02/03/2014 Sunday Politics West


David Garmston with the latest political news. Andrew Neil interviews shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt and minister of state for skills Matthew Hancock on apprenticeships.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Fears that Ukraine could face invasion escalate this morning as


Russian forces take control of Crimea. President Obama and his


European allies tell President Putin to back off. It doesn't sound like


he's listening. Shadow Education Secretary Tristram


Hunt has started spelling out Labour's plans for schools. So


what's the verdict - full marks or must try harder? He joins us for the


Sunday Interview. And all the big political parties


are desperate to broaden their appeal. We'll look at some unusual


In the West: New free schools but had what cost? Stroud


changes. And tightening household finances.


And with me, as always, three journalists who'd make a clean sweep


if they were handing out Oscars for political punditry in LA tonight.


But just like poor old Leonardo DiCaprio they've never won so much


as a Blue Peter badge! Yes, it's Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan


Ganesh. Instead of acceptance speeches they'll be tweeting faster


than the tears roll down Gwyneth Paltrow's face. Yes, that's as


luvvie as we get on this show. Events have been moving quickly in


Ukraine this weekend. The interim government in Kiev has put the


Ukrainian military on full combat alert after Russia's parliament


rubber-stamped the deployment of Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine.


Russian troops seem already to be in control of the mainly


Russian-speaking Crimea region, where Russia has a massive naval


base. President Obama told President Putin that Russia has flouted


international law by sending in Russian troops but the Kremlin is


taking no notice. This is now turning into the worst stand-off


between Russia and the West since the conflict between Georgia and


Russia in 2008, though nobody expects any kind of military


response from the West. Foreign Secretary William Hague is on his


way to Kiev this morning to show his support for the new government,


though how long it will survive is another matter. We can speak to our


correspondent David Stern, he's in Kiev.


As things look from Kiev, can we take it they've lost Crimea, it is


now in all essence under Russian control? Yes, well for the moment,


Crimea is under Russian control Russian troops in unmarked uniforms


have moved throughout the peninsula taking up various positions, also at


the Ismis which links Ukraine into Crimea. They've surrounded Ukrainon


troops there. Three units have been captured according to a top


officials. We can say at the moment Russia controls the peninsula. It


should also be said, also they have the support of the ethnic Russian


population. The ethnic Russians make up the majority of the population.


They are also not entirely in control because there are other


groups, namely the Tatar as and the ethnic Ukrainian speakers who are at


least at the moment tacitly resisting. We'll see what they'll


start to do in the coming days. David, I'm putting up some pictures


showing Russian troops digging in on the border between Crimea and


Ukraine. I get the sense that is just for show. There is, I would


assume, no possibility that the Ukrainians could attempt to retake


Crimea by military force? It seems that the Ukrainians are weighing


their options right now. Their options are very limited. Any


head-to-head conflict with Russia would probably work against the


Ukrainians. They seem to be taking more of a long-term gain. They are


waiting for the figs's first move. They are trying not to create any


excuse that the Russians can stage an even larger incursion into Crimea


or elsewhere, for that matter. They also seem to be trying to get


international support. It should be said, this is a new Government. It


has only been installed this week. They are trying to gain their


footing. This is a major crisis They have to count on the loyalty of


the army they might have some resistance from solders from the


eastern part of the country who are Russian speaking. They probably


could count on Ukrainian speakers and people from the centre and west


of the country as well as regular Ukrainians. A lot of people are


ready to fight to defend Ukrainian Terre Tory. Where does the Kremlin


go next? They have Crimea to all intents and purposes. There's a weak


Government in Kiev. Do they move to the eastern side of Ukraine which is


largely Russian speaking and there's already been some unrest there?


That's the big question, that's what everybody's really asking now. Where


does this go from here? We've had some unrest in the eastern part of


the country. There have been demonstrations and clashes. More


ominously, there have been noises from the Kremlin they might actually


move into eastern Ukraine. Putin in his conversation with Barack Obama


said they might protect their interests there. It should be said,


if they do expand, in fact, they've also said they are dead against the


new Government seeing it as illegitimate and fascist. It does


contain risks. They will have to deal with international reactions.


America said there will be a deep reaction to this and it will affect


Russia's relations with Ukraine and the international community. They


have to deal with the reaction in Ukraine. This may unite Ukrainians


behind this new interim Government. Once Russia moves in, they will be


seen as an invading force. It plays on historical feelings of Russia


being an imperial force. Joining me is MP Mark Field who sits


on the security Security and Intelligence Committee in the House


of Commons. What should the western response be to these events? I can


understand why William Hague is going to Kiev tomorrow to stand side


by side whizz whoever's in charge. They need to CEOP sit numbers and


also President Putin. The truth is we are all co significant fatries to


the Budapest Memorandum of almost 20 years ago which was designed to


maintain the integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea. There needs to


be a discussion along those lines. The difficulty is President Putin


has watched events in recent months, in relation to Syria, it is palpable


President Obama's focus of attention ask the other side of the Pacific


rather than the Atlantic. The vote in the House of Commons, I was very


much against the idea of military action or providing weapons to the


free Syrian army. My worry is, events proved this, the majority of


the other options toed as sad are rather worse. It is clear now we are


in a constitutional mess in this country. We cannot even contemplate


military action without a parliamentary vote that moves


against quick reaction that is required from the executive or, I


suspect, there will be very little appetite for any military action


from the West over in Ukraine. We are corn tours under the agreement


of less than 20 years ago. We may be but we've guaranteed an agreement


which it is clear we haven't the power to enforce. You wrote this


morning, Britain is a diminished voice. Clams Iley navigating the


Syrian conflict we relick wished decisions to the whims of


parliamentary approval. That may or may not be but the Kremlin's not


watching how we voted on the Syrian issue? In relation to Syria, it was


where is the western resolve here. The truth ask Putin's position is


considerably less strong. In diplomatic terms. He had a victory


in Syria in relation to chemical weapons and in relation to the


West's relationship with Iran. Putin is a vital inter locking figure In


demographic and economic terms, Russia's in very deep trouble. The


oil price started to fall to any degree, oil and gas price, given the


importance of mineral wealth and exports for the Russian economy


Putin would be in a lot of trouble. It requires an engagement from the


EU and the EU are intending to look at their internal economic problems


and will be smarting from the failure within a matter of hours of


the deal they tried to broker only nine days' ago.


You say if Mr Putin decides to increase the stakes and moves into


the east, takes over the whole place, our Government, you say, will


find itself with another colossal international headache. Some people


watching this will be thinking, what's it got to do with us? It s a


long way away from Britain. We haven't a dog in this fight? We have


in this regard for the longer term here. I think if there were to be


some military action in Ukraine the sense of Russia taking over, it


could have a major impact on the global economy in very quick order.


You should not deny that. There will be move to have sanctions against


Russia. The escalation of that will be difficult. The other fact is


looking at our internal affairs and reform, partners, the Baltic states,


Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, they will be looking at a resurgent


Russia now and think they'll need to hold as tightly as possible to the


EU institutions and the power of Germany at the centre of that. This


whole appetite for the reforms politically and economically will be


closed very much within a matter of a short period of time. It has


longer term implications. Mark Field, thank you.


We're joined now by BBC News night's Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban. Is


there any prospect of a western military response? Clearly at the


moment, it is nil. The boat has sailed with the Crimean. It has been


per performed by Russian forces It is now a matter of coordinating a


plate cal line. European foreign ministers tomorrow. To say what will


our future limits be? Where could we possibly draw red lines? To try to


think a couple of steps down this, what happens if Russia interrupts


energy supplies to EU member states ornate owe countries? These are the


important steps they have to think about. It is quite clear we are in a


different world here now. Also, Ukraine is facing a urgent foreign


exchange crisis. Within literally a few weeks they could run out of


money. All of these are rushing towards decision makers very fast.


There is an interim and I suggestion unstable Government in Kiev. Crimea


semi-to be under Russian control. There are clashes between the


reformers and Russian nationals in the east of the country. What does


Mr Putin do next? He has lots of options, of course. He has this


carte blanch carte blanch from his Parliament to go in to the rest of


Ukraine if he wants to. His military deployment suggests the one bite at


a time, just Crimea to start with. See what response comes from the


Ukrainian Government. Of course so far, there hasn't been a coherent


response. The really worrying thing about recent months, not just recent


days, are the indications that the future of Ukraine as a unitary state


is now in doubt. Look at it from the other side of the equation. The


President when faced with demonstrations, many extremists he


was unable to deal with that. Now we have the other side, if you like,


the Russian speakers, the other side of the fight, Russian nationalists


showing they can get away with unilateral action more or less with


impunity. The Ukrainian chiefs have been sacked. I think there are


considerable questions now as to whether Ukraine is falling apart


and, if that happens, we're into a Yugoslav-type situation which will


continue posing very serious questions for the EU and NATO for


months or years to come. So, Janan, Ukraine is over? Where the west to


concede to the Russian in Crimea, it would perversely be a net loss for


Russia. You'd assume the rest of Ukraine would become an un


unambiguously a member of the the EU, maybe NATO. On top of that a


Russian dream of Eurasion dream they will look at Putin's behaviour


and is a, no, thanks, we'll head towards the EU. It is a short-term


victory for Putin which backfires on his broader goals in Well, many


people said if he grabs Crimea, he loses Ukraine, which is your point.


We have seen violent demonstrations in the big eastern cities in Ukraine


yesterday. People taking control of certain buildings. The risk is there


of spreading beyond Crimea. I think the lack of any unified or visible


response from Ukrainian armed forces... They allowed Russian


troops to walk into the bases in Crimea. They have supposedly gone on


red alert but they have done absolutely nothing. We don't see


them deploying from barracks. There are serious questions about whether


they would just fall apart. Putin is not going to let them split away. I


would have thought he would like the entire Ukraine to come into the


Russian ambit. Barack Obama is saying this will not stand. He has a


90 minute conversation with Vladimir Putin and what is his response? I am


suspending my cooperation in the run-up to the Sochi Summit. What is


the EU doing? Nothing. There is nothing they can do and Putin knows


there are a series of lines that he is able to cross and get away with


it. Why should Berlin, London, Washington be surprised by the


strength of Vladimir Putin's reaction? It was never going to let


Ukraine just fall into the arms of the EU. That is the interesting


point. And who does he listen to? Paddy Ashdown was saying sent Angela


Merkel because she is the only person who can talk to him and I


find that response worrying. We need to speak with a united voice but


nobody knows what we should be saying. Military intervention is out


for the West so we go to economic sanctions. Doesn't Vladimir Putin


just say, oh, you want sanctions? I have turned off the gas tap. Yes, it


is move and countermove, and it is difficult to predict where it will


end up. In all these meetings that are being held, they do think a step


or two ahead and try and set out clear lines. Thank you for coming in


this morning. Labour has been struggling since


2010 to decide exactly how to take education secretary Michael Gove,


one of the boldest reformers of the coalition and most divisive figures.


Ed Miliband appointed TV historian Tristram Hunt and many thought


Labour had found the man to teach Michael Gove a lesson. But how much


do we really know about the party's plans for England's schools? Wales,


Scotland and Northern Ireland are a devolved matter. Child has been back


to school to find out. A politician once told me, do you know why


education secretaries changed schools? Because they can. Michael


Gove might dispute the motive but he is changing schools, like this one.


The changes he is ringing in our encouraging them to be academies,


free from local authorities to control their own budgets, ushering


in free schools, focusing on toughening exams and making them the


core of the curriculum with less coursework, and offering heads more


discretion on tougher discipline. And he is in a hurry to put all this


in place. But has that shut out any chance for a Labour Government to


change it all themselves and do they really want to? Any questions?


Visiting a different school, first in line to get a crack at that


would-be Labour's third shadow education secretary since 2010,


Tristram Hunt. In post, he has not been taken about fine tuning


previous direct opposition to free schools and he has also suggested


teachers in England would have to be licensed under a Labour Government,


allowing the worst to be sacked and offering training and development to


others and of course ending coalition plans to allow unqualified


teachers into classrooms. Full policy detail is still unmarked


work. Your opinion about evolution? What is very clear is that Labour's


education policy is still evolving. We are learning that they have some


clear water, but we also seem, from the sting at the back, to get the


feeling that there is not a great deal of difference from them and the


current Government on types of schools and the way education should


proceed. -- from listening at the back. So what exactly is different


about their policy? What Tristram Hunt's job is to do is to be open


and honest about the shared agenda between us and the Tories. There are


a lot of areas where there is clear water between us and Tristram Hunt


as to turn his back, shared agenda, stop fighting it, and forge our


agenda, which I think people will be really interested in. The art of


Government, of course, is to balance competing pictures of policy, even


inside your own party. It is fair to say that if Labour reflects and


draws its own visions of a shared agenda, it might have to square that


idea with teaching unions, who are already unhappy with the pace and


tone of change that the Government had sketched out. What we sincerely


hope is that if Labour were to form the next Government, that they would


look at a serious review of accountability measures. That is


really what ways on teachers every single day. Actually they would look


at restoring the possibility, for example, of local councillors to be


able to open schools. That seems eminently sensible. If they are not


going to move back from the free schools and academies programme at


the very least they need to say that academy chains will be inspected


because at the moment they are not. Labour have balls in the air on


education and are still throwing around precise policy detail. There


are areas that they could grab hold of and seize possession. A focus on


the rounding of the people, developing character, the impact of


digitalisation on the classroom Also the role and handling of


teachers in the system and the interdependence of schools. That is


all still to play for. Currently I think the difference between the


parties is that the coalition policies, while we do not agree with


all of them, are clear and explicit, and Labour's policies are yet to be


formulated in a way that everybody can understand clearly. I don't


think that Tristram Hunt or Miliband will want to pick unnecessary fights


before the election. I think we will have quite a red, pinkish fuzziness


around the whole area of policy but after the election there will be


grey steel from Tristram Hunt. But if fuzzy policy before the election


is the lesson plan, it does rather risk interested voters being left in


the dark. Tristram Hunt joins me now for the


Sunday interview. Welcome. Thank you. Which of Michael


Gove's school reforms would you repeal? We are not interested in


throwing a change for the sake of it. When I go round schools,


teachers have been through very aggressive changes in the last three


years, so when it comes to some of the curriculum reforms we have seen,


we are not interested in changing those for the sake of it. Where we


are interested in making change is having a focus on technical and


vocational education, making sure that the forgotten 15% is properly


addressed in our education system. What we saw in your package was an


interesting description of how we have seen structural reforms in the


names of schools. Academies, free schools, all the rest of it.


International evidence is clear that it is the quality of leadership of


the headteachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom that


transforms the prospects of young people. Instead of tinkering around


the names of schools, we focus on teacher quality. Viewers will be


shocked to note that this Government approves of unqualified teachers in


the classroom. We want to have fully qualified, passionate, motivated


teachers in the classroom. It sounds like you might not repeal anything.


You might build on it and you might go in a different direction, with


more emphasis on technological education but no major repeal of the


reforms of Michael Gove? I don't think you want to waste energy on


undoing reforms. In certain situations they build on Labour


Party policy. We introduced the sponsored academy programmes and we


began the Teach First programmes, and we began the London challenge


which transformed the educational prospects of children in London We


want to roll that out across the country. You have said there will be


no more free schools, which Michael Gove introduced, but you will allow


parents let academies, which just means free schools by a different


name. No, because they will be in certain areas. We want to create new


schools with parents. What we have at the moment is a destructive and


market-driven approach to education. I was in Stroud on


Thursday and plans for a big new school, in an area with surplus


places, threatened to destroy the viability of local, rural schools.


We want schools to work together in a network of partnership and


challenge, rather than this destructive market-driven approach.


You say that, but your version of free schools, I think, would only be


allowed where there is a shortage of places. That means that where there


is an excess of bad schools, parents will have no choice. They still have


to send their kids to bad schools. And we have to transform bad schools


and that was always the Labour way in Government. At the moment we just


have an insertion of new schools. Schools currently underperforming


are now underperforming even more. Children only have one chance at


education. What about their time in school? Our focus is on the


leadership of the headteacher and having quality teachers in the


classroom. So they cannot set up new better schools and they have to go


to the bad schools. Tony Blair said it should be easier for parents to


set up new schools where they are dissatisfied with existing schools.


You are not saying that. Even where they are dissatisfied with existing


schools, they cannot set up free schools and you are reneging on


that. We live in difficult economic circumstances where we have got to


focus public finances on the areas of absolute need. We need 250,0 0


new school places. 150,000 in London alone. We have to focus on building


new schools and where we have to put them. And secondly... Absolutely


not. Focusing on those schools. Making sure we turned them around,


just as we did in Government. We have had a remarkable degree of


waste under the free school programme. If you think of the free


school in Derby, the Academy in Bradford, and as we saw in the


Telegraph on Friday, the free schools in Suffolk, a great deal of


waste of public money on underperforming free schools. That


is not the Labour way. We focus on making sure that kids in schools at


the moment get the best possible education. Except that in your own


backyard, in Stoke, only 34% of secondary school pupils attend a


good or outstanding school. 148 out of 150 of the worst performing local


authorities and it is Labour-controlled. Still terrible


schools and yet you say parents should not have the freedom to start


a better school. We have great schools in Stoke-on-Trent as well.


We face challenges, just as Wolverhampton does and the Isle of


Wight and Lincolnshire. Just like large parts of the country. What is


the solution to that? Making sure we share excellence among the existing


schools and making sure we have quality leadership in schools. Those


schools in Stoke-on-Trent are all academies. It is not a question only


of structure but of leadership. It is also a question of going back to


the responsibility of parents to make sure their kids are school


ready when they get to school. To make sure they are reading to their


children in the evening. We can t put it all on teachers. Parents have


responsibilities. I understand that but you have told me Labour's policy


would not be to set up new schools which parents hope will be better.


Parents continue to send their kids to bad schools in areas like Stoke.


Labour has had plenty of time to sort out these schools in Stoke and


they are still among the worst performing in the country. You are


condemning these parents to having to send their kids to bad schools.


Where we have seen the sett ing up of Derby, Suffolk, we have seen that


is not the simple solution. Is simply setting up a new is not a


successful model. What works is good leadership. I was in Birmingham on


Friday at a failing comprehensive is not a successful model. What works


is good leadership. I was in Birmingham on Friday at a failing


comprehensive school and now people are queueing round the block to get


into it. You can turn around schools with the right leadership,


passionate and motivated teachers, and parents engaged with the


learning outcome of their kids. In the last few years of the Labour


Government, only four kids from your this Government would set up the new


school. In Birmingham, they got in a great headmaster and turned the


school around and now people are queueing round the block to get into


it. You can turnaround schools with the right leadership, passionate and


motivated teachers, and parents engaged with the learning outcome of


their kids. In the last few years of a Labour Government, only four kids


from your area of and you had plenty of chances to put this right but


only four got to the two and you had plenty of chances to put this right


but only four got to the two leading universities. Traditionally young


people could leave school at 16 and walking two jobs in the potteries,


the steel industry, the traditionally young people could


leave school at 16 and walking two jobs in the potteries, the steel


industry, the but also to get an apprenticeship at Jaguar Land


Rover, JCB, Rolls-Royce. That is why Ed Miliband's focus on the forgotten


15%, which we have just not seen from this Government, focusing on


technical and vocational pathways, is fundamental to Your headmaster


was guiles Slaughter. Was he a good teacher? He He never taught me.


Over 90% of teeners in the private sector are qualified. They look for


not simply teachers with qualified teacher status. Teachers with MAs.


Teachers who are improving them cephalitis. Becoming better


educators. cephalitis. Becoming better


teaching. You were taught by unqualified teachers. Your parents


paid over ?15,000 a year for you being taught by unqualified


teachers. Why did you make such a big deal of it? Because we've seen


right around the world those education systems which focus on


having the most qualified teachers perform the best. It cannot be right


that anyone can simply turn up, as at the moment, have schools at


veritising for unqualified teachers teaching in the classroom. We want


the best qualified teachers with the deepest subject knowledge, for the


passion in learning for their kids. It is absurd we are having arguments


about this. Simply having a paper qualification doesn't make you a


great teacher. Let me take you to Brighton college. It is gone from


the 147th to the 18 18th best private school in the land. Fllt the


headmaster says: This is the top Sundaytimes school


of the year. The school in derby where this Government allowed


unqualified teaching assist taints. We had teachers who could barely


speak English. That is because if you have unqualified teachers you


end up with a dangerous situation. The problem with that school was not


unqualified teachers. People were running that school who were unfit


to run a school. We have an issue about discipline and behaviour


management in some of our schools. Some of the skills teachers gain


through qualifications and learning is how to manage classes and get the


best out of kids at every stage It doesn't end with a qualified teacher


status. That's just the beginning. We want our teachers to have


continue it will development. It is not good enough to have your initial


teacher trainingaged work through your career for 30 years. You need


continual learning. Learning how to deal with digital technology.


Refresh your subject knowledge. As an historian I help teachers. You've


taught as an unqualified teacher. Not in charge of a subject group. I


give the odd lecture. I'm-y to go to as many schools as possible. I don't


blame you. It is uplifting. Would you sack all unqualified teachers?


We'd want them all to gain teacher status. What if they say no? If they


are not interested in improving skills and deepening their knowledge


they should not be in the classroom. If a free school or academy hired a


teach thinking they are a great teacher but unqualified, if they are


then forced by you to fire them they will be in breach of the law.


They are being urged by us to make sure they have qualified teacher


status. We've lots of unqualified teachers as long as they are on the


pathway to making sure they are qualified. But if they say they


don't want to do this, will you fire them? It is not an unreasonable


suggestion is that the teachers in charge of our young people have


qualifications to teach and inspire our young people particularly when


we face global competition from Shanghai, Korea and so on. The head


teacher of Brighton college finds incredibly inspeechational teachers


who don't' necessarily have a teaching qualifications. It is a


different skill to teach ten young nice boys and girls in Brighton to


teaches 20 or 30 quids with challenging circumstances, special


educational needs, different ability. Being a teacher at Brighton


college is an easy gig in comparison to other schools. Where we want


teachers to have a capacity to teach properly. Do you think Tristram


could ever lead the Labour Party? I think Ed is a great leader, the


reforms yesterday were a real sign for his leadership. And the fact


David Owen, the man with a pre-history with our party is back


with us. It is great. Even Gideon had to change his name to George.


Have you thought of switching to Tommy or Tony? Maybe not Tony!


Michael Foot was called Dingle Foot. I love the Labour because it accepts


everybody from me to Len McCluskey. We are a big, broad happy family on


our way to Government. Thank you very much.


You're watching The Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in


Scotland who leave us for Sunday politics Scotland. In over 20


minutes I'll Has welcome to Sunday Politics in


the West. Would you open a new school in an area where they already


have hundreds of surplus places That is what these parents hope to


do in Stroud. We will hear from Michael Gove. Let's meet our guests


who are here this week. David Drew who hopes to have a return to


Westminster in the next election. And George Ferguson, Mayor of


Bristol. Let's start with the badger cull which was mired in yet more


controversy this week. Your thoughts on the findings of this independent


panel which claimed the cull was neither effective nor humane. It was


so predictable. Why did we go on with this, why did we waste so much


money? Hopefully now we can now move forward, look for a vaccination


strategy and get away from the daft idea you can cull your way to


dealing with this dreadful disease. It was a lack of alternatives, was


it not? I don't know, David is probably right, there was an


alternative. It makes you angry when you think 10 million could be better


spent. It is sad and an example of central government not really being


in touch with reality. The government's enthusiastic for free


schools is controversial. We are there are excess school places it is


even more controversial. We will hear what the secretary of state


thinks about one approach after this report. This sort of school used to


be a bit alternative but the opening of the first Steiner free school in


2012 which can now be funded by taxpayers. The government


enthusiastic for more free schools and this group in Stroud have been


working on their plans. They are still working on played it might go


but their application has gone in. The feed as it will result in lots


of empty places. There will be new children who need to be


accommodated. We will join the family of schools here and it will


be a lovely edition. This week, Labour's Shadow Education Secretary.


Plans are in place to cater for the growing population which a new free


school could disrupt. I understand there are 300 surplus places in the


area. We have good schools operating in the area. Introducing another


free school into that mix does not seem necessarily the right approach.


He heard the campaign against the preschool which would cost millions.


We have to be very careful about every penny we spend and at the same


time be prepared to consider an application for a free school which


will spend millions of pounds of taxpayers money. It will be


unconventional imported teachers. We do not have to follow the national


curriculum but we have to meet certain benchmarks to deceive the


funding from government. It is nothing new. In 2011 when the


blissful free school opened here and there were threats of legal action


from the head of a nearby secondary who had empty desks. The education


was not to be deterred then and he is here today for what he considers


to be a great success. Michael Gove toured and met the pupils. It is


oversubscribed which he says there is evidence that free schools are


popular with parents. Bristol free school was one of the first. There


are now 174 up and running with more like Stroud hoping to join them I


caught up with the Education Secretary and asked whether it was


right for the state to fund start`up schools? We do not prescribe from


the centre of what good should look like. We let different teachers and


different heads set up free schools to achieve a different kind of


educational attainment to different pupils. There are state schools


under the last government which have been successful. It is important to


recognise that we should, at certain points, let the professionals get on


with the job and decide on the style of education. If standards fall then


we should intervene. You are trying to these standards, don't you want


uniformity of curriculum? There is no tension between making sure


teachers and heads have a greater freedom of curriculum, they are the


experts, but intervening if things go wrong. We have done in the past


20 has been under performance and we have had to take action. Exam


results have often alerted us to things going wrong. In free schools


we are seeing real improvement and academies as well are outperforming


other schools. We struggle with poor teaching yet we're you are bringing


in an sanctioning free schools with unqualified teachers. They may not


have a specific piece of paper that confers on them a title but that


piece of paper does not make the difference between a good teacher


and the bad teacher. In Weston`super`Mare there is the head


teacher who has hired someone who is the manager and Tesco who teaches


business studies, hands`on experience. Some of the people in


other schools do not have the piece of paper but are still brilliant


teachers. That bit of paper, it surely it is important, the


qualification to say you can teach children. I do not like that


dismissed as just a piece of paper, it is the a lot of training and


understanding. Teaching is not just about knowledge, it is also a real


skill. There are some people who can teach brilliantly and naturally but


I absolutely am against undermining the importance of properly trained


teachers. What do you make of it? More and more schools opening up


with teachers perhaps bringing experience but not a teaching


qualification. Goal now, I cannot build the house so why do we believe


someone can just come into teaching? I trained to be a teacher, I was a


good teacher but I happened to go into politics. Whatever government


is in power they have to stop this. These diesels have more control over


their own curriculum where parents can make decisions, is there a place


for that? I am all for freedom of choice part in Stroud we do not need


a free school. We have all these places. Any time bust their budgets


to talk about ?6 million as an initial start`up is completely


unacceptable. I also think the way it has been done is entirely


difficult so I am worried about what will come out of this. The fact is,


you are setting school against school. The reality is it will be


about trying to grab Hoople 's two Phil places. `` grab pupils to fill


places. It to the market environment, what is wrong with


that? We need more schools in Bristol, it would be entirely


sensible to invest in schools of whatever kind in Bristol. I would


love to have the money that is going into the Steiner school. Even if it


is body Steiner free school? ICOM dogma free as far as schools are


concerned, my only concern is that we raise the standards of education


right across the country. I do not think they are elitist schools, they


have specialities, there is one that specialises in music but not to the


exclusion of anything else. Some parents like to be able to choose Es


bestiality, I'd buy into that as long as the catchment area reflects


the city and does not try to grab people from miles away because we


need to educate Bristol children within Bristol. Places are growing.


I am not against Steiner schools, I support one of them in the private


sector and I have asked them before now to come into the state sector.


That would be an entirely different matter. The problem is with the way


things have been played out. We have both in the city of Gloucester and


Cheltenham the need for additional schooling yet we are getting a new


school potentially in Stroud. It is daft, education planning at its


worst. Let's build schools where we have got the need for them and


rebuild some of the good relationships that there have been


in Stroud and sadly, I think, have been damaged by this. I do not think


children notice, the mind about the teacher they have got, the mind


about the place, the education I think it is right there is some


choice in types of education, that is usually a pavement choice rather


than a child's choice. Different schools learn off of each other ``


eight parents choice. We are on a fast improving curve and I am


delighted about that. Thank you Now, with interest rates bumping


along at rock bottom it has been an interesting time for people with


money to save, more of us have been turning to ethical schemes which


allow you to invest money in local schemes but do they take up jobs one


stunned by the local authority? 1926, a royal visit to Bristol to


open a landmark building, built on the proceeds of the tobacco


industry. The city has benefited from many benefactors over the


years. The family left their mark on this city. Another rich man who has


left his mark on the city is Edward Colston. This city was built by a


colliery owner. Bristol has a long history of philanthropy and more of


us are now for giving. 22 million adults give money to local


projects, over half would give more if it was easier to give and they


could see the benefits. This part of Bristol has seen a huge amount of


regeneration over the years, the bulk has been paid for by


entrepreneurial businessmen. Now ordinarily resident to be able to


shape the city's future. The Bristol born and would see ordinarily


resident given the chance to invest their money and projects across the


city. As yet there are no detailed plans of which schemes would benefit


or how much money needs to be raised but those who do invest could get a


4% return. This harbour`side regeneration was led by one man who


grew up around here and wanted to give something back. He is one of


those pushing the idea of the Bristol born. Mr and Mrs Joe Public


putting in ?10 a month and expecting to get it back after an amount of


time but the real value is knowing they are contributing to a piece of


the jigsaw in Bristol. Another new housing scheme goes up but this has


been funded by the state, money that is in short supply. For more homes


to be built in a city we are ER badly needed, it could be born be


the answer? It could bring forward housing for people who do not


qualify for social housing. The waiting list is so huge now that


there is a large section of the population who will never get a


council house. The Bristol Mayor at his budget slashed last week and is


backing the scheme. It could benefit the social fabric of the city,


whether housing or provision for young people or the old, whatever it


may be, and bring some return in the process. Not everyone is supportive.


The real crisis in the city is at two services. 800 full`time jobs


will go at the council. The devastation this will mean is for


users of the council. I do not think issues of bonds in any shape or form


will make up for the devastation that is going to happen. These were


paid for by rich benefactors, centuries later Bristol still has a


chronic need for affordable homes. Could the Bristol born be the answer


to building more homes? Good view and I'd be able to leave our mark on


the city? To discuss this new age of generosity is the Chief Executive of


the Quartet community foundation which gives money to good causes. Is


this the golden age of getting? I am not sure about that but there is


evidence to suggest that during times of a steady more people do


give. Research we have looked into suggests significant proportions of


the population are already giving. People are very keen to give locally


and see the impact of their giving. Do they get a warm blog or do they


just want to see return for their money? There is a whole variety


Some people like to invest to get a return on their money, others are


happy to give to get that warm glow of getting. Some want to give


anonymously and some become very actively involved in the


organisations they give to. It is about catering for a whole range of


opportunities. Essentially we have a very generous population who


actually see that some people have and some people do not. Actually, we


can all do something. Bristol is a very rich city, lots of money


sloshing about, we could do with benefactors, do people seem to be


coming forward in their droves? I think that was a different age. They


did give enormously and sometimes it was conscience getting, what the


Bristol born and is aiming to do is invest. `` Bond. You are putting


your money into something that is worthwhile for Bristol. It is a


social impact bond but has a small return, you are not throwing money


away, you are investing in a very good cause. I think you can invest


in certain areas, certainly in terms of Homs, in dealing with rough


sleeping, whatever it might be, it has to be appealing to the people of


Bristol. `` homes. There are some very poor people in Bristol. We


should use that gap in a way that appeals. Asking people to dig deep,


even with a little bit of a return, is it right to do that to take over


perhaps what the authority should be doing in the first place? I think


people are quite resentful, whether appearing teacher Association is


trying to bail out their school or helping the NHS, people are worried


about that. The community foundation in Gloucestershire I was once the


member of, that is a different scale. The only problem is, if you


think you are investing any bond and you are going to get your money


back, you might be sadly disillusioned. Who are these people


coming forward and giving? We have a whole range of people, individuals,


families, organisations, all sorts of people who see that if you have a


strong community in the place you live and work, that benefits


everybody. To a certain extent they are doing it because they want the


Bristol or Greater Bristol area to be a better place to be. They see


that opportunity. How do we judge the success of something like the


bond? Tell Michael by the success of the project that come out of it It


might be social housing, then you have got a bond that is due to buy


the problem. Then you might have charitable giving that helps with


the running of that property. You can both mix the investment with


charitable giving and then you probably get the best of both


worlds. With the tariff be far too high for the skyline? I am not be in


against high buildings. Isn't it wonderful that if you go up Park


Street it is fantastic. It was the first view that attracted me to


Bristol. Let's look back at the political week just gone by in our


62nd round up. The petition calling for tougher sentences for dangerous


drivers was returned to Downing Street. It was handed in by the


family of the rest will family `` a Bristol couple who were run down


while cycling by a driver who had taken cocaine. And action on female


genital mutilation. I just felt so relieved and thankful that he was


willing to meet others face to face. The Bishop of Bath and Wells will no


longer live in his own palace, a rule that they should have more


privacy by living in a house close by. The Mayor of Bristol made a


generous offer to Standard Life the Scottish bank says it would move


south if Scotland votes for independence, he has offered to find


them a home in Bristol. Let's pick up on that campaign about female


genital mutilations, it was quite a major feat by someone so young. It


is absolutely appalling, I take my hat off to them, I am so proud of


them, Bristol is taking a huge part in this movement. It is a topic some


are afraid to touch. The media have found it quite difficult. This group


broke through because they have been soaked up front, honest and open


about it. Even in the community is concerned people were not talking


about it. Some of the girls did not even know themselves what the threat


was. I'd macro it is an indication that ordinarily young people can


take their campaign to government and get something done. I really


think she is a wonderful example of how a young person properly engaged


in the political process can make a difference. Female genital


mutilation is an outrage. We have to tackle it at a global level which is


rare attitudes have to change. It is all very well Michael Gove saying we


have to speak out in schools but something has to be done. It is now


happening at the world level, thank you Moon is backing the campaign. It


is out there and I think the difference will be made. That is it


for today. Thank you to my guests for being on the show. We will be


back with you next Sunday. From Government to change it. Thank you


both for being here. Andrew, back to you.


This week grant Shap said he wanted to rebrand the Tories as the


workers' party to show it can reach out to blue-collar workers. One


Conservative Party MP said they should scrap what he said was their


boring old logo. We asked him and two other independent MPs how they'd


freshen up their logos. Aspiration's always been our core


value. About helping people get on with life. Giving people ladders of


opportunity. That's why our symbol must reflect our values of


aspiration and why I'm calling for our symbol to be changed from a tree


to a ladder which symbolises social mobility and stands up for


everything conservatism represents. I like an he will fanned, an animal


that never forgets. We're the only party which seems to remember what


life was like before the NHS and minimum wage and the global


financial crash was caused by too little regulation not too much. We


have a leader who can spot the elephant in the room, the lack of


women on the Tory frontbench. The republicans in America have had the


same idea. Theirs is a suspicious blue. Our would be deepest red. We


love our Liberal Democrat bird. Mrs Thatcher called it the dead parrot


when we launched it. We won the Eastbourne by-election off the


Tories very soon aftered with. Perhaps it feels like we're in a


coalition cage but we're escaping that soon. Why does it fly to the


right? Most Liberal Democrats would want it to fly to the left. I hope


it will soon. Interesting there. Let's stick with


the Robert Hall pin one. He was being serious. The others were fun.


It is interesting that talking about appealing to the blue collared vote,


the upper working class, lower middle class, curiously now neither


Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband has great cut through with these people. But


in wanting to be the Workers Party, how do you square that with choosing


five old Etonians to draw up four next manifesto. Labour said one of


the things was cutting inheritance tax, after all their priorities they


went to privilege rather than earned income. Rebranding is not enough.


The one question the modernisers never asked themselves when they


took party ten years ago is the thing we know as the Conservative


Party, salvageable as a brand? I'm beginning to think it isn't. If you


look at all public opinion research, there are lots of people in this


contrary with Conservative views. They won't vote Tory or contemplate


the possibility of voting Tory. Can we get over the electoral problems


by relaunching as a different pro-business, pro-worker party. That


means new name, new logo. It will mean new people as well. If you say


you're on the sides of what Thatcher called the strivers, the people


themselves want to see you have strivers in the people who run your


party so you know what we've been through, the struggles we've had.


How many of the six drawing up the manifesto have had ever a mortgage.


The one who's not an old Etonian went to St Paul's. He's a day


schoolboy! It is interesting and it was funny you mentioned an elephant.


Don't think of an elephant as the title of that book. Calling it the


Workers Party draws attention to the Tories biggest electoral weakness.


The idea they are a class apart Out of touch. I think it is interesting,


they have identified their elections are won or lost by this particular


demo graphic of the C 1, and C . Mrs Thatcher got them by the shed


load, Tony Blair got them. His failure in 2010 is the reason David


Cameron didn't win an overall majority. I'm disappointed with the


ladder. You should have a hammer or sickle! The Conservatives have a


terrible brand problem. You heard them explaining why they did badly


in the Wythenshawe by-election, saying there's quite a large council


estate there In 1961, I think the Conservatives won a by-election back


then, they were getting through to those sort of voters. There is not a


single Conservative councillor in Manchester. They have this terrible


problem. You're right for them to pick up on the five Etonians writing


their manifesto. David Cameron sir rounding himself with his own. He


doesn't have to do that. I seas things like isn't Robert Halpen


great. He decides and has his own. He has some more slightly common


people from St Paul's! One of the ways the Conservatives hoped to


broaden their appeal is the tougher line on immigration. We learned net


immigration is rising substantially. Back up over 200,000. Nigel Farage


of UKIP wrapped up the rhetoric In scores of our cities and market


towns, this country, in a short space of time, has become N'Zonzi


rkable whether it is -- unrecognisable. Whether it is the


impact on local schools and hospitals. In many parts of England


you don't hear English spoken, this is not the kind of the community we


want to leave to our children and grandchildren. Helen, maybe people,


I assume, will love the sentiments. Others will say, this is getting...


It is going down a dangerous road. Nigel Farage's wife is German and he


shares a flat with Godfully Bloom, nobody knows what he's saying half


of the time. You can handle the letters from Yorkshire. Alex Salmond


does not make his case on Scotland for the Scottish. Let's put aside


whether the policy's right or wrong. How bad, by the Tories own lights,


is the fact the net figure for immigration went up 60,000? It looks


really bad. If I was a Tory strategist, I'd be philosophical


about it. Immigration, even if they were meeting the target, I don't


think the public would believe it. It is like crime a few years ago,


the crime rates had been declining for the best part of 20 years but


the fear of crime remains high. There's such a degree of cynicism


that regardless of your administrative record in Government,


the public will remain hostile to you. This is where Nigel Farage can


be potent. He said it is not about numbers. It is about community. It


is about people seeing their communities change. And in the


Sunday Telegraph, it was said this isn't a dog whistle, a it is a meaty


bone for a bull terrier. The problem for the Government on these figures


is we know why the net migration figures are not looking good. They


got down the non-EU figures but the EU figures are going up. From Italy


and Spain as their economies tanked, people came here. If he hadn't made


such a big deal of the numbers, the Tories, I mean, you could present


this as a huge success story. If you believe immigration was good for the


country. You would say it doesn t matter what Labour says, the best


and the brightest young people from all over Europe are voting with


their feet to come to Britain. But you never hear that case being made


and certainly not by Labour. They acknowledge although immigration is


best in the abstract for the economy, people don't feel it in


their daily lives. There's a huge vacuum for the case where


immigration should be in our public life. I remember a time when the


economy was in such decline there was a rush to the door in the


sixties and seventies. Now we are claiming our economy's doing better


than any of the other major economies bar Germany, people want


to join in our success. London was a declining city until the


mid-eighties. Theresa May cannot be honest. She was proposing a cap on


immigration. Not going to happen. Today she is saying maybe people


from poorer member states cannot come in until their economies grow.


That's future accession states. That's Turkey in ten years' time It


is causing divisions with the coalition. She's bashing Vince


Cable. You often see Liberal Democrats bashing the Tories. You


don't often see a Tory minister bash Vince Cable. She does on the


immigration figures. He thought they were good news. Last week, Vince


responded to the news by saying it was a policy he was happy for the


gift to flunk. The problem was going for a cap. There are six moving


parts. UK citizens leaving, coming back. EU citizens leaving and coming


back and then third party nationals. And students coming to study. Of


course. You only have control over the EU citizens. Have you to clamp


down on ace strayian, Chinese or American graduates. They should have


gone for the Australian points system. I don't have a pure cap on


numbers just background etc. Tim Farran said in the European election


either vogue Liberal Democrat or UKIP. He turned that to his


advantage. It is hopeful but he s come up with a way to spin this


Labour has his special conference. Was it or was it not an event? Not


sure it was the biggest moment in the party since 1918. But things


fell apart in the special conference in 1981. 2004 got another special


conference. Who's on board? David Owen who founded the gang of four.


He's not joined but he's given them money. He's not going to sit with


them in the Lord's. He's given money. They lost the gang of four.


Back comes David Owen. Not historic? Why would he want it to be more


significant than it was. There's a tendency to see him taking the fight


to his party. Why would he want that? The fact it has not pleased


Grant Shapps is not a test to see whether this has worked. It has been


described as an historic moment and incremental of what John did. The


trade union block voters disappeared a long time ago. They still have 50%


of the vote. But 2,000 of union members voting for this guy has


gone. It is a reform from 20 years ago. Welcome but not historic. Ed


Miliband's stored up trouble. Len McCluskey wants a million new homes


and answered to the benefit caps is not reconcilable with the deficit


reduction strategy. In five years' time if there is a Labour Government


it becomes very difficult. We should keep an eye on it? Always. Labour


Party process is never ending. Unlike this programme. That's all


from us today. Continuing reports of events in the Ukraine on the BBC


News Channel. There's no Daily Politics tomorrow because of cover


Arg of the Nelson Mandela memorial service at Westminster Abbey on BBC


Two live. We'll be back on the Daily Politics on Tuesday at midday. We'll


be back here next week with the Work and Pensions Secretary, Ian Smith.


If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles