29/06/2014 Sunday Politics South West


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


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


Doctors want to ban smoking outright.


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


In the south`west, as GP pr`ctices in the region struggle to fhll


vacancies, are And with me, as always,


the best and the brightest political panel in the business Nick Watt


Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. They've had their usual cognac,


or Juncker as it's known in Luxembourg, for breakfast and will


be tweeting under the influence He's a boozing, chain-smoking,


millionaire bon viveur who's made it big in the world of European


politic. I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the


former Prime Minister of Luxembourg He'll soon be President


of the European Commission, He wasn't David Cameron's choice


of course. But those the PM thought were his


allies deserted him and he ended up on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in


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


in favour of Arch-Federalist So where does this leave


Mr Cameron's hopes of major reform and repatriation


of EU powers back to the UK? Let's speak to his


Europe Minister David Lidington Welcome to the programme. The Prime


Minister says that now with Mr Juncker at the helm, the battle to


keep Britain in the EU has got harder. In what way has it got


harder? For two reasons. The majority of the leaders have


accepted the process that shifts power, it will not careful, from the


elected heads of government right cross Europe to the party bosses,


the faction leaders in the European Parliament and and the disaffection


was made clear in many European countries. Mr Juncker had a


distinguished period as head of Luxembourg, and was not a known


reformer, but we have to judge on how he leads the commission and


there were some elements in the mandate that the heads of government


gave this week to the new incoming European Commission that I think are


cautiously encouraging for us. The Prime Minister talked about those


that not everybody wants to integrate and to the same extent and


speed. Let me just interrupt you. What is new about saying that Europe


can go closer to closer union at different speeds? That has always


been the case. It's nothing new Indeed there are precedents, and


they are good examples of the approach as part of the course and


one of the elements that the Prime Minister is taking forward in the


strategy is to get general acceptance that while we agree that


most of the partners have agreed to the single currency will want to


press forward with closer integration of their economic and


tax policies, but not every country in the EU is going to want to do


that. We have to see the pattern that has grown up enough to


recognise there is a diverse EU with 28 member states and more in the


future. We won't all integrate the extent. It is a matter of a pattern


that is differentiation and integration. I understand that. John


Major used to call it variable geometry, and other phrases nobody


used to understand, but the point is that you're back benches don't want


any union at any speed, even in the slow lane. They want to go in the


other direction. It depends which backbencher you talk to. There's a


diverse range of views. I think that there is acceptance that the core of


the Prime Minister's approaches to seek reform of the European Union,


for renegotiation after the election, then put it to the British


people to decide. It won't be the British government or ministers that


take the final decision, it's the British people, provided they are a


Conservative government, who will take the decision on the basis of


the reforms that David Cameron secures whether they want to stay in


or not. Is there more of a chance, not a certainty or probability, but


at least more of a chance that with Mr Juncker in that position of


Britain leaving the EU? I don't think we can say that at the moment.


I think we can say that the task of reform looks harder than it did a


couple of weeks ago. But we have do put Mr Juncker to the test. I do


think he would want his commission to be marked and I think that there


is, and I find this in numbers around Europe, and there is a


growing recognition that things cannot go on as they have been.


Europe, economically, is in danger of losing a lot of ground will stop


millions of youngsters are out of work already that reform. There is


real anxiety and a number of countries now about the extent to


which opinion polls and election results are showing a shift of


support to both left and right wing parties, sometimes outright


neofascist movements, expressing real content and resentment at


Howard in touch -- how out of touch decisions have become. You say you


are sensing anxiety about the condition of Europe, so why did they


choose Mr Juncker then? You would have to put that question to some of


the heads of European government. Clearly there were a number for whom


domestic politics played a big role in the eventual decision that they


took. There were some who had signed up to the lead candidate process and


felt they could not back away from that, whatever their private


feelings might have been, but I think the PM was right to say that


this was a matter of principle and it shouldn't just be left as a


stitch up by the European Parliament to tell us what they do. He said, I


can't agree to pretend to acquiesce. They have to make the opposition


clear that go on with reform. Are the current terms of membership for


us unacceptable? The current terms of the membership are very far from


perfect. Are they unacceptable? The current terms are certainly not ones


that I feel comfortable with. The Prime Minister described them as


unacceptable. Do you think they are? We look at the views of the British


people at the moment. If you look at the polling at the moment, the


evidence is that people are split on whether they think membership is a


good thing. I'm asking what you think. David Cameron wants to in --


endorse changes in our interest but also because the biggest market is


going to suffer if they don't challenge -- grasp the challenge of


political and economic reform. Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm


Rifkind the former Secretary of State said to me that even if the


choice was to stay in on the existing terms, he would vote to


stay in on the existing terms. He doesn't necessarily like them, but


he would vote to stay in. That is the authentic voice of the Foreign


Office, isn't it? That is the position of your department. Is it


your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a distinguished and independent minded


backbencher. He's not in government now. But that is your position. No,


the position of the government and the Conservative Party in the


government is that we believe that important changes, both economic and


political reforms, are necessary and that they are attainable in our


interest and those of Europe as a whole. Would you vote to stay in on


the existing terms? That's not going to be a question that the


referendum. Really? I know that in 2017 Europe is going to look rather


different to how it looks today For one thing our colleagues in the


Eurozone will want and need to press ahead with closer integration.


That, in our view, needs to be done in a way that fully respects the


rights of those of us who remain outside. Variable geometry, tackling


things like the abuse of freedom of migration. Those are all in the


conclusions from the leader this week and we should welcome that


Very briefly, finally, when will you, as a government, give us the


negotiating position of the government? Will you give us what


you hope to achieve before the election or not? David Cameron set


out very clearly in his Bloomberg speech that he wanted a Europe that


was more democratically accountable, more flexible, more at it --


economically competitive. That is all very general. When will you lay


out the negotiating position? It's not general. It is very far from


general. We have seen evidence in the successful cut of the European


budget, the reform of fisheries those reforms have started to take


effect. We have won some victories and I'm sure the Prime Minister as


we get towards the general election, will want to make clear what the


Conservative Party position is, and perhaps other political leaders will


do the same for their party. Thank you for joining us this morning The


harsh reality of this is that there is a yawning gap between what the


Prime Minister can hope to bring back and what will satisfy his


Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I think the Parliamentary Conservative


Party is divided into three parts, those who would vote to leave the EU


regardless, those who would stay regardless, and a huge middle ground


of people who want to stay in on renegotiated terms. These are not


three equal parts. Those who would vote to stay in regardless are


smaller and smaller. Compared to 20 years ago, tiny. But the people in


the middle, generally, would only stay in if you secure a


renegotiation that will not be re-secured. In other words, they are


de facto, out by 2017 and the referendum. This whole saga of the


recent weeks has been the single biggest economy in foreign policy


under this government. That's not what the voters think. -- single


biggest ignominy. I mean the failure to secure the target. The opinion


polls show that standing up against Mr Juncker has proved rather


popular. I suggest that is not Mr Cameron's problem. His problem is


that, if in the end he gets only because Medic changes, and if he


says he still thinks that with these changes -- cosmetic changes. And he


says that they should stay in, that would split the Tory party wide


open. Eurosceptics say would be the biggest split since the corn laws.


He wants to protect the position of coming out, and you might get that.


He wants to crack down on abuse of benefits, and he might get that He


wants to restrict freedom of movement for future member states,


and that's difficult, because it is a treaty change. And he wants to


deal with closer union, but that is also treaty change. In the Council


conclusions, David Cameron was encouraged because it said, let s


look at closer union, but it did not say it would reform. All it said was


ever closer union can be interpreted in different ways. In other words,


we're not going to change it. The fundamental problem the David


Cameron was that two years ago, when he vetoed the fiscal compact, that


showed Angela Merkel was unwilling to help them and what happened in


the last two weeks was that Angela Merkel was unable to help him. There


is not a single leader of the European Union that once Juncker as


president, and he doesn't want it, he wants the note take a job at the


European Council. But there was this basic stitch up by the European


Parliament that meant he was presented, and when Angela Merkel


put the question over his head there was a huge backlash in Germany and


she was unable to deliver. I understand that, but I'm looking


forward to Mr Cameron's predicament. I don't know how he squares the


circle. It seems inconceivable that he can bring back enough from


Brussels to satisfy his backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of


them fundamentally want out. They don't want to be persuaded by


renegotiations. Where it's hard to draw conclusions from the polling is


that if you ask people question that sounds like, do you like the fact


that our Prime Minister has gone to Brussels and stuck it to the man,


they say yes, but how many people will go to the voting booths and put


their cross in the box based on Europe? We know mostly voters care


about Europe as a proxy for immigration fears. In ten people in


this country could not tell you who John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir


is replacing. -- and who he is replacing.


And I'm joined in the studio now by arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP,


Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by staunch European and former Liberal


war? His declared objectives would leave Britain still in the common


agricultural policy, the common foreign policy, the European arrest


warrant, so the negotiating aims which we just heard Nick setting out


wouldn't fundamentally change anything. It would be easy for the


Government to declare war on any of these things. The danger from your


point of view as someone who wants to stay in is that if David Cameron


only gets cosmetic changes, the chance of getting the vote to leave


the European Union increases, doesn't it? Hypothetically it


probably does but we have two big things to get through first in


domestic politics before we even reach a negotiation. One is are we


going to have the United Kingdom this time next year following the


referendum in Scotland? Secondly, are the Conservatives after the


general election next year going to be in a position to pursue a


negotiation? In other words are they going to be a majority government or


even a minority government? For the sake of this morning let's assume


the answer to both is yes, the UK stays intact and against the polls


they were saying this morning, David Cameron forms an overall majority


after the election. There is a danger, if he doesn't bring much


back, that people will vote yes correct? There is that danger and I


see a lot of the British press comment this morning saying this


could be a rerun of the Harold Wilson like negotiation of the


1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to say we have got new terms and you


should go with it. I think what is different however, and this is


really an appeal if you like, it cannot just be left to the Liberal


Democrats and coalition government to make this case on our Rome. A lot


of interest groups across the land will have to start being prepared to


put their head above the parapet on the fundamental - do you want


Britain to remain in the European Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to


put your public reputations on the line? We are not getting enough of


that at the moment and it is getting dangerously close to closing time.


Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will not get away with this, will he It


will be an acceptable to his party. If it is an acceptable to Tory


backbenchers it is because it is working and they are reflecting what


their constituents say. A majority of people in the country are unhappy


with the present terms. They can see there is a huge wide world beyond


the oceans and we have confined ourselves to this small trade bloc.


There is a huge debate to be had about whether we could be doing


better outside. It is not danger, it is democracy, trusting people. If


the only person offering a referendum at the moment is the


Prime Minister, it has serious consequences for his party, your


party, that's what I'm talking about. I am very proud of being part


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


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


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


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


about staying out of future integration, protecting the role of


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


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


for, friendships overseas are prejudiced, and they conceive that


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


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


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


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


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


Parliament say, ultimately the choice of the presidency in the


commission should be the political leaders, the governmental leaders at


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


flexible European back and be within a looser, more


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


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


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


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


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


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


in terms a constitutional issue put before us


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


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


president of the commission will be disappointed if he puts forward


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Association has voted to outlaw everywhere but not everybody at


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


smoking in cars and possibly the introduction of plain packaging


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


freedom. We're joined now by


Dr Vivienne Nathanson from the British Medical Association


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


decision about drinking alcohol eating fatty foods and drinking


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


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


They say this is about stopping children smoking but there is


already a law in place that stops shopkeepers from selling cigarettes


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


trying? When the government increased the age at which


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


because they are bringing the medical profession into disrepute.


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


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


total banning of cigarettes altogether. This would suggest that


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


availability and marketing are so important. People will flood across


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


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


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


they were the first with a standardised packaging. Other


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


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


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


for both coming and going head-to-head.


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


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


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


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


the numbers to find out what parliament might look like after


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


Politicians are elected to Parliament to represent their


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


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


candidates entered Westminster but not significantly more inner chamber


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy


at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most


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


In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected


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


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


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


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


However all the indications are it could be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary


projection for gender, According to the last census


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


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


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


were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME


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


that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats


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


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


giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost


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


of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve


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


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


or Cambridge. Only a fifth


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


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


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


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


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


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


that is getting worse with single election.


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


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


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


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now


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


First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.


struggle to fill vacancies, we ask struggle to fill vacancies, we


whether the government's NHS reforms whether the government's NHS reforms


are working. And for the next 2 minutes and joined by Stephdn Albert


and Alison Seabeck. Welcome both of you. House prices are continuing to


rise in the region despite talks of a slowdown in the market. The Office


for National Statistics figtres show prices are up on last year `nd


nearly ten times the averagd salary. nearly ten times the averagd salary.


It means it is increasingly difficult for young people to get on


the ladder. At the same timd, prices in the capital have risen bx 20 ,


fuelling fears we have a London`centric country. Does that


matter? I think for those people who are


struggling to get on the property ladder here in the South West who


are stuck in the hotel of mtm and dad and are in the private rented


sector accommodation, what latters is we are not building enough homes


as a country, whether in Cornwall, Devon or London. We need to tackle


this. We are beginning to sde another inflated housing market We


need investment to deliver homes across the country.


Will it be enough to build lore homes?


It underlines the thing when you only building 100,000 homes every


year when you need 230,000 homes. Broken marriages, people living


longer, all those things put pressure on housing stock. They have


two build more. How could we speak that up? A whole


range of reasons why we are not doing that. I have you got. There


Developers build quickly will they Developers build quickly will they


do get sites. We are looking at land banks and have had to talk `bout


Tesco holding enough land for 1 ,000 homes. We need to look at sticks and


carrots. The government needs to do lore


about the land it is sitting on as well to make that available to


developers. I have argued for this in the House of Commons manx times.


Where we have speared government land that has been released for


development. That is the only way to solve the problem.


If we're being honest, is the dream up on former `` the dream of home


ownership over? Absolutely not. Thousands of young


people want to start a family and get a foot on housing ladder and get


that stability and security. We have to be providing their aspir`tions.


Importantly, if we don't have enough homes then they cannot read either.


We have to move on. GP waithng times are going to become a key election


interest. Practices are strtggling to recruit new GPs. Long`term


investment has been called for as more shift from hospitals to GP


practices. A glimpse into the life of ` rural


GP in Cornwall. I visit anywhere between two and 12


patients every day. It may click a bit like a scene from


the TV series Doc Martin. Come on.


Nice to see you. But this GP says the perception from some th`t those


in general practice are overpaid and underworked isn't fair.


It is not a cushy number. I work 11 or 12 hours a day nonstop. H don't


have time to go home for lunch or anything like that and don't know


any colleagues that do. I comment on weekends to catch up on


administration. I don't think it is a cushy number at all.


National campaigns are under way warning of a crisis in general


practice. Inadequate funds, too much work load and stress are spoken of.


This has traditionally been a sought`after role. You are right by


the beach with the countryshde just minutes away. Now there are fears


there would be enough peopld willing to take on the role. In message one


GP has been highlighting at the British Medical Association


conference. The south`west is to be one of the


most popular areas for young doctors to be a GP. But there are 441 posts


unfilled across the whole of the UK and in the south`west for the first


time we have vacancies in Cornwall. That is basically because young


doctors are not choosing to be GPs. The reason they are choosing not to


as because of the unsustain`ble workload and the pressure any GPs


say they are facing in day to day practice.


Figures from health education England appeal from 2010 to 20 3


100% of GP vacancies were fhlled. But this year that figure is at 93%.


If you look at training vac`ncies, it is at 82%.


Recruitment in general practice goes in cycles and we're reaching the


bottom of the cycle at the loment. The difficulty is knowing whether it


will go up again because it is becoming increasingly unattractive


for people to come into. Patients here are unsatisfidd ``


still satisfied with their service. I don't go to the doctor is very


often and whenever I have to go like today when I am on holiday, it is


nice to know you can get thd appointment and go when you need to


see them. For my age, they have always helped


me and it has been really good. Very valuable job. Ministers have


been warned this is coming `t a cost.


Six out of ten of them are looking to retire, their workload is unsafe


and they failed their unabld to provide the service issued.


The government is increasing trainees still GPs grow faster than


the number of the population. They are also looking to better retain


existing GPs and see robust plans are being put in place to m`ke sure


that places are filled up the next couple of years.


This seems a worrying trend, unfilled vacancies. Nobody wants to


wait longer. These things can be cyclical.


Overall, the has just said enough is enotgh.


The people we spoke to wear seeing that they were struggling and the


hours were getting longer. Can anything be done about that


Since the coalition came in, a third of those targets have been scrapped.


We need to constantly look `t whether the administrative burden on


the GPs as appropriate. One third of them have gone. A whole bunch of


commissioning staff has arrhved That is no means all of thel but it


has an extra burden so it is about understanding the motives for each


individual person. You didn't actually support the


government's NHS reforms Bill. You didn't vote for it?


No, he didn't. What were yot concerned about?


Fragmentation of services which is something we will come onto.


Is this causing some of the pressures we are finding, not just a


GP services but in hospitals. CT scans waiting times... Is a part of


the problem is vacancies within the Department.


You are exactly right and that is why I didn't support the reforms.


People want to know when thdy go to the GP or to the hospital that they


are getting a good service but they're not concerned who provides


the service. At the reforms gone wrong? What we


are seeing is that some of the outsourcing and less complex is


adding an extra area of burden. There are also more complic`ted We


generated savings that we could use to put into GP services.


?78 million puts a lot `` sdems like a lot.


It is a lot. What would you do? And the reforms?


We have spoken about repealhng some of the changes because we are


convinced they are not all working. We need to look at it very carefully


but on balance it is confushng for patients and for those in the health


economy. Stephen touched upon this. We heard


this week that NHS services could be privatised. The more profit`ble


operations that can be taken away from the NHS but then that leaves


the NHS with expensive things like triple heart bypass is. These


companies are reaping the bdnefits from that.


The benefits to the economy if you're paying private organhsations


is that the money doesn't go into the NHS. So then the manager doesn't


find the money for the more complex operations. I have spoken ott


against them and said I don't want to see this as a direction of


travel. Allowing private, and is to come into our NHS and cherrx picked


the low hanging fruit to divide the services is not what patients want.


Never did introduce an elemdnt of competition into the NHS and I think


there is a role for private providers.


You did start this. Do you think Labour started something th`t they


now cannot turn the tap off of? Waiting lists worse so cute when we


`` saw huge when we started. What I'm not clear about in terms of what


is proposed in Cornwall is whether people would also be encour`ged to


pay to jump the queue. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. I


think we should oppose it. You wants to be able to get speedy


treatment that is effective. You shouldn't have to pay for it. And


you should be able to do so anyway that doesn't damage the NHS. I think


what has been proposed meets those tests.


We welcome back to this in different week. It is all change at the


European Parliament this wedk as the MEPs have lost their seats love out


to make way for the crock of new politicians. Green Watson whll now


be leaving the European Parliament after 20 years of services `nd the


region's first Green MEP gets to grips with her new job.


We joined them. European politics isn't meant to be a stroll hn the


park. But the Southwest's fhrst Green Euro MP is keen to walk when


ever possible. Her first appointment as in Brussels. She is being lobbied


to take control of EU funds for the county.


How did it go? It was reallx good actually. I think there was a real


meeting of minds in there. H don't see why this proposal to take power


away from Cornwall has come forward because it doesn't seem any of it in


Cornwall has come forward bdcause it doesn't seem any budding cornel so


obviously there is some problem with Whitehall trying to take power of


something which really should belong in the regions.


Next up, her first green group meeting.


These are Green MEPs and it is nice to be any big group of greens. I


feel at home. Somebody who has felt at hole here


for 20 years as green Watson. He has led the liberal group and sdrved on


many a committee. But not for much longer. Everywhere he goes, old


friends and colleagues of corrupt sympathy.


How are you? Good to see you. I'm sorry to hear.


Very kind of you. That's politics. I think the process of moving on is


not a bad one. It started thinking a fresh. I hope I will be abld to


carry the experience what I have had their into what I do next. One thing


I want to miss is the kind of modern art which is on the walls. H'm not


sure when it comes from but it is not always... If you take this piece


for example, of the most inspired design. These are my offices. This


is my assistant from Estoni`. This is where I have generally works from


and you can see it is full of packing cases. I suppose thhs is one


particular memento. This is my 0th birthday when I was leader of the


Liberal Democrat group and was honoured to have the presiddnt of


the game commission and the then president of the Rabin Parlhament to


celebrate my with me. I havd had a few laughs as I have come across


papers and things I had forgotten about entirely. Inevitably, a few


regrets too. As I have come across mementos of friends or colldagues


who've moved on. I think thd process of moving on is not a bad one. It


started thinking a fresh, thinking in different ways. I take the view


that you move on and you move on to new things. If you have a sdtback,


as I have had at the polls, you pick yourself up, dust yourself off and


start all over again as the old song says.


One in 18 is the curse of bding a politician. But the Lib Dems did


lose green Watson and others. Does that worry you ahead of the general


election? I think there is no doubt that was a


bad night for the Liberal Ddmocrats when we had the European eldctions.


Personally, I am gutted that we have lost a grim because he has served


the South West with distinction He has been a really hard`workhng MEP


and it would be remiss of us not to remark on that as we talk about him.


Neither Alison or I went into this profession thinking about job


security. You think about some things you want to change and hope


they can carry the public whki. We were very excited about the


European elections and therd was a certain amount of Farage fever. How


will that impact the general election?


I think it will be back on the NHS and the economy. A number of things


will have happened prior to the general election, one assumds, given


the government's current programme. It will already be less of `n issue.


It is not being discussed on the door in the same way that w`s in the


run`up to the elections. I would like to put on record that H think


Graham was a very good MEP. He will be missed and we now have clear mood


either. You kept were doing well. W`s it


that people were voting abott immigration?


There were all sorts of things going on. There was a huge dissathsfaction


with the establishment. There were people seeing, we just want to give


you a kicking. Some people `ctually seeing that to us. Letting xou know.


But they been tempted to sax but we will vote as we always used to vote


in the general election. Th`t will be interesting to see if th`t shift


back happens. We are picking it up on the doorstep already. UKHP have


gone remarkably private. `` quiet.


I've Lib Dems doing enough because you will be campaigning with this in


mind? Immigration still comes up on the


doorstep but the town of debate when I speak people has changed. It is


very about the vision of thd future. What are the Liberal Democr`ts


seeing about the next five xears? Meeting education services better,


the health service providing poor people, the economy continuhng to


grow. To coin a phrase from Bill Clinton's collection team, H think


it will be the economy, stupid, again.


Emigration will be one of a bunch of concerns.


It is interesting. I have h`d lots of conversations on the doorstep and


we are having more constructive and productive discussions about


immigration. How does it work? The business in Plymouth who is


employing foreigners, why are they doing that? Because they can employ


locally. If they went to thd wall because they simply couldn't find


people to do that rather unpleasant smelly work, what would happen? Is


that therefore unacceptable use of labour from outside the UK? Those


sorts of discussions you have got to have.


It is time for our regular roundup of the political week in 60 seconds.


Complaints over lack of mobhle phone coverage in the region. The


government may force operators to share masts.


It is ridiculous and 2014 that you cannot make a call on your lobile


phone from your own home or from your business.


60 jobs were lost as Miller Weisman closed its depot.


The regions new privatised patient transport services where crhticise


over long delays and sometiles not turning up.


It was the stress and attention I was standing on the doorstep waiting


to come in and never came. In response, NSL says it is doing


OK. The service is good, fit for


purpose. Most patients, the vast majority, I getting a very good


service. Can we improve? Absolutely. And the governmdnt has


defended its plans to scrap the independent team monitoring badger


cull is. It says it will sthll use animal welfare experts.


A quick roundup of the week. Mobile phones. The countryside Allhance


says it has been overwhelmed with complaints about lack of signal in


the region. The government hs considering making phone colpanies


share masts. Good idea? Brilliant idea. Ht is


interesting how the debate over mobile phone masts has changed from


Adi a health hazard to why don't I have reception? It is compldtely


bonkers that we don't have sufficient coverage and people


actively getting systems. It is a total no`brainer. Most


ordinary people would ask why hasn't something been done about this so


far. That is the programme. Thanks to my


guests. Before we had you b`ck to Andrew with the week ahead, don t


forget you can check out our Facebook page and watch the


programme again by the iPlaxer or e`mail us. Do enjoy the rest of your


Sunday afternoon. might come back at you. There have


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


both of you today. Back to you, Andrew.


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


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


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


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


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


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


the 24 hour media cycle, dominate and crowd out any


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


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


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


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


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


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


long term infrastructure spending and new manufacturing policy, new


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


particularly wounding because he prides himself on being a politician


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Labour government could do and nervous about the economic


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


notions that inform their policies or should inform their policies in


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


after his former director of communications was convicted


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


criticising the Downing Street operation is being shambolic. Is Mr


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


party, wanted Juncker, and when the both the Christian Democrats, her


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


polls than he has had some time so he must be wondering why they are


having a go at him. He made a tactical error in Prime Minister's


Questions by asking all the questions about Andy Coulson. The


one at the end questions about Andy Coulson. The


is getting involved in this questions about Andy Coulson. The


question mark on the issue of grammar schools is not clear anybody


listened to him. I think it is a principal problem. I've spoken to


form a government members, and judging by what they say, if


anything we underestimate how much contacting makes with ministers And


how many representations he makes on the issue that interest him. There


has been an attempt to keep it hidden. It's almost a theological


question about whether the future monarch should be involved in the


public realm. If he wants to influence policy, shouldn't we know


what policy he's trying to influence and what position he is taking?


Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly - so


a speech. Prince Charles's views are interesting. He's not a straight


down the light reactionary. He makes a left-wing case for rammer schools.


There is an interview with him in the Financial Times in which his


argument in favour for architectural development takes into account


affordable housing in the wake which no one would have suspected. He has


interesting views, but I'm not convinced on the point of principle


whether someone is dashing his position should be speaking. Your


former employer 's famously described him as the SDP king. You


slightly feel sorry for him. He s 66 and still an apprentice. He's in a


difficult position. We know what the powers of the monarch are. They are


to advise in courage and warned the Prime Minister of the day. These in


the difficult position where the problem for him is that there is a


line that isn't really defined, but you slightly feel he just gets a bit


too close to it and possibly crosses that line with the lobbying that


goes on. I think the worrying thing is that at some point he will become


King and will he know that he has got to work within that framework?


He is somebody that cannot win either. If he doesn't take an


interest in public policy, he will be thought to be a bit of a waster,


going round opening town halls, and when he does have an interest we


think, hey, you are in the monarchy, stay out. There's an interesting


parallel with first ladies who are encouraged to find a controversial


charitable project. Michelle Obama has bought childhood obesity, and


that is the standard thing. Everybody knows that that is a bad


thing, but you are not offering solutions that are party political.


I feel there must be a middle way with what he should be able to do


about finding big causes he can complain about without getting stuck


into lobbying ministers. Which can become a party political issue. He


has had some influence on architecture, because the buildings


we are putting up to date are better than the ones we used to put up


The Daily Politics is on BBC 2 at 11:00am


We'll be back here at the same time next week.


Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles