30/03/2014 Sunday Politics South East

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Can Ed Davey keep the lights on Can he ever deliver cheaper power? Or

the investment our energy market badly needs? We'll be asking the

Energy Secretary. Why has the anti-independence Better

Together campaign suddenly got the jitters? We'll be quizzing Scottish

Secretary Alistair Carmichael. And whatever happened to the BNP?

In the South East: the Primd They could be heading

In the South East: the Primd Minister says immigration is a major

concern which runs the capital's Fire

Service. The Mayor has a political move designed to silence his

critics. And with me, as always, the most

useless political panel in the business, who we're contractually

obliged to insult on a weekly basis. But not today, because they are our

chosen ones. They are the brightest and the best, we've even hired a

plane to prove it: Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt who'll be

tweeting throughout the programme. Right, left and centre of the

Westminster Establishment have been unanimous in saying there would be

no chance of monetary union with the rest of the UK for an independent

Scotland. Then an unnamed minister spoke to our Nick saying that wasn't

necessarily so, and that made the Guardian's front page. The SNP were

delighted and the anti-independence campaign rushed to limit the damage.

The faux pas has come at a time when the Better Together side was already

beginning to worry that things were going the Nationalists' way. Let's

speak to a leading light in that campaign, Scottish Secretary

Alistair Carmichael, who's in Aberdeen at the Scottish Liberal

Democrat spring conference. Alistair Carmichael, why is there a

sense of crisis now engulfing the no campaign? I think that is something

of an overstatement. What you have got is, I am getting my own voice

played back in my ear. What you have got here is one story from an

unnamed source, a minister who we are told, we do not know for

certain, who has speculated on the possibility of a currency union

actually happening. I do not think that is helpful but it is not any

big deal. You have to measure it against what we have got publicly

named on the record. We have got a detailed intervention of the

Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, outlining all the

reasons why a currency union would not be a good idea. And then you

have got independent advice from the permanent Secretary of the Treasury

himself saying actually, this is such a bad idea, that I would never

advise a chancellor to go ahead with it. You set one against the other

and you see that pretty much the force of argument is very much

against those of us who want to remain in the United Kingdom. All

the minister was saying is come the day, if Westminster is negotiating

with a new independent Scotland a deal is to be done, Faslane where

the nuclear deterrent is, there is nowhere else in the UK to put that

is, certainly not for the next 0 years, a deal would be done, the

nuclear weapons would stay in Faslane and Scotland would get a

monetary union with the rest of the UK. That is perfectly plausible

isn't it? No, I'm sorry, it is simply not plausible. The economy is

more important than anything else. What you have had here is very clear

advice from the treasury officials saying it is not in the economic

best interests of the people of England Wales, Northern Ireland any

more than it is in the interests of people in Scotland. Where do you put

the nukes? The outcome will not change. Where do you put the nukes

when the Nationalists kick you out? I do not believe that will be a

problem because I do not believe Scotland will vote for independence.

But you might be asking the Scottish Nationalists, who are apparently

promoting this, are they then not sincere when they say they want to

remove nuclear weapons from Scotland? It seems to be a curious

mixed message. As you know, I have not got the Nationalists, I have got

you, so let me ask you the questions. You are widely seen as

running a campaign which is too negative. The Nationalists are

narrowing the gap in the poll found you are squabbling among yourselves.

This campaign is going pear shaped, isn't it? No, let's deal with the

polls. All the polls show that the people of Scotland want to stay as

part of the United Kingdom. Yes there were a couple of polls last

week that said the gap was narrowing a little. The most recent poll of

all, the poll on Wednesday which actually polled people's voting

intentions on the question come September showed that only 28% of

people in Scotland were prepared to say they were voting yes, as opposed

to the 42% who were on our side of the argument saying they wish to

remain part of the UK. That poll said women were skewing towards a

yes vote and it showed that the don't knows were beginning to skew

towards a yes vote. That is why you yourself wrote this morning that if

your campaign does not get its act together, you would be sleepwalking

into a split to quote yourself. No, to quote myself I said it was not

impossible that the Nationalists could win that. That is absolutely

the case. The biggest danger for the United Kingdom camp in this whole

argument is people will look at the polls. They show us with a healthy

lead consistently. As a consequence, they think this will not happen It

can happen. I have got to tell everybody that it could, not least

because the Nationalists have an enormous advantage in terms of the

amount of money they have at their disposal to buy momentum. They will

be advertising in cinemas, in football matches and on social

media. We have got to realise what is coming and as a consequence, we

have got to get our arguments in place and our campaign as sharp as

theirs. Thank you for joining us. Nick, this unnamed minister who gave

you the story, did he or she know what they were doing? I do not think

they were sitting there wanting to blast this out there, because the

agreed government position was there will not be a currency union, if

there is a vote for independence. But what I was managing to get hold

of whether thoughts that are in the deeper recesses of people's minds,

when they are looking at the polls which have been narrowing, or there

was Alistair Carmichael quite rightly says, the pro-UK vote is

still ahead. People are looking down the line, what would happen after

the 18th of September this year not just the next day but the next

year, in those very lengthy negotiations that would take place,

when there would be a lot of moving places on the table. You talked

about Faslane, what would happen then and that is what I managed to

get hold of, that there are thoughts about all those pieces that would be

on the table. It is not surprising that some in Westminster think

that. Let's take the Shadow Chancellor Danny Alexander at his

word, they do not want a monetary union. But if they are faced with

giving the Scots a monetary union in a post-independent Scotland, or

having to remove the nuclear submarines from Faslane, where they

have nowhere else to put them, probably except North America, there

is a deal to be done. I think whatever minister gave Nick his

story is probably onto something. If the Scots vote for independence of

course a deal will be done about the currency because it is not in

London's interests to have a rancorous relationship with

Edinburgh. Even if the deal is not done, how does one country stop

another country using its. That is different. All London can really do

is prevent Scottish intervention on the monetary policy committee. The

interest rate would be set without any regard to the Scottish interest.

Even that is only a fatal problem if the Scottish economy becomes so out

of sync with the UK economy. Except it is a problem for Scotland's

financial system because if you go down that route there is no means of

injecting liquidity into the financial system in the financial

crisis. That is why they would rather have a monetary union. Is it

not remarkable to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland here that the

Nationalists are spending too much money, when he represents a campaign

which brings together all the major parties in the UK and all the

resources of the UK and he is bleating about the Nationalists

having more to spend? I did think that was a funny line and it was in

the Observer. It lays into Alex Salmond's plucky upstart idea that

he's taking on this big establishment. I thought it was a

bizarre open goal, I am losing my football metaphors, forgive me. The

polls are so in favour of a no vote. But the trend has been going

their way. We have six months left which is not enough to close the

gap. They always tell you Alex Salmond is a strong finisher. The

plucky upstarts have this funding from a millionaire. The Better

Together campaign are being incredibly cautious about where they

get their money from. They do not want to go to the City of London

Police say, give us a couple of million.

Being Energy Secretary used to be a bit of a dawdle, especially when

North Sea oil was flowing. Now it's very much a hot potato as Ed Davey

has been finding out the hard way. High household energy bills have

been top of his inbox. The big six energy companies account for 95 of

the market. Off Johnson -- Ofgem said there had been possible tacit

coordination in the timing of price rises and ordered an investigation

by the competition and markets authorities which will look at

whether the big six should be broken up. Where does that leave

investment? The boss of Centrica made the point that you would not

spend money building an extension if you knew in two years time your home

might be bulldozed. The spare margin, that is what is left in the

generating system to cope with a surge in demand on a cold winter's

night, is due to drop to historically low levels in 2016

according to Ofgem. Normally at around 15%, capacity could drop to

2% after the next election and that could lead to a surge in the sale of

candles. Now where is that light switch?

Energy Secretary Ed Davey, joins me now. Oh, we have found the light

switch! The gap between a peak winter demand and generating

capacity could possibly reach 2 next winter or the winter after We

will keep the lights on, that is for clear. When we came to power, energy

investment had been relatively low. The Labour Party had failed to deal

with the energy deficit. From day one we have been pushing up

massively. Investment has been billion a year. Last year was a

record. Spare capacity is now heading to 2%. Why are you allowing

it to get that no? Because we have been increasing investment

massively, last was a record level, we will be able to keep the lights

on. Some of the figures you are showing suggests we are not doing

anything. We have not only done enough in our last three years, we

have put in measures to stimulate huge amounts of extra investment. We

have the healthiest pipeline investment in our history. We will

come onto investment in a minute. None of that change is the fact that

we will be close to 2% next winter or the winter after that. We have

one major power station shut down, or a cold winter away from having

major problems with energy supply. It is still 2%. Let me explain. The

figures assume we are not doing anything but we are doing something.

Look at the National Grid. They are able to bring in energy from

interconnector is because we are connected up to Europe. They are

able to create a reserve so if we get to problems, they will have a

mothballed plant they can bring on. You have not agreed with anybody on

that. The decision was taken last July. But no supplier has agreed to

under mothball its plant. We would not expect them to do that yet. Our

plan is in place. On time, on schedule, as we already thought it

would be. But you have not got a single agreement with a power supply

who has mothballed plant to on the ball it. We did not expect to. Our

plan is in me National Grid will do an election to allow those plants to

come on. There is a huge amount of interest. There are gigawatts of

power that can come in to come on. There is a huge amount of interest.

There are gigawatts of power that can come into that auction and we

are not other measures we can take and that is just in the short term.

We have a plan for the medium-term. We will be running the first auction

for new capacity. The final decision will be taken and we have learned

lessons from what they do in North America and other European countries

so we can stay minute mothballed plants and new plants to be built. I

am absolutely clear there is not a problem. You only build 9000

megawatts of new capacity from 2011-13. You have closed almost

22,000 megawatts. Why would you be so cavalier with a nation's power

supply? The last Government was cavalier because we knew those

figures are happening because we've known for a long time a lot of power

plants were coming to the end of their life, coal power plants,

nuclear power plants, and we had to increase the rate of investment but

we... That shows clearly you are closing twice as much, you have to

date, closed twice as much as you have opened, hence the lack of spare

capacity. We knew a lot of them are coming back for the last Labour

Government knew. We have increased the new so that's increasing

significantly, far faster than under the last Government but also

remember, you were very wrong at the beginning of your clip, margins at

15% are very own usual. They are historically high. The average

margin was 25%. That was wasting a huge amount of money. But since

privatisation, we've had margins between 5% and 10%. Normally, high

margins historically, which is costly. Now we will have

historically low margins. People have to pay for that, so we make

sure the lights stay on, we have a short-term policy I have described

to you, and medium-term policy and a long-term policy. The long-term

policy comes huge investment between nuclear and optional,

policy comes huge investment between on. Ofgem, Independent, says the

chance of blackouts by 2016 has increased fourfold under your watch.

What they say, if you read the report, if we did nothing, they

would be problems. But we have been working with Ofgem. We have been

working with National Grid, and we have agreed that there will be a

reserve capacity which can come on if we get to the peak for the Best

not just on the supply side but demand and into connectors. You talk

about industry having to move to off-peak times. We say, they are

prepared to that you paid for it, and it makes commercial sense for

them, it's a sensible thing for the Wii will pay them to move to

off-peak. You have huge diesel parks for the you talk as if that

something new but it's been around for a long time for the 200 these

contracts out there. We want to expand that. You have hundreds of

diesel generators to click into haven't you? There's a whole range

of generators. Diesel generation, dirty fuel. There's a of mothballed

gas which can come. If you look at the increase of the independent

generators, many companies, a range of power companies who are building

a new power station and want to build new ones. This is a healthy

situation. You say you made over 100 billion new investment between now

and the end of the decade to restore capacity and meet renewable

targets. Now you have referred the Big Six to the competition

commission, how much of that to expect to come from them? We will

see what the market delivers. We have always expected independent

generators to do a lot more than is happening in the past. How much from

the Big Six? It's not for me to say it's going to be best from that

company. The real interest is we have huge amounts of companies

wanting to invest. If you look at independent analysis, they say

Britain is one of the best places to invest in energy in the world. We

are the worldly do in offshore wind, one of the best for

renewables, one of the only countries getting nuclear power

stations. Rather than the bleaker picture you're painting, the reverse

is the case. We are seeing an investment renaissance. You say

that. Let me give you some facts. Under this Government, only one gas

plant has been under construction, only one started under your watch

for the others were done under Labour. You have none in the

pipeline. The Big Six has pulled back from further investment

including new offshore wind investment and none of what you re

talking about will come before 020 anyway. That's simply not true. The

balance reserves I've talked about, the reserve planned: Making sure the

mothballed plant could come on, I capacity market incentivising new

power, will happen way before 2 20, so that's not true. But doesn't

answer the extra capacity. You have no answer between now and the end of

this decade. We have three answers. Let me repeat them for you. I said

permanent, not the short-term ones you are putting in place to try to

do with spare capacity. We have a short-term plan, of course, that's

very sensible. Medium-term plan auctioning for new power stations.

That can lead to both mothballed plant and when you plant, permanent

plant being built, and the long term plan, to stimulator long-term

investment, some of which will be built and come online way before the

end of the decade. I'm afraid, it's a far rosier picture than your

painting. It's also far more expensive, too. Let's look at how

you are replacing relatively cheap energy with much more expensive

sources of energy. Wholesale prices is ?50 per megawatt. You have done a

deal with EDF, nuclear, ?92 50. You have indexed it for 30 years at 2012

prices. All of that puts up our bills. First

of all, the support of the low Carbon is just 4% on bills. What has

been driving peoples bills over the last decade has been wholesale gas

prices. No one knows what guys prices are going to be in the future

-- gas prices. When you look at the Ukraine and other market indicators,

many people are worried that by the time nuclear power stations come

online for example, the price of gas could be significantly higher. You

have indexed linked that for them by the time you get any power from

this, it'll be up to ?125 per megawatt hour. The price of gas been

going up far higher. Not recently. Despite Iran, Ukraine, Libya, not

recently. The long-term forecast, Andrew, it's going to go higher but

more importantly than that, this is an area we could disagree on but

it's very important that power plants pay the cost of pollution. In

those prizes, all of those prices except the wholesale out a steep

price, you have those power stations paying the cost of air pollution. If

gas and coal where paying the proper carbon price, you would see nuclear

and renewables as competitive. It's very important that we ensure that

power plants pay the cost of the pollution. When you were last on

this programme to talk about this in May 2012, you said that the price of

offshore wind was coming down fast. You told me it would be down by 30%

in the next few years. That figure is 155, and for the deeper stuff,

it's going to be ?165. That's the first year of a limit control

framework which had it coming down. If you talk to many companies,

Siemens had invested with their partners, ?310 million with two new

factories. They are talking about lower prices because what they are

saying to me is that, rather than the 30% cost reductions I talked

about, I was wrong, they are targeting 40%. You said prices would

come down 30% in two years for that that was 2012 and they have gone

higher. I absolutely did not say that. Your exact quote was 30% in

the next few years. Your exact few years. You said two years, I sell a

few years. I haven't changed a single moment that you said two

years, I said a few years. That s what we are projecting. They will

come down. You have to invest in technology. Let me give you this

example. When people invest in mobile phones to start off with

they were expensive, and they were clunky and the costs were going down

for the one final question. You put the Big Six into investigation

because they made a 5% return on investment and you're done a deal

with EDF, nuclear power, which will guarantee them a return of 10% 15%

every year for 30 years. Doesn't that underline the shambles of your

energy policy? You have mixed up two separate things. The 5% Ofgem are

talking about is on the supply retail side. The percentage you

quoted for EDF is in the wholesale side of two different markets. It's

the same return. It's not. You are comparing apples and pears,

dangerous thing to do. You have to do have a high return but in the

retail market, with a 5% stake, there is less risk, says a low

return. Ed Davey, I'm sorry we haven't got more time. Thank you.

Have me back. We will. Whatever happened to the BNP? The far right

party looked as if it was on the verge of a major breakthrough not so

long ago. Now it seems to be going nowhere. In a moment we'll be

speaking to the party's press officer, Simon Derby. But first

here's Giles. His report contains some flash photography. For a moment

in 2009 Nick Griffin and the BNP had a spring in their step, smiling at

their success of winning two seats in the European Parliament. They

already were the second largest party in a London council and had a

London Assembly seat. Despite concerns from mainstream parties

their vote was up. Our vote increased up to 943,000. Savouring

success was brief that morning as anti-far right protestors invaded

and egged the press conference and forced the BNP MEPs into a hasty

retreat. What is more significant is that, in the years since, that

retreat has been matched internally, electorally and in the minds of

those who had given them that vote. For a number of years they were

performing better than the UK Independence Party and other smaller

parties like the Greens and respect. The problem for the BNP if they

didn't make any inroads into other groups, they didn't go into the

middle class, the young, they didn't go into women and ethnic minorities

for obvious reasons. So the party was quickly handicapped from the

outset. Not that you would have known that at the outset. In 20 6 in

Barking and Dagenham, the party won 12 council seats against a back drop

of discontent with the ruling Labour council and Government and picking

up on immigration and housing concerns in the borough. It's

because of all the different nationality people moving in the

area, they are taking over everything. My Nan and grandad lived

there all their lives. I thought I would vote for BNP. Hopefully, yeah,

they will get elected over here When I came to Barking, Dagenham and

Redbridge in 2006, the BNP with a second largest party in one of the

local councils. You can even find non-white people who voted BNP. Now

they have no counsellors, and even though can when you talk to people,

you will find among the older white working-class population concerned

that the BNP claim to represent everyone says they are nowhere. So

what happened to that about? On behalf of all the people in Britain,

we in Barking have not just beaten, that we have smashed the attempt of

extremist outsiders. The local Labour MP was as clear in 2010 as

she is now. I always knew if we could manage to ensure that wasn't a

single BNP councillor left on the council and I won my seat, it would

stop the process of disintegration. But what beat the BNP here in 2 10

was a mobilisation of the Labour vote. And today it is not hard to

find the same discontent over the same issues. It's just finding a new

political home. A couple of years ago, I used to vote Labour.

Obviously, they haven't done nothing around here as much now, with jobs

and unemployment, and housing and stuff like that about, basically,

BNP ain't around here no more. Now it's more about UKIP and I believe

that these UKIP are saying are true. If I thought BNP would make the

difference, I would vote but is not in the people behind them. They all

get bandaged with the same brush. I'm going to vote UKIP because BNP

didn't get anywhere. What they say in UKIP, with a bit of luck, they

will get somewhere. It's not racist but it's just that our kids haven't

got jobs. Nick Griffin's dislike of UKIP is mutual but his once fellow

MEP Andrew Brons who's now left the party issued a statement to this

programme saying BNP failure is closer to home post 2010. It was

after that election discontent arose amongst sections of the membership.

Those members who left or were thrown out by Nick Griffin had

already felt let down by his appearance on Question Time. It was

a national platform for the BNP something they felt they had the

right to through electoral success. This was no big breakthrough moment

for Griffin, unlike it was for John Marina pen when he appeared on

national television in France. He went on to mobilise a national

force. Despite there being some voters tuned to their message, for

the BNP, becoming such a force here has never looked quite so difficult.

And Simon Derby from the BNP joins me now. Welcome to the Sunday

Politics. It was not long ago you had 55 councillors up and down the

land, you now have two. You are on the brink of extinction. That is not

true. I have watched the film. It is very negative as I would expect The

party has faced a few problems. The main thing to bear in mind is that

the issues, the problems the country faces have gone away. We won nearly

a million votes in the European elections. We brought that mandate

to the establishment and we were denied. Let's face it, we would --

were denied any opportunity to take place in the political apparatus.

You have been destroyed by a pincer movement. UKIP has taken away or

more respectable voters and the EDL is better at anti-Muslim protests

and street thuggery. The EDL is not a political party. I take your point

about UKIP. The power structure took a look at us and so we were a threat

to power. We were not making this stuff up, we meant it and they have

co-opted our message. This shameless promotion of UKIP, you have evenly

had him presenting the weather on this programme. That is

unbelievable. That was a joke. Across Europe, in France, your

sister party the National front will probably do very well. You can see

the rise of the far right across Western Europe so why are you in

decline? We are not far right, I reject that label. How would you

describe yourselves nationalists and Patriots. Why are you in decline and

other similar parties to yours are on the rise? You mentioned Barking

and it is very interesting because I was involved in that campaign. What

Margaret Hodge and her Labour Party did, they replaced the white

indigenous population in Barking and Dagenham with Africans, that is how

they won that election. For that was true, you would be doing well

elsewhere. You have now got a leader who is declared bankrupt and your

party is heading for bankruptcy No, it is not. It is over. You would

like that. What I would like is irrelevant. Your membership is in

deep decline. All parties have highs and lows. In 2009 they said it is no

way you will win any seats in the European election. We did. And then

you lost them. Parties win and lose seats. The Lib Dems will be

annihilated. You deny you are far right. People used to say the BNP

were neo-Nazis. Then Nick Griffin appeared with Golden Dawn. They are

not neo-Nazis, they are Nazis. It is part and parcel of being in

politics. You have to appear with them? Of course we do, we have to

speak to ordinary people. I am perfectly happy speaking to you at

the BBC, the BBC have a terrible reputation but I am happy to be

here. Mr Griffin has asked me, when will the BBC apologised for trying

to put him in prison twice, merely for exposing a Muslim scandal. Why

can't Nick Griffin appear on TV and self? He would not appear. He was in

Syria. He literally flew out to Damascus and prevented a war. We

decided we would not interfere in Syria. The BBC never covered that.

Please do not make out we are just an ordinary political party you

cover like everybody else. It is completely different. All the signs

are, membership, performance at the polls, performance at elections the

problem with your leadership is you are now going the way of the

National front, heading for oblivion. As I said to you before,

that may be the case, if all the problems we had not highlighted and

how we got a huge vote so many years ago, six years ago now, five years

ago, in 2009, if they were not around. These things are only going

to get worse. We are looking at a prototype Islamic republic that is

going to be set up in this country. That will lead to huge problems

Only the British National Party are prepared to say that and deal with

it. Word leaked out that I was doing this interview with you before the

weekend. Isn't it a sign of how irrelevant you now are that not a

single person has turned up at New Broadcasting House this morning to

protest? Used to be hundreds would turn up when we said the BNP were

on. That is the left for you, they put the clocks forward and they

could not be bothered to get out of bed. I think they are still in bed.

Thank you. You're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday

Politics Scotland. Coming up here in 20 minutes,

Politics Scotland. Coming up here in Hello. Coming up: It cost the area

thousands of jobs and changdd the face of the Medway towns but might

the closure of Chatham docks have been a good thing? Joining le in the

studio today to discuss that are Keith Glazier and a representative

of labour. Welcome to you both. First, the political story of the

past week was the Rumble in the jungle, Wednesday 's debate on our

EU mentorship between Madur` Virage and Nick Clegg. Here is a flavour.

This debate is about you and it s really simple because it's `bout

your job. We are better off in Europe, richer, stronger, s`fer The

debate today is between a thred status quo, defending a crulbling

European Union that isn't working any more and a fresh approach which

says let's be friendly with Europe, let's trade with Europe but not be

governed by their institutions. In the south`east, YouTube has

proven to be able potent force already. `` UKIP. They are now the

official opposition on cert`in county councils and Nigel F`rr Raj

says he will stand in Kent. `` Farage. I don't think there were any

real winners. They both madd points but the points they were making were

generally irrelevant. Neithdr of those two gentlemen will be leading

the next general election or the government after the next gdneral

election and so whether we `re in Europe or out of Europe, good to

debate but it won't happen tnless there is a referendum for the people

of this country, which of course can only be delivered if we get a

Conservative government aftdr 2 15. The danger for your party is that

that gave Nigel Farage a pl`tform and your leader wasn't therd to

defend his policy on Europe. There is a clear policy. I don't think it

needed to be defended. At the end of the day, Conservative policx quite

clearly is that he will havd every opportunity to negotiate thd terms

of the current deal and if that is not what this country once, they

will have the opportunity to say yes or no. David Cameron was excluded.

He wasn't there to put your party's points across. A lot of people would

argue your party and Labour lost in that debate. It is not something I

would agree with. They were going to be no winners. The people that will

this country after 2015 werd not there, neither David Cameron or the

Labour leader. Nigel Farage was on this programme a couple of weeks ago

and he said his party is as much a threat to your party as to the

Conservatives. In terms of this debate that we saw on TV, there were

no real winners out of it. Lost people know how they are gohng to

choose to vote. They know how they feel on Europe and on many of those

issues. I don't think this debate is what made those decisions for them.

Should Ed Miliband have been there? The voters are going to the polls in

European elections in a few weeks time. Ed has been clear. He says if

our relationship with Europd changed significantly, we would givd a

referendum. That is what we have said. If the powers from Brtssels

change, yes, we will deliver a referendum. At this stage, that is

not the case. I don't think that this debate is where those decisions

were made. We will move on. When the Prime Minister Davhd

Cameron came to Peacehaven this week, which happens to be a place

where UKIP Doug County Council seats from the Conservatives last May he

was confronted with dramatic pictures. They showed the d`ngerous

lengths migrants would go to gain illegal entry to the UK, vi` Kent.

Night`time in Calais, a truck we fitted with cameras stopped at a

junction near the port. In the second is, two men crawl th`n the

vehicle, precariously balancing on the rear axle. These are migrants,

trying to get to Britain from France. Realising we are gohng

nowhere, the stowaways disappeared back into the bushes, where eight

others are waiting. Hello. Do you speak English?

You are risking your lives by getting on this track.

We are joined by Tony Smith, who knows plenty about this isste

because he used to be head of the UK border force. We thought th`t kind

of situation ended with the closure of Sangatte. Grief had legal

migrants massing in Calais for a decade. We have a very strong border

there. We have border force officers working there, in France, whth the

French authorities to get after the criminal gangs that are arr`nging

this. This is big international crime and the UK and French are

playing their part in stopphng it. It's a very secure border. H can say

that with some authority because I was director`general of the border

force. I understand you are keen to reassure people but the deptty mayor

of Calais told us, he reckons 1 ,000 illegal migrants like the ones Colin

film and enter the country dach year. That something like 40 per

night. Do you recognise that figure? No, and I don't think we can

say that because we don't know how people bash how many people enter

illegally. We know how many we stop and it is around that number that do

get stopped by the British authorities. Actually, they are not

making it to the UK, quite ` lot of them. The lorry drivers felt

strongly that the French authorities were not doing enough and border

agency staff were not doing enough. They are in an awful situathon where

they are trying to drive and someone is getting and need their vdhicle,

and they cannot stop them. Ultimately, it is the responsibility

of those who bring vehicles to this country to make sure that the loans

they have and the occupants of their vehicles are legitimately entitled

to come. The lorry drivers cannot just abrogate responsibilitx.

Previous governments have brought in legislation to say there ard civil

penalties imposed on carriers who ignore the revelations. What the

border force does is help them because there is a good deal of

training with the drivers and other transportation companies to work

collaboratively to try to stop this business. Taking a long view, how

bad have things been in terls of migrants getting through illegally

in the past in your experience? The big problem which people perhaps

forget is that in 2000, we had huge influxes of asylum seekers camping

on the beaches in Dover. Thdre was huge pressure on the local

authorities to house them and deal with them. One of the reasons that

number, which was about 100,000 a year, has dropped to 15,000 a year

is because of the fact we h`ve got an agreement with the French

authorities when he can do this joint working in Calais. Wh`t would

worry me is if we stopped doing that for whatever reason. Those numbers

may start to return. Is there any more you think the government should

be doing? We need a much better entry slash exit control system so

we know who is leaving the country, so we can get a handle of ntmbers

and stop the political rhetoric And an identity management systdm. What

people are worried about is people abusing the system, come to this

country, abusing the health system, the welfare system. We just don t

have a robust enough identity management system to make stre those

who seek the benefits are gdnuinely entitled to receive them.

Immigration is an issue that is important to voters. David Cameron

acknowledged it when he was in Sussex this week. It was thd focus

of the debate on Wednesday night. Those pictures will play on people

's fears and for your party, immigration is an issue that people

don't feel you ever had a grip on. Things were pretty bad when Labour

was in power. Ed has also s`id there were things we could have done

better. We did introduced the points system but it could have cole in

earlier, I think. Ed has sahd that himself. In terms of illegal

immigration, we need to get underneath this issue. That is the

point. For instance, we need to start looking at those people that

abuse the system and employdrs who refused to a national minimtm wage.

We need to have better enforcement on this. We need to make sure there

is stricter penalties on national minimum wage. The Coalition

Government has done quite a lot to make sure the benefits systdm is

less attractive. Tony... It sounds like it is a problem we might have

to live with. It's not a problem we have to live with. We need to look

at some of the reasons why ht is causing a problem for peopld in

their lives. If they feel pdople who are coming from outside are getting

employed over them, that is an issue to do with employment and how the

minimum wage is enforced. When we get rogue landlords to allow

immigrants to live without dnforcing some of the laws there. Keith, is it

a problem in New Haven? New Haven is susceptible and the work th`t goes

on there is vital. The point I would like to reiterate is the fact that

people are desperately drivdn to do these things. We need to do all we

can to stop them. I think the work that the border force has done is

terrific and is moving in the right direction. We cannot let up. More

importantly, we talk about linimum wage, but the majority of these

people do not hit the formal employment so it is the black

market. A lot of that is done to organised gangs and traders. The

work that is going on currently needs to carry on pursuing those

type of people. Your party has talked about UKIP and these pictures

will play on people 's fears. Does it mean that you have to take a

harder line on this issue bdcause of the threat of UKIP? We all have a

duty to treat each other fahrly Whether you are Labour, Conservative

or UKIP, the bottom line is people have rights and we should rdspect

those. What we need to do is reinforce the fact that if xou are

into this country legally, will treat you fairly and ensure that

your rights are upheld. If xou are not, expect to be treated h`rshly

and expect the penalties th`t we need to enforce.

It is 30 years since Chathal dockyard closed, the major dmployer

in the Medway Kent fans. Its closure resulted in huge job losses and

changed the landscape of thd whole area. Might the closure havd been a

good thing? We take a look `t some new research.

It came as a hammer blow. Pdople were facing their future with some

trepidation. It tore the he`rt out of the community. Completelx

devastating. Chatham dockyard finally closed 30 years ago but the

direct loss of 7500 jobs and some 10,000 more in associated local

businesses. It was the end of over 400 years of shipbuilding hdritage,

dating from before the armada to the age of nuclear submarines. We took

one former worker back. What was it like here in 1980? I was a

shipwright apprentice in 1980. I used to come to work on a

push`bike. Had to be here for 7:30am. When you got here, ht was

very noisy, very vibrant, lots of people milling around. They were the

sounds of riveting as they were working on the vessels. There were

warning klaxons from the cr`nes as they moved. Was it a shock when the

dockyard closed? It was, in particular shock. I came into the

profession expecting a job for life. It came to an untimely end.

Now the picture in Medway is very different. Exclusive research

commissioned by BBC Radio Kdnt concludes that is the closure of the

dockyard has been very positive for Medway and for Kent. It has

eliminated what it describes as unhealthy, and save jobs. It cites

the transformation of the hhstoric dockyard to a tourist attraction as

a key driver, contributing to the rebranding of the Medway towns. But

how has it been achieved? What has made regeneration so successful is

that in 1984, with the clostre of the dockyard, local politichans

really did put some energy hnto getting regeneration going `nd as a

result of this, we had a good partnership between national

government and local governlent Also, I think we should bear in mind

that during this period, we had the creation of the Medway Council, as a

unitary authority. That unitary authority focused and put all its

energies and strategy in regeneration. After the closure the

disused site was split into several distinct areas. This is the 80 acre

historic dockyard and it is the largest. ?60 million has bedn

invested years since 1984. Ht now attracts over 160,000 visitors a

year. As well as housing more than 100 business tenants and part of the

University of camp full stop there is more commercial devout mdn to

come. In total, this complex alone supports more than 650 jobs and

brings in almost ?20 million a year to the Medway economy. Now, it's a

much more forward`looking place It has its feet in its past and that is

the role that we as a trust helped to play. Places are important to

people in so many different ways. The historic dockyard and the former

dockyard in the wider context is the identity of the place. The report

shows that in recent years, there has been a huge growth in

population, thanks in part to the redevelopment of Saint Mary 's

Island, once a shipbuilding basin. It's now a thriving residential

community. Chatham has also become a university town, a place whdre

unemployment has dropped from more than 20% in the 80s to less than 3%

today. The final phase of regeneration will be the ?640

million redevelopment of Ch`tham waters. The Phoenix has risdn from

the Ashes. Medway has been completely reborn and regendrated.

We have a rich, multicultur`l society in Medway. It is safe, it's

clean, it's green and we have tremendous success stories. Chatham

is proud of its rich naval heritage and while the dockyard workdrs may

have gone, Medway is continting to carve out a bold new future, based,

according to the research, on a blueprint that is so successful it

could be replicated up and down the country.

Joining us now from Chatham is Vince Maple, the leader of the Labour

group on Medway Council. Colpletely reborn and regenerated. A tremendous

success. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the picture we see in

Medway. We speak to residents on a weekly basis when we are talking up

and down the time. We are hdaring that the times are not what they

used to be when the dockyard was here. You heard from residents at

the start of the footage thdre that it ripped the heart out of our

towns. Actually, in some cases, families and communities were

desperately affected by that. That, in the way, was the problem. You

cannot expect a job for lifd any more and in a way, the job... There

was a backward looking dependency in the towns. As we look back 30 years,

we need to think about what happened at the time. Looking at the

situation now, where we had closures, there was more direct

support. There was no minister for Chatham in 1984. The changing point

was in the early 2000 is with the introduction of universities. That

is a welcomed change but th`t by itself would never replace the

dockyard. We heard that you might not have a Minister for Chatham but

the government invested ?180 million which generated ?900 million of

private investment in the area. The impetus of that dash for th`t would

not have happened if the dockside and close. It also left us with a

skills shortage. We know th`t numbers of families relocatdd to

other parts of the country. If you look at some of the potenti`l

engineering jobs and opporttnities coming up, certainly with a green

economy, we are in a weaker position. We have a technic`l

college coming in a couple of years and that is to be welcomed of course

but it leaves us in a weaker position than other camp Unhty is up

and down the UK. Regeneration is not exclusive to

count, is it? New Haven sprhngs to mind. It's also a place which has

been on the decline for this amount of time, 30 years. Very simhlar We

are putting in investment and what is happening in Chatham is what s

happening in New Haven. We, the County Council, are investing in a

new road which will open a planned which will enable the new green

business that will hopefullx feed the offshore... Why has it taken so

long? 30 years. There is a lajor difference. We were not a m`jor

shipbuilding port. The world has changed and if you don't ch`nge with

it and don't start to produce the education and jobs that people are

going to go on to, then I think that is where we've missed a trick. We

really do need to work with young people and industry to create jobs

for young people. You know the Medway towns well. You grew up there

and still live there. Do yot agree with events that the closurd has

left a legacy of depression? I do agree with Vince. When you're

speaking to people on the doorsteps, the response that we get is not

always positive. People do feel they are missing something in Medway

When you look at Medway compared to the rest of the Southeast and Kent,

it still has relatively high levels of deprivation. We still have

relatively high unemployment, compared to the rest of the

Southeast. The number of working people who are able to work, we

don't have the jobs for thel. The university has been very positive in

being an employer but what worries me more is the future because yes,

we got investment coming in, but we've also got cuts coming to our

biggest employers, the hosphtal .. The area would have suffered, the

docs would have gone into decline... They wouldn't have

survived this period? As we've picked up on, the skills shortage

has meant people have left the Medway towns. We are a big public in

`` public sector employer. Going forward, that momentum mustn't stop.

This cannot just be about money We had 13 years of Labour pumphng money

into these deprived areas. We are going to have to move on. You're of

time. Tomorrow, all of radio Kent's

daytime show `` programmes come from Chatham. Now, time for some of the

other political stories you might have missed this week.

Green MP Caroline Lucas was in court this week one of five chargdd with

obstructing a highway and breaching the Public order act at

anti`fracking protest last xear It's a charge they deny. Threatened

with closure, Manston airport has the potential buyer, says Roger

Gale. This week, KLM suspended its services at the airport.

Greg Clark has scored a sizd Sussex partnership trust for holding mental

health and alterations in c`fes They should be in a proper room The

NHS says public meet ups cotld be appropriate. Have we ever offered

the client only this option? No Gravesham Council bosses have been

accused of taking the Mickex for planning a ?15,000 research trip to

American theme parks like Dhsney World, Florida. Is this just a

jolly? Definitely not. Could they have gone to Paris for example?

?15,000 to go to Disney World. I find it difficult to justifx. It's

hard to justify, isn't it? Xes, it is. Thank you both very much.

boundaries. Sorry, run out of time. Thanks very much indeed. Andrew

back to you. Now let's get more from our

political panel. If the BNP finished? They were never

spectacularly successful to begin with but one of my childhood

memories was a huge fuss in London about the fact that they won a few

council seat on the Isle of dogs back in 1993. That was enough to

cause a panic. As if they are falling from a great tit and I think

the big difference with the National front in France is that they are

building on decades of successful that they finished second in the

presence of elections in 2002, I think. And, even in the 60s, they

were versions of their politics So they are building on a lot whereas

the BNP are working with incredibly few raw materials in this country.

It is interesting that the BNP does seem to be in decline in terms of

its membership and financially, but in France, the far right party, not

as far right as the BNP, but pretty far right, will probably do well in

the second round of the French local elections. You could say the same

about Golden Dawn in Greece. Parties prosper when the picture is

pre-rolled for them. If mainstream parties talk endlessly about

immigration, saying you cannot get a council house because it has gone to

an immigrant instead of saying it is because there are not enough council

houses, that creates the conditions in which the far right can thrive.

We are lucky that all the members of the BNP fell out with each other. As

extreme members of the far right and left do. You can see that with the

comedian in France, he has got a lot of support from people on the left

as well. I asked Simon Derby was here victim of a pincer movement

that UKIP were taken away voters and EDL has captured the Street protest.

Yes, and Giles still not mention that the Labour Party has got its

act together. They got the act together in Dagenham. Margaret Hodge

and Jon Cruddas did a very good job. I think UKIP would say, not a racist

party but they are picking up votes from people who would once have

voted BNP. But it is interesting the difference between Britain and

France. Why is it that the Front Nationale came second in 2002 when

they are not far right? I think they were on a five-year cycle because

the next election was 2007. 200 they came second when Jean-Marie Le

Pen came second. They are not as far right as the BNP. Marine has put

them -- cleaned them up a bit. Diplomatically there is a much

harder vote which spreads further across the electorate in France than

there is in this country. This is a much more tolerant country. If

Marine Le Pen does well today, she will not win that many because the

centre-right and centre-left will always gang up against terror in the

second round, but it sets the tone for the European elections. It does

and for the next French presidential election as well. I think what she's

doing masterfully is combining a far right politics with what you might

call a far left economic politics. She's not just picking up votes from

xenophobes, she is picking up votes from who feel victimised from

globalisation. They are people who would be voting for socialists but

are put off by the current president. That is what I do not

think the British far right parties have been able to do. You sort Simon

Derby try to tell you that the BNP are not far right party. I think he

was going to say if you look at issues of protectionism, standing up

against globalisation, they are quite statist. That is where the

phrase National Socialist comes from. That is why a little bit of

electoral success is often a killer for far right parties. They get a

few council seats and then they are rubbish. They are not getting

people's bins collected so they become part of the system that

people were voting against in the first place. Lets go on to the

Labour Party. If you are a Labour Party supporter and you want to be

cheered up, you pick up the Sunday Times where you see a poll where the

leader is up to seven points. If you are Tory Lib Dem and you want to be

cheered up, you pick up the Observer, the left-wing paper, where

the Labour leader is still 1%. I have read in the paper that there is

quite a lot of of the record briefings going on at the top of the

Labour Party. Give us a sense of the mood. Clearly, they are unsettled.

One pol looks OK but there has been a run of polls where there is a lead

over the Tories which is closing. There are worrying number of people

who are what are called the 35s and they are people who thought all the

Labour Party needs to do is sit still because there are a number of

Liberal Democrat voters who hate the coalition. Because the Conservatives

did not get through the boundary changes they needed to win, we can

sit tight and it will all be fine. What a few wise old heads are

concerned about is they feel this has a feel of 1987 about it when the

Labour Party was united. They had a very good leader. The leader was

impressive, the party was united and then what happened? They met the

British people and an election. The British people said, terribly sorry,

you are not occupying the party political territory where we will

vote for you. There are some people from the Blair era who say it feels

a bit complacent and there may be a bit of a shock when they meet the

voters. We talk about people being unsettled but Ed Miliband is not

unsettled. His defining characteristic is you might call it

steadiness or you might call it a lack of agility. He could not

respond to the pension stuff in the budget which was thrown at him. But

he's very good at separating the signal from the noise. They may

think this will all change in me. The Tories may be on the back foot

after the European elections. He has the ability to set the political

weather. He did it with the price freeze. There is no doubt that Mr

Davey would not be referring these energy companies to the competition

authorities if it had not been for that speech by the Labour leader.

And we read today he has come up with another policy which will be

attention grabbing to cut student tuition fees. It is easy to forget

that before he announced the price freeze he was in as much vertical

trouble as he is now. I think the Labour poll lead will expand up to

five or 6% by the summer, assuming the Tories do badly. The question

is, is five or 6% enough? Nick through the analogy with 1987. This

reminds me of the Conservatives in 2009/10. You have a steadily sinking

poll lead, differences in what campaign they should be running and

personal animosity behind the scenes. It led to them throwing away

an election which seemed to be winnable. There is an important

difference with the 1980s which was because you did not know when the

election would be. Will it be in 87 or 88? They do not need to make up

their mind until next year. What they are telling the pollsters now,

we do not like this government because of course, you do not like

the government. But next January or February they will be making up

their minds. Is there a lot of animosity among the leading Labour

figures behind-the-scenes? It must be personal or tactical because

there are not big ideological differences between them, is there?

Yes and no. What is striking is how little support Miliband gets from

the shadow cabinet. He does not have outriders. That has been a

continuous theme. Said he feels he is on his own? That they feel they

do not get support from him. There was a column by Jenni Russell saying

he is distant and detached. And Andrew Walmsley touched on this in

the Observer. One of the divisions is Ed versus Ed. There is a terrible

structural problem between those two. It is a real problem. Ed

Miliband believes Ed Balls has not done enough to get economic red

ability. Ed Balls believes Ed Miliband is making airy fairy

speeches and it will not cut with the electorate. Neither Mr Cameron

nor Mr Miller band took part in the debate which happened earlier this

week between the Lib Dems and UKIP. We have got another one coming up on

the BBC on Wednesday night. Let s remind ourselves of what happened in

last week's debate. I will ask Nick to open the batting.

We are better off in Europe... Frankly not working any more. A

referendum on Europe. I agree with you. I agree with you. If you can

read the small print. Pull up the drawbridge, pool drawbridge up. . We

have 485 million people... It is simply not true! Not true. Not true.

Not true. Identical with Nick. I don't agree with Nick. Based on

facts, facts, the facts, facts, the facts... Thank God we did not listen

to you. The food is getting better here. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. You

have never had a proper job. Great not little England. Good night.

I think it is seven o'clock BBC Two. Helen, what was the outcome of that

and how do we mark our card for this week? It was not a great time for

pundits. Everybody called the debate for Nick and then they said

actually, we think it has gone the other way. Consensus emerged later

on that Nick Clegg made a difficult argument. I think the most important

thing Nigel Farage said was he distinguished out the immigration

policy by saying we're not just closing day over, we want people to

come, we just do not want mass EU immigration. That is an important

thing for him to say to get away from the echoes of the far right. I

suspect Nick Clegg will not ask us to read the small print. That was 11

turn he took. It compounded his reputation for being sneaky. I

slightly disagree about the pundits. I say this as someone who thought

far it would win. -- Nigel Farage would win. The fact that the public

disagree with you and the public favoured Nigel Farage does not mean

the public were wrong. The question is, who is going to tune in for the

second one? What is the answer to that? Phil Collins argument is a man

who is on 8% is fantastic. It is a binary choice in this debate.

Clearly they need to brush up on opposite areas. Nigel Farage needs

to brush up on facts and Nick Clegg needs to brush up on the motions

because he did not connect very well. Where Nick Clegg may go after

Nigel Farage is when the -- when he said the EU has blood on its hands

with Ukraine. He then came back to talk about the vanity of EU foreign

policy and said European Union had made what was going on in Syria

worse. It is one thing to say I do not think the UK should be part of

the joint European foreign policy, it is part of another thing to say

that Europe which will act with or without the UK is responsible for

blood on the streets of Kiev and also responsible for exacerbating

the Civil War in Syria. Maybe an hour is too long for Nigel Farage's

shtick? That may be the case but Nick Clegg has precedence. He does

that show and he has had to deal with the worst thing with dealing

with what is thrown at him so he has honed his view consistently. We will

see what happens in part two. That's all for this week. The Daily

Politics is on BBC Two at lunchtime every day this week. I'll be here

next week at the usual time of 1 o'clock. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.