angela Merkel put the question over his head there

was a huge backlash in Germany and she was unable to deliver. I

understand that, but I'm looking forward to Mr Cameron's predicament.

I don't know how he squares the circle. It seems inconceivable that

he can bring back enough from Brussels to satisfy his

backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of them fundamentally want out. They

don't want to be persuaded by renegotiations. Where it's hard to

draw conclusions from the polling is that if you ask people question that

sounds like, do you like the fact that our Prime Minister has gone to

Brussels and stuck it to the man, they say yes, but how many people

will go to the voting booths and put their cross in the box based on

Europe? We know mostly voters care about Europe as a proxy for

immigration fears. In ten people in this country could not tell you who

John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir is replacing. -- and who he is

replacing. And I'm joined in the studio now by

arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by

staunch European and former Liberal war? His declared objectives would

leave Britain still in the common agricultural policy, the common

foreign policy, the European arrest warrant, so the negotiating aims

which we just heard Nick setting out wouldn't fundamentally change

anything. It would be easy for the Government to declare war on any of

these things. The danger from your point of view as someone who wants

to stay in is that if David Cameron only gets cosmetic changes, the

chance of getting the vote to leave the European Union increases,

doesn't it? Hypothetically it probably does but we have two big

things to get through first in domestic politics before we even

reach a negotiation. One is are we going to have the United Kingdom

this time next year following the referendum in Scotland? Secondly,

are the Conservatives after the general election

are the Conservatives after the after the election. There is a

danger, if he doesn't bring much back, that people will vote yes

correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press

comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold

Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to

say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is

different however, and this is really an appeal if you

different however, and this is about. I am very proud of being part

of the party that is trusting people to offer this. If he only gets

cosmetic changes he cannot carry his party. But ultimately it will not be

his party, it is the electorate as a whole that has to decide whether the

changes are substantive. Everything we have been hearing just now is

about staying out of future integration, protecting the role of

the non-euro countries. People are upset about what is going on today

with the EU. They can see laws being passed by people they cannot vote

for, friendships overseas are prejudiced, and they conceive that

the European Union has just put in charge in the top slot somebody who

wants a United States of Europe into which we will eventually be dragged

into as some kind of Providence Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist,

you are Federalist, why did the Lib Dems oppose him? We shared the view

that whilst you take account of what the members of the European

Parliament say, ultimately the choice of the presidency in the

commission should be the political leaders, the governmental leaders at

a national level, and that's why we went down the route we did. It was

more to do with the system than the individual. Although I would say

that you need to bear in mind, I mean Daniel, I respect him

personally and the integrity of his views, as I think he does mine, but

to dismiss the European Union as a small trading block globally, when

you have got the United States of America, China and other countries

acknowledging its importance, it is really Walter Mitty land. Are we

closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we closer to an exit after what

happened last week? Yes, because the idea that we could get substantive

reforms, gets a mythic and powers back and be within a looser, more

flexible European Union has plainly been closed off. We have to face up

to the actual European Union that has taken shape on our doorstep Are

we going to be part of that or are we going to have a much more

semidetached, looser relationship with it which we can either achieve

via a unilateral system of power or another way. This debate is

never-ending, it is going on and on and has bedevilled British prime

ministers for as long as I can remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems

change their stance on the referendum yet again let's just have

this in-out referendum and have it sided one way or another? Our

position remains clear. If there is a constitutional issue put before us

in terms of treaty changes then we will have a referendum. Why not now?

I am probably the wrong person to ask because I argued and voted for a

referendum on Maastricht because I thought that was a constitutional

treaty. Anything that makes the Queen a citizen of the European

Union surely has constitutional implications. Anyway, 20 years on we

are where we are and we need to established common vocabulary. You

talk about federalism. What do we mean? Most of the people operating

in the European Parliament and the institution across the road, the

Council of Europe, they mean by federalism decentralisation of

powers, not a Brussels superstate but actually the kind of

decentralisation that maintains national characteristics and pools

resources and sovereignty where it makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now

going to be in charge of the Brussels commission, he believes in

a single EU reform policy, an EU wide minimum wage and EU wide

taxes. You said this week that you liked the sound of Juncker

federalism. Does that sound good to you? No, and I think the new

president of the commission will be disappointed if he puts forward

these views because although we only had Hungary voting with us, I think

if you go to other countries, France, Poland, Scandinavia, they

are not going to buy that kind of menu. What they mean by federalism

is the continental concept, also the North American concept, that we can

sit very happily... They have an army, a federal police force,

federal taxation. Yes, but in terms of the political institutions which

is what we are discussing here, you can have the supranational, the

European level, whilst still having the very vibrant national, and

indeed as we are practising in the United Kingdom the subnational. A

very brief final word from you, Daniel. That is ultimately going to

be the choice. The European Union is an evolving dynamic, we can see the

direction it is going in. Do we want to be part of that? I suspect

Charles Kennedy would have loved a referendum. I cannot help but notice

his party is going downhill since he was running it. It is illegal to

light up in the workplace, pubs and restaurants. Now the British Medical

Association has voted to outlaw everywhere but not everybody at

once. It would apply to anyone born after the year 2000. In a moment we

will debate the merits of those plans but first he is Adam.

There was a time when to be British was to be a smoker. 1948 was the

year off peak fag with 82% of men smoking mainly cigarettes but it was

a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a political prop to help with the

hard-hitting interviews they did in those days. The advertisements make

out pipe smokers to be more virile, more fascinating men than anybody

else. Do you thought -- have that thought anywhere in your mind? No.

It changed in 2006 when smoking in enclosed places was banned. I would

rather be inside but unfortunately we have got to do what this

Government tells us to do. I think it is good, it is calm and you can

breathe. Research suggests it has improved the health of bar workers

no end and reduced childhood asthma. Now just one in five adults is a

smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on those newfangled e-cigarettes,

smoking in cars and possibly the introduction of plain packaging

There is still those who take pride in smoking and see it as a war on

freedom. We're joined now by

Dr Vivienne Nathanson from the British Medical Association

who voted for a graduated ban on smoking at their conference last

week, and Simon Clark They're here to go head-to-head

There are plenty of things which are bad for our health, why single out

cigarettes? We need some sugar in our diets but the fact is that we

need to stop people smoking as children because if we can do that,

the likelihood that they will start smoking is very small. In no

circumstances is smoking good for you. There are lots of smokers who

live long, healthy lives but we totally accept smoking is a risk to

your health and adults have to make that decision, just as you make the

decision about drinking alcohol eating fatty foods and drinking

sugary drinks. This proposal is totally impractical. It will create

a huge black market in cigarettes which will get bigger every year.

They say this is about stopping children smoking but there is

already a law in place that stops shopkeepers from selling cigarettes

to children. This target adults so you could have the bizarre situation

in the year 3035 for example where a 36-year-old can go into shops to buy

cigarettes but if you are 35 you will be denied that, which is

ludicrous. The point is that the younger you start smoking the more

likely you will become heavily addicted. I take the point, but the

point he is saying is that if this becomes law, down the road, if you

go into shops to buy cigarettes you would have to take your birth

certificate, wouldn't you? We have no idea how the legislation would be

written but the key point is that if we can stop young people from

starting to smoke, we will in 2 years have a whole group of people

who have never smoked so you won't have that problem of people who are

smokers and they are now in their 20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot

of younger people who get cigarettes the way they currently get illegal

drugs now. They are already getting cigarettes illegally and we have to

deal with that. We have got to get better. The Government has not been

able to stop it. We know this is going to kill 50%... When you are 15

you think you will live for ever. Indeed but they also do it as

rebellion and because they see adults and it is remarkably easy to

buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is for individual choice, won't most

people agree that if you could stop young people smoking, so that

through the rest of their lives they never smoked, that would be worth

doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds who already do that. Is it worth

trying? When the government increased the age at which

shopkeepers could sell from 16 to 18, we supported it. We don't

support a ban on proxy purchasing, we support reasonable measures, but

this is unreasonable. This proposal says a lot about the BMA, because

this week the BMA also passed a motion to ban the use of E

cigarettes in public places. There is no evidence that they are

dangerous to health, so why are they doing that? They are becoming a

temperance society. This is not about public health, it's an

old-fashioned temperance society and they have to get their act together

because they are bringing the medical profession into disrepute.

We were having argument is about things that people buy large accept,

smoking in bars or public places, but the real aim of the BMA was the

total banning of cigarettes altogether. This would suggest that

that was true to claim that. It s not about a ban, it's about a move

to a country where nobody wants to smoke and no one is a smoker. But it

would be illegal to smoke. It would be illegal to buy, not smoke, and

there's a difference between two. So even if I am born in the year 2 00,

it would still be illegal to smoke, just illegal to buy the cigarettes?

Indeed. The point being that the habit of smoking is very strongly

linked to your ability to buy, so that is why things like Price and

availability and marketing are so important. People will flood across

the Channel with the cigarettes One thing you will find is that

throughout the world people is looking at -- people are looking at

the same kind of measures, and different countries like Australia,

they were the first with a standardised packaging. Other

countries will follow, because all of us are facing the fact that we

can't afford to pay for the tragedy. There will be people

waiting to flood the market with cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks

for both coming and going head-to-head.

"Unless we have more equal representation, our politics won't

be half as good as it should be " So said David Cameron back in 2 09.

So how's it going? Well, you can judge the quality

of the politics for yourself, but we've been crunching

the numbers to find out what parliament might look like after

the next year's general election. Here's Giles.

Politicians are elected to Parliament to represent their

constituents, but the make-up of Parliament does not reflect society

well at all the parties it. In 010 more women and ethnic minority

candidates entered Westminster but not significantly more inner chamber

still dominated by white males. Looking at the current make-up of

the Commons, Labour has 83 female MPs, the Conservative have 47 women

MPs, which is just over 47% -- and the Lib Dems have 12% of the

parties. All of the parties have selected parliaments in those seats

where existing MPs are retiring and to fight seats at the next

election, and they've all been trying to up the number of women and

ethnic minorities because discounts and can be capitalised on. A picture

tells a thousand words. Look at the all-male front bench before us. And

he says he wants to represent the whole country. Despite the jibe the

Labour Party know they have a long way to go on the issue of being

representative. So we way to go on the issue of being

look at this particular area of lack of women and ethnic minorities.

In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they

got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 1%

The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy

at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most

marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn

In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected

If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones

they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.

The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won

at the last election, if they manage that, they would have

However all the indications are it could be

a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform

swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.

One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all

options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is

The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at

evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life

experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.

They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be

represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary

projection for gender, According to the last census

in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from

black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they

get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party

were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME

candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,

that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats

don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling

on to their current number of seats they would have two,

giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost

their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix

of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve

the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to

a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford

or Cambridge. Only a fifth

of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with

the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like

us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they

cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the

turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20

points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and

that is getting worse with single election.

And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a

Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get

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

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

The Conservative blueprint for a northern global powerhouse,

The announcement today, there is a certain amount of nervousness

You can't immediately point to things which have helped restore the

Joining us, the Labour MP for West Lancashire, Rosie Cooper,

and the Conservative MP for Ribble Valley, Nigel Evans.

Nigel, we haven't seen you since the court case which cleared

How has it changed your lifd as an MP and as a politician?

I thought I was caring before, but I am far more compassionate

and understanding to anybodx and everybody who comes and sees me

I'm far more patient than I ever was.

What I've gone through I wotld not wish on my worst enemy, and

I was looking, and when you go through one of these things,

I was looking at Rebekah Brooks the other day and the look on hdr face.

Going through a trial for whatever reason, it does have a huge impact,

At the end of it, you can't just flip a switch

It has emerged this week, Nigel,

that some in your local party would like to deselect you.

Why? I haven't the faintest idea.

It would only be a small nulber if that is the case.

Even if you have not gone through what I've gone throtgh,

now and again, MPs find we're not flavour of the month with everybody.

So I guess following what I have gone through,

there would be one or two who may use that as an excuse, but

The vast majority of people are giving me support

One is Ribble Valley after the next election ` Tory.

Number three, Prime Minister ` David Cameron.

Some of this depends of course on your constituents.

Let's have a listen to what some of them have to say.

Personal life shouldn't come into it.

He's a local MP, and he's not giving us a good name.

I'm not judging him on his personal life.

Mixed views, and it is true there is a lot of support for you

Isn't it the reality that the trial showed issues in relation to

alcohol, in relation to havhng sex with very young Westminster workers,

and some of your constituents and party workers do feel that is

But the vast majority of people as we have seen and you heard xourself,

when I have been around Clitheroe, the vast majority believe that

woe betide anybody who has their private life not just looked over

with a microscope, but things thrown at you th`t you

All I know is that 12 peopld looked at all of the evidence that was

shown before them, and very quickly decided that I was not guilty.

In fact, the vast majority of people I speak to who took an interest in

the case said it should nevdr have come to court in the first place.

The response I'm getting when I go around

Rosie, you didn't get caught up in this, but how important hs it to

It is a difficult job, and the local party will decide who

the MP is, but as long as you have done a good job for your

local constituents, they ard the ones who will elect you.

This week, the Conservatives displayed their

The Chancellor, George Osborne, visited the Manchester Science

Museum to outline plans which could transform the rdgion

The northern powerhouse will include high`speed rail between Leeds

It takes around one hour to travel from Manchester to Ldeds

But commuters welcome it, and business leaders in Manchester

and Liverpool should not be shunted off the map.

It is Manchester and Leeds, but you have Liverpool.

It is a fascinating city whhch has an awful lot of regeneration

and growth, so if you're gohng to do it, do it with Liverpool.

money and more things for the regions.

These will be set out in our manifesto.

What we are putting on the table today is a big shift

in terms of political power, in terms of science and universities,

and in terms of transport to create a great northern powerhouse

I'm glad you mentioned it, because some people will very much

welcome the idea of the fast train, but still no timetable.

What I would say is over the last four years, we havd put

in place a long`term economhc plan that means this country is getting

off its knees and can now afford to make these sort of investments.

If you look at what we have done over the last four years, wd have

put money into electrificathon, into building new motorways, and

here we are with this great station in Manchester, ?44 million going

Yes, all of these things will happen

This great vision for better east`west links to link up our great

cities, I think it could help to create a real economic powerhouse.

It is a great vision we havd set out today, and very much supported

by the city leaders, many of them different parties to me

This is a cross`party, cross`country initiative that I think will make

We are also joined by the L`bour leader of Manchester City Council.

People have been talking for years about the economic benefits

of making travel distances between our great northern cities a lot

Indeed, I have been meeting with Northern leaders over sever`l

months to draw together transport investment plans for the North.

From now until 2030, the whole

If we do that, that will be a step forward.

It is making sure that in tdrms of any sort of work that yot have,

a bigger available workforcd that can get close to market,

businesses are able to conndct with each other, and it does havd to be

Leeds has to take the whole corridor across from Liverpool to Hull, the

two ports at either end, and has to go from Newcastle down to Sheffield.

Do you think it will happen this time?

The plan we put together, and it will take six months before

we have it entirely costed with all of the economic evidence, btt we

believe that it is affordable within the sorts of sums of money the

government will have available over that period of time,

and certainly compared to other schemes like Crossrail 2,

I think it is a nod to northerners before the election

Cameron and Osborne will not be around at the time.

To be honest, really, how does it make a difference to us hn my

We're talking about the North. We have no station.

We are in the middle with diesel trains chugging around.

Very soon, they will be going nowhere.

It is all talking about it taking 30 minutes to go

from Manchester to Liverpool, but the reality is if you lhve in

one area and you were to go to the A, it is 20 minutes on thd bus.

This is not about the big powerhouses, it has to be

She is partly right, but a bit too negative.

We know there is an issue, that London sucks in all of the loney,

and I have always seen Manchester as Britain's second city `

a magnet for the money coming into the North.

Look at the transformation of this area.

We just have to have the political will to do it.

We need to join the dots as far as the northern great cities are

concerned, but we have to m`ke absolutely certain we have `ccess to

high`speed ourselves from M`nchester all the way into London, and through

to the rest of Europe, and that is where the money is.

It took a long time to come up with this plan.

We also had to take over thd problem in 2010 of a massive deficit,

There are equally difficult problems with finance.

The economics are looking bdtter than they were in 2010, so let's

make sure now that we don't forget the northern great cities, `nd the

other thing which David Camdron was intimating is that we need to look

at proper devolution to the cities as well,

and that means money has to follow to ensure people like Richard have

got the access to the funds himself in order to spend it in the way

George Osborne and David Caleron won't be around, and I cert`inly

We need long`distance transport High Speed 2, we need intercity

transport between the northdrn cities, and we need local transport

We need all of those, and they are all doable.

Let's not give George Osborne and the Tories too much credit

It is not a new plan, and what it is talking about is work that hs being

done by local authorities in the north, and principally

The truth is that the North West and the North is more than just

My constituents have a right to be part of it.

They worry about how they get to work.

If the North of England becomes more prosperous, they will be part of it.

How do they do it if they are excluded?

The people of Clitheroe sometimes feel left out.

We need to ensure that therd is proper roll`outs to Clitheroe

Let me ask about the idea of regional mayors.

I'm against imposing a London`style mayor on any city

outside London because it is fundamentally a flawed systdm.

There is a disconnect between the mayor's office

What Cameron is talking about is greater powers

We have developed, in Greatdr Manchester, a different moddl.

Through the growth of Manchdster, we have a combined authority

which brings all of the districts together around a common agdnda

Unlike the London model, fotr different areas including Lhverpool

I think we need to build on that, rather than have some imposdd

solution on localities from Westminster.

If I said "Fragoff", you cotld be offended, or head for thd polling

In fact, Fragoff became one of our newest political parties

when they won their first council seat last month near Southport.

They are all about protecting the green belt

Like cream teas and summer fairs, the green belt conjures up

Here in Thornaby, which is lore green and more Middle England

than most places, it has become a political hot topic, and created

These are members of the Thornaby residents action group

We decided to do green for the green belt, and white for concretd.

Has this become your version of the Labour rosette?

Maria is the group's councillor, elected

I never wanted to be a politician or involved in politics.

Green belt is so important to stop urban sprawl.

A lot of the green belt is agricultural land, so

Member Jan thought her views were permanent, thanks to the

Until developers proposed building on these fields.

We went around the whole pl`ce and the support was tremendous.

They did not want building on green belt,

They have an application to build herd, but

a document all councils havd to draw up to say where futtre

What is needed is affordable housing.

The leader of the council stresses that is what they are trying to do

In the last ten years, 90% of the houses we have btilt have

The other 10% have been on non`green belt sites.

Not one house has been built on the green belt.

We have tried to build as mtch as we possibly can on non`green shtes

But available brown field spots are running out

The reality is there has to be some building on green belts bec`use we

haven't got the land in the brown field areas we wotld like.

They need to decide whether the most sustainable solution

in their area is actually a rolling back of the green belt.

They can replace that green belt on the outer boundary.

The green belt is a something for the long`term

rather than just nibbling away little bits of it here and there.

But any attempts to shift the green belt could, Maria says,

I think people across the country could do the sale,

and stand up for their rights really, and stand up for thd

Whether you view green belt land like this as holding back

much`needed development or as a vital barrier holding back

the concreting over of the countryside, it seems certahn that

this issue will continue to have a growing hold on local polhtics.

Stuart Pollock wading through some expensive crops there.

Rosie, you have more green belt in your constituency than anywhere

Where is the balance between keeping that and building homes

The balance, I believe, will be in reflecting the whshes

What you have now is a lot of people who are very very angry,

because they have been promhsed localism, promised a voice.

They have been promised their view will be heard.

Yet, what we actually have, is a planning framework which is almost

allowing aggressive developdrs to come in purely for financial

profit who want to build in the green belt because it is easier

According to the council, they have run out of brown field options.

In West Lancs, the council completely

in the consultation ignored the views of people for elector`l

Councillors decided to take a whole area out

of the consultation for electoral reasons, and people were very angry

Is it your position they shouldn't build on the green belt?

when you have exhausted the brown field sites, but you have to

Let me tell you, people took part in that consultation.

You will see more people eldcted on the basis that the government

OK, Rosie, but I need to bring Nigel in.

You have a big consultation coming up on similar issues.

I understand the anger of everybody in the Ribble Valley

who look at some of their villages and small towns and

I was at a public meeting in Longridge, and I know

the anger and frustration of people there who are not saying no to extra

housing, but they are saying no to the amount of extra housing that is

We have to ensure that as Rosie says,

we are the guardians of this green belt land for future generations.

Yet, Nigel, at the same timd, people are finding it difficult to

That is why we have to get the right balance.

People have to be more imaghnative about

where housing has to go eventually , and that must be the decision

What I got angry about in B`rrow, the local council said no to

405 houses, it went to appe`l, and it was signed off on appeal

Localism should mean that the decision rests with

Let's look at what else has been going on. Standards of care and

staff recruitment were among concerns as Morecambe Bay NHS Trust

was placed into special measures. The care at Lancaster and B`rrow

Inverness is not good enough. Plans for shale gas fracking were

introduced. It amended its planning application. A review is underway

into a ?6 million budget shortfall at traffic council after thd

authorities underestimated the cost of caring for the elderly and

honourable. Holmes on this hsland will be lost to the sea within 0

years will stop the chief executive of borough council forecast that a

report recommended nature should be left to take its course. And a

country rented is on her wax to West Bank issue. Dolly Parton is helping

to raise money for a librarx there in her skin to get children

reading. Local MP Rosie Cooper met her to get the ball rolling. `` in

her scheme. Dolly. How exciting Indeed. What is more exciting is the

fact that children of West Bank issue will have the opportunity to

get an age`appropriate book livid through their door from when they

are born until five years of age so they literacy and ability to read,

the opportunities they will have, we will increase aspiration and make a

difference. They can sing along as well. Nigel, you met somebody as

well. Yes, from simply red. I'm singly blue. But we can still raise

a glass and chat about common interests, including Manchester

United. Good to see you both enjoying yourselves and doing

important work. Thank you vdry much. Now it is back to Italy.

been problems elsewhere in Europe, but I take your point. Thanks to

both of you today. Back to you, Andrew.

Now, there have been some less-than-helpful remarks

about the way the Labour party makes policy, and they've come

from the man who is heading Labour's Policy Review, Jon Cruddas.

In a speech to party activists he was recorded saying that,

"instrumentalised, cynical nuggets of policy to chime with our focus

groups and our press strategies and our desire for a topline in terms of

the 24 hour media cycle, dominate and crowd out any

He added that Labour's election strategy was being hampered by a

The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls was asked about what Mr Cruddas had

I talked to him a couple of days ago, and he's not frustrated, he is

excited about his policy agenda He is frustrated that one report of 250

pages gets reduced down. So it's our fault? That is the way we live in

the world in which we live, but we have big ideas about devolution

long term infrastructure spending and new manufacturing policy, new

investment in skills, big changes which, let's be honest, I'm really

on George Osborne's agenda. How serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so

let's call it an unforced error You go to the party speeches, and you

don't know who is in the audience. There is no need for something as

serious as this to happen. It's hugely serious because it speaks

about something people have felt for a long time, that they have doled

out little nuggets of policy but no overarching story. There was a quite

saying the Ed Miliband has given as a shopping list, not a narrative.

When people in the party say things that are true, it's very difficult

for people to explain it away. Not sure Mr Miliband can win here. He

was recently criticised for not having policies. Now he's being

criticised for having too many. I think this line of attack is

particularly wounding because he prides himself on being a politician

of ideas. That is his unique selling point, and the weight that David

Cameron's prime ministerial nature is his selling point. So it is

wounding. If I was the Labour Party, before announcing any policy, I

would ask can help fix us on the economy? It might be radicalised

immolating on its own terms, but it's politically useless. -- radical

and innovative on its own terms I don't think any member of the public

does not think they are not radical enough or creative enough. If

anything, it's the opposite. They are a bit nervous about what a

Labour government could do and nervous about the economic

reputation. Reassurance, caution, maybe a bit of timidity might be the

notions that inform their policies or should inform their policies in

night -- my view, not the opposite. I am worried for Jon Cruddas,

because anyone who questions the Labour Party are part of the nexus

of the banking industry who are terrified of a Labour victory. It's

interesting that this goes to the heart of the debate in the Labour

Party, at the highest levels, do they put a big offer to the British

people, or a little off, John Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander

offer? Ed Miliband says that his ideas about freezing energy prices

and rent controls are a big offer, but his policy chief clearly has

real concerns that they don't go far enough. How important a figure is

John Cruddas in the project? He is hell of the -- head of the policy

review and has a huge amount of power, and so him slagging off the

policy review is a bad moment. He is trusted in that inner circle and the

problem for Ed Miliband from the odd is that he has people with strong

opinions, Maurice clasping is another, big thinkers, but they

maybe don't have a precaution that a professional politician might have

in terms of giving bland answers. So, David Cameron had to apologise

after his former director of communications was convicted

of phone hacking. David Cameron's other former friend,

Rebekah Brooks, had a better day. At the same trial, she was cleared

of all the charges against her. I take full responsibility for

employing Andy Coulson. I did some on the basis of undertakings I was

given by him about phone hacking and those turned out not to be the case.

I always said that if they turned out to be wrong, I would make a full

and frank apology, and I do that today. I am extremely sorry that I

employed him. It was the wrong decision. I'm clear about that. When

I was arrested it was in the middle of a maelstrom of controversy,

politics and of comment. Some of that was there, but much of it was

not, so I'm grateful to the jury for coming to that decision. Not been a

great week for David Cameron. Andy Coulson found guilty, and another

person who had worked in Downing Street is also charged on an

unrelated issue. And he was 26- on the wrong end in Brussels, and there

is a poll this morning which no one seems to be talking about which puts

Labour nine points ahead. Before all that there was Dominic Cummings

criticising the Downing Street operation is being shambolic. Is Mr

Cameron's judgement becoming an issue? Yes, what often happens when

one leader is under pressure for long enough, as Ed Miliband has been

the six months, we get bored. We then switch the Gatling gun to the

other guy. So David Cameron going into the Conference season might be

the man under pressure. The whole Andy Coulson saga has raised

questions about his judgement and those around him, but any political

damage she was going to sustain over Andy Coulson and phone hacking was

sustained years ago -- he was going. It was Brother beyond the

date the News of the World was closed down three summers ago - it

was probably on the date. As the hacking trial cut through to the

general public? Or is it just as media and political obsessives? I am

sure it has cut through in some way but it didn't necessarily happen in

recent days, more likely in recent years. It was some time ago that

Andy Coulson resigned in high profile circumstances. It has had a

slow burning effect over a few years, and the Prime Minister fears

the Big Bang. But there is one theme and words that unites this week with

Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that is that the Prime Minister can be

lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical in not asking big question is when

there was a lot in the public domain about what had happened that the

News of the World. And he was lackadaisical with Juncker. He made

a calculation that Angela Merkel would support him and it turned out

she couldn't. Maybe he needs to change. He was late in understanding

what was happening in Germany when both the Christian Democrats, her

party, wanted Juncker, and when the actual Murdoch press of Germany said

that they wanted him as well. He never saw that. He only looks at one

person in Germany, Angela Merkel, and it is a grand coalition, and the

SDP felt strongly about it. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime

Minister. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He s

very good in an essay, and the SA gets a double first the essay. Is Ed

Miliband right to be angry? He has John Cruddas attacking him, and that

is the news leading in the Sunday Times, and has not been a good week

the Prime Minister and in which Mr Miliband has a bigger lead in

the Prime Minister and in which Mr polls than he has had some time so

he must be wondering why they are having a go at him. He

a radio four documentary to be broadcast this lunchtime.

Here's former Education Secretary, David Blunkett on how the Prince

had once attempted to influence his policy on schools.

had once attempted to influence a speech. Prince Charles's views are

interesting. He's not a straight down the light reactionary. He makes

a left-wing case for rammer schools. There is an interview with him in

the Financial Times in which his argument in favour for architectural

development takes into account affordable housing in the wake which

no one would have suspected. He has interesting views, but I'm not

convinced on the point of principle whether someone is dashing his

position should be speaking. Your former employer 's famously

described him as the SDP king. You slightly feel sorry for him. He s 66

and still an apprentice. He's in a difficult position. We know what the

powers of the monarch are. They are to advise in courage and warned the

Prime Minister of the day. These in the difficult position where the

problem for him is that there is a line that isn't really defined, but

you slightly feel he just gets a bit too close to it and possibly crosses

that line with the lobbying that goes on. I think the worrying thing

is that at some point he will become King and will he know that he has

got to work within that framework? He is somebody that cannot win

either. If he doesn't take an interest in public policy, he will

be thought to be a bit of a waster, going round opening town halls, and

when he does have an interest we think, hey, you are in the monarchy,

stay out. There's an interesting parallel with first ladies who are

encouraged to find a controversial charitable project. Michelle Obama

has bought childhood obesity, and that is the standard thing.

Everybody knows that that is a bad thing, but you are not offering

solutions that are party political. I feel there must be a middle way

with what he should be able to do about finding big causes he can

complain about without getting stuck into lobbying ministers. Which can

become a party political issue. He has had some influence on

architecture, because the buildings we are putting up to date are better

than the ones we used to put up The Daily Politics is on BBC 2

at 11:00am We'll be back here

at the same time next week. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.