:00:38. > :00:46.morning, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. Rising flood water,
:00:47. > :00:50.a battered coastline, the winter storms forced the Government to take
:00:51. > :00:56.control. Is it hanging the Environment Agency out to dry?
:00:57. > :00:59.Embarrassment for the Government is the Immigration Minister resigns
:01:00. > :01:04.after he discovered he was employing a cleaner with no right to work here
:01:05. > :01:09.for seven years. Ed Miliband promised an end to what he called
:01:10. > :01:17.In the south`east, who should pay in the Labour Party,
:01:18. > :01:19.In the south`east, who should pay for our children to get to school?
:01:20. > :01:24.We look at the Kent bus pass In London after two days of
:01:25. > :01:34.disruption in the capital the Mayor Boris Johnson will be talking to ask
:01:35. > :01:40.about strife on the Underground All of that and after a week of very
:01:41. > :01:45.public coalition spats can David Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the
:01:46. > :01:51.coalition show on the road? Two senior party figures will go head to
:01:52. > :01:55.head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick Watt and Iain Martin who would not
:01:56. > :02:00.know they Somerset Levels from their Norfolk Broads, but that will not
:02:01. > :02:05.stop them tweeting their thoughts. We start with the strange Case of
:02:06. > :02:09.the Immigration Minister, his cleaner and some lost documents
:02:10. > :02:14.Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his resignation, telling the media he
:02:15. > :02:18.had discovered the cleaner who worked for him for seven years did
:02:19. > :02:23.not have the right to work in the UK. The Communities Secretary Eric
:02:24. > :02:28.Pickles said he had done the honourable thing. I was sad to see
:02:29. > :02:32.him go, he was a strong minister. Had he been a member of the public
:02:33. > :02:38.he would not have done anything wrong, but he set himself a very
:02:39. > :02:42.high standard and he felt that standard and honourably stood down.
:02:43. > :02:47.This would seem like a good resignation, maybe unlike the
:02:48. > :02:55.Baroness Scotland one years ago on a similar issue, but have we been told
:02:56. > :02:59.the full story? We wait to see that. Labour have picked up saying he is
:03:00. > :03:04.an honourable man, that the reason why he resigned is these very owners
:03:05. > :03:09.checks that landlords and employers will have to perform on employees
:03:10. > :03:15.over their documentation. The most interesting line is that, we do not
:03:16. > :03:20.require them to be experts or spot anything other than an obvious
:03:21. > :03:26.forgery. The suggestion that there is the document he was presented
:03:27. > :03:32.with originality, which he lost was on home office paper and was perhaps
:03:33. > :03:36.not entirely accurate. That is the embarrassment. He is the minister
:03:37. > :03:40.putting through a bill that will demand tougher checks on people and
:03:41. > :03:46.he himself did not do enough checks to discover she was illegal. There
:03:47. > :03:51.is an odd bit where he involves the home office later to check her out
:03:52. > :03:56.as well. He writes a resignation letter and he has to hold himself to
:03:57. > :04:01.pay higher standard. He has done the David Laws approach to this, resign
:04:02. > :04:09.quickly and he can come back. David Cameron wants him to return swiftly
:04:10. > :04:15.to the frontbenchers. He is a state school educated lad. He is the kind
:04:16. > :04:23.of Tory that the Tories are in short supply of. He is a rising star. I
:04:24. > :04:28.would caution on this idea that it is customary that whenever anyone
:04:29. > :04:32.resigns, it is always thought they will come straight back into office.
:04:33. > :04:37.If only the outside world worked like that. It is not, in a company
:04:38. > :04:45.if the HR person resigns, he is such a great chap he will be back next
:04:46. > :04:49.week. There is a silver lining for David Cameron is he has been able to
:04:50. > :04:56.move Harriet Bond up as he moves everyone up. But nobody will see her
:04:57. > :05:02.in the whips office because she is not allowed to appear on television.
:05:03. > :05:10.And if you three want to resign Do not hate you are coming back next
:05:11. > :05:15.week. But we will do it with honour. It has been a hellish week for
:05:16. > :05:19.residents of coastal areas with more storms bringing more flooding and
:05:20. > :05:23.after Prince Charles visited the Somerset Levels on Tuesday the
:05:24. > :05:29.Government has been keen to show it has got a grip on the situation at
:05:30. > :05:35.last. For last weekend's Sunday Politics I
:05:36. > :05:40.made the watery journey to the village of Muchelney, cut off for a
:05:41. > :05:44.whole month. Now everyone has been dropping in. First it was Prince
:05:45. > :05:59.Charles on a park bench pulled by a tractor. He waded into the row about
:06:00. > :06:05.how the floods have been handled. Next it was the chair of the
:06:06. > :06:10.Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who faced angry residents. Sought the
:06:11. > :06:17.river is out. That is precisely what we are going to do. Where he faced,
:06:18. > :06:21.a resident, he did not need that many. David Cameron went for a look
:06:22. > :06:27.as well and gave the region what it wanted, more pumps, more money and
:06:28. > :06:32.in the long-term the return of dredging. There are lessons to
:06:33. > :06:37.learn. The pause in bridging that took place from the late 1990s was
:06:38. > :06:42.wrong and we need to get dredging again. When the water levels come
:06:43. > :06:48.down and it is safe to dredge, we will dredging to make sure these
:06:49. > :06:52.rivers and stitches can carry a better capacity. The Environment
:06:53. > :06:57.Secretary Owen Paterson has not been seen again because he is recovering
:06:58. > :07:04.from emergency eye surgery. In the meantime the floodwaters rose ever
:07:05. > :07:09.higher. Some residents were told to evacuate. In Devon the railway was
:07:10. > :07:14.washed away by the waves leaving a big gap in the network. Look at the
:07:15. > :07:20.weather this weekend. If you can believe it, the storms keep rolling
:07:21. > :07:25.in. What is the long-term solution for flood prone areas of the
:07:26. > :07:29.country? I am joined from Oxford by the editor of The Ecologist
:07:30. > :07:36.magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me
:07:37. > :07:44.come to you first. What do you now want the Government to do? I want it
:07:45. > :07:47.to make sure it does exactly as it promises and delivers what every
:07:48. > :07:52.farmer and landowner around here knows should have been done for
:07:53. > :07:57.years. First, to solve the problems we have right now, but to make sure
:07:58. > :08:03.there is money in the bank for us to carry on doing the maintenance that
:08:04. > :08:06.is necessary. Was it a mistake not to do the dredging? When the waters
:08:07. > :08:14.start to subside does dredging become a key part of this? Yes, of
:08:15. > :08:19.course. It is something the farmers have been asking for four years
:08:20. > :08:25.When you wander along a footpath by a river and you see trees growing
:08:26. > :08:31.and there is 60% of the capacity only because there is silt, it needs
:08:32. > :08:38.to have a pretty dramatic action right now and then we need to make
:08:39. > :08:42.sure the maintenance is ongoing Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to
:08:43. > :08:51.stop the dredging? If the dredging had happened, the land would not be
:08:52. > :08:56.covered in water for so long? Clearly it is necessary to do at
:08:57. > :09:01.least some dredging on these rivers and in particular because these
:09:02. > :09:04.rivers are well above ground level. They are carrying water that comes
:09:05. > :09:10.down off the hills well above the level of the flood plain on the
:09:11. > :09:17.Somerset Levels. They naturally tend to silt up. But the key thing is
:09:18. > :09:24.that is only a small part of the overall solution. What we need is a
:09:25. > :09:28.catchment wide approach to improve infiltration upstream and you also
:09:29. > :09:35.need to manage the flood plain on the levels and upstream so as to
:09:36. > :09:39.have active flood plain that can store water. This idea it is just
:09:40. > :09:45.about dredging is erroneous. Dredging is a part of it, but it is
:09:46. > :09:52.a catchment wide solution. Dredging is only a small part of the solution
:09:53. > :09:59.he says. Yes, of course it is. But look here. With the farmer is
:10:00. > :10:04.locally, the landowners, they know this land will carry water for a few
:10:05. > :10:08.weeks of the year, that is not a problem. But this water has to be
:10:09. > :10:14.taken away and there is a very good system of drainage and it works
:10:15. > :10:18.perfectly well. In my area there are serious problems because the
:10:19. > :10:25.dredging has not taken place. There are lunatic regulations around were
:10:26. > :10:29.when they do do some of dredging, the Environment Agency is asked to
:10:30. > :10:35.take it away because it is considered toxic waste. This is
:10:36. > :10:38.barmy. We need to take the stuff out of the rivers and build the banks up
:10:39. > :10:44.so we create protection in the future. We have to make sure the
:10:45. > :10:52.dredging is done but make sure the drainage works well and we have
:10:53. > :10:56.pumps in places and we have floodgates put onto the rivers. We
:10:57. > :11:04.need to make sure repairs are done more quickly. All right, let me go
:11:05. > :11:08.back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not the case a lot of people on your
:11:09. > :11:12.side of the argument would like to see lands like the Somerset Levels
:11:13. > :11:18.return to natural habitat? Looe I would like a degree of that, but
:11:19. > :11:28.that does not mean the whole place needs to turn into wilderness so it
:11:29. > :11:34.will remain agricultural landscape. Everybody, all the interested
:11:35. > :11:39.parties who signed up to a document called vision 2034 the Somerset
:11:40. > :11:43.Levels envisages most of the area of the Somerset Levels being turned
:11:44. > :11:49.over to extensive grassland and that is what it is best suited for. Let
:11:50. > :11:58.me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you signed up to this where you will end
:11:59. > :12:04.up with extensive grassland? I have seen it, but grass does not grow if
:12:05. > :12:09.water is sitting on this land for weeks and weeks. What you have to
:12:10. > :12:13.remember is a lot of the levels are managed very carefully and they are
:12:14. > :12:19.conservation land and that means cattle are allowed to go out at
:12:20. > :12:23.certain times of the year and in certain numbers. It is well managed.
:12:24. > :12:32.Do you accept it should return to grassland? Grassland, fine, but you
:12:33. > :12:37.cannot call land grassland in the flipping water is on it so long that
:12:38. > :12:44.nothing grows. It is no good at doing that. You have got to make
:12:45. > :12:49.sure it is managed properly. Drainage has been taking place on
:12:50. > :12:54.this land for centuries. It is the case the system is there, but it
:12:55. > :12:59.needs to be maintained properly and we have to have fewer ridiculous
:13:00. > :13:03.regulations that stop action. Last year the flooding minister agreed
:13:04. > :13:07.dredging should take place and everything stopped. Now we have got
:13:08. > :13:13.the promise from the Prime Minister and I thank Prince Charles for that.
:13:14. > :13:17.Is it not time to let the local people run their land rather than
:13:18. > :13:22.being told what to do by the Environment Agency, central
:13:23. > :13:28.Government and the European Union? The internal drainage boards have
:13:29. > :13:34.considerable power in all of this. They wanted to dredge and they were
:13:35. > :13:39.not allowed to. The farmers want to dredge that is what is going to
:13:40. > :13:43.happen, but they have signed up to a comprehensive vision of catchment
:13:44. > :13:48.management and of environmental improvement turning the Somerset
:13:49. > :13:54.Levels into a world-class haven for wildlife. It is not much good if
:13:55. > :13:58.your house is underwater. The farmers themselves, the RSPB, the
:13:59. > :14:04.drainage boards, they have all signed up to this. The real question
:14:05. > :14:12.now is how do we implement that vision? You give the money to the
:14:13. > :14:17.drainage boards. At the moment they pay 27% of their money and have been
:14:18. > :14:21.doing so for years and years and this is farmers' money and it has
:14:22. > :14:25.been going to the drainage boards and they pay the Environment Agency
:14:26. > :14:30.who are meant to be dredging and that has not happened. We have to
:14:31. > :14:35.leave it there. We have run out of time.
:14:36. > :14:40.Last week saw the Labour Party adopts an historic change with its
:14:41. > :14:44.relationship with the unions. Changes to the rules that propelled
:14:45. > :14:48.Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in 20 0 by
:14:49. > :14:54.the electoral college system which gives unions, party members and MPs
:14:55. > :14:59.one third of votes each. This would be changed into a simpler one
:15:00. > :15:04.member, one vote system. A union member would have to become an
:15:05. > :15:10.affiliated member of the party. They would have to opt in and pay ?3 a
:15:11. > :15:16.year. But the unions would have 50% of the vote at the conference and
:15:17. > :15:22.around one third of the seats on the National executive committee. The
:15:23. > :15:26.proposals are a financial gamble as well. It is estimated the party
:15:27. > :15:29.could face a drop in funding of up to ?5 million a year when the
:15:30. > :15:35.changes are fully implemented in five years. The leader of the Unite
:15:36. > :15:40.trade union has welcomed the report saying it is music to his ears. The
:15:41. > :15:47.package will be voted on at a special one of conference in March.
:15:48. > :15:55.And the Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna joins me now for the
:15:56. > :15:59.Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In what way will the unions have less
:16:00. > :16:05.power and influence in the Labour Party? This is about ensuring
:16:06. > :16:08.individual trade union members have a direct relationship with the
:16:09. > :16:14.Labour Party. At the moment the monies that come to us are decided
:16:15. > :16:19.at a top level, the general secretaries determine this, whether
:16:20. > :16:24.the individual members want us to be in receipt of those monies or not so
:16:25. > :16:29.we are going to change that so that affiliation fees follow the consent
:16:30. > :16:33.of individual members. Secondly we want to make sure the individual
:16:34. > :16:42.trade union members, people who teach our children, power via -
:16:43. > :16:50.fantastic British businesses, we want them to make an active choice,
:16:51. > :16:54.and we are also recognising that in this day and age not everybody wants
:16:55. > :17:05.to become a member of a political party. We haven't got much time The
:17:06. > :17:15.unions still have 50% of the vote at Labour conferences, there will be
:17:16. > :17:29.the single most important vote, more member -- union members will vote
:17:30. > :17:39.than nonunion members, their power has not diminished at all, has it?
:17:40. > :17:42.In relation to the other parts of the group of people who will be
:17:43. > :17:48.voting in a future leadership contest, we are seeking to move
:17:49. > :17:53.towards more of a one member, one vote process. At the moment we have
:17:54. > :18:02.the absurd situation where I, as a member of Parliament, my vote will
:18:03. > :18:09.count for 1000. MPs are losing. . They still have a lot of power. I am
:18:10. > :18:14.a member of the GMB union and the Unite union, also a member of the
:18:15. > :18:19.Fabians as well so I get free votes on top of my vote as a member of
:18:20. > :18:24.Parliament. We are moving to a system where I will have one vote
:18:25. > :18:27.and that is an important part of this. You asked how many people
:18:28. > :18:30.would be casting their votes. The last time around, under the
:18:31. > :18:36.old system, up to 2.8 million ballot papers were sent out with prepaid
:18:37. > :18:46.envelopes for people to return their papers were sent out with prepaid
:18:47. > :18:51.turnout. The idea that you are going to see a big change... Even if
:18:52. > :19:04.your individual party members. In one vital way, your purse strings,
:19:05. > :19:05.your individual party members. In the unions will be more powerful
:19:06. > :19:16.than ever because at the moment they have to hand over 8 million to
:19:17. > :19:18.than ever because at the moment they fraction of that now. They will get
:19:19. > :19:28.to keep that money, but then come the election you go to them and give
:19:29. > :19:35.them a lot of money -- and they will have you then. They won't have us,
:19:36. > :19:39.as you put it! The idea that individual trade union members don't
:19:40. > :19:44.have their own view, their own voice, and just do what their
:19:45. > :19:48.general secretaries do is absurd. They will make their own decision,
:19:49. > :19:54.and we want them to make that and not have their leadership decide
:19:55. > :19:59.that for them. Let me go to the money. The Labour Party manifesto
:20:00. > :20:06.will be reflecting the interests of Britain, and the idea that somehow
:20:07. > :20:10.people can say we are not going to give you this money unless you do
:20:11. > :20:14.this or that, we will give you a policy agenda which is appropriate
:20:15. > :20:19.for the British people, regardless of what implications that may have
:20:20. > :20:24.financially. They will have more seats than anybody else in the NEC
:20:25. > :20:30.and they will hold the purse strings. They will be the
:20:31. > :20:35.determining factor. They won't be. Unite is advocating a 70% rate of
:20:36. > :20:43.income tax, there is no way we will have that in our manifesto. Unite is
:20:44. > :20:56.advocating taking back contracts and no compensation basis, we would not
:20:57. > :21:07.-- there is no way we would do that. How many chief executives of the
:21:08. > :21:15.FTSE 100 are backing Labour? We have lots of chief executives backing
:21:16. > :21:18.Labour. I don't know the exact number. Ed Miliband has just placed
:21:19. > :21:30.an important business person in the House of Lords, the former chief
:21:31. > :21:39.executive of the ITV, Bill Grimsey. How many? You can only name one
:21:40. > :21:45.Bill Grimsey, there is also John Mills. Anyone who is currently
:21:46. > :21:49.chairman of the chief executive With the greatest respect, you are
:21:50. > :21:54.talking about less than half the percent of business leaders in our
:21:55. > :22:01.country, we have almost 5 million businesses, not all FTSE 100
:22:02. > :22:07.businesses, not all listed, and we are trying to get people from across
:22:08. > :22:22.the country of all different shapes and sizes. Let's widen it to the
:22:23. > :22:28.FTSE 250. That is 250 out of 5 million companies. The largest ones,
:22:29. > :22:32.they make the profits and provide the jobs. Two thirds of private
:22:33. > :22:37.sector jobs in this country come from small and medium-sized
:22:38. > :22:40.businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an
:22:41. > :22:51.important part of a large companies supply chains. So you cannot name a
:22:52. > :22:58.single chairman from the FTSE 2 0, correct? I don't know all the
:22:59. > :23:09.chairman. Are you going to fight the next election without a single boss
:23:10. > :23:12.of a FTSE 250 company? I have named some important business people, but
:23:13. > :23:22.the most important thing is that we are not coming out with a manifesto
:23:23. > :23:32.for particular interests, but for broader interest. Let me show you,
:23:33. > :23:46.Digby Jones says Labour's policy is, "if it creates wealth, let's kick
:23:47. > :23:53.it" . Another quote, that it borders on predatory taxation. They think
:23:54. > :23:59.you are anti-business. I don't agree with them. One of the interesting
:24:00. > :24:03.things about Sir Stuart's comments on the predatory taxation and I
:24:04. > :24:07.think he was referring to the 5 p rate of tax is that he made some
:24:08. > :24:14.comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax
:24:15. > :24:17.from 50p. He is saying something different now. Digby of course has
:24:18. > :24:23.his own opinions, he has never been a member of the Labour Party. Let me
:24:24. > :24:27.come onto this business of the top rate of tax, do you accept or don't
:24:28. > :24:32.you that there is a point when higher rates of income tax become
:24:33. > :24:38.counter-productive? Ultimately you want to have the lowest tax rates
:24:39. > :24:43.possible. Do you accept there is a certain level you actually get less
:24:44. > :24:49.money? I think ultimately there is a level beyond you could go which
:24:50. > :24:54.would be counter-productive, for example the 75% rate of tax I
:24:55. > :25:07.mentioned earlier, being advocated by Unite in France. Most French
:25:08. > :25:15.higher earners will pay less tax than under your plans. I beg your
:25:16. > :25:21.pardon, with the 50p? Under your proposals, people here will pay more
:25:22. > :25:27.tax than French higher earners. If you are asking if in terms of the
:25:28. > :25:33.level, you asked the question and I answered it, do I think if you reach
:25:34. > :25:38.a level beyond which the tax burden becomes counter-productive, can I
:25:39. > :25:42.give you a number what that would be, I cannot but let me explain -
:25:43. > :25:49.the reason we have sought to increase its two 50p is that we can
:25:50. > :25:53.get in revenue to reduce the deficit. In an ideal world you
:25:54. > :25:56.wouldn't need a 50p rate of tax which is why during our time in
:25:57. > :26:07.office we didn't have one, because we didn't have those issues. Sure,
:26:08. > :26:12.though you cannot tell me how much the 50p will raise. In the three
:26:13. > :26:22.years of operation we think it raised ?10 billion. You think. That
:26:23. > :26:26.was based on extrapolation from the British library. It is at least
:26:27. > :26:31.possible I would suggest, for the sake of argument, that when you
:26:32. > :26:38.promise to take over half people's income, which is what you will do if
:26:39. > :26:49.you get your way, the richest 1 currently account for 70 5% of all
:26:50. > :26:56.tax revenues. -- 75%. Is it not a danger that if you take more out of
:26:57. > :27:05.them, they will just go? I don't think so, we are talking about the
:27:06. > :27:08.top 1% here. If you look at the directors of sub 5 million turnover
:27:09. > :27:23.companies, the average managing director of that gets around
:27:24. > :27:32.?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the .1%
:27:33. > :27:38.of top taxpayers, down to fewer than 30,000 people. They account for over
:27:39. > :27:43.14% of all of the income tax revenues. Only 29,000 people. If
:27:44. > :27:50.they go because you are going to take over half their income, you
:27:51. > :27:57.have lost a huge chunk of your tax base. They could easily go, at
:27:58. > :28:01.tipping point they could go. What we are advocating here is not
:28:02. > :28:06.controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not
:28:07. > :28:16.unreasonable to ask them to share the heavier burden. Can you name one
:28:17. > :28:24.other major economy that subscribes to this? Across Europe, for example
:28:25. > :28:30.in Sweden they have higher tax rates than us. Can you name one major
:28:31. > :28:37.economy? I couldn't pluck one out of the air, I can see where you are
:28:38. > :28:41.coming from, I don't agree with it. I think most people subscribe to the
:28:42. > :28:48.fact that those with wider shoulders should carry the heavy a burden We
:28:49. > :28:52.have run out of time but thank you for being here.
:28:53. > :28:57.Over the past week it seems that Nick Clegg has activated a new Lib
:28:58. > :29:00.Dem strategy - 'Get Gove'. After a very public spat over who should
:29:01. > :29:03.head up the schools inspection service Ofsted, Lib Dem sources have
:29:04. > :29:06.continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other
:29:07. > :29:30.senior Lib Dems have also taken aim at their coalition partners. Here's
:29:31. > :29:33.Giles Dilnot. It's unlikely the polite welcome of these school
:29:34. > :29:36.children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague
:29:37. > :29:38.schools minister David Laws would be so forthcoming right now from the
:29:39. > :29:41.man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws
:29:42. > :29:44.is said to have been furious with The Education secretary over the
:29:45. > :29:47.decision to remove Sally Morgan as chair of Ofsted. But those who know
:29:48. > :29:50.the inner working of the Lib Dems say that's just understandable. When
:29:51. > :29:53.you have the department not being consulted, it would be possible for
:29:54. > :29:56.him to not publicly comment. The remarkable thing would be if he
:29:57. > :30:07.hadn't said anything at all. We should be careful to understand this
:30:08. > :30:17.is not always part of a preplanned decision. There is a growing sense
:30:18. > :30:21.that inside Number Ten this is a concerted Lib Dem strategy, we also
:30:22. > :30:25.understand there is no love lost between Nick Clegg and Michael Gove
:30:26. > :30:31.to say the least, and a growing frustration that if the Lib Dems
:30:32. > :30:34.think such so-called yellow and blue attacks can help them with the
:30:35. > :30:42.election, they can also damage the long-term prospects of the Coalition
:30:43. > :30:44.post 2015. One spat does not a divorce make but perhaps even more
:30:45. > :30:47.significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander s
:30:48. > :30:50.recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne
:30:51. > :30:53.to manoeuvre on lowering the highest income tax rate to 40p. All this
:30:54. > :30:56.builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of
:30:57. > :30:59.people like Norman Baker at the Home Office and Simon Hughes at Justice
:31:00. > :31:01.people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative
:31:02. > :31:14.policy, unlike say Jeremy Browne who was removed and who has made plain
:31:15. > :31:18.his views on Coalition. It is difficult for us to demonstrate that
:31:19. > :31:27.we are more socialist than an Ed Miliband Labour led party. Even if
:31:28. > :31:33.we did wish to demonstrate it, doing it in coalition with the
:31:34. > :31:37.Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation
:31:38. > :31:43.strategy was always likely as 2 15 approached, so is there evidence it
:31:44. > :31:47.works? Or of the work we publish shows the Lib Dems have a huge
:31:48. > :31:52.problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their
:31:53. > :31:55.coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what
:31:56. > :32:01.they are against, but there are bigger problem is showing what they
:32:02. > :32:06.are for. And one Conservative MP with access to Number Ten as part of
:32:07. > :32:11.the PM's policy board says yellow on blue attacks are misplaced and
:32:12. > :32:16.irresponsible. At this stage when all the hard work is being done and
:32:17. > :32:24.the country is back on its feet the Lib Dems are choosing the time to
:32:25. > :32:28.step away from the coalition. That is your position, but do you suspect
:32:29. > :32:34.coming up to the next election we will see more of this? I think the
:32:35. > :32:40.Lib Dems are about as hard to pin down as a weasel in Vaseline. And
:32:41. > :32:44.with the public's view of politicians right now, and wants to
:32:45. > :32:51.be seen as slicker than a well oiled weasel? And we have Lib Dem peer
:32:52. > :33:01.Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard
:33:02. > :33:05.Jenkin. Matthew, the Lib Dems are now picking fights with the Tories
:33:06. > :33:10.on a range of issues, some of them trivial. Is this a Pirelli used to
:33:11. > :33:18.Lib Dem withdrawal from the coalition? I do not know, I am not
:33:19. > :33:22.privy to Nick Clegg's in strategy. Some of us have been independent for
:33:23. > :33:28.some time. I resigned over treatment of the banks. That is now being
:33:29. > :33:34.sorted out. But what is significant is we have seen a string of attacks,
:33:35. > :33:40.almost an enemy within strategy When you have Nick Clegg, David Laws
:33:41. > :33:47.and Danny Alexander, the three key people closest to the Conservatives,
:33:48. > :33:50.when you see all of them attacking, and this morning Nick Clegg has had
:33:51. > :33:55.a go at the Conservatives over drug policy. There is a string of
:33:56. > :34:02.policies where something is going on. It is difficult to do an enemy
:34:03. > :34:07.within strategy. I believe as many Lib Dems do that we should withdraw
:34:08. > :34:11.from the coalition six months to one year before the election so we can
:34:12. > :34:16.put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky
:34:17. > :34:24.strategy of trying to do it from within. Why does David Cameron need
:34:25. > :34:29.the Lib Dems? He probably does not. The country generally favoured the
:34:30. > :34:32.coalition to start with. Voters like to see politicians are working
:34:33. > :34:38.together and far more of that goes on in Westminster then we see. Most
:34:39. > :34:46.of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.
:34:47. > :34:54.Why does he need them? I do not think he does. You would be happy to
:34:55. > :34:58.see the Lib Dems go? I would always be happy to see a single minority
:34:59. > :35:03.Government because it would be easier for legislation. The
:35:04. > :35:07.legislation you could not get through would not get through
:35:08. > :35:12.whether we were in coalition or not. The 40p tax rate, there
:35:13. > :35:16.probably is not a majority in the House of Commons at the moment,
:35:17. > :35:21.despite what Nick Clegg originally said. It does not make much
:35:22. > :35:25.difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the
:35:26. > :35:30.committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government
:35:31. > :35:34.that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is
:35:35. > :35:39.important is because nothing gets done if everybody is at sixes and
:35:40. > :35:44.sevens in the Government. Everything stops, there is paralysis as the row
:35:45. > :35:49.goes on. Civil servants do not know who they are working for. If it
:35:50. > :35:56.carries on getting fractures, there is a bigger argument to get out If
:35:57. > :36:01.it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within
:36:02. > :36:06.strategy as you have described it, can the coalition survived another
:36:07. > :36:09.16 months of this? It is also a question should they. I never
:36:10. > :36:17.thought I would say this, I agree with Bernard. Interestingly earlier
:36:18. > :36:21.Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.
:36:22. > :36:24.Business is worried about this anti-European rhetoric and that is a
:36:25. > :36:28.deep split between the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP wing of the
:36:29. > :36:34.Tory party. That is really damaging and that is something we need to
:36:35. > :36:39.make our own case separately on Do you get fed up when you hear
:36:40. > :36:43.constant Lib Dem attacks on you What makes me fed up is my own party
:36:44. > :36:50.cannot respond in kind because we are in coalition. I would love to
:36:51. > :36:57.have this much more open debate I would like to see my own party
:36:58. > :36:59.leader, for example as he did in the House of Commons, it was the Liberal
:37:00. > :37:04.Democrats who blocked the referendum on the house of lords and if we want
:37:05. > :37:08.to get this bill through it should be a Government bill. We know we can
:37:09. > :37:12.get it through the Commons, but we need to get the Liberals out of the
:37:13. > :37:16.Government so they stop blocking the Government putting forward a
:37:17. > :37:26.referendum bill. And put millions of jobs at risk? I am not going down
:37:27. > :37:30.the European road today. It strikes me that given that the attacks from
:37:31. > :37:35.the Lib Dems are now coming from the left attacking the Tories, is this a
:37:36. > :37:40.representative of the failure of Nick Clegg's strategy to rebuild a
:37:41. > :37:46.centrist Liberal party and he now accepts the only way he can save as
:37:47. > :37:52.many seats as he can do is to get the disillusioned left Lib Dem
:37:53. > :37:56.voters to come back to the fold The site is we have lost over half our
:37:57. > :38:01.vote at the last election and at the moment there is no sign in the polls
:38:02. > :38:07.of it coming back and we are getting very close to the next election I
:38:08. > :38:13.welcome it if Nick Clegg is starting to address that problem, but talking
:38:14. > :38:17.about the centre is not the answer. Most Liberal Democrat voters at the
:38:18. > :38:22.last election are radical, progressive people who want to see a
:38:23. > :38:25.much fairer Britain and a much less divided society and we must make
:38:26. > :38:32.sure we maximise our vote from there. We know what both of you
:38:33. > :38:36.want, but what do you think will happen? Do you think this coalition
:38:37. > :38:42.will survive all the way to the election or will it break up
:38:43. > :38:47.beforehand? I think it will break up beforehand. Our long-term economic
:38:48. > :38:51.plan is working. The further changes in policies we want to implement to
:38:52. > :38:57.sustain that plan are being held back by the Liberal Democrats. When
:38:58. > :39:02.will they break up? It has lasted longer than I thought it would, but
:39:03. > :39:09.it must break up at least six months before the election. Do you think it
:39:10. > :39:14.will survive or not? The coalition has delivered a great deal in many
:39:15. > :39:19.ways, but it is running out of steam. It depends what happens in
:39:20. > :39:23.the May elections. If the Liberal Democrats do not do better than we
:39:24. > :39:32.have done in the last three, there will be very strong pressure from
:39:33. > :39:37.the inside. You both agree. Television history has been made.
:39:38. > :39:42.You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will be
:39:43. > :40:00.looking at the Hello. I'm Julia George. Thhs is the
:40:01. > :40:04.Sunday politics in the South East. Coming up, should 16`year`olds and
:40:05. > :40:08.17`year`olds get the vote. We hear from the teenager who is delanding
:40:09. > :40:13.just that. With me is Stephdn Lloyd, Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne
:40:14. > :40:17.and Greg Clark, cities minister and Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells.
:40:18. > :40:24.Our very own South East coalition. Thank you both for joining ts. In
:40:25. > :40:29.one moment we will talk abott attempts to shave money frol a
:40:30. > :40:33.transport budget. The other option is to increase council tax, but a
:40:34. > :40:37.rise of 2% triggers a referdndum. One of your colleagues, Greg Clark,
:40:38. > :40:41.the Communities Minister, Eric Pickles, would like that reduced to
:40:42. > :40:44.1.5%, because he doesn't want councils to go over that before a
:40:45. > :40:48.Conservative comes about. Hd's calling councils like Medwax and
:40:49. > :40:56.East Sussex democracy dodgers, because they're just under 2%.
:40:57. > :41:00.Shouldn't democracy be about the voters making a decision, not about
:41:01. > :41:03.a minister imposing something? It isn't. I took the Bill throtgh
:41:04. > :41:08.Parliament that scraps the capping system that was there. It used to be
:41:09. > :41:11.the case that councils were told how much they could increase by and that
:41:12. > :41:14.was it. We have said, get rhd of that and replace it with a
:41:15. > :41:18.referendum. It seems reason`ble to me, as is happening in Brighton
:41:19. > :41:21.There is a difference betwedn the Conservatives and Liberal Ddmocrats
:41:22. > :41:25.about where that should be. Eric Pickles wanted it to fall to 1. %.
:41:26. > :41:28.In real terms ` I'm not surd there is. You have to set it to what the
:41:29. > :41:31.threshold would be. There is a discussion if Government and you
:41:32. > :41:35.come up with a level and 2% has been settled on. You are not in `greement
:41:36. > :41:40.with Eric Pickles that it should be lower? I would like it to bd frozen.
:41:41. > :41:45.Let me be clear about that. It's a big bill for people and we have
:41:46. > :41:50.provided the funds to freezd it It doubled under Labour and I think if
:41:51. > :41:58.reductions can be made ` Percentages aren't very helpful. Medway, band E,
:41:59. > :42:02.increased by 1.99% it's 43 pence a week and East Sussex is the same on
:42:03. > :42:06.1.5% increase. All the grandstanding about standing up for peopld and the
:42:07. > :42:10.cost of living, a penny on the minimum wage, that would achieve
:42:11. > :42:15.almost the same thing? I wotld say ever little helps. Everyone is
:42:16. > :42:18.feeling cash strapped. It's important that across all sdctors we
:42:19. > :42:22.look to make economies. This coalition has been successftl in
:42:23. > :42:25.providing funds to freeze council tax where they did double under
:42:26. > :42:30.Labour and the council tax hs a big bill for people and I think it's
:42:31. > :42:36.right to be economical. Stephen Lloyd, should councils have to run a
:42:37. > :42:40.referendum at all, why not let them set their taxes and they will be
:42:41. > :42:46.judged by the people at the next election? I think the counchls are a
:42:47. > :42:50.complete staplebles. Eastbotrne Borough Council is capping ht. We
:42:51. > :42:54.are not putting it up. I'm disappointing that East Sussex are
:42:55. > :43:00.choosing to put it up. 43 pdnce a week, is it worth senior ministers
:43:01. > :43:05.giving councils a hard time and calling them democracy dodgdrs over
:43:06. > :43:09.43 pence a week? I think on such an issue, Eastbourne is not putting it
:43:10. > :43:13.up and I think it's good. It's zero council tax. Eastbourne is half as
:43:14. > :43:18.much again as for example mx own council here in Tunbridge wdll
:43:19. > :43:27.wells, so it's `` Tunbridge Wells, so it's quite high. Eastbourne is
:43:28. > :43:33.only ?220 a year for band E. The key thing to remember here is that
:43:34. > :43:37.actually a lot of our Conservative colleagues agree with us th`t Eric
:43:38. > :43:41.Pickles did overstep the mark. I don't think it's unreasonable to
:43:42. > :43:44.hold 2%. CeG put the Bill through Parliament and I reiterate,
:43:45. > :43:48.Eastbourne it's not going up at all in April. We'll take a look at what
:43:49. > :43:52.council tax pays for. We'll look oT what pays for our children to get to
:43:53. > :43:57.school. In Kent there is a generous bus pass, funded by local t`xpayers,
:43:58. > :44:02.children get unlimited bus travel for under ?100 a year, but to save
:44:03. > :44:04.money the Kent County Counchl decided on drastic changes, which
:44:05. > :44:08.meant some parents would be seriously out of pocket. Sole
:44:09. > :44:13.parents and heads got angry and many lined up to sign petitions, but then
:44:14. > :44:21.this week in a surprise movd, crehad a change of heart.
:44:22. > :44:32.This is the bus pass that's caused a political storm in Kent. 13`year`old
:44:33. > :44:38.Alliah uses her Freedom Pass to get to school ten miles away. For ? 00
:44:39. > :44:42.it gives 11`16`year`olds unlimited travel throughout the countx, but
:44:43. > :44:46.plans to scrap the card and replace it with another scheme could have
:44:47. > :44:53.cost some Kent families an dxtra ?1,000 a year to get their kids to
:44:54. > :44:57.school. Alliah's mum began ` campaign against the changes, a
:44:58. > :45:02.Conservative District Counchl lore. ?1,000 to send children to school is
:45:03. > :45:06.a lot of money. The fact th`t there was no consultation. Nobody knew
:45:07. > :45:09.about it, I believe if you can spoken to parents and spoken to the
:45:10. > :45:13.schools we may have been able to come up with a much better hdea of
:45:14. > :45:19.what people actually want. The Freedom Pass is hugely popular, used
:45:20. > :45:23.by 29,000 young people. It's a discretionary service, the only one
:45:24. > :45:28.of its kind in the country, but it's expensive, costing ?13.5 million a
:45:29. > :45:35.year. As the campaign gained momentum, headteachers encotraged
:45:36. > :45:40.parents to back it and 9,000 people signed on`line petations ``
:45:41. > :45:43.petitions. Then came the surprise news Kent County Council, who were
:45:44. > :45:47.facing mounting anger from thousands of parents, have made a U`ttrn on
:45:48. > :45:50.plans to change the Freedom Pass used by schoolchildren. Out of the
:45:51. > :45:54.blue, the council seemed to buckle under the weight of popular opinion
:45:55. > :45:58.and announced revised plans for a new transport scheme for yotng
:45:59. > :46:04.people. It's twice the cost of the original pass at ?200, for tnlimited
:46:05. > :46:08.week`day travel from 8.00pm. Opposition parties have said it s a
:46:09. > :46:13.humiliation for the Conserv`tive`led council and another critic says KC C
:46:14. > :46:16.has egg on its face, but wh`t do campaigners think? It's going to
:46:17. > :46:21.cost me now ?400 to get the two children to school. It would have
:46:22. > :46:27.cost ?1,000 with the previots proposal. Yes, it's a U`turn and I
:46:28. > :46:36.am very happy with what thex've done. With Kent's selective school
:46:37. > :46:40.system and many rural villages, thousands of children take the bus.
:46:41. > :46:45.corner, looking to claw back ?2 3 corner, looking to claw back ?2 3
:46:46. > :46:50.million over the next three years. Something has to give. But ht's the
:46:51. > :46:59.lack of consultation that's upset many people. The section rightly or
:47:00. > :47:03.wrongly that KCC have had the discussion behind closed doors. That
:47:04. > :47:08.actually this is not a decision that has been taking place in full
:47:09. > :47:12.council, with proper scrutiny. Public transport will always be an
:47:13. > :47:15.emotive issue. It affects pdople's lives, but some political p`rties
:47:16. > :47:20.believe there was never any need to meddle with the Freedom Pass. To put
:47:21. > :47:24.it foo context, the amount that the council is trying to save from the
:47:25. > :47:28.move is dwarfed by some of the individual road projects. It's a
:47:29. > :47:32.very car`centric council and when you are looking at where thd
:47:33. > :47:36.priorities might be, you cotld look at taking out one of the ro`d
:47:37. > :47:41.projects around the county `nd that would pay for the pass over three or
:47:42. > :47:45.four years. Ten and 11`year`olds will find out which secondary school
:47:46. > :47:48.they'll be going to next month. Parents just want reassurance that
:47:49. > :47:53.they will be able to afford to get their kids to school and sthll
:47:54. > :47:58.there's uncertainty, becausd the new scheme is only a proposal. Will this
:47:59. > :48:08.idea get backing? We'll find out at a council meeting this week. Joining
:48:09. > :48:12.me now is David Brady, in charge of transport policy and the ch`nge of
:48:13. > :48:16.heart. Opposition parties h`ve described this as a humiliation Do
:48:17. > :48:20.you feel you've got egg on xour face? Not in the least. We were
:48:21. > :48:26.asked by our financial people to find a ?5 million saving in the
:48:27. > :48:33.Freedom Pass and three months ago we create add a scheme involving the
:48:34. > :48:37.pre`loaded smart card that would give people the best deal possible
:48:38. > :48:44.at the time for the money wd could afford. Interestingly, the bus
:48:45. > :48:48.companies, who are private sector, profit`centred, realised th`t that
:48:49. > :48:55.scheme was going to hurt thdir revenue. Whereas we maintain
:48:56. > :48:59.relations with the bus comp`nies at all times, they came to us `nd said,
:49:00. > :49:02.well, this is going to hurt us. This is all about the bus companhes and
:49:03. > :49:06.benefitting them, nothing to do with the parents in their many thousands
:49:07. > :49:12.who have signed petitions who say it's unfair? We obviously lhsten. We
:49:13. > :49:18.predicted that people would not like this scheme. If this isn't for `` is
:49:19. > :49:21.for the sake of the bus companies, taxpayers' money is going to support
:49:22. > :49:27.the bus companies. Is that acceptable? We obviously pahd
:49:28. > :49:31.considerable amounts of mondy to the bus companies to provide thd Freedom
:49:32. > :49:35.Pass. There's a deal there. There's a contract there. We don't pay the
:49:36. > :49:40.full fares to the bus companies That's the point of the contract
:49:41. > :49:44.that we have with them. We remunerate them at an agreed rate.
:49:45. > :49:49.Aren't they rather holding xou to hostage. This is discretion`ry. No
:49:50. > :49:52.other council offers anything as generous as this, even the secondary
:49:53. > :49:56.position you have fallen back to. I'm just corious to know whx this is
:49:57. > :50:02.being done for the benefit of the bus companies? No, it hasn't. We
:50:03. > :50:07.have had the bus companies come to the table and we have, betwden us,
:50:08. > :50:12.hammered out a scheme which doesn't protect their position. Thex will
:50:13. > :50:16.lose revenue, but it will provide a better deal for the public. I still
:50:17. > :50:21.get the same level of savings, so there's no U`turn there. Well, there
:50:22. > :50:24.is, because there's a U`turn on provision for 16`18`year`olds. The
:50:25. > :50:30.County Council had made it clear there would be provision for them to
:50:31. > :50:38.school and college. That has gone. That is a U`turn. Not at all. What
:50:39. > :50:43.we were able to provide for 16`plus students with the smart card scheme
:50:44. > :50:50.was low access. It was ?100, but we were only able to load the smart
:50:51. > :50:54.card with ?250 credit. You have even taken that away? We have reduced the
:50:55. > :50:59.cost of the existing travel card. How much do they have to pax now?
:51:00. > :51:03.?400, which gives them a benefit of ?380 per card and that is pretty
:51:04. > :51:06.good value and don't forget, it s discretionary as well. We don't have
:51:07. > :51:10.to provide it and we get no funding from the Government. Why do it at
:51:11. > :51:14.all then? This is discretionary No other council offers somethhng as
:51:15. > :51:18.generous as this. We are in cash`strapped times, so it seems as
:51:19. > :51:23.though some sharp`elbowed pdople and I was assuming it was the p`rents,
:51:24. > :51:26.but it turns out it's the bts companies, have persuaded you to do
:51:27. > :51:30.something differently? Becatse we could. You can't now. The fhnances,
:51:31. > :51:36.you have to savings hundreds of millions over the next few xears?
:51:37. > :51:42.That's right. The Freedom P`ss was devised in 2007 when the financial
:51:43. > :51:46.situation was very different. Obviously, people make commhtments
:51:47. > :51:49.about their children's educ`tion, based on the assumption that the
:51:50. > :51:54.Freedom Pass will be there for them during the period of their time at
:51:55. > :51:58.secondary school. You pit ptll it at some point in the future? It would
:51:59. > :52:01.be the last thing I would w`nt to do. Thank you very much for joining
:52:02. > :52:05.us. A commitment there to continuing an
:52:06. > :52:08.expensive discretionary service which councils are under prdssure to
:52:09. > :52:12.cut back and keep council t`x low. Stephen, what do you think what is
:52:13. > :52:19.going on, because you don't have this level of subsidy? We don't I
:52:20. > :52:23.wish we could. I think all power to democracy and all power to the
:52:24. > :52:29.parents who clearly have julped up and down. It was the bus colpanies.
:52:30. > :52:33.I know. I think that the parents ran a very effective campaign and all
:52:34. > :52:37.power to them. It's good for their children and I think they'vd got a
:52:38. > :52:43.very good deal, so congratulations democracy. CeG Clark, given all of
:52:44. > :52:47.this started with a campaign to bring in subsidised bus travel and
:52:48. > :52:50.the one thing we have ended up with is not that, would you say the
:52:51. > :52:56.Conservative`led Kent Countx Council have made a hash of this? As you
:52:57. > :53:00.said in your report, this is the only council in the south`e`st and
:53:01. > :53:04.the only council in the country apart from London, where for young
:53:05. > :53:10.people, going to school and college, you can get a free transport. I m
:53:11. > :53:13.asking you not about the orhginal idea, which has been running for
:53:14. > :53:16.years, but the way they've handled changing it has been a complete
:53:17. > :53:21.mess? They've listened to consultation. I think ` I h`d a very
:53:22. > :53:24.good session with some of md constituents last Friday in a school
:53:25. > :53:27.and they said this is a really important scheme and they v`lue it
:53:28. > :53:31.and it gives testimony the chance to get to school. Why not come up with
:53:32. > :53:36.the idea. They didn't listen. They didn't listen to parents. You heard
:53:37. > :53:39.it in the report. The schemd hasn't chand yet. They are just making the
:53:40. > :53:44.change in the weeks ahead. Taf listened. I think `` they'vd
:53:45. > :53:48.listened. I think they've come up with a exclusion. Which doesn't
:53:49. > :53:52.provide what they set out in the first place. It provides a great
:53:53. > :53:57.deal for young people, for teenagers across Kent that isn't available
:53:58. > :54:02.anywhere else. I think it's a tribute to the innovation that Kent
:54:03. > :54:05.is capable of and the excellent service that on one of the lower
:54:06. > :54:11.council taxes in country thdy manage to pri this service that is valued
:54:12. > :54:15.by young people in my consthtuency. Why are pensioners more serve
:54:16. > :54:18.deserving in this country of entirely free bus travel and
:54:19. > :54:22.children could can't work and bring if their own wages and who have to
:54:23. > :54:27.go to school every day are not, have we got it the wrong way arotnd in I
:54:28. > :54:29.don't think it's more deserving I think historically now nor ` number
:54:30. > :54:36.of years there's been an acceptance that pensioners have paid in for
:54:37. > :54:40.many, many years and there hs across parties a strong view that free
:54:41. > :54:44.services also help retain independence for the longer term.
:54:45. > :54:47.The challenge in the whole `usterity programme and we know we ard coming
:54:48. > :54:52.through it, but the reality is that we are still short of money out
:54:53. > :54:54.there. I think it is going to be something that is going to be
:54:55. > :54:57.debated at the general election I suspect that the parties ard going
:54:58. > :55:04.to come forward with some dhfferent views. My own strong view is that I
:55:05. > :55:10.do think younger people, people seeking work should, I think, get
:55:11. > :55:15.some sort of support, perhaps that pensioners get and young people
:55:16. > :55:18.don't. We'll bring a young person in, because we are joined bx a
:55:19. > :55:23.17`year`old old to talk abott the voting age, but Solomon Curtis, you
:55:24. > :55:29.live in Hastings and travel to Tunbridge Wells every day. Who pays
:55:30. > :55:36.for it? Well, my family pay for it. I think just in terms of wh`t
:55:37. > :55:40.Stephen and ceG `` Greg werd saying, it seems like bus companies have
:55:41. > :55:45.been influential in that and in terms of older people, I thhnk young
:55:46. > :55:49.people and elderly people h`ve the same needs. You think you should get
:55:50. > :55:53.free transport to school or subsidised? I feel sympathetic for
:55:54. > :55:55.local authorities because they've been imposed with this austdrity
:55:56. > :56:01.programme and they've got to make cuts, but I think actually when you
:56:02. > :56:05.see profit`making companies you have to look at them and say is there
:56:06. > :56:09.some form of corporate responsibility? The ?13.5 mhllion
:56:10. > :56:14.that Kent County Council ard paying, would it it just be easier to
:56:15. > :56:17.completely subsidise and renationalise it? We'll comd on to
:56:18. > :56:22.the real reason you're here, but thank you for that. Solomon Curtis
:56:23. > :56:26.here to talk for votes for 16`17`year`olds. You are up to
:56:27. > :56:31.Westminster to lobby MPs. Why should you get the vote? Well, there's this
:56:32. > :56:38.saying, which I was brought up with, and it was no taxation without
:56:39. > :56:44.representation. The fact is 16`year`olds are able to pax tax.
:56:45. > :56:50.There's that simple fact and I think it's antidemocratic not to support
:56:51. > :56:55.giving a 16`year`old a vote, but we have the most educated generation in
:56:56. > :57:00.history. We have fixed`term elections now which means that some
:57:01. > :57:03.people pay not vote until a day before their 23rd birthday hn a
:57:04. > :57:07.general election. That's five really important years. You talk about
:57:08. > :57:13.taxation. Five`year`olds wotld earn money, and some do performing, they
:57:14. > :57:18.pay tax, so we should give them a vote? They don't pay tax as
:57:19. > :57:25.individuals. That goes into a pot, which I believe if it is taxed isn't
:57:26. > :57:29.paid by them, because five`xear`olds pay VAT. We are all charged tax at
:57:30. > :57:33.the same level, whatever our age. Absolutely, but are we directly
:57:34. > :57:40.taxed? 16`year`olds are dirdctly taxed. I think that's the m`in
:57:41. > :57:44.thing. We'll see what these guys. Greg, we expect young peopld to
:57:45. > :57:48.serve their country and thex can marry and pay tax, so why not vote?
:57:49. > :57:53.18 has been the age. When it comes to tax, as you said, everyone pays
:57:54. > :57:58.VAT and it doesn't carry an entitlement to vote. On the council
:57:59. > :58:02.tax, 16 and 17`year`olds ard excluded from paying it. I think
:58:03. > :58:07.that argument about paying tax doesn't work. I think there are
:58:08. > :58:12.strong arguments for this. H spend a lot of time talking to sixth formers
:58:13. > :58:16.and I agree, there is a high degree of interest in political issues I'm
:58:17. > :58:20.sure Stephen and I find in our post bag that a long of young people are
:58:21. > :58:25.engaged with big campaigns, so I don't think the taxation issue is
:58:26. > :58:29.the best course. Why doesn't David Cameron agree? You seem sympathetic,
:58:30. > :58:32.but when Downing Street spoke about it last year, they said that the
:58:33. > :58:35.Government has to plans to change the law. What does that say about
:58:36. > :58:39.the Government's attitude to young people? It shows that the argument
:58:40. > :58:44.that Solomon is making, there are a number of people making it. It's a
:58:45. > :58:48.live debate and a lot of people `` You could be persuaded? Yeah. I can
:58:49. > :58:53.understand the arguments for it For example, political parties, we all
:58:54. > :58:58.want to have young members, and members of parties who are 06 are
:58:59. > :59:03.allowed to vote in the affahrs of political parties, so that hs
:59:04. > :59:06.accepted by them. I think a particular example you talkdd about
:59:07. > :59:10.16`19`year`olds with the Kent Freedom Pass, but the cuts to that
:59:11. > :59:20.would not have been that silple if 16`year`olds had the vote. Let me
:59:21. > :59:25.quote Polly Toynbee. But thhs is what she says, "Don't vote `nd you
:59:26. > :59:29.don't count. Democracy forgdts and you know one cares what you think
:59:30. > :59:35.and the Government will spend lesson you and your ilk." I think `bout the
:59:36. > :59:39.Kent Freedom Pass, if that were true, they don't have the vote, but
:59:40. > :59:44.the County Council introducdd, without any requirement to do so, a
:59:45. > :59:49.free travel card costing ?1.5 million, because it's `` ?13.5
:59:50. > :59:54.million, because it's the rhght thing to do. The party that I'm a
:59:55. > :00:00.member of obviously wants to think about the next general election
:00:01. > :00:04.Stephen, do you support votds for 16`17`year`olds? I do. It's not a
:00:05. > :00:08.huge priority of mine and I'll give you an example why. I was speaking
:00:09. > :00:12.to a group of young people who came to my constituency last week.
:00:13. > :00:18.They're doing some interview for the college. One of the `` one of them
:00:19. > :00:22.med made a strong `` of thel made a strong point, at this age wd are
:00:23. > :00:26.studying politics and we ard at college and it's actually a live
:00:27. > :00:31.issue. We are quite interested. What we found with a lot of our older
:00:32. > :00:36.brothers and sisters, who are 2 and 22 they have fallen into thd Russell
:00:37. > :00:40.Brand nonsense of there's no point if voting because they're all
:00:41. > :00:46.thieves, so an argument for younger people is that you catch thdm. Are
:00:47. > :00:51.you persuaded? We didn't get a question from Greg, but we got, "I
:00:52. > :00:54.can see the arguments." Hopdfully he will come on Wednesday and we can
:00:55. > :00:59.lobby him. Thank you very mtch indeed for coming in. Nice to meet
:01:00. > :01:10.you. Now for a round`up of the other events you might have missed this
:01:11. > :01:13.week. Over to James Fitzger`ld. The weather is not normal. The
:01:14. > :01:18.conditions aren't normal and life isn't normal. Another week of wild
:01:19. > :01:23.weather. Government released ?1 0 million of emergency money, but
:01:24. > :01:30.there's still no`one scheme planned for the South East. The Envhronment
:01:31. > :01:33.Agency says the flood barridr can't protect Tunbridge. Dover wants to
:01:34. > :01:38.revive the western docks, creating hundreds of jobs. The MP welcomed
:01:39. > :01:43.the news, but is desperate for more details. It's important to `nswer
:01:44. > :01:47.how they'll get the money and what their plan is. Gatwick Airport is
:01:48. > :01:53.extending the reach of a nohse compensation scheme, which gives out
:01:54. > :02:00.thousands to homeowners needing to installment loft instalation. Helen
:02:01. > :02:04.Grant, Maidstone MP says shd will be sounding a triumphant fanfare a
:02:05. > :02:07.century after World War One. Drn said last year that commemoration of
:02:08. > :02:19.conflict could be a celebration of sorts. Clear clear The flooding goes
:02:20. > :02:23.on. Nigel Farage says we should divert foreign aid. Do you `gree?
:02:24. > :02:28.David Cameron has said that ?13 million is going to go to this, so
:02:29. > :02:32.the action has been taken. No, I don't. It's classic Farage tsing a
:02:33. > :02:36.subject that affects a lot of people for political gain. I think it's
:02:37. > :02:40.wrong and he's right. The Government is giving money which is important.
:02:41. > :02:43.Thank you. We will have to leave it there. Thank you very much hndeed
:02:44. > :02:44.for watching. Natalie is back next week with more.
:02:45. > :02:55.Londoners who otherwise may not have a voice. Both of you, thank you so
:02:56. > :03:00.much. Andrew, it is back to you Can David Cameron get a grip on the
:03:01. > :03:04.floods? Can UKIP push the Conservatives into third place in
:03:05. > :03:07.the Wythenshawe by-election on Thursday? Is the speaker in the
:03:08. > :03:15.House of Commons in danger of overheating? All questions over the
:03:16. > :03:22.weekend. Let's look at the politics of the flooding. Let me show you a
:03:23. > :03:29.clip from Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, earlier on
:03:30. > :03:35.the BBC this morning. We perhaps relied too much on the Environment
:03:36. > :03:39.Agency's advice. I apologise. I apologise unreservedly and I am
:03:40. > :03:45.really sorry we took the advice of what we thought we were doing was
:03:46. > :03:48.the best. The Environment Agency is being hung out to dry by the
:03:49. > :03:54.Government and the Government has taken over the running of the
:03:55. > :03:59.environmental mess in the Somerset Levels. It is turning into a serious
:04:00. > :04:02.crisis by the Government and even more so for the people who are
:04:03. > :04:09.dealing with the flooding. There is no doubt that what has been revealed
:04:10. > :04:14.is it is not just about what the Government did or did not do six
:04:15. > :04:19.months ago. What is being exposed is an entire culture within the
:04:20. > :04:23.Environment Agency, fuelled often by European directives about dredging
:04:24. > :04:28.and all manner of other things, a culture grew up in which plants were
:04:29. > :04:31.put ahead of people if you like All of that is collapsing in very
:04:32. > :04:38.difficult circumstances by the Government and it is difficult for
:04:39. > :04:41.them to manage. Chris Smith would save the Environment Agency is
:04:42. > :04:45.acting under a law set by this Government and previous governments
:04:46. > :04:49.and the first priority is the protection of life, second property
:04:50. > :04:55.and third agricultural land and he is saying we are working within that
:04:56. > :04:59.framework. It is an edifying spectacle, they are setting up Lord
:05:00. > :05:03.Smith to be the fall guy. His term of office comes at the end of the
:05:04. > :05:08.summer and they will find something new. But the point Lord Smith is
:05:09. > :05:12.making is that dredging is important and it was a mistake not to dredge,
:05:13. > :05:17.but it is a bigger picture than that. I am no expert, but you need a
:05:18. > :05:24.whole skill solution that is looking not just bad dredging, but at the
:05:25. > :05:28.whole catchment area looking at the production of maize. It is harvested
:05:29. > :05:34.in autumn and then the water runs off the topsoil. You see the
:05:35. > :05:38.pictures of the flooding, it is all topsoil flooding through those
:05:39. > :05:42.towns. What you have got to have in the uplands is some land that can
:05:43. > :05:47.absorb that water and there are really big questions about the way
:05:48. > :05:51.we carry out farming. Chris Smith was meant to appear on the Andrew
:05:52. > :05:55.Marr show this morning, but pulled back at the last minute. There must
:05:56. > :05:59.be doubts as to whether he can survive to the summer. Where is the
:06:00. > :06:06.chief executive of the Environment Agency? I agree with Nick that Chris
:06:07. > :06:10.Smith has been setup in this situation. David Cameron went to the
:06:11. > :06:17.Somerset Levels on Friday for about half an hour, in and out, with no
:06:18. > :06:24.angry people shouting at him. You to a farm. It is agreed he has had good
:06:25. > :06:29.crisis. But we are seen as being a London media class who does not
:06:30. > :06:33.understand the countryside. You can imagine David Cameron in a pair of
:06:34. > :06:40.wellies. If this was happening in Guildford, it would not have dragged
:06:41. > :06:43.on for so long. Looe it is interesting how they are saying the
:06:44. > :06:49.Environment Agency has put words in front of everything else. The
:06:50. > :06:53.great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria thinks people should be
:06:54. > :06:57.sacked at the whim. He is talking about how the Environment Agency
:06:58. > :07:03.spent ?31 million on a bird sanctuary. It turns out the bird
:07:04. > :07:08.sanctuary was an attempt to put up a flood defence system for a village
:07:09. > :07:12.which has worked. That village has been saved. They compensated some
:07:13. > :07:17.farmers for the farmland they were not going to be able to farm and put
:07:18. > :07:26.a flood defence system further back to protect this village and then
:07:27. > :07:28.they built a bird sanctuary. It was not ?31 million to create a bird
:07:29. > :07:34.sanctuary, it was to save a village and it worked. But in 2008 the
:07:35. > :07:39.Environment Agency was talking about dynamiting every pumping agency
:07:40. > :07:45.There was a metropolitan mindset on the part of that agency. If it does
:07:46. > :07:51.what Owen Paterson, who is now off in an eye operation, suggested a
:07:52. > :07:56.plan to fix this, they will find a lot of what they want or need to do
:07:57. > :08:03.will be in contravention of European directives. The Wythenshawe
:08:04. > :08:08.by-election. There is no question Labour is going to win, probably
:08:09. > :08:14.incredibly convincingly, one poll showing 60% plus of the vote. It
:08:15. > :08:19.would be surprising if Labour was in any threat up there. The issue is,
:08:20. > :08:25.does UKIP beat the Tories and if so, by how much? The latest poll was
:08:26. > :08:32.showing it in second place as nip and tuck, but the feeling I have is
:08:33. > :08:35.UKIP will do better. And they have got a great local candidate. The
:08:36. > :08:40.Tories have not parachuted somebody in and they have got a local man in
:08:41. > :08:44.and that will help them. We have all been waiting to see if the Tories
:08:45. > :08:53.lose their head, but they might go chicken earlier than that. Will UKIP
:08:54. > :08:58.come second? It looks like that A poll this week showed that Labour is
:08:59. > :09:03.way ahead and UKIP possibly second. But it is an important by-election
:09:04. > :09:07.for UKIP. If they do well in the European elections, they should
:09:08. > :09:11.still be on a roll. They did really well in by-elections last year. If
:09:12. > :09:16.they do not do well, is it because they are not on payroll? Or in
:09:17. > :09:23.Manchester they have a fantastic leader of the council? Will UKIP
:09:24. > :09:27.come a good second? I think they will and if they do not, it might
:09:28. > :09:34.suggest Nigel Farage is losing its slightly. One thing to look out for
:09:35. > :09:39.is how little Labour are attacking UKIP. Their election strategy relies
:09:40. > :09:45.a lot on UKIP taking Tory votes But it could also take Labour votes
:09:46. > :09:50.Particularly in the north and we shall see. The results will be out
:09:51. > :09:56.on Thursday night. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bird ,
:09:57. > :10:02.his interventions have become more frequent and something was strange.
:10:03. > :10:10.Have a look. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman. Order, the
:10:11. > :10:15.Government Chief Whip has absolutely no business whatsoever shouting from
:10:16. > :10:20.a sedentary position. Order, the honourable gentleman will remain in
:10:21. > :10:28.the chamber. If we could tackle this problem. I say to the honourable
:10:29. > :10:32.member for Bridgwater, be quiet if you cannot be quiet, get out, it is
:10:33. > :10:51.rude, stupid and pompous and it needs to stop. Michael Gove. Order.
:10:52. > :10:57.You really... Order. You are a very over excitable individual. You need
:10:58. > :11:01.to write out 1000 times, I will behave myself at Prime Minister 's
:11:02. > :11:07.questions. He was talking to the Education Secretary and it is not
:11:08. > :11:16.1000 lines, it is 100 lines, at least it was in my day. Is he
:11:17. > :11:19.beginning to make a fool of himself? There was only one over excitable
:11:20. > :11:22.person there and that was the speaker and he is losing the
:11:23. > :11:27.confidence of the Conservative MPs, but he never had that in the first
:11:28. > :11:32.place. But he is an incredibly reforming speaker. He has this
:11:33. > :11:39.strange idea that Parliament should hold the Government to account. It
:11:40. > :11:44.will never catch on. It means very frequently there are urgent
:11:45. > :11:47.questions. The other day he called a backbench amendment on the
:11:48. > :11:52.deportation of foreign criminals. He could have found a way not to call
:11:53. > :11:57.that. He is a real reformer and the executive do not like that. That is
:11:58. > :12:05.true and he has allowed Parliament to flourish which has given us room
:12:06. > :12:09.to breathe at a time of a coalition Government when Parliament has more
:12:10. > :12:15.power. That is all that enough to overcome these increasingly mannered
:12:16. > :12:22.and some of them may be preplanned interventions? The last one was last
:12:23. > :12:30.week, and last week the speaker had a rather stressful week with the
:12:31. > :12:36.tabloids. Something is clearly up. I think it is a real shame. I think
:12:37. > :12:40.many of us when he was elected did not think he would make a great
:12:41. > :12:45.speaker and there are people like Douglas Carswell and Tory rebels who
:12:46. > :12:49.have said he is a fantastic speaker. He has given the Commons room to
:12:50. > :12:55.breathe and he has called on ministers to be held to account when
:12:56. > :12:59.they do not want to be. What do you think? He is seen as anti-government
:13:00. > :13:06.and he is pro-backbencher and that is what people do not like. People
:13:07. > :13:13.like Douglas Carswell are actually very strongly in support of him We
:13:14. > :13:17.carry the interventions every week on Prime Minister 's questions and
:13:18. > :13:21.we see them every week and they are getting a bit more eccentric. If I
:13:22. > :13:28.was having to keep that under control, I would be driven slowly
:13:29. > :13:32.mad. But his job is easier than mine. But if you look at his
:13:33. > :13:40.deputy, Eleanor Laing, she is very robust, but she is calm. Chap who
:13:41. > :13:49.does the budget is excellent. We are on throughout the week at midday on
:13:50. > :13:51.BBC Two. We will be back next Sunday at 11. If it is Sunday, it is the
:13:52. > :13:59.Sunday Politics.