:00:36. > :00:40.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed
:00:41. > :00:46.the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's
:00:47. > :00:49.11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down
:00:50. > :00:51.the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with
:00:52. > :00:56.bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,
:00:57. > :01:00.and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.
:01:01. > :01:04.EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron
:01:05. > :01:14.getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We
:01:15. > :01:18.were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!
:01:19. > :01:19.Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our
:01:20. > :01:27.railways. Does it matter In the South: How much say do you
:01:28. > :01:29.have if someone wants to build a power station at the end of your
:01:30. > :01:31.street? Will localism triumph? Is power with
:01:32. > :01:36.the people or the developers? as many daily journeys made by bus
:01:37. > :01:44.than by tube, so why is the planned investment in buses not keeping
:01:45. > :01:46.pace? And with me, three journalists
:01:47. > :01:49.who've bravely agreed to hunker down in the studio while Britain braces
:01:50. > :01:51.itself for massive storm winds, tweeting their political forecasts
:01:52. > :01:59.with all the accuracy of Michael Fish on hurricane watch. Helen
:02:00. > :02:02.Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt. Now, sometimes coalition splits are
:02:03. > :02:07.over-egged, or dare we say even occasionally stage-managed. But this
:02:08. > :02:10.week, we've seen what looks like the genuine article. It turns out Nick
:02:11. > :02:13.Clegg has his doubts about the coalition's flagship free schools
:02:14. > :02:17.policy. David Cameron doesn't much like the green levies on our energy
:02:18. > :02:20.bills championed by the Lib Dems. Neither of them seems to have
:02:21. > :02:25.bothered to tell the other that they had their doubts. Who better to
:02:26. > :02:35.discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins
:02:36. > :02:39.me now. Welcome. Good morning. The Lib Dems spent three years of
:02:40. > :02:43.sticking up for the coalition when times were grim. Explain to me the
:02:44. > :02:49.logic of splitting from them when times look better. We will stick
:02:50. > :02:52.with it for five years. It is working arrangement, but not
:02:53. > :02:56.surprisingly, where there right areas on which we disagree over
:02:57. > :03:01.where to go next, we will stand up. It is going to be hard enough for
:03:02. > :03:06.the Lib Dems to get any credit for the recovery, what ever it is. It
:03:07. > :03:10.will be even harder if you seem to be semidetached and picky. The
:03:11. > :03:15.coalition has led on economic policy, some of which were entirely
:03:16. > :03:20.from our stable. The one you have heard about most often, a Lib Dem
:03:21. > :03:25.initiative, was to take people on blowing comes out of tax. The
:03:26. > :03:29.recovery would not have happened, there would not have been confidence
:03:30. > :03:34.in Britain, had there not been a coalition government with us in it,
:03:35. > :03:38.making sure the same policies produced fair outcomes. We are not
:03:39. > :03:42.going to leave the credit for any growth - and there has been very
:03:43. > :03:48.good news this week. We have played a part in that, and without us, it
:03:49. > :03:52.would not have happened. Does it not underline the trust problem you
:03:53. > :03:57.have? You promised to abolish tuition fees. You oppose nuclear
:03:58. > :04:03.power, now you are cheerleading the first multi-billion pounds
:04:04. > :04:08.investment in nuclear generation. You are dying out on your enthusiasm
:04:09. > :04:12.on green levies, and now they are up for renegotiation. Why should we
:04:13. > :04:20.trust a word you say? In relation to green levies, as you well know, just
:04:21. > :04:27.under 10% is to do with helping energy and helping people. Unless
:04:28. > :04:31.there is continuing investment in renewables, we will not have the
:04:32. > :04:36.British produced energy at cheaper cost to keep those bills down in the
:04:37. > :04:46.future. At cheaper cost? Explain that to me. Off-shore energy is
:04:47. > :04:50.twice the market rate. The costs of renewables will increasingly come
:04:51. > :04:55.down. We have fantastic capacity to produce the energy and deliver lots
:04:56. > :05:00.of jobs in the process. The parts of the energy bill that may be up for
:05:01. > :05:04.renegotiation seems to be the part where we subsidise to help either
:05:05. > :05:11.poor people pay less, or where we do other things. Too insulated the
:05:12. > :05:16.homes? Are you up to putting that to general taxation? Wouldn't that be
:05:17. > :05:20.progressive? I would. It would be progressive. I would like to do for
:05:21. > :05:24.energy bills what the Chancellor has done for road traffic users,
:05:25. > :05:31.drivers, which is too fuelled motor fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That
:05:32. > :05:35.would mean there would be an immediate relief this year, not
:05:36. > :05:40.waiting for the election. So there is a deal to be done there? Yes We
:05:41. > :05:44.understand we have to take the burden off the consumer, and also
:05:45. > :05:48.deal with the energy companies, who look as if they are not paying all
:05:49. > :05:51.the tax they should be, and the regulator, which doesn't regulate
:05:52. > :05:56.quickly enough to deal with the issues coming down the track. We can
:05:57. > :05:59.toughen the regulator, and I hope that the Chancellor, in the Autumn
:06:00. > :06:04.statement, was signalled that energy companies will not be allowed to get
:06:05. > :06:11.away with not paying the taxes they should. And this deal will allow
:06:12. > :06:16.energy prices to come down? Yes How could David Laws, one of your
:06:17. > :06:21.ministers, proudly defend the record of unqualified teachers working in
:06:22. > :06:26.free schools, and then stand side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he
:06:27. > :06:30.says he is against them? David Laws was not proudly defending the fact
:06:31. > :06:35.that it is unqualified teachers He said that some of the new,
:06:36. > :06:42.unqualified teachers in free schools are doing a superb job. But you want
:06:43. > :06:45.to get rid of them? We want to make sure that everybody coming into a
:06:46. > :06:52.free school ends up being qualified. Ends up? Goes through a process that
:06:53. > :06:55.means they have qualifications. Just as we said very clearly at the last
:06:56. > :07:01.election that the manifesto curriculum in free schools should be
:07:02. > :07:07.the same as other schools. It looks like Mr Clegg is picking a fight
:07:08. > :07:11.just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg was taught by people who didn't have
:07:12. > :07:15.teaching qualifications in one of the greatest schools in the land, if
:07:16. > :07:21.not the world. It didn't seem to do him any harm. What is the problem?
:07:22. > :07:28.If you pay to go to a school, you know what you're getting. But that
:07:29. > :07:32.is what a free school is. No, you don't pay fees. A free school is
:07:33. > :07:36.parents taking the decisions, not you, the politicians. We believe
:07:37. > :07:40.they would expect to guarantee is, firstly that the minimum curriculum
:07:41. > :07:45.taught across the country is taught in the free schools, and secondly,
:07:46. > :07:48.that the teachers there are qualified. Someone who send their
:07:49. > :07:55.kids to private schools took a decision to take -- to send their
:07:56. > :08:00.children there, even if the teachers were unqualified, because they are
:08:01. > :08:06.experts in their field. Someone who send their kids to free schools is
:08:07. > :08:11.because -- is their decision, not yours. Because some of the free
:08:12. > :08:15.schools are new, and have never been there before, parents need a
:08:16. > :08:21.guarantee that there are some basics in place, whatever sort of school.
:08:22. > :08:26.So they need you to hold their hand? It is not about holding hands, it is
:08:27. > :08:30.about having a minimum guarantee. Our party made clear at our
:08:31. > :08:35.conference that this is a priority for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view
:08:36. > :08:38.of the party, and I believe it is an entirely rational thing to do. Nick
:08:39. > :08:45.Clegg complained that the Prime Minister gave him only 30 minutes
:08:46. > :08:51.notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's U-turn on green levies. That is
:08:52. > :08:55.almost as little time as Nick Clegg gave the Prime Minister on his
:08:56. > :09:03.U-turn on free schools. Aren't you supposed to be partners? Green
:09:04. > :09:06.levies were under discussion in the ministerial group before Wednesday,
:09:07. > :09:11.because we identified this as an issue. We do that in a practical
:09:12. > :09:18.way. Sometimes there is only half an hour's notice. We had even less than
:09:19. > :09:23.half an hour this morning! Simon Hughes, thank you.
:09:24. > :09:29.So the price of energy is the big battle ground in politics at the
:09:30. > :09:33.moment. 72% of people say that high bills will influence the way they
:09:34. > :09:37.vote at the next election. Ed Miliband has promised a price freeze
:09:38. > :09:44.after the next election, but will the coalition turned the tables on
:09:45. > :09:53.Labour, with its proposal to roll back green levies. Caroline Flint
:09:54. > :09:59.joins us from Sheffield. It looks like the coalition will be able to
:10:00. > :10:04.take ?50 of energy bills, by removing green levies. It is quite
:10:05. > :10:07.clear that different parts of the government are running round waking
:10:08. > :10:11.up to the fact that the public feel that this government has not done
:10:12. > :10:16.enough to listen to their concerns. Last week, there was a classic case
:10:17. > :10:20.of the Prime Minister making up policy literally at the dispatch
:10:21. > :10:24.box. Let's see what they say in the autumn statement. The truth is,
:10:25. > :10:28.whatever the debate around green levies, and I have always said we
:10:29. > :10:47.should look at value for money at those green levies. Our argument is
:10:48. > :10:49.about acknowledging there is something wrong with the way the
:10:50. > :10:51.market works, and the way those companies are regulated. Behind our
:10:52. > :10:54.freeze for 20 months is a package of proposals to reform this market I
:10:55. > :10:57.understand that, but you cannot tell as the details about that. I can.
:10:58. > :11:00.You cannot give us the details about reforming the market. We are going
:11:01. > :11:04.to do three things, and I think I said this last time I was on the
:11:05. > :11:07.programme. First, we are going to separate out the generation side
:11:08. > :11:15.from the supply side within the big six. Secondly, we will have a energy
:11:16. > :11:20.pool, or power exchange, where all energy will have to be traded in
:11:21. > :11:23.that pool. Thirdly, we will establish a tougher regulator,
:11:24. > :11:29.because Ofgem is increasingly being seen as not doing the job right I
:11:30. > :11:34.notice that you didn't mention any reform of the current green and
:11:35. > :11:40.social taxes on the energy bill Is it Labour's policy to maintain the
:11:41. > :11:44.existing green levies? In 2011, the government chose to get rid of warm
:11:45. > :11:49.front, which was the publicly funded through tracks a scheme to support
:11:50. > :11:54.new installation. When they got rid of that, it was the first time we
:11:55. > :12:00.had a government since the 70s that didn't have such a policy. What is
:12:01. > :12:05.your policy? We voted against that because we believe it is wrong. We
:12:06. > :12:15.believe that the eco-scheme, a government intervention which is ?47
:12:16. > :12:18.of the ?112 on our bills each year, is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't
:12:19. > :12:22.going to the fuel poor. I am up for a debate on these issues. I am up
:12:23. > :12:26.for a discussion on what the government should do and what these
:12:27. > :12:29.energy companies should do. We cannot let Cameron all the energy
:12:30. > :12:33.companies off the hook from the way in which they organise their
:12:34. > :12:39.businesses, and expect us to pay ever increasing rises in our bills.
:12:40. > :12:44.There is ?112 of green levies on our bills at the moment. Did you vote
:12:45. > :12:51.against any of them? We didn't, but what I would say ease these were
:12:52. > :12:55.government imposed levies. When they got rid of the government funded
:12:56. > :13:05.programme, Warm Front, they introduced the eco-scheme. The
:13:06. > :13:10.eco-project is one of the ones where the energy companies are saying
:13:11. > :13:13.it's too bureaucratic, and it is proving more expensive than
:13:14. > :13:17.government estimates, apparently doubled the amount the government
:13:18. > :13:23.thought. These things are all worth looking at, but don't go to the
:13:24. > :13:32.heart of the issue. According to official figures, on current plans,
:13:33. > :13:37.which you support, which you voted for, households will be paying 1%
:13:38. > :13:48.more per unit of electricity by 2030. It puts your temporary freeze
:13:49. > :13:53.as just a blip. You support a 4 % rise in our bills. I support making
:13:54. > :13:58.sure we secure for the future access to energy that we can grow here in
:13:59. > :14:03.the UK, whether it is through nuclear, wind or solar, or other
:14:04. > :14:10.technologies yet to be developed. We should protect ourselves against
:14:11. > :14:15.energy costs we cannot control. The truth is, it is every fair for you
:14:16. > :14:19.to put that point across, and I accept that, but we need to hear the
:14:20. > :14:23.other side about the cost for bill payers if we didn't invest in new,
:14:24. > :14:27.indigenous sources of energy supply for the future, which, in the long
:14:28. > :14:32.run, will be cheaper and more secure, and create the jobs we
:14:33. > :14:37.need. I think it is important to have a debate about these issues,
:14:38. > :14:42.but they have to be seen in the right context. If we stay stuck in
:14:43. > :14:47.the past, we will pay more and we will not create jobs. How can you
:14:48. > :14:53.criticise the coalition's plans for a new nuclear station, when jeering
:14:54. > :14:58.13 years of a Labour government you did not invest in a single nuclear
:14:59. > :15:08.plant? You sold off all our nuclear technology to foreign companies
:15:09. > :15:14.Energy provision was put out to private hands and there has been no
:15:15. > :15:26.obstacle in British law against ownership outside the UK. Part of
:15:27. > :15:30.this is looking ahead. Because your previous track record is so bad
:15:31. > :15:35.What we did decide under the previous government, we came to the
:15:36. > :15:41.view, and there were discussions in our party about this, that we did
:15:42. > :15:46.need to support a nuclear future. At the time of that, David Cameron
:15:47. > :15:50.was one of those saying that nuclear power should be a last
:15:51. > :15:55.resort. And as you said, the Liberals did not support it. We
:15:56. > :16:00.stood up for that. We set in train the green light of 10 sites,
:16:01. > :16:03.including Hinkley Point, for nuclear development. I am glad to
:16:04. > :16:08.see that is making progress and we should make more progress over the
:16:09. > :16:14.years ahead. We took a tough decision when other governments had
:16:15. > :16:23.not done. You did not build a new nuclear station. When you get back
:16:24. > :16:29.into power, will you build HS2? That has not had a blank cheque
:16:30. > :16:34.from the Labour Party. I am in favour of good infrastructure. Are
:16:35. > :16:41.you in favour of?, answer the question? I have answered the
:16:42. > :16:45.question. It does not have a blank cheque. If the prices are too high,
:16:46. > :16:50.we will review the decision when we come back to vote on it. We will be
:16:51. > :16:55.looking at it closely. We have to look for value for money and how it
:16:56. > :17:02.benefits the country. Have you stocked up on jumpers this winter?
:17:03. > :17:07.I am perfectly all right with my clothing. What is important, it is
:17:08. > :17:11.ridiculous for the Government to suggest that the answer to the loss
:17:12. > :17:22.of trust in the energy companies is to put on another jumper.
:17:23. > :17:28.The coalition has taken a long time to come up with anything that can
:17:29. > :17:33.trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing energy prices, vote for us. Are
:17:34. > :17:37.they on the brink of doing so? I do not think so. They have had a
:17:38. > :17:42.problem that has dominated the debate, talking about GDP, the
:17:43. > :17:48.figures came out on Friday and said, well, and went back to talking
:17:49. > :17:53.about energy. My problem with what David Cameron proposes is he agrees
:17:54. > :17:58.with the analysis that the Big Six make too many profits. He wants to
:17:59. > :18:02.move the green levies into general taxation, so that he looks like he
:18:03. > :18:08.is protecting the profits of the energy companies. If the coalition
:18:09. > :18:15.can say they will take money off the bills, does that change the
:18:16. > :18:19.game? I do not think the Liberal Democrats are an obstacle to
:18:20. > :18:26.unwinding the green levies. I think Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal,
:18:27. > :18:30.but the real obstacle is the carbon reduction targets that we signed up
:18:31. > :18:35.to during the boom years. They were ambitious I thought at the time
:18:36. > :18:40.From that we have the taxes and clocking up of the supply-side of
:18:41. > :18:43.the economy. Unless he will revise that, and build from first
:18:44. > :18:50.principles a new strategy, he cannot do more than put a dent into
:18:51. > :18:55.green levies. He might say as I have got to ?50 now and if you
:18:56. > :18:59.voters in in an overall majority, I will look up what we have done in
:19:00. > :19:05.the better times and give you more. I am sure he will do that. It might
:19:06. > :19:09.be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be ?50 on your general taxation bill,
:19:10. > :19:17.which would be more progressive They will find it. We will never
:19:18. > :19:23.see it in general taxation. The problem for the Coalition on what
:19:24. > :19:26.Ed Miliband has done is that it is five weeks since he made that
:19:27. > :19:30.speech and it is all we are talking about. David Cameron spent those
:19:31. > :19:33.five weeks trying to work out whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or
:19:34. > :19:38.whether he is connected to Middle Britain. That is why Ed Miliband
:19:39. > :19:44.set the agenda. The coalition are squabbling among themselves,
:19:45. > :19:50.looking petulant, on energy, and on schools. Nobody is taking notice of
:19:51. > :19:56.the fact the economy is under way, the recovery is under way. Ed
:19:57. > :20:03.Miliband has made the weather on this.
:20:04. > :20:12.It UK has a relaxed attitude about selling off assets based -- to
:20:13. > :20:15.companies based abroad. But this week we have seen the Swiss owner
:20:16. > :20:18.of one of Scotland's largest industrial sites, Grangemouth, come
:20:19. > :20:21.within a whisker of closing part of it down. So should we care whether
:20:22. > :20:23.British assets have foreign owners? Britain might be a nation of
:20:24. > :20:29.homeowners, but we appear to have lost our taste for owning some of
:20:30. > :20:32.our biggest businesses. These are among the crown jewels sold off in
:20:33. > :20:38.the past three decades to companies based abroad. Roughly half of
:20:39. > :20:41.Britain's essential services have overseas owners. The airport owner,
:20:42. > :20:43.British Airports Authority, is owned by a Spanish company.
:20:44. > :20:47.Britain's largest water company Thames, is owned by a consortium
:20:48. > :20:50.led by an Australian bank. Four out of six of Britain's biggest energy
:20:51. > :20:53.companies are owned by overseas giants, and one of these, EDF
:20:54. > :20:55.Energy, which is owned by the French state, is building Britain's
:20:56. > :21:03.first nuclear power plant in a generation, backed by Chinese
:21:04. > :21:08.investors. It's a similar story for train operator Arriva, bought by a
:21:09. > :21:11.company owned by the German state. So part of the railways privatised
:21:12. > :21:19.by the British government was effectively re-nationalised by the
:21:20. > :21:23.German government. But does it matter who owns these companies as
:21:24. > :21:28.long as the lights stay on, the trains run on time, and we can
:21:29. > :21:33.still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk? We are joined by the general
:21:34. > :21:40.secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and by venture capitalist Julie Meyer.
:21:41. > :21:46.They go head to head. Have we seen the consequences of
:21:47. > :21:53.relying for essential services to be foreign-owned? Four of the Big
:21:54. > :22:00.Six energy companies, Grangemouth, owned by a tax exile in Switzerland.
:22:01. > :22:05.It is not good. I do not think there is a cause and effect
:22:06. > :22:08.relationship between foreign ownership and consumer prices. That
:22:09. > :22:13.is not the right comparison. We need to be concerned about
:22:14. > :22:17.businesses represented the future, businesses we are good at
:22:18. > :22:23.innovating for example in financial services and the UK has a history
:22:24. > :22:34.of building businesses, such as Monotypes. If we were not creating
:22:35. > :22:40.businesses here -- Monotise. Like so many businesses creating
:22:41. > :22:48.products and services and creating the shareholders. Should we allow
:22:49. > :22:53.hour essential services to be in foreign ownership? It was
:22:54. > :22:59.demonstrated this week at Grangemouth. If you do not own the
:23:00. > :23:03.industry, you do not own it. The MPs of this country and the
:23:04. > :23:06.politicians in Scotland have no say, they were consultants.
:23:07. > :23:13.Multinationals decide whether to shut a company down. If that had
:23:14. > :23:19.been Unite union, they are the ones who saved the jobs. They
:23:20. > :23:23.capitulated. They will come back, like they have for the past 150
:23:24. > :23:30.years, and capture again what they lost. If it had closed, they would
:23:31. > :23:34.have lost their jobs for ever. If the union had called the members up
:23:35. > :23:38.without a ballot for strike action, there would have been uproar. This
:23:39. > :23:44.person in Switzerland can decide to shut the entire industry down. The
:23:45. > :23:50.coalition, the Labour Party, as well, when Labour was in government,
:23:51. > :23:53.they played a role of allowing industries to go abroad, and it
:23:54. > :24:05.should be returned to public ownership. Nestor. It has
:24:06. > :24:14.demonstrated that the Net comes from new businesses. We must not
:24:15. > :24:20.be... When Daly motion was stopped by the French government to be sold,
:24:21. > :24:25.it was an arrow to the heart of French entrepreneurs. We must not
:24:26. > :24:29.create that culture in the UK. Every train running in France is
:24:30. > :24:37.built in France. 90% of the trains running in Germany are built in
:24:38. > :24:44.Germany. In Japan, it has to be built in that country, and now an
:24:45. > :24:48.energy company in France is reducing its nuclear capability in
:24:49. > :24:52.its own country and wants to make profits out of the British industry
:24:53. > :24:56.to put back into it state industry. That happened with the railway
:24:57. > :25:03.industry. They want to make money at the expense of their own state
:25:04. > :25:10.companies. We sold off energy production. How did we end up in a
:25:11. > :25:16.position where our nuclear capacity will be built by a company owned by
:25:17. > :25:24.a socialist date, France, and funded by a communist one, China,
:25:25. > :25:28.for vital infrastructure? I am not suggesting that is in the national
:25:29. > :25:33.interest. I am saying we can pick any one example and say it is a
:25:34. > :25:37.shame. The simple matter of the fact is the owners are having to
:25:38. > :25:41.make decisions. Not just Grangemouth, businesses are making
:25:42. > :25:48.decisions about what is the common good. Not just in the shareholders'
:25:49. > :25:52.interest. For employees, customers. What is in the common good when
:25:53. > :25:57.prices go up by 10% and the reason is that 20 years ago they shut
:25:58. > :26:01.every coal pit down in this country, the Germans kept theirs open and
:26:02. > :26:08.subsidised it and now we have the Germans doing away with nuclear
:26:09. > :26:14.power and they have coal. Under the Labour government, in 2008, the
:26:15. > :26:19.climate change Act was passed. Well before that, and you know yourself,
:26:20. > :26:23.they shut down the coal mines to smash the National Union of
:26:24. > :26:29.Mineworkers because they dared to stand up for people in their
:26:30. > :26:33.community. Even if we wanted to reopen the coalmines, it would be
:26:34. > :26:40.pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we are not meant to burn more coal
:26:41. > :26:47.The can, as if you spent some of the profits, you could have carbon
:26:48. > :26:52.catch up. That does not exist on a massive scale. You are arguing the
:26:53. > :26:57.case, Julie Meyer, for entrepreneurs to come to this
:26:58. > :27:02.country. Even Bob Crow is not against that. We are trying to
:27:03. > :27:10.argue, should essential services be in foreign hands? Not those in
:27:11. > :27:16.Silicon round about doing start ups. I am trying to draw a broader
:27:17. > :27:20.principle than just energy. Something like broadband services,
:27:21. > :27:27.also important to the functioning of the economy. I believe in the
:27:28. > :27:31.UK's ability to innovate. When we have businesses that play off
:27:32. > :27:36.broadband companies to get the best prices for consumers. These new
:27:37. > :27:44.businesses and business models are the best way. Not to control, but
:27:45. > :27:49.to influence. It will be a disaster. Prices will go up and up as a
:27:50. > :27:54.result. Nissan in Sunderland, a Japanese factory, some of the best
:27:55. > :27:57.cars and productivity. You want that to be nationalised and bring
:27:58. > :28:02.it down to the standard of British Leyland? It is not bring it down to
:28:03. > :28:07.the standard. The car manufacturing base in this country has been
:28:08. > :28:13.wrecked. We make more cars now for 20 years -- than in 20 years.
:28:14. > :28:21.Ford's Dagenham produced some of the best cars in the world. Did you
:28:22. > :28:28.buy one? I cannot drive. They moved their plants to other countries
:28:29. > :28:32.where it was cheaper labour. Would you nationalise Nissan? There
:28:33. > :28:39.should be one car industry that produces cars for people. This week
:28:40. > :28:46.the EU summit was about Angela Merkel's mobile phone being tapped,
:28:47. > :28:50.they call it a handy. We sent Adam to Brussels and told him to ignore
:28:51. > :28:52.the business about phone-tapping and investigate the Prime
:28:53. > :29:08.Minister's policy on Europe instead. I have come to my first EU summit to
:29:09. > :29:12.see how David Cameron is getting on with his strategy to claim power was
:29:13. > :29:22.back from Brussels. Got any powers back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly,
:29:23. > :29:26.his fellow leaders were not as forthcoming. Chancellor, are you
:29:27. > :29:33.going to give any powers back to Britain? Has David Cameron asked you
:29:34. > :29:39.for any powers back? The president of the commission just laughed, and
:29:40. > :29:50.listen to the Lithuanian President. How is David Cameron's renegotiation
:29:51. > :29:55.strategy going? What's that? He wants powers back for Britain. No
:29:56. > :30:00.one knows what powers David Cameron actually wants. Even our usual
:30:01. > :30:07.allies, like Sweden, are bit baffled. We actually don't know yet
:30:08. > :30:15.what is going through the UK membership. We will await the
:30:16. > :30:21.finalisation of that first. You should ask him, and then tell us!
:30:22. > :30:26.Here is someone who must know, the Dutch Prime Minister, he is doing
:30:27. > :30:30.what we are doing, carrying out a review of the EU powers, known as
:30:31. > :30:35.competencies in the jargon, before negotiating to get some back. Have
:30:36. > :30:40.you had any negotiations with David Cameron over what powers you can
:30:41. > :30:47.bring back from Brussels? That is not on the agenda of this summit.
:30:48. > :30:50.Have you talked to him about it This is not on the schedule for this
:30:51. > :31:00.summit. David Cameron's advises tummy it is
:31:01. > :31:08.because he is playing the long game. -- David Cameron's advisers tell me.
:31:09. > :31:15.At this summit, there was a task force discussing how to cut EU red
:31:16. > :31:20.tape. Just how long this game is was explained to me outside the summit,
:31:21. > :31:25.by the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament. I think
:31:26. > :31:29.the behind-the-scenes negotiations will start happening when the new
:31:30. > :31:35.commissioner is appointed later next year. I think the detailed
:31:36. > :31:38.negotiations will start to happen bubbly after the UK general
:31:39. > :31:43.election. That is when we will start getting all of the detail of the
:31:44. > :31:51.horse trading, and real, Lake night negotiations. Angela Merkel seems
:31:52. > :31:55.keen to rewrite the EU's main treaties to deal with changes in the
:31:56. > :31:59.Eurozone, and that is the mechanism David Cameron would use to
:32:00. > :32:04.renegotiate our membership. Everyone here says his relationship with the
:32:05. > :32:09.German Chancellor is strong. So after days in this building, here is
:32:10. > :32:14.how it looks. David Cameron has a mountain to climb. It is climbable,
:32:15. > :32:20.but he isn't even in the foothills yet. Has he even started packing his
:32:21. > :32:24.bags for the trip? Joining us now, a man who knows a
:32:25. > :32:30.thing or two about the difficulties Prime Minister 's face in Europe.
:32:31. > :32:33.Former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine. We are nine
:32:34. > :32:41.months from David Cameron's defining speech on EU renegotiation. Can you
:32:42. > :32:47.think of one area of progress? I don't know. And you don't know. And
:32:48. > :32:53.that's a good thing. Why is it a good thing? Because the real
:32:54. > :33:04.progress goes on behind closed doors. And only the most naive,
:33:05. > :33:12.because the real progress goes on behind closed doors. Because, in
:33:13. > :33:17.this weary world, you and I, Andrew, know full well that the moment you
:33:18. > :33:22.say, I making progress, people say, where? And the machine goes to work
:33:23. > :33:28.to show that the progress isn't enough. So you are much better off
:33:29. > :33:38.making progress as best you can in the privacy of private diplomacy. It
:33:39. > :33:42.is a long journey ahead. In this long journey, do you have a clear
:33:43. > :33:48.sense of the destination? Do you have a clear sense of what powers Mr
:33:49. > :33:52.Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a clear sense of the destination,
:33:53. > :33:58.which is a victory for the campaign that he will win to stay inside the
:33:59. > :34:07.European community. That is the agenda, and I have total support for
:34:08. > :34:13.that. I understand that, but if he is incapable of getting any tangible
:34:14. > :34:19.sign of renegotiation, if he is able only to do what Wilson did in 1975,
:34:20. > :34:23.which was to get a couple of token changes to our membership status, he
:34:24. > :34:29.goes into that referendum without much to argue for. He has everything
:34:30. > :34:37.to argue for. He's got Britain's vital role as a major contributor to
:34:38. > :34:44.the community. He's got Britain's self interest as a major
:34:45. > :34:49.beneficiary, and Britain's vital role in the City of London. He's got
:34:50. > :34:55.everything to argue for. He could argue for that now. He could have a
:34:56. > :35:02.referendum now. He doesn't want one now. I haven't any doubt that he
:35:03. > :35:12.will come back with something to talk about. But it may be slightly
:35:13. > :35:18.different to what his critics, the UK isolationist party people, want.
:35:19. > :35:23.He may, for example, have found that allies within the community want
:35:24. > :35:29.change as well, and he may secure changes in the way the community
:35:30. > :35:32.works, which would be a significant argument within the referendum
:35:33. > :35:37.campaign. Let me give you an example. I think it is a scandal
:35:38. > :35:44.that the European Commission don't secure the auditing of some of the
:35:45. > :35:50.accounts. Perhaps that could be on the agenda. He might find a lot of
:35:51. > :35:58.contributing countries, like Germany, like Colin and, would be
:35:59. > :36:03.very keen. -- like Holland. David vetoed the increase in the European
:36:04. > :36:08.budgets the other day, and he had a lot of allies. So working within
:36:09. > :36:14.Europe on the things that people paying the European bills want is
:36:15. > :36:21.fertile ground. Is John Major right to call for a windfall tax on the
:36:22. > :36:25.energy companies? John is a very cautious fellow. He doesn't say
:36:26. > :36:32.things without thinking them out. So I was surprised that he went for a
:36:33. > :36:36.windfall tax. First of all, it is retrospective, and secondly, it is
:36:37. > :36:41.difficult to predict what the consequences will be. I am, myself,
:36:42. > :36:45.more interested in the other part of his speech, which was talking about
:36:46. > :36:51.the need for the Conservative Party to seek a wider horizon, to
:36:52. > :36:55.recognise what is happening to the Conservative Party in the way in
:36:56. > :37:05.which its membership is shrinking into a southeastern enclave. Are you
:37:06. > :37:16.in favour of a windfall tax? I am not in favour of increasing any
:37:17. > :37:22.taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan Smith's point of view on welfare
:37:23. > :37:32.reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is right. It is extremely difficult to
:37:33. > :37:40.do, but he is right to try. I think public opinion is behind him, but it
:37:41. > :37:45.isn't easy, because on the fringe of these issues there are genuine hard
:37:46. > :37:50.luck stories, and they are the ones that become the focus of attention
:37:51. > :37:57.the moment you introduce change. It requires a lot of political skill to
:37:58. > :38:01.negotiate your way through that. But isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to
:38:02. > :38:05.invoke the beverage principle, that you should be expected to make a
:38:06. > :38:11.contribution for the welfare you depend on? Yes, he is. I will let
:38:12. > :38:16.you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks for joining us.
:38:17. > :38:26.Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be looking
:38:27. > :38:31.Welcome to Sunday Politics South. My name's Peter Henley. On today's
:38:32. > :38:37.show: How would you like one of these at the end of your street?
:38:38. > :38:40.If you didn't fancy it, is there anything you could do about it? Just
:38:41. > :38:43.how much power do local people and local councils have?
:38:44. > :38:49.More on that shortly. First let me introduce the two politicians who'll
:38:50. > :38:53.be with me for the next 20 minutes. Jo Lovelock is the Labour leader of
:38:54. > :38:56.Reading Borough Council and Steve Brine is the Conservative MP for
:38:57. > :39:00.Winchester. They have one thing in common ` they each have their own TV
:39:01. > :39:03.channel. Here's a little bit of both of them. First, SteveBrineTV, then
:39:04. > :39:15.Reading Council's round up of local news. I am here as a member but also
:39:16. > :39:24.as an MP. I'm giving the keynote speech tonight. Let's get inside.
:39:25. > :39:30.There were special events at the Civic Centre and the Phoenix day
:39:31. > :39:33.centre. The events showcase the contribution older people have made
:39:34. > :39:40.and continue to make to Reading's communities. They are good! In this
:39:41. > :39:46.errant tonic age, you reach more people with that than with a
:39:47. > :39:56.newsletter? `` LX Ronnie. Absolutely. You have been doing it
:39:57. > :40:02.since you started. People think I have got a TV crew. Far from it.
:40:03. > :40:09.Often it is made on the iPhone, edited in a well`known product for
:40:10. > :40:18.free and it is meant to look rough, to be YouTube style clips. York one
:40:19. > :40:27.is not so rough. `` yours is not so rough. We have an in`house guy who
:40:28. > :40:36.is good at putting this together. It is quite cheap. We think that longer
:40:37. > :40:46.term there will be more of it. I have an apt as well. The can watch
:40:47. > :40:51.it through the up. People want to watch content, not read it. They
:40:52. > :40:57.want to interact, not just have it fed to them. All addicts has to
:40:58. > :41:02.adapt to that. You spoke in the BBC future debate. You were standing up
:41:03. > :41:10.for local radio. It is going local in some ways. A couple of years ago,
:41:11. > :41:15.there was a possibility of changes and cutbacks to local radio. MPs
:41:16. > :41:21.have never seen a response like it. That was listeners. When there is a
:41:22. > :41:30.crisis in the community, where there's your instinct take you? BBC
:41:31. > :41:35.local radio. And everybody in Reading cares what happens in
:41:36. > :41:46.Reading. If it is about the planning application and the bottom of your
:41:47. > :41:50.road, you will get interested. Half of all car parking in the UK is
:41:51. > :41:53.run by local authorities, and it's a nice little earner ` ?601 million
:41:54. > :41:56.last year from parking charges and fines for outstaying your welcome.
:41:57. > :41:58.This week the Transport Select Committee took a robust approach to
:41:59. > :42:01.the revenues generated. Parking is essential but many people
:42:02. > :42:09.believe they are being used as a cash cow. There must be more
:42:10. > :42:11.transparency. Local authorities should publish what charges they are
:42:12. > :42:20.raising and how they are playing them.
:42:21. > :42:22.By law, councils can't use the profits from parking on
:42:23. > :42:25.non`transport`related spending. But that still means that money they
:42:26. > :42:28.would have spent on transport programmes can be used elsewhere.
:42:29. > :42:31.The RAC Foundation produced a report in the summer showing that councils
:42:32. > :42:35.have a net surplus of nearly half a billion from parking and fines. Jo
:42:36. > :42:42.Abbott is from the RAC and joins us now from our Westminster studio.
:42:43. > :42:46.More transparency about what is being raised and how the charges are
:42:47. > :42:54.being applied. Do you think transparency is the answer?
:42:55. > :42:59.Absolutely. What Jo said underpins where we should be going in
:43:00. > :43:05.explaining to local residents how money is being spent. She said the
:43:06. > :43:11.income now had gone in excess of ?601 million. In fact, the figure is
:43:12. > :43:19.predicted to be even higher next year. Can you imagine any public
:43:20. > :43:25.business where shareholders put money in, see profits raised, but
:43:26. > :43:30.didn't see any paperwork at all to underpin the transactions? Annual
:43:31. > :43:36.parking reports would be a good way forward to eliminate what is going
:43:37. > :43:38.on in the parking account business. Do you think the councils are
:43:39. > :43:45.anti`car in the way they are operating? Perhaps. One of the
:43:46. > :43:53.things we have to perhaps think about is the number of miles that
:43:54. > :44:00.all of us use in cars. We cover most of our transport needs in the car.
:44:01. > :44:07.Over 90% of the travel we do is on the roads. Only 9% is on rail.
:44:08. > :44:12.Outside the big cities, there isn't a great coverage by bus, even. In a
:44:13. > :44:16.big conurbation, maybe you have a good service but in a rural
:44:17. > :44:21.community, you don't have that. You will depend on the car. Every time
:44:22. > :44:26.you take a car out, it needs to be parked. In our area, we have got
:44:27. > :44:31.some wonderful historic town centres. Winchester is one,
:44:32. > :44:36.obviously. Oxford did another. Both of those towns are distinct because
:44:37. > :44:42.they have excellent facilities. `` distinguished. That is this is a
:44:43. > :44:46.more way of accommodating people who want to visit those cities. ``
:44:47. > :44:51.sensible way. We know that some people are anti`car, but as the car
:44:52. > :45:02.gets arena, they may change their minds. Yes, good park and ride
:45:03. > :45:10.schemes. Have we got to move away, Jo, from trying to get people out of
:45:11. > :45:14.their cars? It is about using the right way to get somewhere for a
:45:15. > :45:19.purpose. If you are going into a crowded town centre which has got
:45:20. > :45:27.the historic patterns, such as even in Reading, there is simply not
:45:28. > :45:36.enough street space to allow every car. So it is not so much about
:45:37. > :45:40.climate change? It is both. It is recognising that at the moment, cars
:45:41. > :45:47.contribute to pollution. Hopefully, in the future, we will get more
:45:48. > :45:51.environmentally friendly cars. It is about managing it for everybody. In
:45:52. > :45:56.particular, if you get a lot of people living near the town centre,
:45:57. > :46:02.we owe it to them to ensure they can park near their homes. We have
:46:03. > :46:08.residents' parking schemes, so that people, if they park in that place,
:46:09. > :46:18.they get fined. It is managing it as well as we can. Do you think some
:46:19. > :46:21.councils are using this situation? Possibly. It is different in
:46:22. > :46:32.Winchester. I represent an urban centre. What Winchester has is a
:46:33. > :46:36.triple ring. On the outer ring, there is cheaper parking, longer
:46:37. > :46:42.term, park and ride parking. Closer, they have more expensive, a
:46:43. > :46:50.bit less length. In the centre, short`term parking that costs more.
:46:51. > :46:58.That works for us. It is currently consulted on with local businesses.
:46:59. > :47:04.The council has taken on free Sunday parking. It has been popular. If you
:47:05. > :47:10.want to pop in, that is popular with businesses. It is about getting
:47:11. > :47:18.balance. You want good, clean air quality in a historic place like
:47:19. > :47:24.Winchester but you want growth. Are things moving in the right
:47:25. > :47:30.direction, Jo? In places like Winchester, where they are forward
:47:31. > :47:37.thinking, things are moving forward. Not every town is like Winchester.
:47:38. > :47:43.The other areas have to rebuild trust with the local residents to
:47:44. > :47:48.ensure that they're not just being used as another form of income or an
:47:49. > :47:54.unfair income for the local councils. All of which, we know, are
:47:55. > :48:00.short of money. It is important that we see the car as a support for the
:48:01. > :48:13.economy, particularly at the moment. We do a lot of passenger miles. The
:48:14. > :48:16.majority are to support businesses. Localism is supposed to be the new
:48:17. > :48:19.buzzword in planning, the idea being that local communities know best
:48:20. > :48:23.what's suitable for their area rather than the minister up in
:48:24. > :48:26.London. But what if a development isn't wanted by the community or the
:48:27. > :48:29.local council? Does that mean it's a dead duck? As our Hampshire
:48:30. > :48:35.political reporter Paul Greer reports, that ain't necessarily so.
:48:36. > :48:40.Ever since this land was reclaimed from the sea, it has been the
:48:41. > :48:45.gateway to Southampton. It is storage for cars, scrap metal and
:48:46. > :48:49.even mountains of salt. All of this only yards from residential homes.
:48:50. > :48:53.Locals have got used to living close to industry. They have recently lost
:48:54. > :48:59.a fight to prevent a sulphur plant being built nearby. Now I proposal
:49:00. > :49:06.for a week biomass power station has angered residents. They say enough
:49:07. > :49:11.is enough. The let's be honest, there is a bit of a Conservative in
:49:12. > :49:19.us all. Who would want a power station plant from close to where we
:49:20. > :49:24.live. Just an artist's impression of what this plant might look like.
:49:25. > :49:29.Nobody is denying it will be big... Really big. Take Southampton's
:49:30. > :49:33.clocktower. That is about half the height of the proposed biomass
:49:34. > :49:41.plant. It will change the city's skyline. It is already changing the
:49:42. > :49:45.politics. There is something you don't see often in Southampton.
:49:46. > :49:50.Four`year is, Labour and Conservatives have been feuding
:49:51. > :49:58.over, though, everything. As you'll granny would say, they have been ``
:49:59. > :50:03.as your granny would say, they have been arguing over anything. Some
:50:04. > :50:09.issues have to serve the wider interests of the country. A decision
:50:10. > :50:16.of this major shouldn't sit with a minister in Whitehall. This doesn't
:50:17. > :50:25.serve anyone's interests. It is too close to people's homes. No one
:50:26. > :50:30.wants it. It is a frustration shared by those who live close to the
:50:31. > :50:36.proposed power station. They know when the time comes that their fate
:50:37. > :50:40.will be decided by national, not local, politicians. We can't make
:50:41. > :50:44.them listen. They don't go away, we don't go away, we get ready for the
:50:45. > :50:49.fight. It will be decided nationally, so we have got to make
:50:50. > :50:54.sure our voices are heard. The local message is we don't want it. We have
:50:55. > :51:01.got to make sure it is reflected nationally. What can we say? In the
:51:02. > :51:05.end, it is down to the government. What can we do? We have been to
:51:06. > :51:11.meetings. We have been to this and that over the years. I don't know
:51:12. > :51:17.what we can do. You feel powerless? Yeah, very much so. It is
:51:18. > :51:24.frightening. The irony is, if the proposed power station was small and
:51:25. > :51:28.had less impact on residents, the final decision would rest with
:51:29. > :51:32.councillors. Because it is so big, ministers in London will decide what
:51:33. > :51:38.is best for the country and not just those who have to live near and with
:51:39. > :51:41.any new power station. Steve, it is frightening for people
:51:42. > :51:50.at the sharp end if they filmed nowhere to go. I understand. We have
:51:51. > :51:56.had experience in Winchester of the `` decisions being taken over our
:51:57. > :52:01.head, and we said no, no, no. In the end, it went to the Inspectorate.
:52:02. > :52:06.Deep pockets won the day and it was granted over our heads. I have been
:52:07. > :52:13.on record as saying localism is not true local isn't. It should be. I
:52:14. > :52:18.argue strongly that we should have abolished the planning Inspectorate.
:52:19. > :52:24.You cannot have localism that is referred somewhere else. That didn't
:52:25. > :52:28.localism. That defeats people's belief in their ability to shape
:52:29. > :52:38.their communities. On the issue, I have got a big wind farm proposed in
:52:39. > :52:44.my constituency. Ultimately, I don't think it is for me, Peter, to say
:52:45. > :52:49.they can or can't have that. If the company comes along and makes a good
:52:50. > :52:54.deal with those residents and it stacks of them locally, should be
:52:55. > :53:01.able to accept it. Jo, you were nodding. Yet some things have to go
:53:02. > :53:04.through the national government. If you have got everybody locally
:53:05. > :53:11.making some very good arguments about white something shouldn't be
:53:12. > :53:17.on a particular site, and clearly it looks as though it is close to some
:53:18. > :53:21.dense residential area, there must be somewhere else that something
:53:22. > :53:29.like this can be built that wasn't quite so in everybody's faces. So
:53:30. > :53:34.politicians have to try harder. But MPs, their link, I expect they will
:53:35. > :53:37.be hearing from those residents. Should the government be worrying
:53:38. > :53:40.about your wallet or your wellbeing? Is improving the economy more
:53:41. > :53:43.important than improving people's happiness? We had the regional
:53:44. > :53:49.breakdown of the latest happiness index this week. People all over the
:53:50. > :53:53.country were asked to rate on a scale of zero to ten how happy they
:53:54. > :53:56.were feeling. The national average was a score of 7.28. But locally we
:53:57. > :53:59.went from a happier`than`average Hart in Hampshire with a score of
:54:00. > :54:03.8.04 to a not`so`optimistic Oxford on Saamah Abdallah works at the
:54:04. > :54:05.Wellbeing Centre of the New Economics Foundation and joins us
:54:06. > :54:15.from London. GDP has doubled since the 1970s and
:54:16. > :54:22.satisfaction has hardly trained `` changed. When measuring the right
:54:23. > :54:28.thing? We need to know what the economy is doing, to know how we are
:54:29. > :54:34.faring in terms of production. That is important. But it is only part of
:54:35. > :54:37.what is important to people's lives. We know there are other
:54:38. > :54:46.things, health, social relationships, time, the cities they
:54:47. > :54:51.live in. There is a risk when we focus on GP that we figured other
:54:52. > :54:55.things. Measuring well`being, we know we are capturing a comic
:54:56. > :55:01.impacts. People who have low incomes will have low well`being. Well
:55:02. > :55:06.capturing the hard things that we know are important. But we also
:55:07. > :55:08.capturing other things like social relationships and environmental
:55:09. > :55:14.conditions, which also affect well`being. We started doing this a
:55:15. > :55:21.while ago. Have we seen any signs of things improving as the economy has
:55:22. > :55:25.changed? For the UK, we have only got two years of data. It is still
:55:26. > :55:28.early to start making comparisons are talking about changes over time.
:55:29. > :55:36.Well`being is something that takes time to develop and takes time to be
:55:37. > :55:42.understandable. And for politicians, would you think they should do in
:55:43. > :55:46.response? Where can they legislate to improve happiness? The starting
:55:47. > :55:49.point at the moment is to start looking at what is important to
:55:50. > :55:56.well`being at the moment. You can do analyses and work`out which people
:55:57. > :55:59.have high and low well`being. We can look and see which people have
:56:00. > :56:06.suffering in particular. Which groups. We saw last year that when
:56:07. > :56:10.you analyse the data across the UK, and you control for things like
:56:11. > :56:19.income, you still found that ethnic minorities had lower well`being. Why
:56:20. > :56:24.are people from ethnic minorities with lower well`being? Is it
:56:25. > :56:29.cultural or something else in society? Let's ask our politicians
:56:30. > :56:36.about that. The average score for the South is 7.35. Reading is
:56:37. > :56:42.slightly above. Winchester is quite a lot above, 7.73. Is it
:56:43. > :56:47.demographics as well, Jo? Some of this is, I would suggest, not rocket
:56:48. > :56:52.science. With poor health, low income and insecurity where you
:56:53. > :56:59.live, you are going to be less happy than somebody who has got security,
:57:00. > :57:03.wealth and all the rest. Is it just about relative wealth? But it is
:57:04. > :57:12.about what people do with this information. Government policy will
:57:13. > :57:21.need to change for those who are suffering. Maybe they worry about
:57:22. > :57:24.how much tax they are paying. Maybe, but it is more worrying if you can't
:57:25. > :57:29.pay your electricity bill at the end of the week. Even in affluent
:57:30. > :57:41.Reading, people are choosing between eating and heating. The increase in
:57:42. > :57:49.foodbanks in the 21st`century, even with a recession, we shouldn't have
:57:50. > :57:53.people making those choices. And we should be looking at which part of
:57:54. > :57:59.the population is getting happier. The strongest quarter of it, growth
:58:00. > :58:10.may make people happier. It will make George Osborne happier. If I
:58:11. > :58:12.asked a dry cleaner, saying the government was measuring happiness,
:58:13. > :58:16.I would love to report what he said, but I think you would cut me off. I
:58:17. > :58:23.think I know what people think of this. I know where the Prime
:58:24. > :58:27.Minister is coming on this. This is part of his agenda. We all know
:58:28. > :58:31.this. My parents used to say, money doesn't make you happy. If I had a
:58:32. > :58:39.choice between health and money, I would choose health. But a bit of
:58:40. > :58:43.money helps some people? It impacts on your health as well. If you can't
:58:44. > :58:53.heat to a home, it is going to affect your health. You can't
:58:54. > :58:57.separate these things out. Now our regular round up of the
:58:58. > :59:00.political week in the South in 60 Seconds.
:59:01. > :59:04.Volunteers will no longer deliver meals on wheels in Sussex. The RDS
:59:05. > :59:09.have contracted out the service to a large catering company and offered
:59:10. > :59:12.help is other duties. Prior to transfer 200 jobs from the Royal
:59:13. > :59:17.Surrey Hospital to the private sector have caused a storm. ``
:59:18. > :59:22.plans. The hospital say the money they will save all in and take on
:59:23. > :59:27.new nurses and open a new unit. Parents in Dorset are struggling to
:59:28. > :59:32.find day nurseries for 250 children after the county council decided to
:59:33. > :59:37.close centres in Blandford and Shaftesbury. It is unusual for
:59:38. > :59:41.councillors directly to operate nurseries for children. A year after
:59:42. > :59:48.the company that built born with's surf reef went bust. Contractors are
:59:49. > :59:53.still trying to trace the owner to recover ?250 `` ?250,000
:59:54. > :59:57.compensation. And new European rules could help people with food
:59:58. > :00:00.allergies. Restaurant is now have to display a range of potentially
:00:01. > :00:06.dangerous ingredients on their menus.
:00:07. > :00:13.Lots in the public sector being moved to the private sector. Does
:00:14. > :00:20.that worry you, Jo? Yes. Some things are better delivered by the private
:00:21. > :00:24.sector. When we have taken things into the private sector, sometimes
:00:25. > :00:30.we have to bring them back. We should leave no stone unturned. The
:00:31. > :00:37.austerity we have had to push through from Whitehall, the deficit
:00:38. > :00:40.is coming down, but it creates tough decisions for government and local
:00:41. > :00:49.government. They have to decide how the commission services, where they
:00:50. > :00:55.get the best bang for their buck. It is horses for courses. There is
:00:56. > :00:58.evidence that a lot of things are delivered more efficiently when you
:00:59. > :01:04.don't have complicated contracts in the way. Other things, you do need
:01:05. > :01:09.to find and elsewhere. Thank you for joining us. I will push people
:01:10. > :01:13.towards your TV channels! That's the Sunday Politics in the
:01:14. > :01:16.South. Thanks to my guests, Jo Lovelock and Steve Brine. Remember,
:01:17. > :01:17.you can keep up to date with Southern politics by reading my
:01:18. > :01:31.blog. There's free school area for into that
:01:32. > :01:32.Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.
:01:33. > :01:36.Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:37. > :01:47.party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:48. > :02:00.these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.
:02:01. > :02:04.So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP
:02:05. > :02:09.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.
:02:10. > :02:14.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the minute's silence for HS2? It will
:02:15. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They will not stand up and say, we
:02:20. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it
:02:20. > :02:22.would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it
:02:23. > :02:28.that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will
:02:29. > :02:32.be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will
:02:33. > :02:39.create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some
:02:40. > :02:43.point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It
:02:44. > :02:50.isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see
:02:51. > :02:57.what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government
:02:58. > :03:02.when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument
:03:03. > :03:08.that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won
:03:09. > :03:14.too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of
:03:15. > :03:19.alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being
:03:20. > :03:26.trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the
:03:27. > :03:31.high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they
:03:32. > :03:38.didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why
:03:39. > :03:42.would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For
:03:43. > :03:48.David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot
:03:49. > :03:53.proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty
:03:54. > :03:57.wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by
:03:58. > :04:01.proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases
:04:02. > :04:06.tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public
:04:07. > :04:28.services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because
:04:29. > :04:30.there was a difference between cancelling something that already
:04:31. > :04:33.exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does
:04:34. > :04:35.not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something
:04:36. > :04:39.here and now. Can Labour do this? I know that the line will be, we are
:04:40. > :04:41.not going to build this railway because we are going to build
:04:42. > :04:43.200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think
:04:44. > :04:48.there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have
:04:49. > :04:53.changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we
:04:54. > :04:58.cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot
:04:59. > :05:03.go ahead with it, but Labour has ruined your chance of prosperity, or
:05:04. > :05:09.they can tie themselves to it, and then Labour cannot attack it on
:05:10. > :05:15.great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right
:05:16. > :05:22.now. They can say, if we were in charge, the financial management
:05:23. > :05:27.would be much better. This raises some really important questions for
:05:28. > :05:33.the government. They have utterly failed to make the case for HS2
:05:34. > :05:37.There is a real case to make. Between London and Birmingham it is
:05:38. > :05:42.about capacity not speed. North of Birmingham, it is about
:05:43. > :05:46.connectivity. It is a simple case to make, but it is only in the last
:05:47. > :05:50.month that they have been making that case. It shows really terrible
:05:51. > :05:58.complacency in the coalition that they haven't done that. We'll HS2
:05:59. > :06:01.happen or not? I think it will. For the reasons that Nick outlined,
:06:02. > :06:11.there is not of a constituency for it amongst Northern areas. -- there
:06:12. > :06:18.is enough of a constituency for it. There is private investment as well.
:06:19. > :06:24.It isn't like Heathrow. I say no, because I think Labour will drop
:06:25. > :06:27.their support for it. Caroline Flint said she was in favour of the
:06:28. > :06:33.concept of trains generally, but will it go further than that? It is
:06:34. > :06:38.difficult to see how it will go ahead if Labour will not support it
:06:39. > :06:46.after setting five tests that it clearly will not meet. Some will
:06:47. > :06:51.breathe a sigh of relief. Some will say, even in the 20th century, we
:06:52. > :06:57.cannot build a proper rail network. The economy was another big story of
:06:58. > :07:02.the week. We had those GDP figures. There is a video the Tories are
:07:03. > :07:06.releasing. The world premiere is going to be here. Where's the red
:07:07. > :07:10.carpet? It gives an indication of how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband
:07:11. > :07:44.and labour in the run-up to the election. Let's have a look at it.
:07:45. > :07:49.These graphics are even worse than the ones we use on our show! How on
:07:50. > :07:59.earth would you expect that to go viral? It did have a strange feel
:08:00. > :08:03.about it. It doesn't understand the Internet at all. Who is going to
:08:04. > :08:15.read those little screens between it? Put a dog in it! However,
:08:16. > :08:20.putting that aside, I have no idea that that is going to go viral. The
:08:21. > :08:27.Tories are now operating - and I say Tories rather than the coalition -
:08:28. > :08:31.on the assumption that the economy is improving and will continue to
:08:32. > :08:36.improve, and that that will become more obvious as 2014 goes on. We
:08:37. > :08:43.just saw their how they will fight the campaign. Yes, and at the
:08:44. > :08:47.crucial moment, you will reach the point where wages. To rise at a
:08:48. > :08:52.faster pace than inflation, and then people will start to, in the words
:08:53. > :08:57.of Harold Macmillan, feel that they have never had it so good. That is
:08:58. > :09:05.the key moment. If the economy is growing, there is a rule of thumb
:09:06. > :09:08.that the government should get a benefit. But it doesn't always work
:09:09. > :09:12.like that. The fundamental point here is that Ed Miliband has had a
:09:13. > :09:17.great month. He has totally set the agenda. He has set the agenda with
:09:18. > :09:22.something - freezing energy prices - that may not work. That video shows
:09:23. > :09:25.that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the
:09:26. > :09:33.fundamentals. That this is a party that told us for three years that
:09:34. > :09:38.this coalition was telling us to -- was taking us to hell on a handcart.
:09:39. > :09:45.That doesn't seem to have happened. The energy price was a very clever
:09:46. > :09:49.thing, at the party conference season, which now seems years ago.
:09:50. > :09:56.They saw that the recovery was going to happen, so they changed the
:09:57. > :10:00.debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately
:10:01. > :10:05.expecting growth to be 3% next year, which was inconceivable for five
:10:06. > :10:07.months ago. If growth is 3% next year, living standards will start to
:10:08. > :10:14.rise again. Where does Labour go then? I would go further, and say
:10:15. > :10:19.that even though Ed Miliband has made a small political victory on
:10:20. > :10:25.living standards, it hasn't registered in the polls. Those polls
:10:26. > :10:29.have been contracted since April -- have been contracting since April.
:10:30. > :10:34.That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living
:10:35. > :10:38.standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds
:10:39. > :10:44.everybody. No one was predicting, not the Treasury, not the media not
:10:45. > :10:51.the IMF, not the academics, and the only people I can think of... I fit
:10:52. > :10:57.-- I thought they knew everything! The only people I know who did are
:10:58. > :11:00.one adviser who is very close to George Osborne, and the clever hedge
:11:01. > :11:05.fund is who were buying British equities back in January. Because
:11:06. > :11:09.the Treasury's record is so appalling, no one believe them, but
:11:10. > :11:15.they were saying around February, March this year, that by the end of
:11:16. > :11:23.the summer, the recovery would be gathering momentum. For once, they
:11:24. > :11:27.turned out to be right! They said that the economy would be going gang
:11:28. > :11:34.bust is! Where did the new Tory voters come from? I agree, if the
:11:35. > :11:43.economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But
:11:44. > :11:47.where will they get new voters from? For people who sign up to help to
:11:48. > :11:51.buy, they will be locked into nice mortgages at a low interest rate,
:11:52. > :11:57.and just as you go into a general election, if you are getting 3%
:11:58. > :12:00.growth and unemployment is down the Bank of England will have to review
:12:01. > :12:05.their interest rates. People who are getting nice interest rates now may
:12:06. > :12:12.find that it is not like that in a few months time. The point John
:12:13. > :12:16.Major was making implicitly was that Mrs Thatcher could speak to people
:12:17. > :12:21.on low incomes. John Major could not speak to them -- John Major could
:12:22. > :12:25.speak to them. But this coalition cannot speak to them. This idea
:12:26. > :12:33.about the reshuffle was that David Cameron wanted more Northern voices,
:12:34. > :12:38.more women, to make it look like it was not a party of seven men. When
:12:39. > :12:43.David Cameron became leader, John Major said, I do not speak very
:12:44. > :12:47.often, but when I do, I will help you, because I think you are good
:12:48. > :12:52.thing and I do not want to be like Margaret Thatcher. But that speech
:12:53. > :12:56.was clearly a lament for the party he believed that David Cameron was
:12:57. > :13:03.going to lead and create, but that isn't happening. And energy prices
:13:04. > :13:07.continue into this coming week. We have the companies going before a
:13:08. > :13:11.select committee. My information is they are sending along the secondary
:13:12. > :13:17.division, not the boss. How can they get along -- get away with that I
:13:18. > :13:21.got the letter through from British Gas this week explaining why my
:13:22. > :13:25.bills are going up, and at no point since this became a story have any
:13:26. > :13:30.of the big companies handled it well. I will have to leave it there.
:13:31. > :13:37.Make sure you pay your bill! That's it for today. The Daily Politics is
:13:38. > :13:44.back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be back here on BBC One next Sunday.
:13:45. > :13:51.Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics.