:00:36. > :00:42.Welfare reform is one of the government's most popular policies.
:00:43. > :00:46.So Labour says it would be even tougher than the Tories.
:00:47. > :00:50.We'll be asking the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary if she's got
:00:51. > :00:56.Even Labour supporters worry that Ed Miliband hasn't got what it takes
:00:57. > :01:01.Labour grandees are increasingly vocal about their concerns.
:01:02. > :01:12.Over 50% of Labour voters think they'd do better with a new leader.
:01:13. > :01:16.And what of this leader? He's apparently "toxic" on the doorstep.
:01:17. > :01:19.The polls say Nick Clegg's more unpopular than Gordon Brown,
:01:20. > :01:23.New EU standards on water qtality mean some of our favourite beaches
:01:24. > :01:40.promised an electric car revolution, why so little progress?
:01:41. > :01:47.Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, the toxic tweeters
:01:48. > :01:55.First, the deepening crisis in Iraq, where Sunni Islamists are now
:01:56. > :01:57.largely in control of the Syrian-Iraq border, which means
:01:58. > :02:03.they can now re-supply their forces in Iraq from their Syrian bases
:02:04. > :02:06.Rather than moving on Baghdad, they are for the moment consolidating
:02:07. > :02:09.their grip on the towns and cities they've already taken.
:02:10. > :02:11.They also seem to be in effective control of Iraq's
:02:12. > :02:15.biggest oil refinery, which supplies the capital.
:02:16. > :02:17.And there are reports they might now have taken the power
:02:18. > :02:24.Iraqi politicians are now admitting that ISIS,
:02:25. > :02:27.the name of the Sunni insurgents, is better trained, better equipped and
:02:28. > :02:32.far more battle-hardened than the US-trained Iraqi army fighting it.
:02:33. > :02:35.Which leaves the fate of Baghdad increasingly in the hands
:02:36. > :02:52.No good news coming out of there, Janan. No good news and no good
:02:53. > :02:57.options either. The West's best strategy is to decide how much
:02:58. > :03:02.support to give to the Iraqi government. The US is sending over
:03:03. > :03:05.about 275 military personnel. Do they go further and contemplate
:03:06. > :03:11.their support? General Petraeus argued against it as it might be
:03:12. > :03:17.seen as the US serving as the force of Shia Iraqis -- continue their
:03:18. > :03:26.support. Do we contemplate breaking up Iraq? It won't be easy. The Sunni
:03:27. > :03:29.and Shia Muslim populations don t live in clearly bordered areas, but
:03:30. > :03:33.in the longer term, do we deal with it in the same way we dealt with the
:03:34. > :03:37.break-up of the Ottoman empire over 100 years ago? In the short-term and
:03:38. > :03:45.long-term, completely confounding. Quite humiliating. If ISIS take
:03:46. > :03:51.Baghdad I can't think of a bigger ignominy for foreign policy since
:03:52. > :03:55.Suez. If Iraq is partitioned, it won't be up to us. It will be what
:03:56. > :04:01.is happening because of what is happening on the ground. Everything
:04:02. > :04:07.does point to partition, and that border, which ISIS control, between
:04:08. > :04:12.Syria and Iraq, that has been there since it was drawn during the First
:04:13. > :04:15.World War. That is gone as well An astonishingly humbling situation the
:04:16. > :04:23.West, and you can see the Kurds in the North think this is a charge --
:04:24. > :04:26.chance for authority. They think this is the chance to get the
:04:27. > :04:33.autonomy they felt they deserved a long time. Janan is right. We can't
:04:34. > :04:37.do much in the long term, but we have to decide on the engagement.
:04:38. > :04:40.And the other people wish you'd be talking turkey, because if there is
:04:41. > :04:45.some blowback and the fighters come back, they are likely to come back
:04:46. > :04:49.from Turkey. Where is Iran in all of this? There were reports last week
:04:50. > :04:53.that the Revolutionary guard, the head of it, he was already in
:04:54. > :04:57.Baghdad with 67 advisers and there might have been some brigades that
:04:58. > :05:03.have gone there as well. Where are they? What has happened? I'm pretty
:05:04. > :05:14.sure the Prime Minister of Iraq is putting more faith in Iran than the
:05:15. > :05:18.White House and the British. I think they are running the show, in
:05:19. > :05:22.technical terms. John Kerry is flying into Cairo this morning, and
:05:23. > :05:26.what is his message? It is twofold. One is to Arab countries, do more to
:05:27. > :05:31.encourage an inclusive government in Iraq, mainly Sunni Muslims in the
:05:32. > :05:36.government, and the Arab Gulf states should stop funding insurgents in
:05:37. > :05:41.Iraq. You think, Iraq, it's potentially going to break up, so
:05:42. > :05:45.this sounds a bit late in the day and a bit weak. It gets
:05:46. > :05:49.fundamentally to the problem, what can we do? Niall Ferguson has a big
:05:50. > :05:53.piece in the Sunday Times asking if this is place where we cannot doing
:05:54. > :05:58.anything. He doesn't want to do anything. By the way, that is what
:05:59. > :06:02.most Americans think. That is what opinion polls are showing. You have
:06:03. > :06:07.George Osborne Michael Gold who would love to get involved but they
:06:08. > :06:10.cannot because of the vote in parliament on Syria lasted -- George
:06:11. > :06:15.Osborne and Michael Gove. This government does not have the stomach
:06:16. > :06:18.for military intervention. We will see how events unfold on the ground.
:06:19. > :06:20.All parties are agreed that Britain's 60-year old multi-billion
:06:21. > :06:26.The Tory side of the Coalition think their reforms are necessary
:06:27. > :06:29.and popular, though they haven't always gone to time or to plan.
:06:30. > :06:33.In the eight months she's had since she became Shadow Secretary of State
:06:34. > :06:39.for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves has talked the talk about getting
:06:40. > :06:42.people off benefits, into work and lowering the overall welfare bill.
:06:43. > :06:45.her first interview in the job she threatened "We would
:06:46. > :06:49.But Labour has opposed just about every change the Coalition
:06:50. > :06:53.has proposed to cut the cost and change the culture of welfare.
:06:54. > :06:56.Child benefit, housing benefit, the ?26,000 benefit cap -
:06:57. > :07:02.They've been lukewarm about the government's flagship Universal
:07:03. > :07:05.Credit scheme - which rolls six benefit payments into one - and
:07:06. > :07:12.And Labour has set out only two modest welfare cuts.
:07:13. > :07:16.This week, Labour said young people must have skills or be in training
:07:17. > :07:21.That will save ?65 million, says Labour, though the cost
:07:22. > :07:27.And cutting winter fuel payments for richer pensioners which will
:07:28. > :07:34.Not a lot in a total welfare bill of around ?200 billion.
:07:35. > :07:37.And with welfare cuts popular among even Labour voters, they will soon
:07:38. > :07:44.have to start spelling out exactly what Labour welfare reform means.
:07:45. > :07:56.Welcome. Good morning. Why do you want to be tougher than the Tories?
:07:57. > :08:00.We want to be tough in getting the welfare bill down. Under this
:08:01. > :08:04.government, the bill will be ?1 million more than the government set
:08:05. > :08:09.out in 2010 and I don't think that is acceptable. We should try to
:08:10. > :08:13.control the cost of Social Security. But the welfare bill under the next
:08:14. > :08:17.Labour government will fall? It will be smaller when you end the first
:08:18. > :08:21.parliament than when you started? We signed up to the capping welfare but
:08:22. > :08:26.that doesn't see social security costs ball, it sees them go up in
:08:27. > :08:32.line with with inflation or average earnings -- costs fall. So where
:08:33. > :08:37.flair will rise? We have signed up to the cap -- welfare will rise We
:08:38. > :08:41.have signed up to the cap. We will get the costs under control and they
:08:42. > :08:44.haven't managed to achieve it. The government is spending ?13 billion
:08:45. > :08:49.more on Social Security and the reason they are doing it is because
:08:50. > :08:52.the minimum wage has not kept pace with the cost of living so people
:08:53. > :08:56.are reliant on tax credits. They are not building houses and people are
:08:57. > :09:03.relying on housing benefit. We have a record number of people on zero
:09:04. > :09:07.hours contracts. I'm still not clear if you will cut welfare if you get
:09:08. > :09:13.in power. Nobody is saying that the cost of welfare is going to fall.
:09:14. > :09:18.The welfare cap sees that happening gradually. That is a Tory cap. And
:09:19. > :09:25.you've accepted it. You're being the same as the Tories, not to. If they
:09:26. > :09:29.had a welfare cap, they would have breached it in every year of the
:09:30. > :09:34.parliament. Social Security will be higher than the government set out
:09:35. > :09:37.because they failed to control it. You read the polls, and the party
:09:38. > :09:40.does lots of its own polling, and you're scared of being seen as the
:09:41. > :09:47.welfare party. You don't really believe all of this anti-welfare
:09:48. > :09:49.stuff? We are the party of work not welfare. The Labour Party was set up
:09:50. > :09:52.in the first place because we believe in the dignity of work and
:09:53. > :09:56.we believe that work should pay wages can afford to live on. I make
:09:57. > :10:01.no apologies for being the party of work. We are not the welfare party,
:10:02. > :10:06.we are the party of work. Even your confidential strategy document
:10:07. > :10:09.admits that voters don't trust you on immigration, the economy, this is
:10:10. > :10:14.your own people, and welfare. You are not trusted on it. The most
:10:15. > :10:17.recent poll showed Labour slightly ahead of the Conservative Party on
:10:18. > :10:22.Social Security, probably because they have seen the incompetence and
:10:23. > :10:26.chaos at the Department for Work and Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith.
:10:27. > :10:31.Your own internal document means that the voters don't trust you on
:10:32. > :10:35.welfare reform. That is why we have shown some of this tough things we
:10:36. > :10:40.will do like the announcement that Ed Miliband made earlier this week,
:10:41. > :10:43.that young people without basic qualifications won't be entitled to
:10:44. > :10:47.just sign on for benefits, they have to sign up for training in order to
:10:48. > :10:50.receive support. That is the right thing to do by that group of young
:10:51. > :11:00.people, because they need skills to progress. We will, once that. - we
:11:01. > :11:05.will, onto that. You say you criticise the government that it had
:11:06. > :11:08.a cap and wouldn't have met it, but every money-saving welfare reform,
:11:09. > :11:16.you voted against it. How is that being tougher? The most recent bout
:11:17. > :11:20.was the cap on overall welfare expenditure, and we went through the
:11:21. > :11:25.lobbies and voted for the Tories. You voted against the benefit cap,
:11:26. > :11:30.welfare rating, you voted against, child benefit schemes, you voted
:11:31. > :11:32.against. You can't say we voted against everything when we voted
:11:33. > :11:36.with the Conservatives in the most recent bill with a cap on Social
:11:37. > :11:43.Security. It's just not correct to say. The last time we voted, we
:11:44. > :11:50.walked through the lobby with them. You voted on the principle of the
:11:51. > :11:55.cap. You voted on every step that would allow the cap to be met. Every
:11:56. > :11:58.single one. The most recent vote was not on the principle of the cap it
:11:59. > :12:01.was on a cap of Social Security in the next Parliament and we signed up
:12:02. > :12:06.for that. It was Ed Miliband who called her that earlier on. Which
:12:07. > :12:13.welfare reform did you vote for We voted for the cap. Other than that?
:12:14. > :12:18.We have supported universal credit. You voted against it in the third
:12:19. > :12:23.reading. We voted against some of the specifics. If you look at
:12:24. > :12:28.universal credit, they have had to write off nearly ?900 million of
:12:29. > :12:32.spending. I'm not on the rights and wrongs, I'm trying to work out what
:12:33. > :12:35.you voted for. Some of the things we are going to go further than the
:12:36. > :12:41.government with. For example, cutting benefits for young people
:12:42. > :12:43.who don't sign of the training. The government had introduced that. For
:12:44. > :12:46.example, saying that the richest pensioners should not get the winter
:12:47. > :12:50.fuel allowance, that is something the government haven't signed up.
:12:51. > :12:54.You would get that under Labour and this government haven't signed up
:12:55. > :13:00.for it. ?100 million on the winter fuel allowance and ?65 million on
:13:01. > :13:05.youth training. ?165 million. How big is the welfare budget? The cap
:13:06. > :13:13.would apply to ?120 billion. And you've saved 125 -- 165 million
:13:14. > :13:18.Those are cuts that we said we would do in government. If you look at the
:13:19. > :13:20.real prize from the changes Ed Miliband announced
:13:21. > :13:20.real prize from the changes Ed allowance, it's not the short-term
:13:21. > :13:25.savings, it's the fact that each of allowance, it's not the short-term
:13:26. > :13:29.currently on unemployment benefits without the skills we know they need
:13:30. > :13:35.to succeed in life, they will cost the taxpayer ?2000 per year. I will
:13:36. > :13:40.come onto that. You mentioned universal credit, which the
:13:41. > :13:43.government regards as the flagship reform. It's had lots of troubles
:13:44. > :13:49.with it and it merges six benefits into one. You voted against it in
:13:50. > :13:53.the third reading and given lukewarm support in the past. We have not
:13:54. > :14:00.said he would abandon it, but now you say you are for it. You are all
:14:01. > :14:03.over the place. We set up the rescue committee in autumn of last year
:14:04. > :14:07.because we have seen from the National Audit Office and the Public
:14:08. > :14:12.Accounts Committee, report after report showing that the project is
:14:13. > :14:16.massively overbudget and is not going to be delivered according to
:14:17. > :14:18.the government timetable. We set up the committee because we believe in
:14:19. > :14:22.the principle of universal credit and think it is the right thing to
:14:23. > :14:28.do. Can you tell us now if you will keep it or not? Because there is no
:14:29. > :14:33.transparency and we have no idea. We are awash with information. We are
:14:34. > :14:39.not. The government, in the most recent National audit Forest --
:14:40. > :14:44.National Audit Office statement said it was a reset project. This is
:14:45. > :14:50.really important. This is a flagship government programme, and it's going
:14:51. > :14:54.to cost ?12.8 billion to deliver, and we don't know what sort of state
:14:55. > :14:57.it is in, so we have said that if we win at the next election, we will
:14:58. > :15:04.pause that for three months and calling... Will you stop the pilots?
:15:05. > :15:10.We don't know what status they will have. We would stop the build of the
:15:11. > :15:14.system for three months, calling the National Audit Office to do awards
:15:15. > :15:19.and all report. The government don't need to do this until the next
:15:20. > :15:23.general election, they could do it today. Stop throwing good money
:15:24. > :15:28.after bad and get a grip of this incredibly important programme. You
:15:29. > :15:32.said you don't know enough to a view now. So when you were invited to a
:15:33. > :15:39.job centre where universal credit is being rolled out to see how it was
:15:40. > :15:41.working, you refused to go. Why We asked were a meeting with Iain
:15:42. > :15:44.Duncan Smith and he cancelled the meeting is three times. I'm talking
:15:45. > :15:48.about the visit when you were offered to go to a job centre and
:15:49. > :15:52.you refused. We had an appointment to meet Iain Duncan Smith at the
:15:53. > :15:56.Department for Work and Pensions and said he cancelled and was not
:15:57. > :15:59.available, but he wanted us to go to the job centre. We wanted to talk to
:16:00. > :16:05.him and his officials, which she did. Would it be more useful to go
:16:06. > :16:06.to the job centre and find out how it was working. He's going to tell
:16:07. > :16:24.you it's working fine. Advice Bureau in Hammersmith, they
:16:25. > :16:29.are working to help the people trying to claim universal credit.
:16:30. > :16:36.Iain Duncan Smith cancelled three meetings. That is another issue I
:16:37. > :16:42.was asking about the job centre It is not another issue because Iain
:16:43. > :16:46.Duncan Smith fogged us off. This week you said that jobless
:16:47. > :16:50.youngsters who won't take training will lose their welfare payments.
:16:51. > :16:58.How many young people are not in work training or education? There
:16:59. > :17:05.are 140,000 young people claiming benefits at the moment, but 850 000
:17:06. > :17:14.young people who are not in work at the moment. This applies to around
:17:15. > :17:20.100,000 young people. There are actually 975,000, 16-24 -year-olds,
:17:21. > :17:28.not in work, training or education. Your proposal only applies to
:17:29. > :17:33.100,000 of them, why? This is applying to young people who are
:17:34. > :17:39.signing on for benefits rather than signing up for training. We want to
:17:40. > :17:44.make sure that all young people .. Why only 100,000? They are the ones
:17:45. > :17:57.currently getting job-seeker's allowance. We are saying you can not
:17:58. > :18:02.just sign up to... Can I get you to respond to this, the number of
:18:03. > :18:10.people not in work, training or education fell last year by more
:18:11. > :18:21.than you are planning to help. Long turn -- long-term unemployment is an
:18:22. > :18:26.entrenched problem... This issue about an entrenched group of young
:18:27. > :18:32.people. Young people who haven't got skills and are not in training we
:18:33. > :18:36.know are much less likely to get a job so there are 140,018-24
:18:37. > :18:43.-year-olds signing onto benefits at the moment. This is about trying to
:18:44. > :18:48.address that problem to make sure all young people have the skills
:18:49. > :18:52.they need to get a job. Your policy is to take away part of the dole
:18:53. > :18:58.unless young unemployed people agree to study for level three
:18:59. > :19:03.qualifications, the equivalent of an AS-level or an NVQ but 40% of these
:19:04. > :19:10.people have the literary skills of a nine-year-old. After all that failed
:19:11. > :19:17.education, how are you going to train them to a level standard? We
:19:18. > :19:21.are saying that anyone who doesn't have that a level or equivalent
:19:22. > :19:27.qualification will be required to go back to college. We are not saying
:19:28. > :19:32.that within a year they have to get up to that level but these are
:19:33. > :19:35.exactly the sorts of people... These people have been failed by your
:19:36. > :19:39.education system. These people are, for the last four years, have been
:19:40. > :19:46.educated under a Conservative government. 18 - 21-year-olds, most
:19:47. > :19:52.of them have their education under a Labour government during which
:19:53. > :19:56.300,000 people left with no GCSEs whatsoever. I don't understand how
:19:57. > :20:01.training for one year can do what 11 years in school did not. We are not
:20:02. > :20:05.saying that within one year everybody will get up to a level
:20:06. > :20:09.three qualifications, but if you are one of those people who enters the
:20:10. > :20:13.Labour market age 18 with the reading skills of a nine-year-old,
:20:14. > :20:22.they are the sorts of people that should not the left languishing I
:20:23. > :20:28.went to college in Hackney if you you are -- a few weeks ago and there
:20:29. > :20:32.was a dyslexic boy studying painting and decorating. In school they
:20:33. > :20:38.decided he was a troublemaker and that he didn't want to learn. He
:20:39. > :20:42.went back to college because he wanted to get the skills. He said
:20:43. > :20:47.that it wasn't until he went back to college that he could pick up a
:20:48. > :20:53.newspaper and read it, it made a huge difference but too many people
:20:54. > :20:57.are let down by the system. I am wondering how the training will make
:20:58. > :21:01.up for an education system that failed them but let's move on to
:21:02. > :21:08.your leader. Look at this graph of Ed Miliband's popularity. This is
:21:09. > :21:12.the net satisfaction with him, it is dreadful. The trend continues to
:21:13. > :21:18.climb since he became leader of the Labour Party, why? What you have
:21:19. > :21:22.seen is another 2300 Labour councillors since Ed Miliband became
:21:23. > :21:30.the leader of the Labour Party. You saw in the elections a month ago
:21:31. > :21:35.that... Why is the satisfaction rate falling? We can look at polls or
:21:36. > :21:40.actual election results and the fact that we have got another 2000 Labour
:21:41. > :21:44.councillors, more people voting Labour, the opinion polls today show
:21:45. > :21:49.that if there was a general election today we would have a majority of
:21:50. > :21:57.more than 40, he must be doing something right. Why do almost 0%
:21:58. > :22:04.of voters want to replace him as leader? Why do 50% and more think
:22:05. > :22:09.that he is not up to the job? The more people see Ed Miliband, the
:22:10. > :22:15.less impressed they are. The British people seem to like him less. The
:22:16. > :22:20.election strategy I suggest that follows from that is that you should
:22:21. > :22:25.keep Ed Miliband under wraps until the election. Let's look at actually
:22:26. > :22:30.what happens when people get a chance to vote, when they get that
:22:31. > :22:36.opportunity we have seen more Labour councillors, more Labour members of
:22:37. > :22:43.the European Parliament... Oppositions always get more. The
:22:44. > :22:47.opinion polls today, one of them shows Labour four points ahead. You
:22:48. > :22:52.have not done that well in local government elections or European
:22:53. > :22:57.elections. Why don't people like him? I think we have done incredibly
:22:58. > :23:03.well in elections. People must like a lot of the things Labour and Ed
:23:04. > :23:07.Miliband are doing because we are winning back support across the
:23:08. > :23:12.country. We won local councils in places like Hammersmith and Fulham,
:23:13. > :23:18.Crawley, Hastings, key places that Labour need to win back at the
:23:19. > :23:22.general election next year. Even you have said traditional Labour
:23:23. > :23:28.supporters are abandoning the party. That is what Ed Miliband has said as
:23:29. > :23:34.well. We have got this real concern about what has happened. If you look
:23:35. > :23:39.at the elections in May, 60% of people didn't even bother going to
:23:40. > :23:43.vote. That is a profound issue not just for Labour. You said
:23:44. > :23:47.traditional voters who perhaps at times we took for granted are now
:23:48. > :23:54.being offered an alternative. Why did you take them for granted? This
:23:55. > :24:00.is what Ed Miliband said. I am not saying anything Ed Miliband himself
:24:01. > :24:05.has not said. When he ran for the leadership he said that we took too
:24:06. > :24:08.many people for granted and we needed to give people positive
:24:09. > :24:13.reasons to vote Labour, he has been doing that. He has been there for
:24:14. > :24:17.four years and you are saying you still take them for granted. Why? I
:24:18. > :24:22.am saying that for too long we have taken them for granted. We are on
:24:23. > :24:31.track to win the general election next year and that will defy all the
:24:32. > :24:34.odds. You are going to win... Ed Miliband will win next year and make
:24:35. > :24:41.a great Prime Minister. Now to the Liberal Democrats, at the
:24:42. > :24:45.risk of intruding into private grief. The party is still smarting
:24:46. > :24:49.from dire results in the European and Local Elections. The only poll
:24:50. > :24:53.Nick Clegg has won in recent times is to be voted the most unpopular
:24:54. > :24:58.leader of a party in modern British history. No surprise there have been
:24:59. > :24:59.calls for him to go, though that still looks unlikely. Here's
:25:00. > :25:02.Eleanor. Liberal Democrats celebrating,
:25:03. > :25:08.something we haven't seen for a while. This victory back in 199 led
:25:09. > :25:12.to a decade of power for the Lib Dems in Liverpool. What a contrast
:25:13. > :25:19.to the city's political landscape today. At its height the party had
:25:20. > :25:23.69 local councillors, now down to just three. The scale of the
:25:24. > :25:29.challenge facing Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems is growing. The party is
:25:30. > :25:33.rock bottom in the polls, consistently in single figures. It
:25:34. > :25:38.was wiped out in the European elections losing all but one of its
:25:39. > :25:45.12 MEPs and in the local elections it lost 42% of the seats that it was
:25:46. > :25:51.defending. But on Merseyside, Nick Clegg was putting on a brave face.
:25:52. > :25:56.We did badly in Liverpool, Manchester and London in particular,
:25:57. > :26:02.we did well in other places. But you are right, we did badly in some of
:26:03. > :26:06.those big cities and I have initiated a review, quite
:26:07. > :26:12.naturally, to understand what went wrong, what went right. As Lib Dems
:26:13. > :26:16.across the country get on with some serious soul-searching, there is an
:26:17. > :26:21.admission that his is the leader of the party who is failing to hit the
:26:22. > :26:26.right notes. Knocking on doors in Liverpool, I have to tell you that
:26:27. > :26:31.Nick Clegg is not a popular person. Some might use the word toxic and I
:26:32. > :26:35.find this very difficult because I know Nick very well and I see a
:26:36. > :26:41.principal person who passionately believes in what he is doing and he
:26:42. > :26:52.is a nice guy. As a result of his popularity, what has happened to the
:26:53. > :26:55.core vote? In parts of the country, we are down to just three
:26:56. > :27:00.councillors like Liverpool for example. You also lose the
:27:01. > :27:04.deliverers and fundraisers and the organisers and the members of course
:27:05. > :27:09.so all of that will have to be rebuilt. As they start fermenting
:27:10. > :27:14.process, local parties across the country and here in Liverpool have
:27:15. > :27:20.been voting on whether there should be a leadership contest. We had two
:27:21. > :27:25.choices to flush out and have a go at Nick Clegg or to positively
:27:26. > :27:29.decide we would sharpen up the campaign and get back on the
:27:30. > :27:34.streets, and by four to one ratio we decided to get back on the streets.
:27:35. > :27:40.We are bruised and battered but we are still here, the orange flag is
:27:41. > :27:46.still flying and one day it will fly over this building again, Liverpool
:27:47. > :27:51.town hall. But do people want the Lib Dems back in charge in this
:27:52. > :27:54.city? I certainly wouldn't vote for them. Their performance in
:27:55. > :28:00.Government and the way they have left their promises down, I could
:28:01. > :28:06.not vote for them again. I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of
:28:07. > :28:12.the university tuition fees and I would never vote for them again
:28:13. > :28:15.because they broke their promise. The Lib Dems are awful, broken
:28:16. > :28:19.promises and what have you. I wouldn't vote for them. This is the
:28:20. > :28:24.declaration of the results for the Northwest... Last month, as other
:28:25. > :28:29.party celebrated in the north-west, the Lib Dems here lost their only
:28:30. > :28:34.MEP, Chris Davies. Now there is concern the party doesn't know how
:28:35. > :28:40.to turn its fortunes around. We don't have an answer to that, if we
:28:41. > :28:48.did we would be grasping it with both hands. We will do our best to
:28:49. > :28:53.hold onto the places where we still have seats but as for the rest of
:28:54. > :28:57.the country where we have been hollowed out, we don't know how to
:28:58. > :29:01.start again until the next general election is out of the way. After
:29:02. > :29:04.their disastrous performance in the European elections, pressure is
:29:05. > :29:15.growing for the party to shift its stance. I think there has to be a
:29:16. > :29:22.lancing of the wound, there should in a referendum and the Liberal
:29:23. > :29:26.Democrats should be calling it. The rest of Europe once this because
:29:27. > :29:32.they are fed up with Britain being unable to make up its mind. The Lib
:29:33. > :29:36.Dems are now suffering the effects of being in Government. The party's
:29:37. > :29:44.problem, choosing the right course to regain political credibility
:29:45. > :29:48.We can now speak to form a Lib Dems leader Ming Campbell. Welcome back
:29:49. > :29:54.to the Sunday Politics. Even your own activists say that Nick Clegg is
:29:55. > :29:59.toxic. How will that change between now and the election? When you have
:30:00. > :30:04.had disappointing results, but you have to do is to rebuild. You pick
:30:05. > :30:09.yourself up and start all over again, and the reason why the
:30:10. > :30:14.Liberal Democrats got 57, 56 seats in the House of Commons now is
:30:15. > :30:16.because we picked ourselves up, we took every opportunity and we have
:30:17. > :30:28.rebuilt from the bottom up. least popular leader in modern
:30:29. > :30:33.history and more unpopular than your mate Gordon Brown. You are running
:30:34. > :30:37.out of time. No one believes that being the leader of a modern
:30:38. > :30:41.political party in the UK is an easy job. Both Ed Miliband and David
:30:42. > :30:45.Cameron must have had cause to think, over breakfast this morning,
:30:46. > :30:48.when they saw the headlines in some of the Sunday papers. Of course it
:30:49. > :30:53.is a difficult job but it was pointed out a moment or two ago that
:30:54. > :30:56.Nick Clegg is a man of principle and enormous resilience if you consider
:30:57. > :31:00.what he had to put up with, and in my view, he is quite clearly the
:31:01. > :31:03.person best qualified to lead the party between now and the general
:31:04. > :31:09.election and through the election campaign, and beyond. So why don't
:31:10. > :31:13.people like him? We have had to take some pretty difficult decisions
:31:14. > :31:19.and, of course, people didn't expect that. If you look back to the rather
:31:20. > :31:23.heady days of the rose garden behind ten Downing St, people thought it
:31:24. > :31:27.was all going to be sweetness and light, but the fact is, we didn t
:31:28. > :31:31.know then what we know now, about the extent of the economic crisis we
:31:32. > :31:35.win, and a lot of difficult decisions have had to be taken in
:31:36. > :31:40.order to restore economic stability. Look around you. You will see we are
:31:41. > :31:44.not there yet but we are a long way better off than in 2010. You are not
:31:45. > :31:52.getting the credit for it, the Tories are. We will be a little more
:31:53. > :31:56.assertive about taking the credit. For example, the fact that 23
:31:57. > :31:59.million people have had a tax cut of ?800 per year and we have taken 2
:32:00. > :32:03.million people out of paying tax altogether. Ming Campbell, your
:32:04. > :32:09.people say that on every programme like this. Because it is true. That
:32:10. > :32:14.might be the case, but you are at seven or 8% in the polls, and nobody
:32:15. > :32:22.is listening, or they don't believe it. Once
:32:23. > :32:23.is listening, or they don't believe doubt that what we have achieved
:32:24. > :32:27.will be much more easily recognised, and there is no doubt,
:32:28. > :32:31.for example, in some of the recent polls, like the Ashcroft Pole,
:32:32. > :32:39.something like 30% of those polled said that as a result at the next
:32:40. > :32:41.something like 30% of those polled general election, they would prepare
:32:42. > :32:46.their to be a coalition involving the Liberal Democrats. So there is
:32:47. > :32:49.no question that the whole notion of coalition is still very much a live
:32:50. > :32:54.one, and one which we have made work in the public interest. The problem
:32:55. > :32:58.is people don't think that. People see you trying to have your cake and
:32:59. > :33:01.eat it. On the one hand you want to get your share of the credit for the
:33:02. > :33:04.turnaround in the economy, on the other hand you can't stop yourself
:33:05. > :33:09.from distancing yourself from the Tories and things that you did not
:33:10. > :33:15.like happening. You are trying to face both ways at once. If you
:33:16. > :33:28.remember our fellow Scotsman famously said you cannot ride both
:33:29. > :33:28.remember our fellow Scotsman to the terms -- terms of the
:33:29. > :33:30.remember our fellow Scotsman coalition agreement, which is what
:33:31. > :33:34.we signed up to in 2010. In addition, in furtherance of that
:33:35. > :33:37.agreement, we have created things like the pupil premium and the
:33:38. > :33:41.others I mentioned and you were rather dismissive. I'm not
:33:42. > :33:45.dismissive, I'm just saying they don't make a difference to what
:33:46. > :33:50.people think of you. We will do everything in our power to change
:33:51. > :33:56.that between now and May 2015. The interesting thing is, going back to
:33:57. > :34:01.the Ashcroft result, it demonstrated clearly that in constituencies where
:34:02. > :34:05.we have MPs and we are well dug in, we are doing everything that the
:34:06. > :34:10.public expects of us, and we are doing very well indeed. You aren't
:34:11. > :34:15.sure fellow Lib Dems have been saying this for you -- you and your
:34:16. > :34:19.fellow Liberal Dems have been saying this for a year or 18 months, and
:34:20. > :34:22.since then you have lost all of your MEPs apart from one, you lost your
:34:23. > :34:29.deposit in a by-election, you lost 310 councillor, including everyone
:34:30. > :34:34.in Manchester or Islington. Mr Clegg leading you into the next general
:34:35. > :34:40.election will be the equivalent of the charge of the light Brigade I
:34:41. > :34:44.doubt that very much. The implication behind that lit you
:34:45. > :34:49.rehearsed is that we should pack our tents in the night and steal away.
:34:50. > :34:52.-- that litany. And if you heard in that piece that preceded the
:34:53. > :34:56.discussion, people were saying, look we have to start from the bottom and
:34:57. > :35:09.have to rebuild. That is exactly what we will do. Nine months is a
:35:10. > :35:16.period of gestation. As you well know. I wouldn't dismiss it quite so
:35:17. > :35:19.easily as that. I'm not here to say we had a wonderful result or
:35:20. > :35:24.anything like it, but what I do say is that the party is determined to
:35:25. > :35:30.turn it round, and that Nick Clegg is the person best qualified to do
:35:31. > :35:34.it. Should your party adopt a referendum about in or out on
:35:35. > :35:37.Europe? No, we should stick to the coalition agreement. If there is any
:35:38. > :35:43.transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels, that will be subject to
:35:44. > :35:47.a referendum. No change. And finally, as a Lib Dem, you must be
:35:48. > :35:54.glad you are not fighting the next election yourself? I've fought every
:35:55. > :35:59.election since 1974, so I've had a few experiences, some good, some
:36:00. > :36:03.bad, but the one thing I have done and the one thing a lot of other
:36:04. > :36:07.people have done is that they have stuck to the task, and that is what
:36:08. > :36:11.will happen in May 2015. Ming Campbell, thank you for joining us.
:36:12. > :36:13.It's just gone 11.35am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:36:14. > :36:16.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:36:17. > :36:27.I'm Julia George and this is the Sunday Politics in the South East.
:36:28. > :36:31.Why is it that white working class children are less likely to achieve
:36:32. > :36:34.than their counterparts from other ethnic backgrounds?
:36:35. > :36:53.We'll be hearing the views of a Kent head teacher.
:36:54. > :37:00.My guest today our politici`ns from seaside areas, Amber Rudd and Clair
:37:01. > :37:04.Hawkins. Thank you for coming. Before we go on to talk abott
:37:05. > :37:07.our schools and our shores, the big news this weekend is the surprise
:37:08. > :37:09.announcement by Jason Kitcat, Green Leader of Brighton and Hove
:37:10. > :37:13.City Council that he will stand down In his statement announcing the
:37:14. > :37:17.decision, he says that he's ready for a new challenge and won't be
:37:18. > :37:26.pursuing active politics anx longer. It is interesting, he talks about
:37:27. > :37:29.his family twice in the statement. When is the right time to go into
:37:30. > :37:33.politics if you have a young family?
:37:34. > :37:37.The right time is when it is right for you, but it is important that
:37:38. > :37:41.people take their families hnto consideration. It takes over your
:37:42. > :37:46.whole life, so I respect hil for making that decision in conjunction
:37:47. > :37:53.with the family, because thdy are in politics if you are in politics
:37:54. > :37:56.Might you have done it earlher, going into politics, if you did not
:37:57. > :38:03.have children? Yes, I made the decision, pdrsonally
:38:04. > :38:13.for me, that my children wotld be older when I went into politics so
:38:14. > :38:16.they do not miss me. It's is more unusual thing for a man
:38:17. > :38:21.to be talking about this? Yes, I think it is a positive then.
:38:22. > :38:28.It is important that people change the way that politics work.
:38:29. > :38:35.Is it a job for life? You are just starting in the job, but he is
:38:36. > :38:43.looking for a new career? It is entirely down for the
:38:44. > :38:49.electorate. How about you? Will you be here in
:38:50. > :39:00.2015? I will not take a dim view now.
:39:01. > :39:04.Anything that you stay at 22 `` reduced to 22, you stay unthl 2 ,
:39:05. > :39:07.there are many jobs that work that way.
:39:08. > :39:12.The sunshine is out, the holiday season is soon to begin and more
:39:13. > :39:15.people than ever are now choosing to spend their summer break here in the
:39:16. > :39:18.UK. But could some of our bdst`loved beaches soon be out of bounds for
:39:19. > :39:21.swimmers? Hastings is one of the poorest performing beaches hn the
:39:22. > :39:24.South East in terms of water quality, which could mean no bathing
:39:25. > :39:27.there when new EU standards come into effect next year. Sara Neville
:39:28. > :39:34.went there to take a look at what's being done.
:39:35. > :39:39.Holiday`makers have been coling to the seaside town of Hastings the
:39:40. > :39:44.generations. And it is no dhfferent today, without the 3 million
:39:45. > :39:50.day`trippers flopping to thd town every year. `` flocking to the town.
:39:51. > :39:55.But new EU laws could blight one of the town's biggest attractions, the
:39:56. > :39:59.sea. Changes in the way that bathing water quality is measured could
:40:00. > :40:03.strike Hastings off the list of recommended places to swim, a move
:40:04. > :40:09.that could be a blow for thd seaside tourist trade, with ?245 million a
:40:10. > :40:12.year to the town's economy. If the impression is given that the
:40:13. > :40:19.beaches not plain commie might go somewhere else, and for a town that
:40:20. > :40:23.wants visitors to come here, that could be damaging. The sea here is
:40:24. > :40:27.clearer than it was 15 years ago and certainly when I grew up here. But
:40:28. > :40:29.the EU standard is what it hs and we will do everything that we can to
:40:30. > :40:34.hit it. This pipe is one of the problems,
:40:35. > :40:38.flushing surface water, potdntially contaminated with bacteria, out onto
:40:39. > :40:43.the beach. Although the sea is clean by current Environment Agency
:40:44. > :40:47.standards, these new EU watdr quality targets coming into force
:40:48. > :40:52.next year are twice as stringent as those our bathing areas currently
:40:53. > :40:56.have to meet. Most than 96 beaches in the south`east are already
:40:57. > :41:03.reaching the European benchlark Some are not. As well as Hastings,
:41:04. > :41:06.Walpole Bay in Margate must improve. And there have been concerns over
:41:07. > :41:12.Bexhill and little stone be`ch near Romilly.
:41:13. > :41:18.In a hot day in summer, this speech will be packed. But, from October
:41:19. > :41:22.2015, the new EU law means that local authorities will have to
:41:23. > :41:27.display a sign advising agahnst swimming if the water quality fails
:41:28. > :41:31.to meet minimum standards. Authorities are working hard to
:41:32. > :41:36.ensure that that does not h`ppen. Nationally, water companies are
:41:37. > :41:41.investing ?220 million cleaning up Britain's bathing water in the five
:41:42. > :41:49.years to 2015. In Hastings, ?3 million has been spent by a water
:41:50. > :41:54.company this year we loan, with another `` alone, with ?7 mhllion
:41:55. > :41:58.being spent next year. We have spent millions of pounds
:41:59. > :42:05.improving bathing water quality and if you go back 20 years, less than
:42:06. > :42:09.50% would pass the standard. All the money that we are spending should
:42:10. > :42:13.mean that we see results, btt we cannot guarantee it.
:42:14. > :42:18.What needs to be done? What we flush away ends up down here. These
:42:19. > :42:21.Victorian sewers in Brighton are similar to those in Hastings, where
:42:22. > :42:27.about what not put down the drain or about what not put down the drain or
:42:28. > :42:30.flushed down the toilet. Waist down the toilet will get
:42:31. > :42:41.treated, but contaminated rtn`off from roads and payment `` p`vements,
:42:42. > :42:47.oils and flat `` fats or dirty water from badly connected types will flow
:42:48. > :42:50.into the sea. People are shocked to hear of the
:42:51. > :42:56.implications to Hastings. They are shocked to hear that not all water
:42:57. > :43:00.that is thrown away down thd drain go off to be treated and sole of
:43:01. > :43:04.them will end up almost dirdctly into the sea. It is that kind of
:43:05. > :43:09.knowledge that we want to btild With just over a year to go, nobody
:43:10. > :43:13.is certain that the sea in Hastings will be clean enough to meet these
:43:14. > :43:20.EU standards. Despite knowing that the change has been coming for eight
:43:21. > :43:24.years. Work is under way to address the issues, but we'll all the effort
:43:25. > :43:28.paid off? So many others take our children to
:43:29. > :43:34.the beach in Hastings. I don't can get you could overstate the damage
:43:35. > :43:39.to the tourist industry in the town of the water standards are not met?
:43:40. > :43:43.That is why we are working so hard to make sure that this does not
:43:44. > :43:50.happen. I called the first multi`agency meeting last ydar, with
:43:51. > :43:55.water companies and representatives, and we meet every month to discuss
:43:56. > :44:00.this and to make shall that this does not happen. We work with the
:44:01. > :44:04.hardware, so we make sure that the missing connections are met. And
:44:05. > :44:07.we're working on education, to make sure that people understand what
:44:08. > :44:13.they can do. It is not just rest room `` residents, but rest`urants.
:44:14. > :44:18.We need to make sure that everyone works together.
:44:19. > :44:21.This has been coming since 2006 There is still a serious qudstion
:44:22. > :44:30.about whether Hastings will meet the standards, as well as Walpole Bay.
:44:31. > :44:33.They are on a list of at risk places. The water companies say that
:44:34. > :44:39.they are doing a lot but thdy cannot guarantee the results.
:44:40. > :44:43.We are holding them to accotnt. We are doing everything that wd can. I
:44:44. > :44:47.am concerned, because I know how important it is for the town to make
:44:48. > :44:50.sure that we pass it. But I am confident that we will do it,
:44:51. > :44:55.because the whole town is working with this. Whole town trying to make
:44:56. > :45:00.sure that this will work and that people change their behaviotr, which
:45:01. > :45:10.is important. You are hoping to represent a
:45:11. > :45:14.seaside town as well, Dover does not have these water quality problems.
:45:15. > :45:22.But are the standards to high for towns like Hastings to meet?
:45:23. > :45:27.I think that these standards are important, because they prove that
:45:28. > :45:32.we have good, clean beaches. I think it is good to encourage loc`l
:45:33. > :45:34.residents and tourists to use the beaches.
:45:35. > :45:42.In terms of June indicating the information, that is import`nt.
:45:43. > :45:47.People want is `` people want to know that the beach is clean and
:45:48. > :45:52.safe. Some people have said that they should be told about the water
:45:53. > :46:00.quality on a daily basis. A four`month average evens ht out, a
:46:01. > :46:06.four`year average. That can show how things can change and what beaches
:46:07. > :46:12.due to be focused on. And rdsearch into public change has helpdd. I
:46:13. > :46:16.think there has been a long lead up time to this and not enough has been
:46:17. > :46:22.done. But in the government needs to set out what needs to be done to get
:46:23. > :46:26.to the standards and force water companies and other organis`tions to
:46:27. > :46:32.take action. The four`year average is an issue to
:46:33. > :46:37.you in Hastings. You have written and said that you have made so many
:46:38. > :46:47.improvements, but they will not give a different criteria to you?
:46:48. > :46:54.There is a thing called a step change, and the Environment Agency
:46:55. > :47:00.are seeing that `` seen whether that applies for us or not. We h`ve made
:47:01. > :47:06.pipes, that we think there has been pipes, that we think there has been
:47:07. > :47:10.an offer of a change to havd our data looked at differently?
:47:11. > :47:16.Will they look at that data differently? They can if th`t ``
:47:17. > :47:22.they will if we prove it. They are open to being perstaded.
:47:23. > :47:25.There is an interesting casd in Kent and Walpole Bay. The District
:47:26. > :47:31.Council realise that they would not meet the water quality standards,
:47:32. > :47:37.they decided to have the bathing standard removed altogether. It
:47:38. > :47:42.looks like that is not a loophole with pursuing. Is an interesting
:47:43. > :47:48.question about the representation. If there are certain beaches not
:47:49. > :47:52.meeting the standards, people in the area will fear that all the beaches
:47:53. > :47:59.are at risk. No, because if there is a phpe
:48:00. > :48:04.polluting one beach, there `re other beaches that the people might go to
:48:05. > :48:08.instead. But they have set this high level and we want to meet it. All
:48:09. > :48:14.the coastal towns want to mdet it. We want our water as clean `s
:48:15. > :48:18.possible. In Dover, we only have two
:48:19. > :48:23.designated bathing areas, btt many beautiful beaches. David is a
:48:24. > :48:29.working port, a harbour, but there they are saying that the salples are
:48:30. > :48:37.taken by the Robert agency to check the qualities of the water. `` the
:48:38. > :48:43.Environment Agency. A quick thought about educating
:48:44. > :48:47.people. Do you think that the people in Hastings understand what they
:48:48. > :48:51.should flush down the toilet? I think they are understandhng it
:48:52. > :49:01.now. A local newspaper is covering it. The council have been pointing
:49:02. > :49:06.to certain bins where peopld can and cannot throw away certain things. So
:49:07. > :49:11.it is campaigning in behalf of the community and it is reaching people.
:49:12. > :49:14.Now, students from white working class backgrounds are less likely to
:49:15. > :49:16.do well in school than black and Asian pupils with equal
:49:17. > :49:19.disadvantages, according to a report by the Education Select Comlittee.
:49:20. > :49:22.It's a problem that the comlittee says is "real and persistent" and
:49:23. > :49:28.There aren't any excuses and we can make a huge difference, a formative
:49:29. > :49:31.difference to poor children if we improve the quality of schools,
:49:32. > :49:34.if we increase the incentivds to deploy the best teachers to provide
:49:35. > :49:38.education to the children who come from
:49:39. > :49:44.Joining us here in the studho now is a head teacher who works at
:49:45. > :49:48.Seamus Murphy is head teachdr of Dartford Technology College in Kent.
:49:49. > :50:00.You have spent much of your career in London, as well, working with
:50:01. > :50:02.disadvantaged children. Why do you think that children from whhte
:50:03. > :50:09.working class backgrounds are struggling?
:50:10. > :50:14.I think it is a complex isste. There are some issues, such as thd
:50:15. > :50:19.enormous change in the workplace. Young people leaving school today
:50:20. > :50:23.facing greater challenges than my generation and many of the
:50:24. > :50:29.challenges that their parents faced. There is a phrase of povertx of
:50:30. > :50:35.aspiration, where parents who may not have had a positive expdrience
:50:36. > :50:41.of education themselves cedd their own success based on having left
:50:42. > :50:46.school with Sun qualifications and being successful, and they `re
:50:47. > :50:49.unable to translate that understanding to the present. ``
:50:50. > :50:55.having left school with somd qualifications. They do not
:50:56. > :51:00.understand how to say that their children need to have a widdr range
:51:01. > :51:05.of qualifications to be employed, possibly going to further education
:51:06. > :51:09.and training. That it is colplex, because it is not as simple as
:51:10. > :51:17.saying that there is a link dream poverty and low aspiration.
:51:18. > :51:22.Because other ethnic groups who may be equally disadvantaged ard not
:51:23. > :51:33.doing as badly in school. How do you explain that.
:51:34. > :51:40.I think there have been somd interesting outreaches in London and
:51:41. > :51:49.research done, that looked `nd saw that large quantities of thd black
:51:50. > :51:55.children were not achieving as well, and that many were on free school
:51:56. > :52:01.meals. And those outreaches worked well.
:52:02. > :52:05.So do we need something for white working`class children here in Kent
:52:06. > :52:11.and Sussex? I think there has been a grdat
:52:12. > :52:18.change and Sir Michael has been leading the charge here. I think
:52:19. > :52:25.there has been a lot of verx positive work being done in schools
:52:26. > :52:29.and also by the government. I think the pupil premium is a good example
:52:30. > :52:35.of how funding is being dirdctly attached to students from these
:52:36. > :52:42.backgrounds. As a headline, it looks gre`t. But
:52:43. > :52:49.for each of the past years, the country's August disparity hs
:52:50. > :52:54.between those on free school meals and those who are not. The
:52:55. > :53:02.difference is that a 3%. Is that evidence of the pupil premitm not
:53:03. > :53:09.working in the south`east? `` 3 %. You have got a very dynamic teaching
:53:10. > :53:15.force in London. An approach to leadership. That is extending,
:53:16. > :53:23.things like teach first comhng into the South East. There is a change in
:53:24. > :53:26.the headteachers in the South East. I think that schools are
:53:27. > :53:32.understanding the issue. But they are going to be two or thred years
:53:33. > :53:40.behind the curve in terms of what has taken place in London. @nd the
:53:41. > :53:46.London Challenge started in a small number of schools in 2000, `nd it
:53:47. > :53:52.took a long time to make thd change. For me, and some of the isstes about
:53:53. > :53:55.the change in the south`east, there are low expectations from some
:53:56. > :54:00.teachers and headteachers in the past. My own school within special
:54:01. > :54:06.measures when I took it over in 2011. There were two factors that
:54:07. > :54:11.contributed the `` contributed to that judgement. There was a low
:54:12. > :54:18.achievement of students on free school meals and the low achievement
:54:19. > :54:23.of white British pupils. And it had not been a factor in how thd school
:54:24. > :54:30.had previously been run. I am sure you are very interested to
:54:31. > :54:36.hear what he has to say. Yot trained as a teacher, and you are involved
:54:37. > :54:41.in the academies. What you think about Hastings? There have been
:54:42. > :54:47.improvements in achievement. What do the schools need to do?
:54:48. > :54:51.The report that has come out is in response to the report about unseen
:54:52. > :54:56.children, and the Hastings schools were considered in that. I discuss
:54:57. > :55:02.with offset that we have made significant improvement. But there
:55:03. > :55:07.is a lot more to do. `` with Ofsted. There are some great new le`ders in
:55:08. > :55:10.Hastings, and we have attracted some new teachers. When teachers
:55:11. > :55:15.graduate, they need to feel that they are going somewhere whdre they
:55:16. > :55:23.can make a difference and that it is an exciting place to live and work.
:55:24. > :55:25.We have attracted Teach First, and that gives a very positive
:55:26. > :55:30.improvement. I know one of the teachers hn a
:55:31. > :55:35.school that you are involved with, and she says that one of thd issues
:55:36. > :55:39.is the primary schools, that the children who come into the secondary
:55:40. > :55:45.schools already have some problems. I would agree and go even ftrther.
:55:46. > :55:52.The gap starts before primary schools, which is why I am pleased
:55:53. > :55:55.that the pupil premium is h`s also been expanded to two`year`old
:55:56. > :56:00.children. But there are also progress being made with thd
:56:01. > :56:04.academies as well. You trained as a teacher, there is
:56:05. > :56:10.an issue with trying to get teachers to stay where we need them.
:56:11. > :56:17.Yes, we need the best teachdrs to come to where the best teaching is
:56:18. > :56:24.needed. But also talking about the early years, I think it is ` great
:56:25. > :56:27.shame that this government hs cutting things like children's
:56:28. > :56:33.centres which make a big difference to families and two children, to
:56:34. > :56:38.stop that gap before childrdn get to school. Also cutting connections and
:56:39. > :56:42.careers advice, but is often children cannot sleep the world
:56:43. > :56:50.outside their own experiencd. If I may go back to the ide` of
:56:51. > :56:54.parents, can teachers cut through if the parents are completely
:56:55. > :57:04.disengaged with education? I think they can. In a time of
:57:05. > :57:07.posterity, there have been ` number of services around challenghng
:57:08. > :57:14.families who may not being cagey with the school, and that h`s had an
:57:15. > :57:20.impact in making our job harder `` engaging with the school. When I
:57:21. > :57:25.stand at the school gates and say hello to the children, all of the
:57:26. > :57:30.parents hope that their children will do well that day. Even the
:57:31. > :57:35.parents whose experience of school was negative, every day thex hope
:57:36. > :57:40.that it will go well for thdir children. They do not always go
:57:41. > :57:44.well, and that is when we nded a number of strategies to help the
:57:45. > :57:49.parents in terms of managing expectations. An obvious ex`mple is
:57:50. > :57:55.homework. We know that some children who are disadvantaged do not have
:57:56. > :57:59.space or Internet access or all the things that would make homework
:58:00. > :58:01.straightforward. We will have to leave it thdre.
:58:02. > :58:04.And now for a round`up of the other political events that
:58:05. > :58:07.you might have missed this week with James Fitzgerald.
:58:08. > :58:10.A second Gatwick runway would be a disaster, say five Tory MPs who
:58:11. > :58:15.Declining to join the alliance is Henry Smith, whose
:58:16. > :58:23.Some locals are optimistic about possible expansion.
:58:24. > :58:27.If the runway would provide more jobs for people, then I don't mind.
:58:28. > :58:30.P say that navigating a new antipollution law will mean
:58:31. > :58:36.The company expects the fuel bill will increase
:58:37. > :58:42.A review has found out that ,despite the warnings, the anti`fracking
:58:43. > :58:45.protests caught the Sussex Police off guard, with occasions where half
:58:46. > :58:55.I accept the report, I welcome the recommendations.
:58:56. > :58:58.And Tourism Minister Helen Grant incensed holiday`makers with delayed
:58:59. > :59:01.passport applications by suggesting that they could enjoy
:59:02. > :59:15.She has been in Brazil for the World Cup.
:59:16. > :59:24.information, you can apply to them and they will be obliged to tell
:59:25. > :59:41.you. Thanks for joining us. Andrew, back to you.
:59:42. > :59:47.think you'd want to. Labour grandees are not queueing up to sing his
:59:48. > :59:51.praises. Look at this. In my view, he is the leader we have and he is
:59:52. > :59:56.the leader I support and he is somebody capable of leading the
:59:57. > :00:02.party to victory. Ed Miliband will leave this to victory, and I believe
:00:03. > :00:07.he can. If he doesn't, what would happen to the Labour Party? We could
:00:08. > :00:11.be in the wilderness for 15 years. At the moment he has to convince
:00:12. > :00:17.people he has the capacity to lead the country. That's not my view but
:00:18. > :00:19.people don't believe that. We had a leader of the Labour Party was
:00:20. > :00:26.publicly embarrassed, because whoever was in charge of press
:00:27. > :00:36.letting go through a process where we have councillors in Merseyside
:00:37. > :00:39.resigning. It was a schoolboy error. Having policies without them being
:00:40. > :00:50.drawn together into a convincing and vivid narrative and with what you do
:00:51. > :00:55.the people in the country. You have to draw together, connect the
:00:56. > :01:02.policies, link them back to the leader and give people a real sense
:01:03. > :01:08.of where you are going. Somehow he has never quite managed to be
:01:09. > :01:13.himself and create that identity with the public. And we are joined
:01:14. > :01:24.by the president of you girls, Peter Kellner. Welcome to the Sunday
:01:25. > :01:28.politics. -- YouGov. The Labour Party is six points ahead in your
:01:29. > :01:33.poll this morning. So what is the problem? On this basis he will win
:01:34. > :01:36.the next election. If the election were today and the figures held up,
:01:37. > :01:41.you would have a Labour government with a narrow overall majority. One
:01:42. > :01:48.should not forget that. Let me make three points. The first is, in past
:01:49. > :01:53.parliaments, opposition normally lose ground and governments gain
:01:54. > :01:56.ground in the final few months. The opposition should be further ahead
:01:57. > :02:02.than this. I don't think six is enough. Secondly, Ed Miliband is
:02:03. > :02:05.behind David Cameron when people are asked who they want as Prime
:02:06. > :02:09.Minister and Labour is behind the Conservatives went people are asked
:02:10. > :02:12.who they trust on the economy. There have been elections when the party
:02:13. > :02:16.has won by being behind on leadership and other elections where
:02:17. > :02:20.they have won by being behind on the economy. No party has ever won an
:02:21. > :02:25.election when it has been clearly behind on both leadership and the
:02:26. > :02:29.economy. Let me have another go The Labour Party brand is a strong
:02:30. > :02:36.brand. The Tory Bramleys week. The Labour brand is stronger. That is a
:02:37. > :02:46.blast -- the Labour -- the Tory Bramleys week. A lot of the Tories
:02:47. > :02:54.-- the Tory brand is weak. Cant you win on policies and a strong party
:02:55. > :02:57.brand? If you have those too, you need the third factor which isn t
:02:58. > :03:02.there. People believing that you have what it takes, competent
:03:03. > :03:09.skills, determination, determination, whatever makes to
:03:10. > :03:15.carry through. -- whatever mix. A lot of Ed Miliband policies, on the
:03:16. > :03:19.banks, energy prices, Brent controls, people like them. But in
:03:20. > :03:24.government, would they carry them through? They think they are not up
:03:25. > :03:29.to it. -- rent controls. If people think you won't deliver what you
:03:30. > :03:33.say, even if they like it, they were necessarily vote for you. That is
:03:34. > :03:38.the missing third element. There is a strong Labour brand, but it's not
:03:39. > :03:44.strong enough to overcome the feeling that the Labour leadership
:03:45. > :03:48.is not up to it. Nick, you had some senior Labour figure telling you
:03:49. > :03:52.that if Mr Miliband losing the next election he will have to resign
:03:53. > :03:56.immediately and cannot fight another election the way Neil Kinnock did
:03:57. > :03:59.after 1987. What was remarkable to me was that people were even
:04:00. > :04:03.thinking along these lines, and even more remarkable that they would tell
:04:04. > :04:10.you they were thinking along these lines? What is the problem? The
:04:11. > :04:16.problem is, is that Ed Miliband says it would be unprecedented to win the
:04:17. > :04:20.general election after the second worst result since 1918. They are
:04:21. > :04:23.concerned about is the start of a script that he would say on the day
:04:24. > :04:26.after losing the general election. Essentially what the people are
:04:27. > :04:31.trying to do is get their argument in first and to say, you cannot do
:04:32. > :04:34.what Neil Kinnock did in 1987. Don't forget that Neil Kinnock in 198 was
:04:35. > :04:40.in the middle of a very brave process of modernisation and had one
:04:41. > :04:43.and fought a very campaign that was professional but he lost again in
:04:44. > :04:50.1992, and they wanted to get their line in first. What some people are
:04:51. > :04:53.saying is that this is an election that the Labour Party should be
:04:54. > :04:56.winning because the coalition is so unpopular. If you don't win, I'm
:04:57. > :05:00.afraid to say, there is something wrong with you. Don't you find it
:05:01. > :05:03.remarkable that people are prepared to think along these lines at this
:05:04. > :05:07.stage, when Labour are ahead in the polls, still the bookies favourite
:05:08. > :05:12.to win, and you start to speak publicly, or in private to the
:05:13. > :05:17.public print, but we might have to get rid of him if he doesn't win.
:05:18. > :05:19.Everything you say about labour in this situation has been said about
:05:20. > :05:23.the Tories. We wondered whether Boris Johnson would tie himself to
:05:24. > :05:28.the mask and he is the next leader in waiting if Cameron goes. It's a
:05:29. > :05:31.mirror image of that. We talk about things being unprecedented. It's
:05:32. > :05:34.unprecedented for a government to gain seats. All the things you say
:05:35. > :05:39.about labour, you could say it the Conservatives. That's what makes the
:05:40. > :05:43.next election so interesting. But in the aftermath of the European
:05:44. > :05:45.elections and the local government elections, in which the
:05:46. > :05:49.Conservatives did not do that well, the issue was not Mr Cameron or the
:05:50. > :05:53.Tories doing well, the issue was the Labour Party and how they had not
:05:54. > :05:56.done as well as they should have done, and that conversation was
:05:57. > :06:01.fuelled by the kind of people who have been speaking to nick from the
:06:02. > :06:05.Labour Party. Rachel Reeves cited their real-life performance in
:06:06. > :06:09.elections as a reason for optimism. When in fact their performance in
:06:10. > :06:12.the Europeans and locals was disappointing for an opposition one
:06:13. > :06:17.year away from a general election. What alarms me about labour is the
:06:18. > :06:21.way they react to criticisms about Ed Miliband. Two years ago when he
:06:22. > :06:24.was attacked, they said they were 15 points ahead, and then a year ago
:06:25. > :06:29.there were saying they were nine or ten ahead, and now they are saying
:06:30. > :06:35.we are still five or six ahead. The trend is alarming. It points to a
:06:36. > :06:39.smaller Labour lead. Am I right in detecting a bit of a class war going
:06:40. > :06:44.on in the Labour Party? There are a lot of northern Labour MPs who think
:06:45. > :06:49.that Ed Miliband is to north London, and there are too many metropolitan
:06:50. > :06:56.cronies around him must I think that is right, Andrew. What I think is,
:06:57. > :07:00.being a pessimist in terms of their prospects, I do think the Labour
:07:01. > :07:04.Party could win the next election. I just don't think they can as they
:07:05. > :07:08.are going at the moment. But the positioning for a possible defeat,
:07:09. > :07:13.what they should be talking about is what do we need to change in the
:07:14. > :07:18.party and the way Ed Miliband performs in order to secure victory.
:07:19. > :07:22.That is a debate they could have, and they could make the changes I
:07:23. > :07:28.find it odd that they are being so defeatist. Don't go away. Peter is a
:07:29. > :07:33.boffin when it comes to polls. That is why we have a mod for the
:07:34. > :07:36.election prediction swings and roundabouts. He is looking for what
:07:37. > :07:43.he calls the incumbency effect. Don't know what is a back-up -- what
:07:44. > :07:52.that's about question don't worry, here is an. Being in office is bad
:07:53. > :07:57.for your health. Political folk wisdom has it that incumbency
:07:58. > :08:01.favours one party in particular the Liberal Democrats. That is because
:08:02. > :08:04.their MPs have a reputation as ferociously good local campaigners
:08:05. > :08:09.who do really well at holding on to their seats. However, this time
:08:10. > :08:14.round, several big-name long serving Liberal Democrats like Ming
:08:15. > :08:18.Campbell, David Heath and Don Foster are standing down. Does that mean
:08:19. > :08:24.the incumbency effect disappears like a puff of smoke? Then there is
:08:25. > :08:28.another theory, called the sophomore surge. It might sound like a movie
:08:29. > :08:32.about US college kids, but it goes like this. New MPs tend to do better
:08:33. > :08:36.in their second election than they did in their first. That could
:08:37. > :08:42.favour the Tories because they have lots of first-time MPs. The big
:08:43. > :08:45.question is, what does this mean for the 7th of May 2015, the date of the
:08:46. > :08:56.next general election? The answer is, who knows? I know a man who
:08:57. > :09:01.knows. Peter. What does it all mean? You can go onto your PC now and draw
:09:02. > :09:03.down programmes which say that these are the voting figures from a
:09:04. > :09:08.national poll, so what will the seats look like? This is based on
:09:09. > :09:12.uniform swing. Every seat moving up and down across the country in the
:09:13. > :09:18.same way. Historically, that's been a pretty good guide. I think that's
:09:19. > :09:21.going to completely break down next year, because the Lib Dems will
:09:22. > :09:27.probably hold on to more seats than we predict from the national figures
:09:28. > :09:31.and I think fewer Tory seats will go to the Labour Party than you would
:09:32. > :09:35.predict from the national figures. The precise numbers, I'm not going
:09:36. > :09:42.to be too precise, but I would be surprised, sorry, I would not be
:09:43. > :09:47.surprised if Labour fell 20 or 5 seats short on what we would expect
:09:48. > :09:52.on the uniform swing prediction Next year's election will be tight.
:09:53. > :09:57.Falling 20 seats short could well mean the difference between victory
:09:58. > :10:01.and defeat. What you make of that, Helen? I think you're right,
:10:02. > :10:05.especially taking into account the UKIP effect. We have no idea about
:10:06. > :10:09.that. The conventional wisdom is that will drain away back to the
:10:10. > :10:14.Conservatives, but nobody knows and it makes the next election almost
:10:15. > :10:17.impossible to call. It means it is a great target the people like Lord
:10:18. > :10:23.Ashcroft with marginal polling, because people have never been so
:10:24. > :10:26.interested. It is for party politics and we all assume that UKIP should
:10:27. > :10:33.be well next year, but their vote went up from 17 up to 27%. Then that
:10:34. > :10:38.17% went down to 3%, so they might only be five or 6% in the general
:10:39. > :10:42.election, so they might not have the threat of depriving Conservatives of
:10:43. > :10:46.their seats. Where the incumbency thing has an effect is the Liberal
:10:47. > :10:50.Democrats. They have fortress seats where between 1992 and 1997 Liberal
:10:51. > :10:55.Democrats seats fell, but their percentage went up. They are losing
:10:56. > :10:59.the local government base though. True, but having people like Ming
:11:00. > :11:03.Campbell standing down means they will struggle. We are used to
:11:04. > :11:07.incumbency being an important factor in American politics. It's hard to
:11:08. > :11:12.get rid of an incumbent unless it is a primary election, like we saw in
:11:13. > :11:15.Virginia, but is it now becoming an important factor in British
:11:16. > :11:21.politics, that if you own the seat you're more likely to hold on to it
:11:22. > :11:25.than not? If it is, that's a remarkable thing. It's hard to be a
:11:26. > :11:27.carpetbagger in America, but it is normal in British Parliamentary
:11:28. > :11:31.constituencies to be represented by someone who did not grow up locally.
:11:32. > :11:35.It is a special kind of achievement to have an incumbency effect where
:11:36. > :11:39.you don't have deep roots in the constituency. I was going to ask
:11:40. > :11:42.about the Lib Dems. If we are wrong, and they collapse in Parliamentary
:11:43. > :11:47.representation as much as the share in vote collapses, is that not good
:11:48. > :11:51.news is that the Conservatives? They would be in second place in the
:11:52. > :11:55.majority of existing Lib Dems seats. For every seat where Labour are
:11:56. > :11:58.second to the Lib Dems, there are two where the Conservatives are
:11:59. > :12:06.second. If the Lib Dem representation collapses, that helps
:12:07. > :12:11.the Conservatives. I'm assuming the Tories will gain about ten seats. If
:12:12. > :12:14.they gain 20, if they'd had 20 more seats last time, they would have had
:12:15. > :12:20.a majority government, just about. So 20 seats off the Lib Dem, do the
:12:21. > :12:24.maths, as they say in America, and they could lose a handful to labour
:12:25. > :12:27.and still be able to run a one party, minority government. The fate
:12:28. > :12:34.of the Lib Dems could be crucial to the outcome to the politics of
:12:35. > :12:39.light. On the 8th of May, it will be VE Day and victory in election day
:12:40. > :12:42.as well as Europe. The Lib Dems will be apoplectic if they lose all of
:12:43. > :12:48.the seats to their coalition partners. The great quote by Angela
:12:49. > :12:52.Merkel, the little party always gets crushed. It's a well-established
:12:53. > :12:55.idea that coalition politics. They can't take credit for the things
:12:56. > :12:59.people like you may get lumbered with the ones they don't. They have
:13:00. > :13:02.contributed most of this terrible idea that seized politics where you
:13:03. > :13:08.say it, but you don't deliver it. Tuition fees is the classic example
:13:09. > :13:12.of this Parliament. Why should you believe any promise you make? And Ed
:13:13. > :13:17.Miliband is feeling that as well. But in 1974 the liberal Democrats
:13:18. > :13:20.barely had any MPs but there were reporters outside Jeremy Thorpe s
:13:21. > :13:25.home because they potentially held not the balance of power, but were
:13:26. > :13:28.significantly in fourth. Bringing back memories Jeremy Thorpe, and we
:13:29. > :13:32.will leave it there. Thanks to the panel. We are tomorrow on BBC Two.
:13:33. > :13:37.At the earlier time of 11am because of Wimbledon. Yes, it's that time of
:13:38. > :13:41.year again already. I will be back here at 11 o'clock next week.
:13:42. > :13:46.Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.