26/01/2014 Sunday Politics West

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Ed Balls has gone socialist and fiscal Conservative in one speech.

He promises to balance the biggest bit of the budget. And to bring back

the 50p top tax rate. Political masterstroke, or a return to old

Labour? If you go to work by public

transport, chances are the price of your ticket has just gone up -

again. We'll speak to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin. He's

our Sunday Interview. And it's been another wet week

across much of the UK, but what s the outlook according to this man?

This morning.This morning. Held in recent years by party

Here the Euro MP who really showed up in

And with me - as always - the political panel so fresh-faced,

entertaining and downright popular they make Justin Bieber look like a

boring old has-been just desperate to get your attention. Nick Watt,

Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, and they'll be tweeting quicker than a

yellow Lamborghini racing down Miami Beach. Being political nerds, they

have no idea what I'm talking about. Ed Balls sprung a surprise on us all

yesterday. We kinda thought Labour would head for the election with a

return to the 50p top rate of tax. But we didn't think he'd do it now.

He did! The polls say it's popular, Labour activists now have a spring

in their step. The Tories say it's a return to the bad old days of the

'70s, and bosses now think Labour is anti-business. Here's the Shadow

Chancellor speaking earlier this morning. I was part of a Government

which did very many things to open up markets, to make the Bank of

England independent, to work closely with business, but the reality is we

are in very difficult circumstances and because if I'm honest you,

George Osborne's failure in the last few years, those difficult

circumstances will last into the next Parliament. Business people

have said to me they want to get the deficit down, of course they do But

to cut the top rate... It is foolish and feeds resentment I want to do

the opposite and say look, pro-business, pro investment, pro

market, but pro fairness. Let's get this deficit down in a fairway and

make the reforms to make our economy work for the long term. What are the

political implications of Labour now in favour of a 50%, in practise 352%

top rate of tax? One of the political implications I don't think

exist is that they'll win new voters. I'm not sure many people out

there would think, I would love to vote for Ed Miliband but I'm not

sure if he wants to tax rich people enough. It will con Dale their

existing vote but I don't think it is the kind of, in the 1990s we

talked about triangulation, moving beyond your core vote, I don't think

it is a policy like that. If there has been a policy like that this

year, this month, it has been the Tories' move on minimum wage. I

thought Labour would come back with their own version, a centre-right

policy, and instead they have done this. I think we talk about the 35%

strategy that Labour supposed will have, I think it is a policy in that

direction rather than the thing Tony Blair or Gordon Brown would have

done. Where he was not clear is on how much it would raise. We know the

sum in the grand scheme of things isn't much, the bedroom tax was

about sending a message. What we are going to see is George Osborne and

Ed Balls lock as they try to push the other one into saying things

that are unpopular. The Tories, ?150,000 a year, that's exactly

where Ed Balls want them to be. All three main parties have roughly the

same plan, to run a current budget surplus by the end of the next

Parliament. George Osborne said ?12 billion of welfare cuts, hasn't said

how he is going to do it. Ed Balls is giving an idea that he is going

to restore this 50 persons rate The contribution of that will be

deminimus. It is not much, but what does it say about your values.

Because it is that package, it is cleverer than people think. Where

the challenge is is the question that Peter Mandelson posed at the

last election, which is can the Labour Party win a general election

if it doesn't have business on its side? That's the big challenge and

that's the question looking difficult for them this morning

Does it matter if Labour has business on its side. I thought the

most fascinating thing about this announcement is it came from the guy

mindful of business support, Ed Balls. When in opposition and when a

Minister and as a shadow as a result, he's been far more conscious

than Ed Miliband about the need not to alienate the CB Bill. In the

run-up of an election. This is a measure of Ed Miliband's strength in

the Labour Party, that his view of things can prevail so easily over a

guy who for the last 15 years has taken a different view. Eight out of

ten businesses according to the CBI don't want us to leave business

Business is in a bit of a cleft stick. Ed Miliband would like to see

businesses squealing, and Ed Balls is clearly not so comfortable on

that one. There's a difference on that. Mind you, they were squealing

this morning from Davos. They probably had hangovers as well. The

other thing they would say is this is not like Ed Balls thinks that 50p

is the optimal rate forever, it what go eventually. Isn't that what

politicians said when income tax was introduced? Yeah, in '97 Labour

regarded 40 persons as the rate where it would stay.

It's been a bad week for the Lib Dems. Again. Actually, it's been one

of the worst weeks yet for Nick Clegg and his party in recent

memory, as they've gone from talking confidently about their role in

Government to facing a storm of criticism over claims of

inappropriate sexual behaviour by a Lib Dem peer, Chris Rennard, and a

Lib Dem MP, Mike Hancock. Here's Giles with the story of the week. A

challenge to Nick Clegg's authority as he face as growing row over the

Liberal Democrat... I want everyone to be treated with respect by the

Liberal Democrats. We are expecting him to show moral leadership on our

behalf. A good man has been publicly destroyed by the media with the

apparent support of Nick Clegg. I would like Nick Clegg to show

leadership and say, this has got to stop. When Nick Clegg woke up on

Monday morning he knew he was in trouble, staring down the barrel of

a stand justify with Lord Rennard over allegations that the peer had

inappropriately touched a number of women. Chris Rennard thought he was

cleared. Nick Clegg wanted more I said if he doesn't apologise, he

should withdraw from the House of Lords. If he does that today, what

do you do then? I hope he doesn t. I think no apology, no whip. 2014 was

starting badly for the Liberal Democrats. Chris Rennard refused to

apologise, saying you can't say sorry for something you haven't

done. The and he was leaning towards legal action. Butch us friends

better defending Pym and publicly. This is a good, decent man, who has

been punished by the party, with the leadership of the party that seems

to be showing scant regard for due process. But his accusers felt very

differently. It is untenable for the Lib Dems to have a credible voice on

qualities and women's issues in the future if Lord Rennard was allowed

to be back on the Lib Dem benches in the House of Lords. Therein lay the

problem that exposed the weaknesses of the Lib Dem leaders. The party's

internal structures have all the simplicity of a circuit diagram for

a supercomputer, exposing the complexity of who runs the Liberal

Democrats? The simple question that arose of that was can the leader of

the Lib Dems remove a Lib Dem peer? The simple answer is no. The Lib Dem

whips in the Lords could do it but if enough Lib Dem peers disagreed,

they could overrule it. Some long-stand ng friends of roar

Rennard think he is either the innocent victim of a media

witch-hunt or at the least due process has been ridden over rough

shot by the leadership. Nobody ever did spot Lord Rennard as he didn't

turn up to the Lords, will citing ill health. But issued a statement

that ruled out an apology. He refused to do so and refused to

comply with the outcome of that report, so there was no alternative

but for the party to suspend his membership today. On Wednesday Nick

Clegg met Lib Dem peers, not for a crunch decision, but to discuss the

extraordinary prospect of legal action against the party by the man

long credited with building its success. The situation was making

the party look like a joke. One Tory MP said to one of my colleagues this

morning, the funny thing about the Liberal Democrats, you managed to

create a whole sex scandal without any sex. And we can laugh at

ourselves but actually it is rather serious. And it got more serious,

when an MP who had resigned the Lib Dem whip last year was expanded from

the party over a report into allegations of serious and unwelcome

sexual behaviour towards a constituent. All of this leaves the

Lib Dems desperately wishing these sagas had been dealt with long ago

and would now go away. Nick Clegg ended the week still party leader.

Lord Rennard, once one of their most powerful players, ended the week,

for now, no longer even in it. Giles on the Lib Dems' disastrous

week. Now, as you doubtless already know, on Tuesday Lib Dem MPs will

vote to choose a new deputy leader. You didn't know that? You do now.

The job of Nick Clegg's number two is to speak with a genuine Lib Dem

voice, untainted by the demands of coalition Government. At this point

in the show we had expected to speak to all three candidates for the

post, held in recent years by party veterans like Vince Cable and Simon

Hughes. We thought it being quite a significant week for the party, they

might have something to say. And here they are. Well that's their

pictures. For various reasons, all three are now unavailable. Malcolm

Bruce, he's reckoned to be the outsider. His office said he had a

"family commitment". Gordon Birtwistle, the Burnley MP, was

booked to appear but then told us, "I was at an event last night with

Lorely Burt" - she's one of the candidates - "and she told me it was

off". And Lorely Burt herself, seen by many as the red hot favourite,

told us: "Because of the Rennard thing we don't want to put ourselves

in a position where we have to answer difficult questions." How

refreshingly honest. Helen, how bad politically is all this for the Lib

Dems? What I think is the tragic irony of the Lib Dems is they've

been revealed as being too democratic. In the same way that

their party conference embarrassed Nick Clegg by voting sings that he

signed up to, and now everything has to be run past various

sub-committees first. Is it democratic or chaotic? It is

Byzantine. Mike Hancock was voluntarily suspended, and this week

he was properly suspended. It was new information into the public

domain that forced that. I'm already hearing Labour and Conservative

Party musing that if it is a long Parliament, we will form a minority

Government. It is a disaster for them. Voters like parties that

reflect and are interested this their concerns. Parties that are

self obsessed turn them off. The third party, if they carry on like

this, they'll be the fifth party in the European elections, so they have

got to draw a line under this. They do that, if they do, through

mediation. As I understand it, Chris Rennard,s who has go devoted his

entire life to the Liberal Democrats, and previously the

Liberal Party, is keen to draw a line under this. He is up for

mediation but he needs to know that the women that he has clearly

invaded their personal space, that there wouldn't be a possible legal a

action from them. The it is very difficult to see how you could

resolve that. Except he is threatening through his friends

these famous friends, to spill all the beans about all the party's sex

secrets. Isn't the danger for the Lib Dems, this haunts them through

to the European elections, where they'll get thumped in the European

elections? They'll get destroyed in the European elections, which keeps

it salient as a story over the summer. And it has implications for

Nick Clegg's leadership. He's done a good job until now, perhaps better

than David Cameron, of exercising authority over his party. He had a

good conference in September. Absolutely, and now the Lib Dems

have looked like a party without a leader or a leadership structure.

Part of that is down to the chaotic or Byzantine organisational

structure of the party. Part of it is Nick Clegg's failure to assert

himself and impose himself over events. Is it Byzantine or

Byzantine. It is labyrinthine. You don't get these words on the Today

programme. The cost of living has been back on the agenda this week as

Labour and the Tories argue over whether the value of money in your

pocket is going up or down. Well there's one cost which has been

racing ahead of inflation and that's the amount you have to pay to travel

by train, by bus and by air. Rail commuters have been hard hit over

the last four years, with the cost of the average season ticket going

up by 18% since January 2010, while wages have gone up by just 3.6% over

the same period. It means some rail users are paying high prices with

commuters from Kent shelling out more than ?5,000 per year from the

beginning of this month just to get to work in London. It doesn't

compare well with our European counterparts. In the UK the average

rail user spends 14% of their average income on trains. It is just

1.5% in Italy. Regulated fares like season tickets went up 3.1% at the

beginning of this month, and with ministers keen to make passengers

fought more of the bills, there are more fare rises coming down the

track. And Patrick McLoughlin joins me now for the Sunday Interview

Welcome. You claim to be in the party of hard-working people, so why

is it that since you came to power rail commuters have seen the cost of

their average season ticket going up in money terms by over 18% while

their pay has gone up in money terms by less than four? I would point out

that this is the first year in ten years that we have not had an above

inflation increase on fares. The Government accepts we have got to do

as much as we can to help the passengers. A big inflation increase

since 2010. This is the first year in ten years that it has not been

above RPI, but we are also investing huge amounts of money into the

railways, building new trains for the East Coast Main Line and the

great Western. We are spending 500 million at Birmingham station, this

is all increasing capacity, so we are seeing investments. Over the

next five years Network Rail will invest over ?38 billion in the

network structure. We also have an expensive railway and it is ordinary

people paying for it. A season ticket from Woking in Surrey,

commuter belt land in London, let's look at the figures. This is a

distance of over 25 miles, it cost over ?3000 per year. We have picked

similar distances to international cities.

The British commuter is being ripped off. The British commuter is seeing

record levels of investment in our railways. The investment has to be

paid for. We are investing huge amounts of money and I don't know

whether the figures you have got here... I'm sure they are likewise,

as you have managed to do... White -- ten times more than the Italian

equivalent. We have seen transformational changes in our

railway services and we need to carry on investing. We were paying

these prices even before you started investing. We have always paid a lot

more to commute in this country than our European equivalents. I'm not

quite sure I want to take on Italy is a great example. You would if you

were a commuter. You is a great example. You would if you

the other rates of taxation has to be paid as well. Isn't it the case

they are making profits out of these figures and using them to subsidise

cheaper fares back in their homeland? The overall profit margin

train companies make is 3%, a reasonable amount, and we have seen

a revolution as far as the railway industry is concerned.

a revolution as far as the railway 20 years we have seen passenger

journeys going from 750 million to 1.5 billion. That is a massive

revolution in rail. Let me look 1.5 billion. That is a massive

spokesperson for the German government, the Ministry of

transport. They are charging huge fares in

Britain to take that money back to subsidise fares in Germany. What do

you say to that? We are seeing British companies winning contracts

in Germany. The National Express are winning contracts to the railways.

What about the ordinary commuter? They are paying through the nose so

German commuters can travel more cheaply. We are still subsidising

the railways in this country, but overall we want to reduce the

subsidy we are giving. We are still seeing growth in our railways and I

want to see more people using them. Why do you increase rail fares at

the higher RPI measure than the lower CPI measurement? That is what

has always been done, and we have stopped. This is the first time in

ten years that we have not raised the rail figures above RPI. You

still link fares to RPI. You use the lower CPI figure when it suits you,

to keep pension payments down for example, but the higher one when it

comes to increasing rail fares. We are still putting a huge subsidy

into the rail industry, there is still a huge amount of money going

from the taxpayer to support the rail industry. I am not asking you

about that, I am asking you why you link the figures to the higher RPI

vesture Mark if we are going to pay for the levels of investment, so all

the new trains being built at Newton Aycliffe for the East Coast Main

Line and the great Western, ?3. billion of investment, new rolling

stock coming online, then yes, we have to pay for it, and it is a

question of the taxpayer paying for it all the -- or the passenger.

You have capped parking fines until the next election, rail commuters we

have seen the cost of their ticket has gone up by nearly 20%, you are

the party of the drivers, not the passengers, aren't you?

We are trying to help everybody who has been struggling. I think we are

setting out long-term plans for our railways, investing heavily in them

and it is getting that balance right. But you have done more for

the driver than you have for the user of public transport. I don t

accept that. They are paying the same petrol prices as 2011. This is

the first time in ten years that there has not been an RPI plus

rise. We are investing record amounts. Bus fares are also rising,

4.2% in real terms in 2010, at a time when real take-home pay has

been falling. This hits commuters particularly workers who use buses

on low incomes, another cost of living squeeze. I was with

Stagecoach in Manchester on Friday, and I saw a bus company investing in

new buses. Last week First ordered new buses. Part of your hard-working

families you are always on about, they are the ones going to work

early in the morning, and yet you are making them pay more for their

buses in real terms than they did before. They would be happier if

they could travel more cheaply. It is about getting investment in

services, it has to be paid for Why not run the old buses for five more

years? Because then there is more pollution in the atmosphere, modern

buses have lower emissions, and we are still giving huge support

overall to the bus industry and that is very important because I fully

accept that the number of people, yes, use the train but a lot of

people use buses as well. High-speed two, it has been delayed because 877

pages of key evidence from your department were left on a computer

memory stick, part of the submission to environmental consultation. Your

department's economic case is now widely regarded as a joke, now you

do this. Is your department fit for purpose? Yes, and as far as what

happened with the memory stick, it is an acceptable and shouldn't have

happened, and therefore we have extended the time. There has been an

extension in the time for people to make representation, the bill for

this goes through Parliament in a different way to a normal bill. It

is vital HS2 provides what we want. What I am very pleased about is when

the paving bill was passed by Parliament just a few months ago,

there was overwhelming support, and I kept reading there was going to be

70 people voting against it, in the end 30 people voted against it and

there was a good majority in the House of Commons. So can you give a

guarantee that this legislation will get onto the statute books? I will

do all I can. I cannot tell you the exact Parliamentary time scale. The

bill will have started its progress through the House of Commons by

2015, and it may well have concluded. The new chairman of HS2

said he can bring the cost of the line substantially under the budget,

do you agree with that? The figure is ?42 billion with a large

contingency, and David Higgins, as chairman of HS2, is looking at the

whole cast and seeing if there are ways in which it can be built

faster. At the moment across London we are building Crossrail, ?14.

billion investment. There was a report last week saying what an

excellent job has been done. Crossrail started under Labour.

Actually it was Cecil Parkinson in the 1990 party conference. You may

get HS2 cheaper if you didn't pay people so much, why is the

nonexecutive chairman of HS2 on ?600,000? And the new chief

executive on ?750,000. These are very big projects and we need to

attract the best people become so we are going for the best engineers in

the world to engineer this project. It is a large salary, there is no

question about it, but I'm rather pleased that engineers rather than

bankers can be seen to get big rewards for delivering what will be

very important pieces of national infrastructure. I didn't have time

to ask you about your passenger duty so perhaps another time. We are

about to speak to Nigel Mills and all of these MPs on your side who

are rebelling against the Government, how would you handle

them? We have got to listen to what our colleagues are talking about and

try to respond it. Would you take them for a long walk off a short

pier? I'm sure I would have many conversations with them. An

immigration bill to tack the immigration into the UK. When limits

on migration from Bulgaria and Romania were lifted this year there

were warnings of a large influx of migrant workerses from the two new

European countries. So far it's been more of a dribble than a flood. Who

can forget Labour MP Keith Vaz greeting a handful of arrivals at

Luton Airport. But it is early days and it is one of the reasons the

Government's introduced a new Immigration Bill. The Prime Minister

is facing rebellion from backbenchers who want tougher action

on immigration from abroad. Nigel Mills would reimpose restrictions on

how many Romanians and Bulgarians can come here. Joining me is Nigel

Mills, Conservative MP behind the amendment and Labour MP Diane

Abbott. Welcome. Nigel Mills, there hasn't been an influx of Romanians

and Bulgarians. Why do you want to restore these, kick these

transitional controls way forward to 2019? I don't think any of us were

expecting a rush on January 1st Andrew. I think we were talking

about a range of 250,000 to 350 000 people over five years. That's

obviously a large amount of people, especially when you think net

migration to the UK was well in excess of the Government's target of

tens of thousands last year. The real concern is that it would be

ever increasing our population, attracting lots of low-skilled,

low-wage people, which keeps our people out of work and wages down.

Did you accept that if you were to accept this, it would be in breach

of the Treaty of Rome, the founding principle of the European Union We

were trying to keep the restrictions that Bulgaria and Romania accepted

for their first seven years of EU membership, on the basis that when

we signed the treaty we weren't aware that we would have a huge and

catastrophic recession we are still recovering from. But you would be in

breach of the law, correct? The UK Parliament has a right to say we

signed this deal before the terrible recession, and we need a bit longer

in our national interest. It is worth noting that Bulgaria and

Romania haven't met all their accession requirements. The

Bulgarian requirement passed a law... So if they break the law it

is alright for us to break the law? Is we should be focusing on trying

to get 2. 4 million of our own in work, and 1 million people not in

work... Let me bring in Diane Abbott. Will you vote for this

amendment and why? It is in breach of the treaty. While I deplore MPs

that try to cause trouble, these MPs have been particularly mindless

because what they want to do wouldn't be legal. However, it is a

Tory internal brief, if I might say so. Maybe you can cause trouble by

voting for it. No, that would be going too far. Underlying it is a

real antagonism for David Cameron. They have had to hold off on this

bill until January. It was supposed to be debating before Christmas As

we speak they've not cut a deal so it could be pretty grus om. Nigel

Mills, what do you say to that I think there is a recognition that

there is a problem with the amount of migration from EU countries that

we need to tackle. We could try to achieve an annual cap perhaps,

longer limits on when countries get free movement. I think the debate is

moving in the right direction, but I think those people who are trapped

out of work and desperately looking for work want something to be done

now and not wait a few more years while we have more assessments

Andrews. People are worried about the level of immigration. They I it

is too high. That's the consensus in the country. We spoke to to

migration centre in Hackney and they said they are struggling to cope

with the number of people using their services. These are people

with problems with the law. In the past years EU migrants put in more

to the economy in taxation than they take out in benefits. When it comes

to free movement, which is agitating Nige em, that horse has bolted. We

signed a treaty. There is nothing people like Nigel Mills can do,

unless they want to rip their party apart, God forbid. Will you go as

far as to rip your party apart, Nigel Mills? Are you going to take

this all the way? Would you rather see this bill go down than your

amendment not be accepted? This is a very important bill. I think we all

want to see measures on the statute book, so the last thing we want to

see is this bill go down. We do need to set out clearly that we have real

concerns about the level of EU migration and something needs to be

done. Would you rather have the bill without your amendment or no bill at

all? I am hoping we can have the bill with the amendment. I know

that, but if you can't? Is that will depend on what the Labour Party

decide to do. They are talking tougher on immigration but will they

take action on it? Your party has been talking tough on immigration

but I will be surprised if an Ed Miliband Labour Party would vote for

egg in direct cameravention of the Treaty of Rome. It would make no

sense. Nigel Mills is wishing for the impossible. If I was a Tory I

would be wringing high hands. He hasn't ruled out crashing the bill.

That's incredible. Where will this end, Nigel Mills? We'll end with a

vote on Thursday. There's a lot of amendments people can use to show

their concern about migration. We want limited and proportionate

action, and that's what I am proposing. I want to see the bill on

the statute book, I want the restrictions on people who shouldn't

be here getting bank accounts and driving licences. I don't want to

crash this bill but there's more measures we need in it. Nigel Mills

thank you. You are going to be - popping up I think on the Sunday

Politics East Midlands. Diane Abbott, thank you as well.

We're in for more heavy rain and high winds across the UK today. You

may remember that one UKIP councillor - he's since been

suspended - caused controversy last weekend by blaming the recent

flooding on the legalisation of gay marriage. Why didn't I think of

that? So who better than this man to bring you the unofficial forecast.

I'll be bringing you the late least UKIP weather from your area.

You're watching Sunday Politics Also coming up in just over 20

minutes, I'll be looking at the week ahead with our political panel.

Good morning. The local Euro MP with one of the lowest voting records. He

is hardly ever seen in Brussels and he claims ?200,000 a year in

allowances to find an anti`EU website. I joined by a member of

UKIP and a green party activist Do you put the funding down to global

warming or funding change? We cannot say that anyone prevent is the

result of climate change. We cannot say how it will effect as at any one

time but flooding and rising sea levels are a factor. Climate change

is definitely a real thing but the question is what we shall do about

it and politicians are unfortunately not taking enough action.

I would agree that climate change is real. In terms of flooding, it was

shocking coming up through Somerset at the weekend and finding that much

of it is underwater. You accept a man`made climate

change? I accept climate change but how much

of it is man made is up for debate. Most of the people who disagree that

climate change is caused by our activities are normally involved in

those activities. The question is what do we do about

it? And now our main story. The UKIP MEP

who is laid`back when it comes to his activities. In the last year,

Trevor Colman has not made on speech are asked one question. Yet he is

paid ?80,000 per year and admits that one of his reasons for turning

up is the claim allowances, which he spends on a website. This website

campaigns to Britain to come out of the European Union.

The Euro elections always give UKIP something to smile about. Last

election they won two seats in the South West, 13 in all.

Two former MEP have ended up in jail. Some have left to join the

Tories and others have departed acrimoniously. That is frustration

and even anger amongst senior party figures at the performance of Trevor

Colman. You will not find on the UKIP

benches. He sits apart since a disagreement in 2010. He has taken

part in just over half of the boats and has made speeches are asked

questions 19 times. The total for a UKIP colleague is 673.

Trevor Coleman makes no apology The European Parliament has no

power. It cannot change or make legislation. We are a pantomime

giving the illusion of democracy were none exists. Why make a speech

when you know it is totally ineffective? You're talking to a

gallery of about six people and I do not see the point of me doing that.

Why did you get elected if you want to do anything?

I am trying to get us out of this mess and that can only be achieved

over here. One of the reasons he flies back and

forth to Europe is to clock in to get money.

Is one of the main motivations to enable you to get allowances?

I would not see it as a main motivation will stop it is a factor?

Of course it is. Most of it is spent on a website.

Five staff work on it and around ?200,000 of European Union money

funds and anti`European Union website he refuses to detail his

expenses on the official UKIP party website.

We do not have to publish any of this. If people are interested in

how I spend our do not spend money they can come to this office and

examine the accounts. He says he has broken all rules but

other side members of the European Parliament are not convinced.

There is a massive amount goes on in the European Parliament and that is

why most members of the full`time in doing their jobs. I'm sorry F Trevor

Colman finds it so boring you want to input into legislation and make

sure that things are right for people in the south`west.

You need to have people working and they are not working and making a

badge of honour of not working, we have one hand tied behind our back

before we start. Trevor Coleman stands down in May

and UKIP hopes his successor will cause less trouble.

Steve Crowther, you are chair of UKIP. What do you make of this?

We have a high average and I am delighted.

Trevor Colman does not work as a team.

The point about how UKIP approaches the European Parliament is that we

have a job to do and we do it. We campaign for Britain to come out of

the European Parliament. That is different to what any of the other

parties do. Is there a moral case for turning up

at meetings just a claim allowances? Every MEP from everywhere in Europe

receives exactly the same allowance on EU law basis. The do not have to

do anything with it apart from receive it. The more you go all the

more daily allowances you get. There was a comment that if you take it

seriously you go a lot. You also get paid to go a lot.

His salary is ?80,000 and yet he hardly represents the views of

people in the South West. He spends most of his time on this anti`EU

website. If you bought for UKIP, `` vote you

must know what our attitude is. We spread our work and divide our

labour but we have a lot of what to do here as well as a lot of work

there. You could argue that Trevor Colman

is being honest. I wanted to challenge the last point

that Steve made. UKIP have the worst members of the European Parliament

and Green members have the best It is a privilege to be paid as a

politician and this is very disappointing to be treated in this

way. UKIP have a policy that expenses and

details are published. He will not do that. Why will you not

discipline? Trevor is a man of independent mind.

He is a Cornishman and has being doing this for ten years. When

someone is elected as an MEP, they have freedom to design the way that

they work under the rules of the European Parliament. Trevor has

decided to create this particular information source and I have to say

that he has attended hundreds of meetings with groups around the

south`west in his time in Parliament taking that information we have

found out from the European Parliament and telling people about

it. Let us talk about immigration. The

remaining in an bold gradient influx has not materialised.

We waited and we waited but the crowds never came. On the first

flight, just one man mauled by the media. So far the lifting of

restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian workers have not resulted

in an increase of immigrants. They are hard`working people and

they are valued by their employers. They do not understand why this

negative campaign has been made against them.

Some of the community in Bristol meet in this church. One family said

they had the door kicked in and a teenage girl had to change schools

after being repeatedly labelled an invader.

We are just Steve `` Romanian. That is wrong information about us.

The Conservatives claim that UKIP may be to blame for this wrong

information. They must know that the figures were

an exaggeration and realised that does not help the debate. We want

facts and not scaremongering. There is a rapidly changing

population in the West. It is unsurprising that immigration

remains a live motion for the public. I have always been a liberal

but I will not put liberal any more. It is important the country is not

overrun with immigrants and we need to look after the English public and

make sure they can get work and jobs. There is an awful lot of hate

and scaremongering. People need to remember where this country came

from and the fact that immigration made it what it is.

The political mood music grew louder this week as the Prime Minister

sought to limit freedom of movement across the European Union. The

official figures come out and may just in time for the European

elections. What is the case with human borders?

We have enjoyed a lot of value from migration. Many engineers and the

like will have to be recruited from around the world.

Pressure on wages and housing will stop mass immigration will have an

impact on your members? It is our job to make sure people

are protected at work that our graduates have a right to go to

Germany to work and we have to be careful to get the balance right

about the value of cooperation. Have you find that immigrants are

abused here? I was talking to a worker the other

day who came to Britain ten years ago from Romania but said that in

the last few weeks it has turned hostile.

Do you think the government is right to stop new arrivals claiming

benefits? If we have a single market and we

must have the same rights in the same rules for everyone. We have to

look at the quality of work across the European Union and one of the

problems that happened in 2004 was that things were driven by business

interests and socialist governments did not insist on minimum wages

Do you accept that we are a small island and need some space?

I accept that population is an important issue. We must also deal

with climate change because that is making more parts of the world is

impossible to inhabit. Steve, was UKIP wrong with its

figures? We did not say the 29 million

Romanian and Bulgarian people would arrive. We said that they would have

the rights to come here if they chose.

You mentioned a figure of 29 million. We think there are about 30

people that have arrived. We have never said that these people

would all come. We said that from the 1st of January, the European

Union would grant them the right to. We have seen in the past with

transition countries that estimates of how many will come have been very

much out of the actual figure. Nobody knows what the figures will

be in the future. We have not made any estimates. 29 million people is

the total population of Romanian and Bulgarian in Europe. Do you except

that created a climate where people are scared?

It created a climate where we are talking about this in the government

are talking about this. This is a very irresponsible way of

doing politics. People vote for politicians because they know the

platform they stand on. Do you accept that UKIP are right on

the money with public opinion? But they are deliberately shifting

public opinion with myths of fear. If you ask people concerned in these

areas of whether they worry about migration in their own lives, they

are not. There are disgraceful lies in my opinion such as those coming

from the Daily Mail. We have to leave it there. Another

political week has gone by. Here is a quick recapture.

As an employment fell across the country, there was a big jobs boost

for Wiltshire. The badger cull drew more criticism. . If I from Stroud

and a form from Bristol said recognise had switched to services

they provided at the bad press for other energy providers.

We are still accelerating. And Bristol City Football Club

finally abandoned plans for a new stadium.

We are talking about wind turbines. They were going out of fashion but

now they are back? I am very pleased with all these

jobs. If you see a large company come in and setup wind turbines you

will oppose them obscuring your view. We are supporting energy

renewables. We are not in favour of unreliable

renewables through wind and solar power. We must fill the hall in

energy that is looming. It is predicted we will have blackouts

from 2015 on words and this is because of the failure of government

energy policy. We started with climate change and

we do have good resources for solar power and wind power and it is an

important growth opportunity for the South West and we should not allow

backward looking politicians to be against that. We are completely

opposed to nuclear and we are the only political party that now

totally opposes it. They are the only political party

left that believes that nuclear power is wrong. We are kidding

ourselves if we think we can survive without it.

And that is it for this week. Thank you to our guests. You can sign up

for our new Twitter account. back to you.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage is never far away from controversy, but this

week he's been outdoing himself He was hit over the head with a placard

by a protester in Kent, provoked outrage by saying women with

children are worth less to city firms, and said the ban on owning

handguns was 'crackers'. He also seemed less than sure of his party's

own policies when I interviewed him on the Daily Politics. And the story

that got everyone talking was the suggestion by a UKIP councillor that

flooding is linked to gay marriage. We'll talk about all of that in a

moment, but first, over to Nigel with the weather. Weather for all

areas of the British Isles but definitely not "Bongo Bongo Land."

You may have heard about a storm in a tea cup developed when you kip

councillor in Oxfordshire blamed the floods on the gay marriage Bill The

old party is focusing on the view of UKIP members like him, even though

he had said a sell yuj of things before when a Tory councillor. How

quickly things change depending on when the blouse. There are

occasional barmy views by people of all persuasions. In Whitby a Labour

councillor claimed of fathered a child with an extra terrorist ral,

and said his real mother was a foot green alien. And in Wales a

councillor thinking about heading off for the

slopes, there were flurries of embarrassment for the Tories after

Aidan Burly organised a Nazi skiing party in a resort.

Anyone heading to Brussels, perhaps on the gravy train, watch out for

hot air. In Britain temperatures are rising

ahead of the European elections in May. It could get stormy, so advise

light aircraft. Watch out for outbreaks of common sense, and no

chance of cyclonic fruit cakes. Back to you, Andrew, with the rest of the

Sunday Politics. Nick, if it was any other party that

had bon through the past week it would be in meltdown. And maybe it

is harming UKIP and maybe it isn't. What do you think? That just shows,

that great weather forecast, Prince Charles now has a rival to be an

excellent weather forecaster, as does the Duchess of Cornwall. It

shows why Nigel Farage is the fefr candidate to the European elections.

Our invitation to the British people to kick the establishment. The

establishment have spent five years that the European Parliament is a

waste of time, so who are you going to vote for? A Nigel Farage type of

person. What was important about your eadviceration of Nigel Farage

on Daily Politics is that when it came to the substance, they

flounder. But the point about that party is they may have the thinnest

set of policies, but people know what they stand for more than any

other parties - get out of Europe, a grammar school in every town. If any

other leading politician called for an end to the ban on handguns, at a

time when we've seen these appalling gun deaths in the United States now

almost one every week in some terrible siege in a school. It would

be a crisis. It seems to wash off him. He's got congenital

foot-and-mouthitis. Straight into another wild nothing to do with why

people might vote UKIP. I don't think people are desperate to have

handgun licences back in this country. It is such an unusual

phenomenon, UKIP, that if this was a Tory or a Labour or a Lib Dem saying

it, we've seen the damage done to the Lib Dems on a much more serious

manner, we would say this is terminal. But maybe it adds to this

image that we are not like the other parties. I think that is it. We keep

waiting for these scandals and embarrassments to do damage to

UKIP's poll ratings, but it's not working. It is ultimately because if

you are an antiestablishment party, if you are an anti-system party the

rules of the game which apply to the establishment parties don't apply to

you. And the more ramshackle and embarrassing you are, the more

authentic you seem. It what be take something for them not to finish

second in May. Do they spend the following 12 months sinking in the

poll snoos And George Osborne's strategy is fame everything as

Labour versus the Conservatives The electorate will have their fun in

May. Maybe the Tories will be beat into third place but in thejection

is that -- but in the general election it is Labour versus the

Tories. The Conservative Party will run around, 46 letters to Graham

Brady, a leadership contest. That sort of scenario. UKIP, if it rules

well in the European elections, could cause big trouble for Mr

Cameron and Mr Clegg couldn't it? The big point about this, David

Cameron said this is not a political party but a pressure group. This is

the way to look at UKIP, and the way it is used by people in the right of

the party, who say we have to do this. I like the policy of painting

the trains in their old liveries. It would be like my old train set. I

like the bigger passports. Pre-GNER... And London and Midland.

I used to be a train spotter. Gordon Birtwhistle has been on the

phone. Good to know you are watching but pity you are not here. He wanted

to clarify he had constituency commitments to prevent him coming on

the show to talk about becoming leader of the party, but he didn't

dispute anything we said on the show.

Yesterday, Ed Balls said that housing investment will be a central

priority for the next Labour Government. It's a big issue, as the

lack of new homes pushes up the the price of owning or renting. Well,

tomorrow the Tories will announce what they say is the most ambitious

programme of affordable housebuilding for 20 years. The

Government sees housing as a really important part of the economy.

That's why we are announcing a 23 billion package for 165,000 new

affordable homes. So individual builders, councils, housing

associations can bid for that money. Phase one, which we are halfway

through at the moment, we've built 170,000 houses. 99,000 already

coming out of the ground, so we ve made real progress on that. So,

165,000 new, affordable homes. It is a lot. Let me add three more words.

Over three years. It is not such a lot. It is not, and Labour's

commitment is 200,000 homes a year and even that isn't enough. The

problem here is that the vest interest is with people who already

have homes. They have a vote in the system through the planning

regulations. In London there is a gap in the hedge through Richmond

Park through which you should be able to see St Paul's Cathedral

That's why you cannot build homes where you want them. I don't think

we want to build homes over Richmond Park. He wasn't saying that. That's

dies an Tyne -- that's Byzantine. You've got to deal with supply,

which is why Labour is talking about 200,000 a year, and what George

Osborne has done with supply is helping with demand. We know the

Help to Buy Scheme is pretty dangerous, and Mark Carney is keen

to put the break on that. If you are to deal with supply, you have to do

radical things. Chris Huhne talked about on brownfield sites you can

tax people who are holding the land as if the development has taken

place. Then if you are really going to deal with it you have to talk

about the greenfield sites, and you have to deal with the garden cities

argument, which is too much for the Tories. All the parties seem to

agree building new houses is a political winner. I hope that they

are right. I'm not sure they are. The housing market is the example of

what economists call the insider in-outsider problem. People who are

already homeowners have no rational incentive to vote for more housing

stock. Even if you leave aside the Conservative arable objections, if

you are a homeowner there is an interest to stick with the planning

promise that we have. So then we are stuck between a rock and a hard

place. Not only are we growing at the moment but our population is

growing. I've seen projects that in quite quickly we will overtake

Germany and become the largest populated country in Europe. If

that's the case we've got to build homes. We have. If you look at Tower

Hamlets in London, the population is r ging higher than the number of

dwelling. Classically the theory's been young people are most affected

by this and they don't vote much. But when their parents have young

Johnny stuck at home at 37, that's an electoral issue. That's why the

garden cities project is interesting, because they finance

themselves. You zone it for development, it is worth ?2 million

an acre and then you can build on it. But who is going to want the

greenfield sites gone. And how quickly can we build garden cities

today? Some were started before the Town and Country Planning Act. I've

read stats about the way Chinese and Japanese are building houses and

they were slower than that. Here's a thought, sticking on the housing

theme. Ed Miliband came up with the energy freeze, a populist

interventionist move. Then the use it or lose it to land developers.

Then breaking up the banks. Now the 50p tax rate. How much would you put

on Labour coming up for rent controls? That's already a big

split. They are split already on it. They have. In London it is a popular

policy. It might not play well in the rest of the country. I would say

50-50 on that. I think Labour supporting rent controls like the

Tories having a go at welfare. The policy may be individually popular

but it sends an impression about the party which might be less attract

active. It confirms underlying suspicions that vote these guys into

power and suddenly they are tampering with the private economy.

The memories of the '70s when Governments tried and failed to do

that. It is riskier than a superficial reading of the polls

would suggest. One to watch? I think they are looking at it. That was the

key message of the Ed Balls speech on housing, is looking at supply and

how you get to that 200,000 figure a year, which is substantially more

than what Kris Hopkins is talking about. What we didn't get to talk

about, remember we had Michael Wilshaw on, the Chief Inspector of

Schools. We all consumed was Mr Gove's man, the Education

Secretary's man. Now according to the Sunday Times he is spitting

blood about the way Mr Gove and his office are speaking about him behind

the scenes. We've checked the quotes and he stands by them, so I think

we'll have to have the head of Ofsted back on the programme. If you

are watching, we're here. All that to the Lib Dems who didn't come on

today. That's all for today. Thanks to all

my guests. The Daily Politics is back on Monday at midday on BBC Two,

and I'll be here again next week. Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the

Sunday Politics. Britain, with 120,000 soldiers

is now at war with Germany This would be the first

truly modern war. and resolve of entire populations

against each other.