01/12/2013 Sunday Politics West

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne

announces a ?50 cut to annual household energy bills. We'll talk

to Lib Dem president Tim Farron ahead of the Chancellor's mini

budget this week. Net immigration is up for the first

time in two years. Labour and the Tories say they want to bring it

down, but how? Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper joins us for the

Sunday Interview. The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will

be for some cornflakes to get to the top. The Mayor of London says

inequality and greed are essential to spur economic activity.

In the West, the brutal murder of a Bristol refugee for being different.

capital is now a crisis. Another week, another strategy? Can this one

deliver? And with me throughout today's

programme, well, we've shaken the packet and look who's risen to the

top. Or did we open it at the bottom? Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh

and Sam Coates. All three will be tweeting throughout the programme

using the hashtag #bbcsp. So, after weeks in which Ed Miliband's promise

to freeze energy prices has set the Westminster agenda, the Coalition

Government is finally coming up with its answer. This morning the

Chancellor George Osborne explained how he plans to cut household energy

bills by an average of fifty quid. What we're going to do is roll back

the levees that are placed by government on people's electricity

bills. This will mean that for the average bill payer, they will have

?50 of those electricity and gas bills. That will help families. We

are doing it in the way that government can do it. We are

controlling the cost that families incurred because of government

policies. We are doing it in a way that will not damage the environment

or reduce our commitment to dealing with climate change. We will not

produce commit men to helping low-income families with the cost of

living. Janan, we are finally seeing the coalition begin to play its hand

in response to the Ed Miliband freeze? They have been trying to

respond for almost ten weeks and older responses have been quite

fiddly. We are going to take a bit of tax year, put it onto general

taxation, have a conversation with the energy companies, engineered a

rebate of some kind, this is not very vivid. The advantage of the

idea that they have announced overnight is that it is clear and it

has a nice round figure attached to it, ?50. The chief of staff of

President Obama, he said, if you are explaining, you're losing. The

genius of this idea is that it does not require explanation. He would

not drawn this morning on what agreement he had with the energy

companies, and whether this would fall through to the bottom of the

bill, but the way he spoke, saying, I am not going to pre-empt what the

energy companies say, that suggests he has something up his sleeve. Yes,

I thought so. The energy companies have made this so badly for so long.

It would be awful if he announced this and the energy companies said,

we are going to keep this money for ourselves. I do not think he is that

stupid. The energy companies have an incentive to go along with this

don't they? My worry is that I am not sure how much it will be within

the opinion polls. I think people might expect this now, it is not a

new thing, it is not an exciting thing. Say in the markets, they may

have priced the ten already. If by Thursday of this week, he is able to

say, I have a ?50 cut coming to your bill. The energy companies have

guaranteed that this will fall through onto your energy bill, and

they have indicated to me that they themselves will not put up energy

prices through 2014, has he shot the Ed Miliband Fox? I think he has a

couple of challenges. It is still very hard. This is an answer for the

next 12 months but did is no chance announced that Labour will stop

saying they are going to freeze prices in the next Parliament. He

will say, I have not just frozen them, I have done that as well and I

have cut them. When people look at their energy bills, they are going

up by more than ?50. This is a reduction in the amount that they

are going up overall. Year on 0 will be for George Osborne. He will

have to come up with something this time next year. The detail in the

Sunday papers reveals that George Osborne is trying to get the energy

companies to put on bills that 50 has been knocked off your bill

because of a reduction by the government. He is trying to get the

energy companies to do his political bidding for him. It will be

interesting to see if they go along with that, because then we will know

how cross the arm with Ed Miliband. Let's get another perspective.

Joining me now from Kendal in the Lake District is the president of

the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Good

morning. Let me ask you this, the coalition is rowing back on green

taxes, I do comfortable with that or is it something else you will rebel

against? I am very comfortable with the fact we are protecting for the

money is going. I am open to where the money comes from. The notion

that we should stop insulating the homes of elderly people or stop

investing in British manufacturing in terms of green industry, that is

something that I resolutely oppose, but I am pleased that the funding

will be made available for all that. You cannot ignore the fact that for

a whole range of reasons, mostly down to the actions of the energy

companies, you have prices that are shooting up and affecting lots of

people, making life hard. You cannot ignore that. If we fund the

installation of homes for older people and others, if we protect

British manufacturing jobs, and raise the money through general

taxation, I am comfortable with that. It is not clear that is going

to happen. It looks like the eco-scheme, whereby the energy

companies pay for the installation of those on below-average incomes,

they will spin that out over four years, not two years, and one

estimate is that that will cost 10,000 jobs. You're always boasting

about your commitment to green jobs, how do square that? I do not believe

that. The roll-out will be longer. The number of houses reached will be

greater and that is a good thing. My take is that it will not affect the

number of jobs. People talk about green levies. There has been

disparaging language about that sort of thing. There are 2 million people

in this country in the lowest income families and they get ?230 off their

energy bills because of what isn't -- because of what is disparaging

the refer to as green stuff, shall we call it. There will be more

properties covered. We both know that your party is being pushed into

this by the Tories. You would not be doing this off your own bad. You are

in coalition with people who have jettisoned their green Prudential

is? -- credentials. You have made my point quite well. David Cameron s

panicked response to this over the last few months was to ditch all the

green stuff. It has been a job to make sure that we hold him to his

pledges and the green cord of this government. That is why we are not

scrapping the investment, we are making sure it is funded from

general taxation. I am talking to you from Kendal. Lots of people

struggle to pay their energy bills. But all these things pale into

insignificance compared to the threat of climate change and we must

hold the Prime Minister to account on this issue. Argue reconciled to

the idea that as long as you're in coalition with the Tories you will

never get a mansion tax? I am not reconciled to it. We are trying to

give off other tax cut to the lowest income people. What about the

mansion tax? That would be potentially paid for by another view

source of finance. That would be that the wealthy... We know that is

what you want, but you're not going to get that? We will keep fighting

for it. It is extremely important. We can show where we will get the

money from. I know that is the adamant. That is not what I asked

you. Ed Balls and Labour run in favour of a mansion tax, have you

talked to them about it? The honest answer is I have not. It is

interesting that they have come round to supporting our policy

having rejected it in power. So if Labour was the largest party in

parliament but not in power, you would have no problem agreeing with

a mansion tax as part of the deal? If the arithmetic falls in that way

and that is the will of the British people, fear taxes on those who are

wealthiest, stuff that is fear, which includes wealth taxes, in

order to fund more reductions for those people on lowest incomes, that

is the sort of thing that we might reach agreement on. You voted with

Labour on the spare room subsidy. Again, that would be job done in any

future coalition talks with Labour, correct? I take the view that the

spare room subsidy, whilst entirely fail in principle, in practice it

has caused immense hardship. I want to see that changed. There are many

people in government to share my view on that. So does Labour. The

problem was largely caused Labour because they oversaw an increase in

housing costs both 3.5 times while they were in power. The government

was forced into a position to tidy up an appalling mess that Labour

left. You voted with Labour against it, and also, you want... No, I

voted with the party conference Let's not dance on the head of the

ten. Maybe they voted with me. - on the head of a pin. You are also in

favour of a 50% top rate of income tax, so you and Labour are that one

there as well? No, I take the view that the top rate of income tax is a

fluid thing. All taxation levels are temporary. Nick Clegg said that when

the 50p rate came down to 45, that was a rather foolish price tag

George Osborne asked for in return for as increasing the threshold and

letting several million people out of paying income tax at the bottom.

So you agree with Labour? In favour of rising the tax to 50p. I take the

view that we should keep our minds open on that. It is not the income

tax level that bothers me, it is whether the wealthy pay their fresh

air. If that can be done through other taxes, then that is something

that I am happy with. -- their fair share. Given your position on the

top rate of tax, on the spare room subsidy, how does the prospect of

another five years of coalition with the Tories strike you? The answer

is, you react with whatever you have about you to what the electorate

hand you. Whatever happens after the next election, you have got to

respect the will of the people. Yes, but how do you feel about it? We

know about this, I am asking for your feeling. Does your heart left

or does your heart fall at the prospect of another five years with

the Tories? My heart would always follow the prospect of anything

other than a majority of Liberal Democrat government. Your heart must

be permanently in your shoes then. Something like that, but when all is

said and done, we accept the will of the electorate. When you stand for

election, you have got to put up with what the electorate say. I have

not found coalition as difficult as you might suggest. It is about

people who have to disagree and agree to differ. You work with

people in your daily life that you disagree with. It is what grown ups

do. A lot of people in your party think that your positioning yourself

to be the left-wing candidate in a post-Nick Clegg leadership contest.

They think it is blatant manoeuvring. One senior figure says,

this is about you. Which bit of the sanctimonious, treacherous little

man is there not to like? What can I see in response to that. My job is

to promote the Liberal Democrats. I have to do my best to consider what

I'd defend to be right. By and large, my position as an MP in the

Lake District, but also as the president of the party, is to

reflect the will of people outside the Westminster village. That is the

important thing to do. Thank you for joining us. David Cameron has said

he wants to get it down to the tens of thousands, Ed Miliband has

admitted New Labour "got it wrong", and Nick Clegg wants to be

"zero-tolerant towards abuse". Yes, immigration is back on the political

agenda, with figures released earlier this week showing that net

migration is on the rise for the first time in two years. And that's

not the only reason politicians are talking about it again.

The issue of immigration has come into sharp focus because of concerns

about the number of remaining ins and Bulgarians that can come to the

UK next year. EU citizenship grants the right to free movement within

the EU. But when Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007, the

government took up its right to apply temporary restrictions on

movement. They must be lifted apply temporary restrictions on

end of this year. According to the 2011 census, about one eyed 1

million of the population in England and Wales is made up of people from

countries who joined the EU in 004. The government has played down

expectations that the skill of migration could be repeated. This

week David Cameron announced new restrictions on the ability of EU

migrants to claim benefits. That was two, send a message. That prompted

criticism is that the UK risks being seen as a nasty country. Yvette

Cooper joins me now for the Sunday interview. Welcome to the Sunday

Politics, Yvette Cooper. You criticised the coalition for not

acting sooner on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria but the

timetable for the unrestricted arrival in January was agreed under

Labour many years ago, and given the battle that you had with the Polish

and the Hungarians, what preparations did you make in power?

We think that we should learn from some of the things that happened

with migration. It would have been better to have transitional controls

in place and look at the impact of what happened. But what preparations

did you make in power? We set out a series of measures that the

Government still had time to bring in. It is important that this should

be a calm and measured debate. There was time to bring in measures around

benefit restrictions, for example, and looking at the impact on the

labour market, to make sure you do not have exploitation of cheap

migrant Labour which is bad for everyone. I know that but I have

asked you before and I am asking again, what did you do? We got

things wrong in Government. I understand that I am not arguing.

You are criticising them not preparing, a legitimate criticism,

but what did you do in power? Well, I did think we did enough. Did you

do anything? We signed the agency workers directive but too slowly. We

needed measures like that. We did support things like the social

chapter and the minimum wage, but I have said before that we did not do

enough and that is why we recommended the measures in March. I

understand that is what you did in opposition and I take that. I put

the general point to you that given your failure to introduce controls

on the countries that joined in 2004, alone among the major EU

economies we did that, should we not keep an embarrassed silence on these

matters? You have no credibility. I think you have got to talk about

immigration. One of the things we did not do in Government was

discussed immigration and the concerns people have and the

long-term benefits that we know have come from people who have come to

Britain over many generations contributing to Britain and having a

big impact. I think we recognise that there are things that we did

wrong, but it would be irresponsible for us not to join the debate and

suggest sensible, practical measures that you can introduce now to

address the concerns that people have, but also make sure that the

system is fair and managed. Immigration is important to Britain

but it does have to be controlled and managed in the right way. Let's

remind ourselves of your record on immigration. The chart you did not

consult when in power. This is total net migration per year under Labour.

2.2 million of net rise in migration, more than the population

of Birmingham, you proud of that? -- twice the population. Are you proud

of that or apologising for it? We set the pace of immigration was too

fat and the level was too high and it is right to bring migration down.

So you think that was wrong? Overruled have been huge benefits

from people that have come to Britain and built our biggest

businesses. -- overall. They have become Olympic medal winners. But

because the pace was too fast, that has had an impact. That was because

of the lack of transitional controls from Eastern Europe and it is why we

should learn from that and have sensible measures in place now, as

part of what has got to be a calm debate. These are net migration

figures. They don't often show the full figure. These are the

immigration figures coming in. What that chart shows is that in terms of

the gross number coming into this country, from the year 2000, it was

half a million a year under Labour. Rising to 600,000 by the time you

were out of power. A lot of people coming into these crowded islands,

particularly since most of them come to London and the South East. Was

that intentional? Was that out of control? Is that what you are now

apologising for? What we said was that the Government got the figures

wrong on the migration from Eastern Europe. If you remember particularly

there was the issue of what happened with not having transitional

controls in place. The Government didn't expect the number of people

coming to the country to be the way it was. And so obviously mistakes

were made. We have recognised that. We have also got to recognise that

this is something that has happened in countries all over the world We

travel and trade far more than ever. We have an increasingly globalised

economy. Other European countries have been affected in the same way,

and America, and other developing countries affected in the same way

by the scale of migration. I am trying to work out whether the

numbers were intentional or if you lost control. The key thing that we

have said many times and I have already said it to you many times,

Andrew, that we should have a transitional controls in place on

Eastern Europe. I think that would have had an impact on them level of

migration. We also should have brought in the points -based system

earlier. We did bring that in towards the end and it did restrict

the level of low skilled migration because there are different kinds of

migration. University students coming to Britain brings in billions

of pounds of investment. On the other hand, low skilled migration

can have a serious impact on the jobs market, pay levels and so on at

the low skilled end of the labour market. We have to distinguish

between different kinds of migration. You keep trying to excuse

the figures by talking about the lack of transitional controls. Can

we skip the chart I was going to go to? The next one. Under Labour, this

is the source of where migrants came from. The main source was not the

accession countries or the remainder of Europe. Overwhelmingly they were

from the African Commonwealth, and the Indian subcontinent.

Overwhelmingly, these numbers are nothing to do with transitional

controls. You can control that immigration entirely because they

are not part of the EU. Was that a mistake? First of all, the big

increase was in the accession groups. Not according to the chart.

In terms of the increase, the changes that happened. Secondly in

answer to the question that you just asked me, we should also have

introduced the points -based system at an earlier stage. Thirdly there

has been a big increase in the number of university students coming

to Britain and they have brought billions of pounds of investment. At

the moment the Government is not distinguishing, it is just using the

figure of net migration. And that is starting to go up again, as you said

in the introduction, but the problem is that it treats all kinds of

migration is aimed. It does not address illegal immigration, which

is a problem, but it treats university graduates coming to

Britain in the same way as low skilled workers. If Labour get back

into power, is it your ambition to bring down immigration? We have

already said it is too high and we would support measures to bring it

down. You would bring it down? There is something called student visas,

which is not included in the figures, and it does not include

university graduates, and it is a figure that has increased

substantially in recent years. They come for short-term study but they

do not even have to prove that they come for a college course. They do

not even have to have a place to come. Those visas should be

restricted to prevent abuse of the system and that is in line with a

recommendation from the Inspectorate and that is the kind of practical

thing that we could do. Can you give us a ballpark figure of how much

immigration would fall? You have seen the mess that Theresa May has

got into with her figures. She made a target that it is clear to me that

she will not meet. I think that is right. She will not meet it. Can you

give as a ballpark figure by which we can judge you? If she had been

more sensible and taken more time to listen to experts and decide what

measures should be targeted, then she would not be in this mess. You

cannot give me a figure? She has chosen net migration. She has set a

target, without ifs and buts. I think it is important not to have a

massive gap between the rhetoric and reality. Not to make promises on

numbers which are not responsible. OK, you won't give me a figure.

Fine. Moving on to crime. 10,00 front line police jobs have gone

since 2010 but crime continues to fall. 7% down last year alone. When

you told the Labour conference that you do not cut crime by cutting the

police, you were wrong. I think the Government is being very complacent

about what is happening to crime. Crime patterns are changing. There

has been an exponential increase, and that is in the words of the

police, in online crime. We have also seen, for example, domestic

violence going up, but prosecutions dropping dramatically. There is a

serious impact as a result of not having 10,000 police in place. You

have talked about the exponential increase in online and economic

crime. If those are the big growth areas, why have bobbies on the beat?

That would make no difference. It is about an approach to policing that

has been incredibly successful over many years, which Labour introduced,

which is neighbourhood policing in the community is working hard with

communities to prevent crime. People like to see bobbies on the beat but

have you got any evidence that it leads to a reduction in crime?

Interestingly, the Lords Stevens commission that we set up, they have

reported this week and it has been the equivalent of a Royal

commission, looking at the number of people involved in it. Their strong

recommendation was that this is about preventing crime but also

respectful law and order, working with communities, and so they

strongly took the view with all of their expertise and the 30 different

universities that they have involved with it, that on the basis of all

that analysis, the right thing was to keep bobbies on the beat and not

push them cars. Instinctively you would think it was true. More

visible policing, less crime. But in all the criminology work, I cannot

find the evidence. There is competing work about why there has

been a 20 year drop in overall crime and everybody has different opinions

on why that has happened. The point about neighbourhood policing is that

it is broader than crime-fighting. It is about prevention and community

safety. Improving the well-being of communities as well. Will you keep

the elected Police Commissioners? Big sigh! What the report said was

that the system is flawed. We raised concern about this at the beginning.

You will remember at the elections, Theresa May's flagship policy, at

the elections they cost ?100 million and there was 15% turnout. You have

to have a system of accountability at the police. Three options were

presented, all of which are forms. So you have to have reform. It is

not whether to have reformed, it is which of those options is the best

way to do it. The commission set out a series of options, and I thought

that the preferable approach would be collaboration and voluntary

mergers. We know they won't volunteer. There have been some

collaboration is taking place. I think the issues with police and

crime commissioners have fragmented things and made it harder to get

collaboration between police forces. Everybody is asking this

question, just before you go. What is it like living with a nightmare?

Who does all the cooking, so I can't complain! Says Miliband people are

wrong, he is a dream cook? He is! In a speech this week, Boris Johnson

praised greed and envy as essential for economic progress, and that has

got tongues wagging. What is the Mayor of London up to? What is his

game plan? Does he even have a game plan and does he know if he has one?

Flash photography coming up. Boris. In many ways I can leave it there.

You'd know who I meant. And if you didn't, the unruly mop of blonde

hair would tell you, the language. Ping-pong was invented on the dining

tables of England. Somehow pulling off the ridiculous to the sublime.

It is going to go zoink off the scale! But often having to speed

away from the whiff-whaff of scandal. Boris, are you going to

save your manage? There's always been a question about

him and his as role as mayor and another prized position, as hinted

to the Tory faithful this year at conference, discussing former French

Prime Minister Alan Juppe. -- Alain Juppe. He told me he was going to be

the mayor of Bordeaux. I think he may have been mayor well he was

Prime Minister, it is the kind of thing they do in funds -- AvD in

France. It is a good idea, if you ask me. But is it a joke? He is much

more ambitious. Boris wants to be Prime Minister more than anything

else. Perhaps more than he wants to be made of London. The ball came

loose from the back of the scrum. Of course it would give great thing to

have a crack at, but it is not going to happen. He might be right. First,

the Conservatives have a leader another Old Etonian, Oxford,

Bullingdon chap and he has the job Boris might like a crack at. What do

you do with a problem like Boris? It is one of the great paradoxes of

Tory politics that for Boris Johnson to succeed, David Cameron must feel.

Boris needs David Cameron to lose so that he can stand a chance of

becoming loser. -- becoming leader. And disloyalty is punished by

Conservatives. Boris knows the man who brought down Margaret Thatcher.

Michael Heseltine, who Boris replaced as MP for Henley, never got

her job. In 1986, she took on the member for Henley, always a risky

venture. And why might he make such a jibe, because he's won two more

elections than the PM. Conservatives like a winner. Boris, against Robert

expectations, has won the Mayor of London job twice. -- public. He

might've built a following with the grassroots but he's on shakier

ground with many Tory MPs, who see him as a selfish clown, unfit for

high office. And besides, he's not the only one with king-sized

ambition, and Boris and George are not close, however much they may

profess unity. There is probably some Chinese expression for a

complete and perfect harmony. Ying and yang. But in plain black and

white, if Boris has a plan, it's one he can't instigate, and if David

Cameron is PM in 2016, it may not be implementable. He'd need a seat and

it wouldn't be plain sailing if he did make a leadership bid. My

leadership chances, I think I may have told you before, or about as

good as my chances of ying reincarnated as a baked bean. Which

is probably quite high. So if the job you want with Brown-esque desire

is potentially never to be yours what do you do? He is, of course, an

American citizen by birth. He was born in New York public hospital,

and so he is qualified to be President of the United States. And

you don't need an IQ over 16 to find that the tiniest bit scary.

Giles Dilnot reporting. Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates are

here. Is there a plan for Boris and if so, what is it? I think the plan

is for him to say what he thinks the Tory activist base wants to hear

just now. He knows that in 18 months time they can disown it. I think he

is wrong, the way the speech has played has a limited number of

people. He has cross-party appeal. He has now reconfirmed to people

that the Tories are the nasty party and they have been pretending to be

modernised. Is it not the truth that he needs David Cameron to lose the

2015 election to become leader in this decade? It is very interesting

watching his fortunes wax and wane. It always seems to happen in inverse

proportion to how well David Cameron is doing in front of his own party.

There is no small element of strategy about what we are doing

here. The problem with Boris is that he's popular with the country, but

not with the party's MPs and its hard-core supporters. This was an

appeal to the grassroots this week. He is not the only potential

candidate. If we were in some kind of circumstance where Boris was a

runner to replace Mr Cameron, who with the other front the? I think it

will skip a generation. The recent intake was ideological assertive. I

do not buy the idea that it will be Jeremy Hunt against Michael Gove. I

then, that generation will be tainted by being in government. It

is interesting, what is he trying to pull? He is ideological. He does not

believe in many things, but he believes in a few things quite

deeply, and one is the idea of competition, both in business and

academic selection. He has never been squeamish about expressing

that. We do make mistakes sometimes, assuming he is entirely political.

Look at all the Northern voters who will not vote for the Tories even

though they are socially or economic the Conservatives. I do not think he

helps. Who in the Tories would help? That is a tough question. To

reason me has also been speaking to the hard right. -- Theresa May. I

have been out with him at night It is like dining with a film star

People are queueing up to speak to him. Educational selection is one of

the few areas that he can offer He has gone liberal on immigration as

are made of London would have to. Thank you and welcome to the part of

the programme or us in the West Coming up this week: With WSDL in

the headlines after the savage beating and burning of Bijan

Ebrahimi, we ask whether politicians could have done more to stop this

happening. He repeatedly called police asking for help but it never

came. Now the Home Secretary has been told to speed up the

investigation. Joining as today are two politicians have clashed in the

battle for Stroud. It is David Drew and Paul Hodgkinson. Thank you for

coming in. First we must talk about the badger cull which was halted

this weekend. The cull has failed on every level, has it not? I do not

think it has. We had to pilot culls. It was quite successful and

got close to our target. It has been more challenging in Gloucestershire.

The reason they have suspended it is because page trapping was having to

end. `` page trapping. People on the ground were reporting they were not

seeing many temperatures. The weather was deteriorating as well.

If you could not see any temperatures, does that mean they

have been shot? Temperatures. How many have you reduced it by? We will

give a statement in Parliament tomorrow which sets out the precise

figures but we will be short of the target we had. It has been a more

challenging in Gloucester. We will be analysing the figures in the next

couple of months and it will put us in a strong position on how we take

the policy forward to next year The policing has cost ?2.5 million and

there is a possibility in Gloucestershire that the badgers may

have got scared and gone to other areas, but you claim it is a

success? You have to look at the cost of tackling TB. We know that if

we do nothing than the disease would cost ?1 billion. You spent ?2

billion and may have made it worse. There is no evidence that you can

tackle TB without tackling the disease in the wildlife population.

There was a lot of research into vaccines... I know that, but can you

not accept and clarified that there is a possibility that you have made

it worse in Gloucestershire? With the trials that were done a a

decades ago, we know that there was only a 30% drop in population.

Providing we sustain it in Gloucestershire, there will be a

significant reduction in TB. We know that if you sustain the cull and get

the population down then it can still have her significant effect. I

would like to bring in my other get stop you both sceptics. Has he said

anything to convince you? No, because they should not have started

down this line. When I was in Parliament we looked at this issue.

There is a way forward and it is vaccination and controlling the

population. That is what they should have done instead of this mad idea.

It has been a shambles from beginning to end. Let's stop this.

Maybe you can ask the Minister whether he will carry this on for

the next two years. I am a Gloucestershire County Council and

the Liberal Democrats voted against this. We think it is madness. I

think it is a disaster. I represent a rural area in the Cotswolds and

the opinion amongst farmers is split, and most are and see this. ``

against this. I think it has been a disaster. Let's go back to the

Minister. Disaster has been a word that has been used time and time

again, and the question about whether it will continue as

planned. I do not accept it as a disaster. The last Labour government

put their head in the sand on this. This is a government that is willing

to take difficult and controversial decisions, and that is why we are

taking forward this strategy of cull. There is no example anywhere

in the world of being able to tackle TB without it. I visited a farm in

Gloucestershire recently and they had pests every two months... People

are still saying it is a failed policy and you are still doing it! I

do not accept that. We know that we cannot tackle TB without the cull.

And queue for coming on. The tragic murder of a Bristol man for being

different has rocked the city. He was beaten to death on his own

doorstep after a mob appears in being a paedophile. Kerry McCarthy,

the Labour MP, has asked the Home Secretary to speed up the

investigation into the case. Ijan Ebrahimi came to the UK seeking

sanctuary `` Bijan Ebrahimi. His family say he called the police 50

times in five years and that he was called a cockroach and told to go

home. Just because he was different, they picked on him. He was

vulnerable and did not want to mix with those sorts of people. He lived

on his own and they have used that to pick on him. Falsely accused of

being a paedophile the shy man known as Ben was beaten to death by a

neighbour, Lee James. Now the police are under investigation. They

arrested Bijan Ebrahimi for his own safety in the days leading up to the

murder after repeatedly claiming harassment. I want this to happen as

quickly as possible. The IPCC are under resourced and they have been

sidelined by the Hillsborough enquiry. I have written to the Home

Secretary asking for a report as soon as possible. If the police

officers are found guilty of misconduct then appropriate action

should be taken. I want to happen what happened to Bijan Ebrahimi in

the last few days. `` I want to know. If he asked for help then he

did not receive the help he deserved. Five officers remain under

investigation in what the IPCC says is a robust enquiry, moving as

quickly as possible. They have offered to meet the family of Bijan

Ebrahimi. The local MP thinks better neighbourhood policing could have

prevented what happens and she has wider concerns about why Bijan

Ebrahimi was even on the estate It raises questions about where you put

vulnerable people. I was there a week or two ago and had neighbours

telling me about drug dealers in the area as well as violence and

aggression between people living in neighbouring properties. Is that the

right place to put a vulnerable person? What are the alternatives?

There is such a shortage of suitable accommodation. The death of Bijan

Ebrahimi remains a test for the community with questions to ask The

police force is now under political pressure.

Joining me in the studio is a member of a charity. He has been helping

the family through this difficult time. Welcome to our programme.

Let's fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Why did he come to

Bristol? Became as a refugee from around. `` Iran. Wherever he went

there were problems. Why? Yes, he was different. He was Iranian and

because he was a refugee, wherever he was put in, there were other

people with social needs. Other immigrants have settled peacefully,

though? He had racist attacks in 2007 in a homeless hostel. This was

a high deprivation area. He moved from here to his present address.

Truly terrible. The Chief Constable I was interviewing last week admits

that there have been failures in all the agencies involved. Do you accept

that there were failures in your agency? Not failures, we do not have

the power to change things. In those last terrifying hours, was he on to

you saying that he was reading the police and they are not coming? No,

he was not stop he had stopped coming to us because we referred him

to a law centre because there was an injunction taken out on him. Before

that we have a catalogue of incidents that we worked with. There

were 50 phone calls made to the police on a persistent basis of

being harassed and racially abused. There was an injunction against him?

Yes. The Bristol Law Centre came on board and said this was wrong. He

was accused of a malicious lie. People know that racism is

completely unacceptable but to call someone a paedophile, as they did

wrongly in this case, it seems it is open season and the victim is in

mortal danger. Yes, and I think when those words came out, it is an

emotive subject for most of us, and we mostly think of the victims, I

think the authorities should have quelled those rumours and said to

the people that there is no proof at all that this man is a paedophile.

Once a rumour gets out it seems that those knucklehead, the members of

the mobs, think it is noble to attack somebody. They should have

seen a vulnerable person in a dangerous place. It was Bijan

Ebrahimi who was arrested? For his own safety. Let's bring in the other

politicians. Are there lessons that can be learned? Yes, there are.

Politicians have to be careful when they mix up the immigration debate

with racism. On the back of the Jimmy Savile case, paedophilia is

something that politicians need to be careful with. They use language

that can be a Q3. The sad thing is that there should have been

intervention at an early stage or he should have been taken out of the

premises. Sometimes evil things happen. I think what's happened is

truly appalling. It is dreadful and I cannot imagine how that can happen

in a civilised country like this one. Acting up what David said,

there is a culture of fear emerging. `` backing up. People of the right

wing push out messages about people who are different. Immigrants,

people of a minority sexuality, religion. The tabloids scream these

things and it creates a culture of noticing where people are different.

That is frightening and has no place in civilised society in my view

The IPCC have not reported back yet because they are so busy with other

complaints about Hillsborough and Plebgate and all the rest of it

What does that tell us? The priority needs to be put quite high on this

one. We have finished a review, the first part of the review, and I

think the IPCC should do the second part. We need to know and we need to

learn the lessons of this so we do not have another case of Bijan

Ebrahimi in Bristol. Thank you. They are often left by grieving relatives

and friends as a tribute to a lost one but now a Bristol councillor has

accused his local authority about being too relaxed in clearing the

flowers up. Vicky was just 18 when she died after a night at her

boyfriend's House. Her friends say she was kind and popular. This

unofficial memorial has upset some who want the green clear for the

carol concert. Tensions have been running high. It is not a great and

it is not a cemetery. We are showing respect! It is disgusting! I think

it is ridiculous to be honest. It is somewhere we can go to pay our

respects. There is nowhere else we can go so we come here. This is our

place and we come here to put flowers down and remember her. 9%

of people lose relatives. It is tragic when anybody dies. Why is it

that when somebody decides to remember their daughter this way...

If the whole country did it, there would be flowers around every tree.

Becky's mother is caught on both sides. I suppose it can be upsetting

for other people as well. Seeing things like that. If they have lost

a member of their family could be upsetting. I do feel a bit sad that

if we could replace it with something like a bench or a tree,

that would be nice. A short distance from the area, another tragic

reminder on the roadside but this has been here for years. Different

councils take different approaches to how long memorials like this one

can stay. In Somerset Council removes flowers from the roadside a

month. Bristol County is more relaxed and there is no limit. The

important question is how we defy what our public lives is for.

It is a sensitive thing that politicians have two decides on

What is the appropriate length of time that memorials should be left?

We do have to be sensitive because we are talking about people who have

lost someone. I think there should be a period during which memorials

can be there and I disagree fundamentally with one of the

individuals who said there should not be something. I think that has

to be some time. I think it should be a matter of months, maybe three

months. In Gloucestershire there is no limit. I think it should be

three`month. It should be a period where they remember someone but

after that time they should move on. Is that reasonable? I think

people should be allowed to grieve. People often have a level of

spirituality which is hidden. I would like to see the grieving

process formalised. The idea of a tree or a bench. A young person in

Stroud killed themselves and as a result of the action, his young

friends paid for the funeral and created a very moving epitaph to

that young person's life. I guess these are public spaces. We all have

tragedies to deal with and most people do it privately. Some people

need to express it publicly and that may not always be welcome. I think

people should be able to express it. The interesting thing is that if

there is something by the side of the road, it reminds people that has

been an accident. In the Cotswolds, there are a couple of locations

where it reminds people, for a period of time, that it is an

accident prone spot and people should take care. People should be

allowed to grieve in some way and I think a few months is appropriate. I

have heard in my area that drivers looking at those memorials has

caused other issues the happen with regards to road safety. After that

period, we should move on. We generally have a stiff upper lip and

there is a general view that we were `` spear `` spirituality is passe.

Let's have some way we can keep that memory alive and too often it is

about taking down the immediate flowers and that is the wrong way to

do it. If you are grieving this weekend, our thoughts are with you.

Now it is time to look at the political week which has just gone

by. Tessa month has launched a scathing

attack on Somerset councillors over cuts to Children's Services. It was

announced that the decision would be made today and it is not fair on the

parents and children. More people will be able to find out from the

place whether their partner has a history of the mess that violence.

Wilts is one of four areas where the law has been brought in. `` domestic

violence. He never shies away from taking on his own government. This

challenge was own immigration. The free movement of people is not

working. Why does the government lacked the political will to change

the law? After years of fighting, plans to redevelop Bristol City s

current ground have been approved. It looks certain they will stay put

rather than heading to a bigger site. That was the week that was.

Let's look ahead to the next week and the Chancellor's Autumn

statement. That is when he announces the spending plans. What is on your

wish list? The Chancellor needs to go much further with increasing the

personal tax allowance. It has gone up to 10,000. They have given 2

million people a tax cut. I would like to see them go much further.

That gives everybody a pay cut. That would give a millionaire tax cut. It

does but it takes more people out of paying tax altogether. We have taken

3 million out of paying tax. That is on your wish list. What about you,

David? I agree with Tessa. I would put the money into saving

children's' centres. We need to boost this very important part of

government spending. I agree with Tessa. OK, let's see what Santa

brings you. That is all we have time for this week. Thank you to my

guests for joining me. I will be back next week for our final

programme in the series before Christmas is here. How time flies!

picked out. People thought he was touching on eugenics and things like

that. That is all we have time for. Thank you. What rabbit has George

Osborne got up his sleeve? And what's David Cameron up to in China?

All questions for The Week Ahead. To help the panel led, we are joined by

Kwasi Kwarteng, Tory MP. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Why has the

government been unable to move the agenda and to the broad economic

recovery, and allowed the agenda to stay on Labour's ground of energy

prices and living standards? Energy has been a big issue over the last

few months but the autumn state and will be a wonderful opportunity to

readdress where we are fighting the ground, the good economic news that

we delivered. If you look at where Labour were earlier this year,

people were saying they would they 5 million people unemployed. They were

saying that there should be a plan B. He is not in the Labour Party?

Elements of the left were suggesting it. Peter Hain told me it would be

up to 3 million people. Danny Blanchflower said it would be 5

million people. So we have got to get the economy back to the centre

of the debate? Yes, the game we were playing was about the economy. That

was the central fighting ground of the political debate. We were

winning that battle. Labour have cleverly shifted it onto the cost of

living. It is essential that the government, that George, talks about

the economy. That has been its great success. I do not think this has

been a week of admitting that Labour was right, plain cigarettes

packaging, other issues. If you look at the big picture, where we are

with the economy, we have the fastest growing economy in the G-7.

Despite Labour's predictions, none of this has happened, none of the

triple dip has happened. The British economy is on a good fitting. That

is a good story for the government to bat on. You say that people have

stopped talking about the economic recovery, but it is worse than that,

people have stopped talking about the deficit? As long as people were

talking about the deficit, the Tories were trusted. But people have

forgotten about it. This country still spends ?100 billion more than

it raises. Yes, I am of the view that the deficit, the national

debt, is the biggest question facing this generation of politicians. You

are right to suggest that the Conservative Party was strong on

this. That head, not deficit, is not going to come down in the

foreseeable future? It is rising. This is a test that George Osborne

is not going to pass. We know what is coming in the Autumn Statement,

it is lots of giveaways, paying for free school meals, paying for fuel

duty subsidies. We are still talking about the cost of living, not

changing it actively wider economy. There might be extra money for

growth but it is not clear what will happen to that. If it is time for

giveaways, let's speak about Labour. I have never been a fan of

giveaways. Fiscal prudence is what our watchword should be. Look at the

headlines. Each time, the deficit figures, the debt figures, were

always worse than predicted. This year it will be significantly

better. I think that is significant. Any kind of recovery is probably

better than no recovery at all. When you look at this recovery, it is

basically a consumer spending boom. Consumer spending is up, business

investment is way down compared with 2008, and exports, despite a 20

devaluation, our flat. Let's get one thing straight, it is a recovery.

Any recovery is better than no recovery. Now we can have a debate

about, technical debate about the elements of the recovery. It is not

technical, it is a fact. There is evidence that there is optimism in

terms of what are thinking... Optimism? If I am optimistic about

the economy, I am more likely to spend money and invest in business.

So far you have not managed that? Exports have not done well either?

Exports are not a big section of the British economy. But of course, they

are important. But given where we were at the end of last year, no

economist was saying that we would be in this robust position today.

That is true, in terms of the overall recovery. Now the PM loves

to "bang the drum abroad for British business" and he's off to China this

evening with a plane-load of British business leaders. And it's not the

first time. Take a look at this Well, you might not think exports

unimportant, but clearly the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do. They

are important, but they are not what is driving the growth at the moment.

We used to talk about the need for export led recovery is, that is why

the Prime Minister is going to China. Absolutely, and he's doing

the right thing. Do we have any evidence that these tend of trips

produce business? The main example so far is the right to trade the

Chinese currency offshore. London has a kind of global primacy. London

will be the offshore centre. Is that a good thing? I have no problem at

all with this sort of policy. I do not think that Britain has been

doing this enough compared with France and Germany in recent years.

I am optimistic in the long term about this dish -- about British

exports to China. China need machine tools and manufacturing products. In

20 years time, China will be buying professional groups, educational

services, the things we excel at. All we need to do is consolidate our

strengths, stand still and we will move forward. The worst thing we can

do is reengineer the economy towards those services and away from

something else. We have a lot of ground to make up, Helen? At one

stage, it is no longer true, but at one stage you could say that we

exported more to Ireland, a country of 4 million people, than we did to

Russia, China, India, Brazil, all combined. I believe we form 1% of

Chinese imports now. The problem is what you have to give up in exchange

for that. It is a big problem for David Cameron's credibility that he

has had to row back on his meeting with the Dalai llama. This trip we

have been in the deep freeze with China for a couple of years. This

trip has come at a high cost. We have had to open up the City of

London to Chinese banks without much scrutiny, we have had to move the

date of the Autumn Statement, and there is no mention of human rights.

It is awkward to deal with that all in the name of getting up to where

we were a few years ago. A month after strong anchor -- one month

after Sri Lanka, where he apologised three human rights abuses, this is

difficult to take. Do we have any idea what the Prime Minister hopes

to do in China this time? I am not sure there is anything specific but

when you go to these countries, certainly in the Middle East China,

they complain, why has the Prime Minister not come to see us? That is

very important. High-level delegations from other countries go

to these places because the addict -- because they are important export

markets. You might look at the Prime Minister playing cricket over there,

and wonder, what is that for? I do not mind the Prime Minister Rajoy

cricket. This is a high visibility mission, chose that politicians in

Britain care. You are part of the free enterprise group. It had all

sorts of things on it like tax cuts for those on middle incomes or above

the 40% bracket, tax cuts worth 16 billion. You will get none of that

on Thursday, we are agreed? No. But he does have two budgets between now

and the election and if the fiscal position is using a little bit, he

may have more leeway than it looked like a couple of months ago. Yes,

from a free enter prise point of view, we have looked at the tax cuts

that should be looked at. The 4 p rate comes in at quite a low level

for people who, in the south-east, do not feel particularly wealthy.

They are spending a lot of money on commuting, energy bills. The

Chancellor has been very open about championing this. He says that the

40p rate will kick in at a slightly higher rate. Labour had a bad summer

and the opinion polls seem to be narrowing. Then they had a good

hearty conference season. The best. Has the Labour lead solidified or

increased the little, maybe up to eight points? If it is a good Autumn

Statement, or the Tories start to narrow that lead by the end of the

year? If they go into 2014 trailing by single digits, they cannot

complain too much. That gives them 18 months to chip away at Labour's

lead. But do they do that chipping away by eight bidding Labour or do

they let time take its course and let the economic recovery continue,

maybe business investment joins consumer spending as a source of

that recovery, and a year from now, household disposable income begins

to rise? That is a better hope than engaging in a bidding war. Be

assured, they will be highly political budgets. That's all for

today. The Daily Politics is on BBC Two at midday all this week, except

on Thursday when we'll start at 10:45 to bring you live coverage and

analysis of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement in a Daily Politics

special for BBC Two and the BBC News Channel. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.