21/09/2014 Sunday Politics South West


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning from Manchester, where the Labour Party are gathering


for their annual conference as British politics `djusts to what


the rest of the UK. in Scotland might mean for


Scotland's decision to vote 'no means more powers heading norph


But what about Home Rule for England?


Independence for Scotland has been his life's work. Alex Salmond tells


us why he is stepping `own afper losing Thursday's vote. And wa've


In the South West. people who want to be Labour


The Conservatives who think Cameron has promised the Scots too luch


And councils are told to provide more official sites for gypsies


powers and more freedom to spand. But what is the next devolution step


for the capital? With me, the best and brightest political panel in the


business, at least that is what they pay me to say every week. Nick Watt,


Helen Lewis and, this week, we have done some devolution ourselves to


other areas, and we have Sam Coates from the times. The union survived,


but only at the cost of more powers for the Scottish parliament and


enshrining the formula that gives Scotland a privileged position when


it comes Scotland a privileged position when


of in arms. The Scottish question has been answered for now. Suddenly,


the English question takes centre stage, doesn't it? Absolutely. It


has a grubby feel, when that vow was put to the Scottish people, that


they hoped would swing the vote there was nothing about English only


votes. It was unconditional? The Tory proposal did talk very core


justly about looking at the proposals by a former clerk of the


House of Commons that looked at this issue. That was very cautious. -


cautiously. issue. That was very cautious. -


English laws? Ed Miliband this morning was saying how London MPs


get to vote on London transport and English MPs don't outside of London


and it is confusing, but Labour is in a difficult position. They were


before the Prime Minister made his announcement. The yes side triumphed


in Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland, a Labour heartland, and


the Prime Minister is saying that if Labour don't agree to this by the


time of the general election, he is handing a gift to the SNP, that that


would be the party that the natural Labour voters would vote for to see


off the plan. It's not just Tory backbenchers. There are Labour


backbenchers saying there should be in which bodes for English laws


Even people in the Shadow Cabinet think it is right. The cases


unarguable. If you say her chewing a partisan way, you can't sell it to


the country. Ed Miliband is on course to have a majority of about


20, and you take the 40 English MPs, and he hasn't got it. This is a


coalition government where the Conservatives haven't got really to


be in charge, they have put in sweeping laws. Labour should


probably take the bullet on this one. Let's leave it for the moment.


But don't go away. As they struggle to keep the United Kingdom in one


piece, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg promised to keep


something called the Barnett Formula.


It wasn't invented in Barnet, but by man called Joel Barnett.


And it's how the UK government decides how much


public money to spend in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.


It's controversial, because it's led to public spending


being typically 20% higher in Scotland than in England.


Well, some English MPs aren't happy about that.


I'm joined now by the Tory MP Dominic Raab.


Welcome to the Sunday Politics. How can the Prime Minister scrap the


Barnett Formula when he has just about to keep it on the front page


of a major Scottish newspaper? If we are going to see financial


devolution to Scotland, more powers of tax and spend, it's impossible


not to look at the impact on the wider union, and there have been


promises made to the Scottish and we should do our best to deliver them,


but there have been promises made to the English, Welsh and Northern


Irish. If you look at the Barnett Formula which allocates revenue


across the UK, it is massively prejudicial to those other parts. We


have double the number of ambulance staff and nurses compared to


England. The regional breakdown is more stark with double the amount


spent on social housing in Scotland than in Yorkshire and the North West


and the Midlands. The Welsh do very poorly on social services for the


elderly. What are we saying? That they need our children, patients and


the elderly are worth less than the Scots? That's not the way to have a


sustainable solution. I understand the distribution impact of the


Barnett Formula, but Westminster politicians are already held in


contempt by a lot of people and to rat on such a public pledge would


confirm their worst fears. Your leader would have secured the union


on a false prospectus. First of all, it's clear from the Ashcroft


poll that the offer made in the Scottish newspaper had zero effect


and if anything was counter-productive to the overall


result because two thirds of swing voters in the last few days voted


for independence. But we can't keep proceeding without looking at the


promises made to the English. We said in the referendum that we would


have English laws -- English votes on English issues. The Liberal


Democrats, in their manifesto, pledged to scrap the Barnett


Formula. We have to reconcile all of the promises to all parts of the UK,


and Alex Salmond talks about a Westminster stitch up, but what he's


trying to do is, with gross double standards, is in French stitch up in


rapid time, which would be grossly unfair to the rest of the rest of UK


-- is contrive stitch up. What is unfair about the current spending


formula? The extra money Scotland gets from Barnet, is covered by the


oil revenues it sends to London Scotland is only getting back on


spending what it pays in tax. There is no analysis out there that


suggests it is the same amount. Having voted to stay in the UK. Let


me give you the figures. Last year revenues were 4.5 billion, and the


Barnett Formula was worth 4.5 billion to Scotland. It is awash. A


huge amount of British taxpayer investment has gone into extracting


North Sea oil, and if we move to a more federal system, we would need


to look at things like the allocation of resources, but the


Barnett Formula has been lambasted as a national embarrassment and


grossly unfair by its Labour Party architect, Lord Barnett. So what we


need is to change this mechanism so it is based on need. The irony is,


when the Scots allocate Avenue to the -- revenue to their local


authorities, it's done on a needs basis, and what is good for Scotland


must be good for the rest of Britain. One final question. The


Prime Minister is now making his promise of more home rule for


Scotland conditional on English votes for English laws. Why didn't


he spell out the condition when he made his bow to the Scottish people?


Why has this condition been tacked on by the Prime Minister? In the


heat of the referendum debate lots of things were said, but the truth


is that Parliament must also look at this and make its views known, and


English MPs as well. You will find that conservative as well as a lot


of Labour MPs would say, we cannot just rush through a deal that is


unsustainable. It has to be good for all parts of Britain. Yes, we should


deliver on our promises for more devolution to Scotland, but let s


deliver on promises to be English, and Northern Irish. Why are they


locked out of the debate? Let's leave it there. Thank you for


joining us. The man responsible


for taking Scottish nationalism from the political fringes to within


touching distance of victory, Alex Salmond, has a flair for dramatic


announcements, and he gave us another on Friday


when he revealed he's to stand Friends and foes have paid tribute


to his extraordinary career. In a moment I'll be speaking to


Alex Salmond, but first here's Adam Fleming with


the story of the vote that broke The BBC's HQ on the Clyde, the whole


place converted into a studio for Scotland's big night. You know what


you need for big events, big screens, and there are loads of them


here. That one is three stories high, and this is the one Jeremy


Vine uses for his graphics. The other thing that is massive is the


turnout in the referendum, it is enormous. It was around 85% of the


electorate, that is 4 million ballot papers. First to declare


Clackmannanshire. No, 19,000. 1 ,000 and 36. The first Noel of the night,


and there were plenty more. -- the first no vote. The better together


campaigners were over the moon, like Jim Murphy, who had campaigned in


100 different towns. I don't want to sound schmaltzy, but it makes you


think more of Scotland. It makes you small tree. Yes, 194,779. Around


five a.m., the Yes campaign applauded as they won Scotland's


biggest city, Glasgow. Dundee went their way as well, but just for


areas out of 32 opted for independence. How many copies have


you had? This is my second cup of tea on the morning -- how many


copies. He was enjoying the refreshments on offer, but the yes


campaigners were not in a happy place. We are in the bowels of one


of the parts of the British establishment that, I've got to say,


has probably done its job in this referendum, because I think the BBC


has been critical in shoring up the establishment and have supported the


no campaign as best as they could. But there was no arguing with the


numbers, and by sunrise, the BBC called it. Scotland has voted no in


this referendum on independence The result, in Fife, has taken the no


campaign over the line and the official result of this referendum


is a no. There we go, on a screen three stories high, Scotland has


said no to independence. As soon as the newsprint was driving north of


the border, the focus shifted south as the Prime Minister pledged more


devolution for Scotland but only if it happened everywhere else as well.


Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish


Parliament on their issues of tax, spending on welfare, so to England,


as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on


these issues, and all this must take place in tandem with and at the same


pace as the settlement for Scotland. It began to dawn on us all that we


might end up doing this again. See you for an English referendum soon?


Northern Ireland. There could be another one in Scotland. But not


next weekend? Give me a break. There was no break for Nick, because Alex


Salmond came up with one last twist, his resignation was as leader, my


time is nearly over. But the Scotland, the campaign continues,


and the dream shall never die. So, the referendum settled, the


Constitution in flux, and a leader gone. All in a night work.


Alex Salmond is to stand down as First Minister of Scotland. He shows


no signs of going quietly. Last night, I spoke to the SNP leader in


Aberdeen and began by asking him if it was always his intention to


resign if he lost the referendum. I certainly have thought about it


Andrew. But for most of the referendum campaign I thought we


were going to win. So, I was... Yeah, maybe a few months back I


considered it. But I only finally made up my mind on Friday lunch


time. Did you agonise over the decision to stand down? I'm not


really an agonising person. When you get beaten in a referendum, you have


to consider standing down as a real possibility. Taking responsibility


and politics has gone out of fashion but there is an aspect, if you need


a campaign, and I was the leader of the Yes Campaign, and you don't win,


you have to contemplate if you are the best person to lead future


political campaigns. In my judgement, it was time for the SNP


and the broader yes movement, the National movement of Scotland, they


would benefit from new leadership. In your heart of hearts, through the


campaign, as referendum on day approached, you did think you were


going to win? Yes, I did. I thought for most of the last month of the


campaign, we were in with a real chance. In the last week I thought


we had pulled ahead. I thought the decisive aspect wasn't so much the


fear mongering, the scaremongering, the kitchen sink being thrown at


Scotland by orchestration from Downing Street, I thought the real


thing was the pledge, the vow, the offer of something else. A lot of


people that had been moving across to independence saw within that a


reason to say, well, we can get something anyway without the


perceived risks that were being festooned upon them. You were only


five points away from your dream. You won Scotland's largest city


There is now the prospect of more power. Why not stay and be an


enhanced First Minister? Well, it is a good phrase. I'm not going away,


though. I'm still going to be part of the political process. In


Scotland, if people in Aberdeenshire wish to keep electing me, that is


what I will do. But I don't have to be First Minister of Scotland,


leader of the Yes Campaign, to see that achieved. The SNP is a strong


and powerful leadership team. There are a number of people that would do


a fantastic job as leader of the party and First Minister. I've been


leader of the party for the last 24 years, I think it is time to give


somebody else a shot. There are many able-bodied people that will do that


well. -- many able people that will do that well. I'm still part of the


national movement, arguing to take this forward. I think you are right,


the question, one of the irony is developing so quickly after the


referendum, it might be those that lost on Thursday end up as the


political winners and those that won end up as the losers. When we met


just for the vote, a couple of days before the vote, you said to me that


there was very little you would change about the campaign strategy.


Is that still your view? Yes. There are one or two things, like any


campaign, there is no such thing as a pitcher campaign. I would refer


not to dwell on such things. I will leave of my book, which will be


called 100 Days, coming out before Christmas. Once you read that, I


will probably reveal the things I would have changed. Basically,


broadly, this was an extraordinary campaign. Not just a political


campaign, but a campaign involving the grassroots of Scotland in an


energising, empowering way, the like of which in on of us have witnessed.


It was an extraordinary phenomenon of grassroots campaigning, which


carried the Yes Campaign so far almost to victory. If Rupert Murdoch


put his Scottish Sun behind you would have that made the difference?


If ifs and ands were pots and pans... Why did he not? I would not


say that, you have form with him that I do not have. I'm not sure


about that. I was very encouraged. The coverage, not in the other


papers, The Times, which was extremely hostile to Scottish


independence, but the coverage in the Scottish Sun was fair, balanced


and we certainly got a very fair kick of the ball. In newspapers I


would settle for no editorial line and just balanced coverage. We


certainly got that from the Scottish Sun and that was an encouragement. I


think you saw from his tweets, certainly in his heart he would have


liked to have seen a move forward in Scotland and I like that. He said if


you lost, that was it, referendum wise, for a generation, which he


defined as about 20 years. Is that still your view? Yes, it is. It has


always been my view. It's a personal view. There are always things that


can change in politics. If the UK moved out of the European Union for


example, that would be the sort of circumstance. Some people would


argue with Westminster parties, and I'm actually not surprised that they


are reneging on commitments, I am just surprised by the speed they are


doing it. They seem to be totally shameless in these matters. You


don't think they will meet the vow? You don't think there will keep to


their vow? They are not, for that essential reason you saw developing


on Friday. The Prime Minister wants to link change in Scotland to change


in England. He wants to do that because he has difficulty in


carrying his backbenchers on this and they are under pressure from


UKIP. The Labour leadership are frightened of any changes in England


which leave them without a majority in the House of Commons on English


matters. I would not call it an irresistible force and immovable


object, one is resistible and one is movable. They are at loggerheads.


The vow, I think, was something cooked up in desperation for the


last few days of the campaign. I think everybody in Scotland now


engines that. -- recognises that. It was the people that were persuaded


to vote no that word tricked, effectively. They are the ones that


are really angry. Ed Miliband and David Cameron, if they are watching


this, I would be more worried about the anger of the no voters than the


opinion of the Yes Vote on that matter. If independence is on the


back burner for now, what would you advise your successor's strategy for


the SNP to be? I would advise him or her not to listen to advice from


their predecessor. A new leader brings forward a new strategy. I


think this is, for the SNP, a very favourable political time. There


have been 5000 new members joined since Thursday. That is about a 25%


increase in the party membership in the space of a few days. More than


that, I think this is an opportunity for the SNP. But my goal is the


opportunity for Scotland. I would repeat I am not retiring from


politics. I'm standing down as First Minister of Scotland. On Friday


coming back to the north-east of Scotland, I passed through Dundee,


which voted yes by a stud -- substantial margin. There was a line


of a song I couldn't get out of my head, and old Jacobite song,


rewritten by Robert Burns, the last line is, so, tremble falls wakes, in


the midst of your glee, you've not seen the last of my bonnets and me.


So you are staying a member of the Scottish Parliament, shall we see


you again in the House of Commons? What does the future hold for you?


Membership of Scottish Parliament is dependent on the good folk of


Aberdeenshire east. If they choose to elect me, I will be delighted to


serve. I've always loved being a constituency member of Parliament, I


have known some front line politicians that regarded that as a


chore. I'm not saying they didn t do it properly, I am sure they did But


I love it. You get distilled wisdom from being a constituency member of


Parliament that helps you keep your feet on the ground and have a good


observation as to what matters to people. I have no difficulty with


being a constituent member of Parliament. Can you promise me it


will never be Lord Salmond? Yes Thanks for joining us. Great


pleasure, thank you. Now, the independence referendum is over the


next big electoral test is a general election. It is just over seven


months away. In a moment I will be talking to Chuka Umunna, but what


are the political views of the men and women fighting to win seats for


the Labour Party? The Sunday Politics has commissioned an


exclusive survey of the Parliamentary candidates.


Six out of seven Labour candidates say that the level of public


spending during their last period of office was about right. 40% of them


want a Labour government to raise taxes to reduce the budget deficit.


18% favour cutting spending. On immigration, just 15% think that the


number coming to Britain is too high. Only 7% say we generous to


immigrants. Three in ten candidates believe the party relationship with


trade unions is not close enough. Not that we spoke to think it is too


close. Or than half of the candidates say want to scrap the


nuclear deterrent, Trident. Four in five want to nationalise the


railways. If they are after a change of leader, Yvette Cooper was their


preferred choice. Chuka Umunna came in fourth. And he joins me now for


the Sunday interview. Why is Labour choosing so many


left-wing candidates? I don't think I accept the characterisation of


candidates being left wing. I don't think your viewers see politics in


terms of what is left and right I think they see it in terms of what


is right and wrong. Obviously, many of the things we have been talking


about, how we ensure that the next generation can do better than the


last, how we raise the wages of your viewers, who are currently working


very hard but not making a wage they can live off, that is what they are


talking about and that is what the public will judge them on. But they


want to raise taxes, they don't want to cut public spending, they want to


re-nationalise the railways, they don't think there is too much


immigration, they don't think there is too much


Trident. These are don't think there is too much


not, it is their view. They are saying... You describe it... You


described those positions as left wing positions. I am saying to you


that I actually think a lot of those positions are


that I actually think a lot of those their children. Too many people do


not earn a wage they can live off. Too many people are worried about


the change. We have to make sure we are giving people a stake in the


future. That is a Labour thing, you want to call it old or new come I


don't care. It's a choice between Labour and the Conservatives in


terms of who runs the next government. That one of your


candidate we spoke to things that the party's relationship with the


unions is to close. 30% of them think it should be closer. You have


spoken to 73 out of 400 candidates. Why should the others be any


different? It's a fairly representative Sample. Many people


working on this set are the member of the union, the National union of


journalists. People that came here to this Conference would have been


brought here by trade union members. Do you think the relationship should


be closer? I think it is where it should be. It should not be closer?


I think that trade unions help create wealth in our country. If you


look at some other success stories we are in the north-west, GM


Vauxhall is there because you have trade unions working in partnership


with government and local employees to make sure we kept producing cars.


I'm not asking if unions are good or bad, I'm asking if Labour should be


closer. You are presupposing, by the tone of your question, that our


relationship is a problem. Let's turn to the English question. Why do


you need a constitutional conversation where you have to


discuss whether English people voting on English matters is


unfair? We want to give the regions and cities in England more voice,


but let's get it into perspective, we have had a situation where the


Scottish people, as desired buying rich people, have to remain part of


the UK -- by English people. What is the answer to the question? I don't


want to get to a situation where people have voted for solidarity


where you have a prime ministers talking about dividing up the UK


Parliament. Let me put this point you. Most Scottish voters think it


is unfair that Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters. That comes


out in Scottish polls. Why don't you see it as unfair? If the Scots see


it as unfair, why don't you? This is an age-old conundrum that has been


around for 100 years and it's not so simple. You're talking about making


a fundamental change to the British constitution on a whim. It's not


just an issue, in respect of Scottish MPs. As a London MP, I can


vote on matters relating to the transport of England and transport


is a devolved matter in London. In Wales, there are a number of


competencies that Welsh MPs can vote on and they've been devolved to


them. So with all of these different votes, you will exclude different


MPs? I think the solution is not necessarily to obsess about what is


happening between MPs in Westminster. That turns people


politics. We need to devolve more. I think we should be giving the cities


and regions of England more autonomy in the way that we are doing in


Scotland, but I've got to say, Andrew, it's dishonourable and in


bad faith for the Prime Minister to now seek to link what he agreed


before the referendum to this issue of English votes for English MPs.


That is totally dishonourable and in bad faith. You have promised to


devolve more tax powers to Scotland. What would they be? This is being


decided at the moment. I cannot give you the exact detail of what the tax


powers would be. Could you give us a rough idea? There is a White Paper


being produced before November and there will be draft legislation put


forward in January. Your leader has vowed that this will happen. And you


haven't got a policy? You can't tell us what the tax powers will be? I


can't tell you on this programme right now. But we have accepted the


principle on further devolution on tax, spending on welfare and we will


have further details in due course. Your leader promised to maintain the


Barnett Formula for the foreseeable future. Why is that fair when it


enshrines more per capita spending for Scotland than it does for Wales,


which is poorer, and more than many of the poorer regions in England


get? Why is that fair? We have said that in terms of looking at go -


local government spending playing out in this Parliament, we have


looked at what the government has done which is having already


deprived communities having money taken away from them and wealthier


communities are getting more. We accept that the Barnett Formula has


worked well. How has ip accept that the Barnett Formula has


worked well. How has it works accept that the Barnett Formula has


worked well. How has ip works well? There is a cross parliamentary


consensus as they don't know shat to do about it. Why has ip works well,


do about it. Why has it works well, when Wales, clearly loses out? I'm


not sure by I accept that when you look at overall underspend --


government spending. It look at overall underspend --


government spending. Ip is per capita spending in Scotland, shich


is way ahead of per capita spanding in Wales, but per capita incomes in


Scotland are way ahead of Walas. Why is that fair Labour politician? We


have said we want to have mora equitable distribution. You haven't,


you have said you will keep the Barnett Formula. I'm not sure


necessarily punishing Scotlan` is the way to go. The way that this


debate is going, what message does it send to the Scottish peopla? I


want to be clear, I am delighped with the result we have got. Phe


unity and solidarity where maintaining across the nations of


the United Kingdom. All of this separatist talk, setting up


different nations of the UK acainst each other goes complepely


different nations of the UK acainst each other goes completely against


what we've all been campaigning for over the last two years, and se


over the last two years, and we shouldn't have any truck with it.


Coming onto the announcement on the minimum wage, you would increase it


by ?1 50 to take it to ? , which would be over five years Thap is


all you are going to do over bive years. Have you worked out how much


of this increase will be clawad back in taxation and fewer benefits? Work


has been done on it. How much? I can't give you an exact figura. The


policy pays for itself. The way we have looked at this, we looke` at


the government figures, and ib people are earning more, they would


therefore be paying more in income tax and they will be receivinc less


tax and they will be receiving less in benefit and will pay out lass in


tax credits, so we are confidant that this will pay for itself. I'm


not asking about the pavement, I'm asking what it means for low paid


workers will stop they will gat an extra 30p per hour -- about the


payment. How much of the 30p po they get to keep? In terms of what they


get in the first instance, somebody on the minimum wage now, with our


proposal, would get in the region of ?3000 a year more than they are at


the moment. That is before tax and benefits. How much do they keap? I


cannot give you an exact figure. Why don't you give me an exact figure if


you've done the modelling? We are talking about some of the lowest


paid people in the country, and I would suggest to you that going down


this route, they would face a marginal rate of tax of 0 or 60%


and they will not keep most ob this increase you are talking aboup. I


don't accept your figures. Bup you haven't got any of your own. I just


don't have any in my haad haven't got any of your own. I just


don't have any in my head I can give you right now. Don't you think out


policies before you announce phem? Of course we think our policias


before we announce them but wa are confident people have more in their


pocket and will be better off confident people have more in their


pocket and will be betper off with pocket and will be better off with


the changes proposed, and we are also seeking to incentivise


employers to pay a living waga as well. At the end of the day, as I


said, the economy is recovering, great, but we know, at the moment,


it's still not delivering for a huge number of your viewers and we're


number of your viewers and we?re determined to do something about it.


The status quo is not an option. And even joining me. Twice in thrae


days. You can't have too much of a good thing. I am mad. He said that,


not me. It's just gone 11.35, you're


watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scopland


who leave us now for Coming up here in twenty minupes,


we'll be joined by John Prescott to talk about the challenge facing


Labour as their conference starts First though,


the Sunday Politics where you are. Hello, I'm Lucie Fisher,


coming up on the Sunday Polhtics We'll look at the thorny issue


of finding suitable sites I'm joined by the


leader of Mebyon Kernow ` Councillor Dick Cole, and


Conservative MP Sarah Newton. Welcome, both of you,


to the programme. Let?s begin by looking


at the implications for us Dick, you've spent


your entire political life `rguing Here you are handing in


a petition more than a decade ago. Like Alex Salmond,


you've talked a lot about hdritage If Alex Salmond has failed to make


the case for his nation, I was proud to produce a document to


take the Downing Street, and it is a shame that the previous govdrnment


refused to act upon it. Scotland voted no for independence, but they


are still pushing for more powers. This encourages me that we should be


pushing as well for more powers devolved to Cornwall. So yot do not


want independence for Cornw`ll, but you want devolved powers. Does this


make it more likely? All of the political parties are talking about


the future of the UK, so let's have a respectful wide`ranging ddbate


about the constituent parts of the UK, there are democracies and


economies and how we're going to the future. Itasca is to encour`ge


people to look at the option of a Cornish assembly. Where you hoping


that this No vote would put the end to these discussions. This hs just


the start, and I want to sed more of this. I am delighted that Scottish


people decided to stay part of the union, but the job now... So you


would be happy for a Cornish assembly? I do not think right now


it is the right choice for Cornwall. I think what we should be


doing is working with the powers, making the case for more powers to


be devolved, and making this work. How can you make the case for more


powers but not to a Cornish assembly? To the council and MPs.


This is what we need to do `ll over England and the United Kingdom, the


power back into people 's h`nds Let us stick with the Scottish


Referendum. It's been focusing minds


on how public money is spre`d out Some South West business le`ders


and politicians have been ottraged by the Prime Minister's prolise to


keep a formula which means people here get considerably less than


those in Scotland. Welcome to the Cinderella rdgion.


Bottlenecks are familiar sight on main roads in and out of thd


south`west. The Scottish Referendum has highlighted some uncomfortable


public spending gaps. Treastry figures show that Scots get ?10 000


per head, whereas in the sotth`west we get around 8000 each. Th`t is


nearly 2000 a year less. Business leaders say that this is sc`ndalous.


They say that if we had a fdver share of the pot, this road would be


a motorway by now. The investment, fear and proportionate investment,


would have meant that the chty as big as Plymouth, it would not be


struggling with a road that is not a motorway. That would not have


happened. In Scotland they `re spending ?3 billion making ` dual


carriageway, creating 5000 jobs In the south`west, business le`ders are


still pleading for 300 millhon, to upgrade Road, generating 21,000


jobs. Many people blame the Barnett formula. Barnett himself saxs it is


Hawaii Scotland gets free prescriptions and student fdes. I am


not proud of having my name attached to something that is no soul and a


fearful stop `` and fear. Btt the three main party leaders made a


promise, if they rejected independence, The Barnett formula


would stay. Why did Mr Cameron and Mr Miller band make a promise to


maintain The Barnett formul`? `` Ed Miliband. We are already well under


in relation to the Scottish economy. That worries me. Cameron cotld be


faced with an army of angry backbenchers. I think that we need


to reflect on the implications of having The Barnett formula hn


perpetuity. I do not think that would be to the advantage of us in


the south`west. But does he have a get out clause? If you look at the


small print, it may be guar`nteed, but only while that is needdd,


whatever that means. It is time for our United Kingdom to come together


and move forward. A vital p`rt of that will be a balanced settlement,


30 people in Scotland and importantly, to everyone in England,


Wales and Northern Ireland `s well. `` fear to people in Scotland. He


has promised to shake up thd constitution. Giving the sotth`west


more money for things like roads is one thing, but who should gdt the


cash? The Cornish assembly, an English Parliament or our existing


councils? One thing is for sure the can of worms has well and truly been


opened. Indeed. And to discuss this we are


joined by the UKIP chairman. Let us start with The Barnett formtla. Is


it unfair for people down hdre that Scottish people get more money? Yes,


it is ludicrous. Lord Barnett has made it absolutely clear th`t it


should have been caught red of years ago. It was only put in place to


last about three years. What should be done now? This promise h`s been


made. It is interesting bec`use now I see there is a wriggle gohng on


about what was the promise? The fundamental thing here is to get out


of this absolutely dreadful campaign to try to keep Scotland in the


union, Mr Cameron and his colleagues just threw something at it last week


and they have opened more c`ns of worms. Clearly, the funding has got


to be fairer. It is ridiculous that the south`west receives less than


London. Do you continue to support The Barnett formula? One thhng we


can all agree on, politicians must keep pledges. What upsets pdople is


if politicians promise something and do not deliver. So what has been


pledged must be delivered. Xou think he panicked? Was it a panic move? I


am not second`guessing what was decided, but since the day H was


elected, I decided to fight for the funding for Cornwall, and these gaps


are not fearful stop if we honour the pledge, which is quite right,


what happens for Cornwall? `` not fare. If the commitments were made


for Scotland, they need to be made for England. We will the extra money


come from? There has to be ` settlement across the whole of the


UK, and that is what I will be fighting for as soon as we get back


to Parliament, and I am surd MPs representing the rural areas of


Britain, especially English counties, who historically have not


been properly funded. The g`p has been closed. What would you think


about The Barnett formula? Hf you had a Cornish assembly, do xou think


in any way you would get thd same level of funding as Scotland? There


needs to be needs `based funding for various areas. During the rdferendum


debate, the Scottish Nation`lists were arguing that they were not


being subsidised, they were generating that much financd into


the Treasury because of the links to North Sea oil. So the debatd was


very finely tuned, there were arguments on both sides. Wh`t


argument could you make for Cornwall? It could be less loney


that we get. That is the pohnt I was coming on to. The issue for us is


the over centralised nature of the country in which we live. London and


the south`east dominates, and takes most of the investment on the


presentation `` takes most of the investment. On the presentation you


were talking about transport. What about HS2? It serves London,


ridiculous amount of money. We should be rebalancing the economy


and demographic institutions of this country. Vince Cable said London is


a great suction machine, sucking the life out of the rest of the country.


That is true and we are subsidising them. You're nodding, is th`t


because you support a Cornish assembly? No, but I agree whth what


he is saying. The south`west receives a lower Barnett allocation


than the rest of England. Wd are starved here, and HS2 sucks more


economy into London from thd north, which does not help. In the last


four years we fought very h`rd to get record levels into our transport


infrastructure. We have been starved for decades. But we have so much.


Let us look at the transport infrastructure issue. We have record


labels of infrastructure in our roads and rail 's. Cornwall is


definitely doing really well. But the point is the just ``


disproportionate investment. Education, the NHS, this has to be


tackled. Our children should have exactly the same as other children


all across England. When will this happen? This is what my job is. As


soon as we get back to Parlhament, we need to make the case. This is a


great opportunity. David Caleron once a fair settlement for Dngland


and Scotland. `` wants. Will be be a vote and when? Two there is a


general election in May. But that will not necessarily cover this


question, devolution, city `ssembly 's. What we will be doing is setting


out exactly what is going to happen for this settlement. Making those


proposals very clear over the weeks and months ahead. Is part of that is


desire to have a difference in the controls of government, that will be


welcome. The last ten Labour tried to do this, they were rejected. I am


interested in improving the quality of people 's lives. UKIP wotld like


an English Parliament, how would that work and what would it mean for


the south`west? The most important thing, and we have to remember that


what we have been fighting for for the last few weeks is to kedp the


United Kingdom together, and we should not now, in a backlash,


because of this mess, start splintering. We need fairness. We


need English votes on English laws, but someone wise once said there is


no question to which the answer is more politicians. If we start


creating new layers of government and politicians with differdnt


salaries and expenses, the people will be fed up of that. We have a


parliament already, and movds to suggestions as to when we use the


Parliament in Westminster, `nd this could be made fairer. Peopld are


going to be fed up, extra l`yers of government we just do not nded. In


Cornwall, we have a massive deficit. We do not have legislature that can


change Wallace is. We have 023 councillors, in Somerset thdy have


425, so we do not have the democracy we should be entitled to. I would


like to take up a further point People talking about Westminster


being an English Parliament three days a week, and a UK Parli`ment the


other two days. In the paper the other day they were going to propose


it was going to be a UK parliament Mondays and Fridays, and thd UK


``... It is a very complicated argument, and they way to split it


is an immensely complicated. It has been


to court and moving travelldrs on. The problem is not going aw`y. We


need to ensure there are safe places for them to stay when they `re


travelling. And that they do not have to pool into car parks and fit


all pitches, where the disrtpt the life around them. `` football


pitches. The number of unauthorised sites are up by a quarter in


Cornwall. The transit site was due to be here, but only last month the


local planning committee refused to grant planning permission, leaving


the local council with nowhdre official to direct gypsies `nd


travellers to. The committed turned down the application, saying that it


was unsustainable. It was too far from the town, and it would mean the


loss of good farming land. There is the will to deliver transit sites


because that is the best solution. Numerous areas in Cornwall get


affected by unauthorised calpsites, and if we had an authorised one


that would mitigate the problem is we are getting every year. `` the


problems. Where there is a will there is usually away, but dven if


councillors want to provide temporary, local opposition can


often win out. Most people say that they should be


able to go where they want to, but they do not want it where they live.


This is a thorny problem th`t has been going on for all my life. I do


think the best way to solve this is in the current range of polhcies,


which give quite a lot of power to councils to move people on. We had


travellers in Truro that have moved on. Sue the answer is to devolve


powers to the council 's. Which is what we have done. Anything to do


with shaping the local commtnity, houses built, I think these


decisions are best made. Whdre communities can come togethdr and


agree that this is a good place to put a transit site, there is


financial support. There is already a grant. There is a ?60 million


budget pot. All around the country there are far fewer unoffichal


traveller sites now. It has been working around the country. The


money is there. Why do we not have more of these sites? Is it just


unpopular? No council wants to put sites where other people live. It is


a difficult political issue. Over the last seven or eight years, we


have delivered a high number of Gypsy pitches. Those our Prhvate


pitches that have come forw`rd to the council, and the council has


turned on them, then they h`ve gone through the official system.


Travellers like to move and travel across boundaries. How can xou know


there are enough `` ensure there are enough across each boundary? There


are many contradictions going on as we speak. Cornwall has a target of


how many it should be providing but it is quite contradictory. H think


the big issue for a lot of local people is that the planning system


is geared that it is possible to get a traveller site on land th`t would


not otherwise be developed. As local politicians, you are faced with how


can they have that in the fheld but my daughter cannot have a btngalow


next to me in the field next door. These imbalances need to be


addressed because it is not clear to a lot of people. Sadly, I h`ve to


move on. Now, the regular round`up in 60 seconds.


Reports that the nuclear power station being built in Somerset


House been approved by the Duropean Commission. Unconfirmed but welcomed


by the MP. We have got to grow up, tell Europe


where to stick it and get into the job. Devon County Council threatened


to close its rubbish tips to the people of Torbay. You should be able


to take it wherever you want, regardless of where the centre is,


whether it is across the border As the trial badger cull continues


protesters are accused of h`rassing farmers. As soon as I turned the


light on to go to bed or go to the sitting room, their torches come


onto the Windows. The Plymotth University decision to spend 15 ,007


Cheers was questioned. `` ?050, 00 on chair is. Let us look at these


chairs. ?150,000. Is that good value for money. I think this is


dreadfully sad. Lots of people in Cornwall after come to Plymouth


University. Especially our nurses get trained here. It really saddens


me about this reputational harm they are doing. They need to get their


act together and focus on the students and serve their colmunity


and stop making ridiculous decisions. Should it be possible to


spend that sort of money on chairs? Should this not be stopped? I think


it a massive `` it is a massive own goal. I do not think they even look


particularly pretty. I have been working with my local community in a


village hall, and we purchased 00 chairs for a hundred quid. @nd they


are perfect. That is the end of Sunday Politics. Now, back to


Andrew. Enjoy the rest the Conservative mayor's policy. No


more time I'm afraid. Andrew, back to you.


Welcome back the to Labour conference, where we're joined


by the latest hot new stand-up comedian on the Manchester circuit.


I speak of course of former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.


In between giving tub-thumping speeches to rally


the party faithful this week, he's appearing at the Comedy Store.


He was also of course the man behind the last attempt to solve


Our political panel is with me as well. John, we have got Scottish


votes for Scottish laws, and more Scottish votes for Scottish laws,


why not English votes for English laws? That's an English parliament


in a major constitutional change and that is what has started. I


certainly don't agree with that I campaign for powers to be given to


the regions. When I first tested it in the Northeast, I lost. Why?


Because they said they were not the same powers you are giving to


Scotland. So, basically, we must do that, decentralised, not just with a


Westminster Parliament. As you know, in 32 years I produce the


alternative. You've kept that for 32 years? I took it off my shelf and


everybody was talking about it now, but they weren't in 1982. This was


my five plan. 200 meetings all around the country -- five-year


plan. You wrote this morning, not 35 years ago, that this was a plot to


turn Westminster into a Tory dominated English parliament. But if


that is how England had voted, it's not a plot, it's democracy. You can


get reform in a more federal structure, and even English


parliament does fit into the federal structure and that is what the


Liberals say, but you need a fairer representation. It might be quite


radical, and we could get rid of the Lord's, and have representation in


the region there. It can't be done in two weeks. Alex Salmond, he's


assuming he has been sold out, and it was less than a week ago they


remain the announcement. We have to get it carried out will stop but


don't connect it to the English parliament that fixes it in their


favour. It may be pretty low politics from David Cameron to come


up with something that was not in the vowel -- a bow on the front page


of the daily record, but if they do not agree with what he said at the


time of the general election, he will say two in which voters, if you


want real protection in England vote Conservative, and if you want


Scottish MPs deciding on your level of taxation, vote Labour. He is


scared to death of UKIP may have been saying it for a while. In the


constitutional changes have to see what is fair and equitable, the same


with the Barnett fallen -- formula. But what you have to do is get a


fair system. It takes time to discuss it. I was doing a 32 years


ago and nobody wanted to know. We had better start a debate, and don't


mixed up the constitutional type of English parliament with what we are


promising in Scotland. It is about trust and politics. So the turnout


of the north-east regional assembly and they voted against it. The


turnout that the police and crime commissioners was low. How'd you get


people interested in the process and it doesn't feel like a conversation


in smoky rooms and you go back to British people and tell them what


you decided? If you look at the turnout in Scotland whether they


were interested in, now it is phenomenally interesting. It is


about real power, having real influence. What they said to me in


the north-east, they said we know you have an idea for devolution and


you will give us assemblies but it doesn't have the power of Scotland,


but now we are talking about equity, similar distribution of


power and similar resources. The English people are entitled to that.


They have been robbed of it for too long. Labour has long struggled with


what it should do over devolving power to the regions and you came up


with regional assemblies. Ed Miliband has a different idea of


city regions. Aren't they the same idea of yours but without a


democratic accountability? Can we really trust the greater region of


Manchester or Birmingham to deliver if there is not the same kind of


democratic link with the people I live in whole, and it stops on the


boundary of the Pennines -- the city of Hull. We have city regions from


Labour because I failed in the north-east to get the assemblies in,


and now we have to look at those options. Do you work through city


regions? Mainly in the north, I might say. Even the federal


structure they talk about my be in the North or Midlands with


Birmingham, but there are a number of options and that is where I


believe that what the White Paper should do is to put those options


in. Instead of having to put them together, state what you want to do


in the English regions. Leave it to the legislation, which is what will


happen with the Scottish, and once you've agreed it, you do it after.


You have to start the radical debate about giving the English regions,


not centralised in London, but decentralised. Do you need to have a


separate English parliament? Wouldn't it just satisfy the English


if you simply said to MPs, when it's in English matter in the House of


Commons, stop interfering? I would disagree with that. I would say put


the option in the White Paper. The White Paper seems to be talking


about Scotland. If you don't put the commitments to what you want to do


with the English regions, people might say I'm not supporting that.


Put the framework in the White Paper, but a different timetable.


Devolution in this country has been to a different timetable, whether


it's Wales, Northern Ireland. Start looking fundamentally at it and the


Labour Party should be leading the debate. Let's come the no campaign


lost Glasgow. The cradle of British socialism. -- let's come to


something that happened with the referendum as the no campaign lost


Glasgow. Is it a sign that the Labour Party are finding it hard to


what -- hold on to their traditional working class vote question mark its


different in Manchester. They would say it is a message about


decentralisation. If we change the message a bit maybe. We have been


thinking that now it is that either the Labour Party to recognise it is


not the old message and old areas that will win it. I remember


covering the 1997 referendum in Scotland and you gave a tub thumping


speech in a big hall in Hamilton and you really connected. Obviously it


was a different referendum because that was about a parliament, not


independence and Alex Salmond was on your side, but you, and Ingush MP,


an English minister, connected to the core Labour voters in a way that


Ed Miliband is failing to do -- an English MP. You make a fair point.


In the big rally, I had to point out I was Welsh. Enough of this. Get on


with it. What I was saying there was that I supported you, as I did for


30 odd years when Labour MPs were against any thinker Scotland. I


support you, but I expect you to come in with your Scottish MPs and


make sure the English get their share of the powers and resources


and that is what that speech was about, and by God, it's as relevant


today as it was then. I haven't got any Scottish MPs, I live in


Knightsbridge. Did you get the vote? No. What would you have done? I


can't tell you. You would have voted yes, come on. I'm interested. What


do you want to hear from the speech by Ed Miliband? People are wondering


about where Labour stands. There are many issues we have flown around,


and we've done the discussion just now. What he has got to do where he


started off on the minimum wage You are trying to deal with those left


behind. Those are the bottom. That is the Labour message. The National


Health Service is our creation and we have to say it will be saved If


you can save all of these bankers with all the money and say you


haven't got the money for the NHS, say where we stand. That will be the


priority. The third one, housing. I have had a revolutionary idea that


you can buy a house without a deposit and without the interest or


paying the stamp duty, and you buy it by rent. The government gives


?150 billion guaranteed housing for up to 600,000. Get down to ordinary


people who can use their rent to buy the house. It's happening in the


north-east. Why are they not listening to you? You have said more


to connect with ordinary people in three minutes than we will probably


hear in an hour. I've been telling them, made, and we have a commission


coming out. People don't want commissions, they want action. I


say, I know what we do, housing health, the people. That is our


language. That is why we are Labour. That a lot of people run away. I


think in Glasgow, they wondered about that. If you turn up on the


same three platforms, and I know it's a critical thing to say, they


think in Scotland it is a coalition. I don't like coalitions. It looks


like a coalition, didn't it? Maybe it was saved because Rupert Murdoch


started the The Times about the polls and he couldn't even get the


sun to say that they wanted. We haven't got time. I wondered how


long it would take is to get to repot Murdoch. You beat the record.


-- to Rupert Murdoch. Labour is quite behind on the economy, and


people are looking at Labour, trying to work out if they can trust you to


the stewards of the economy given 2010. Under Labour 's plans there is


20 billion of cuts to make in the next Parliament. Will we hear


anything about that? It is about the proportion of debt to GDP. I know it


sounds historic, but our debt when we came in in 1997 was a proportion


of GDP, and you must know this, and that was less than Thatcher's. Why


did we get done on debt? You guys run around saying a lot about it,


but the fact is it was worse under Thatcher. Thatcher is now seen as a


hero. If you look at the debt, it is still a problem. Gordon Brown did an


awful lot to solve those problems, but they were still left with us.


What we have to have is a sensible discussion like we had on devolution


and now we are talking about finances. Let's look at the public


sector debt and the price we pay. We need to be putting the record


straight. The problem is they tell me, John, we have to look to the


future not the past. We are getting screwed on the past and we have to


change it and perhaps Gordon Brown coming in could do something.


Finishing on the future, when we did a poll of the Labour candidates you


were watching on the big screen when it came up that their favourite


to succeed Ed Miliband was Yvette Cooper, why did you shout no! That


is alive. -- alive. -- that is not true. I know resistance is not


strong. What did that mean? You can't get away with anything at


a Conference, John. I was dropping comments them to pick up everywhere,


I do not wear -- nowhere they got that one from. Good to have you


back. Round of applause for former Deputy Prime Minister. That's it for


today. Don't applaud them, they are useless.


my guests. I'll be back here at Labour conference for the Daily


11:30am tomorrow when we'll bring you live coverage of the speech by


We're here all week, and next Sunday you can find us in Birmingham for


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


Download Subtitles