:00:07. > :00:10.Hello and welcome to the Politics Show.
:00:10. > :00:16.Last time he was here he threatened to resign over the Government's
:00:16. > :00:19.plans for the NHS. Today Norman Lamb returns to the Politics Show.
:00:19. > :00:23.Is he ready to declare victory? We'll also hear from Labour's
:00:23. > :00:28.health spokesman in a tricky week for Ed Miliband and his party.
:00:28. > :00:37.And, will we in 2015 be voting for peers as well as MPs? The leader of
:00:37. > :00:42.the Lords joins us to talk reform of the Upper House. The Government
:00:42. > :00:47.wants to limit the amount of benefits a family can get to
:00:47. > :00:50.�26,000 a year. But find a why some Lib Dems want that scrapped.
:00:50. > :00:57.He London, plans for a new private university have been causing a
:00:57. > :01:00.storm. And there is a crisis in higher education. We ask whether
:01:00. > :01:10.other higher education universities in the capital may have to go
:01:10. > :01:10.
:01:10. > :01:13.Up And joining me throughout today's programme, Sarah Sands,
:01:13. > :01:20.from the Evening Standard and the political commentator, John
:01:20. > :01:23.Kampfner, but first the news. Good Morning.
:01:23. > :01:26.The United States says Syria has created a humanitarian crisis
:01:26. > :01:29.following weeks of repression of anti-government protestors. More
:01:29. > :01:32.than 4,000 people have fled across the border to refugee camps in
:01:32. > :01:37.Turkey, and witnesses say more towns have been attacked in the
:01:37. > :01:40.last 24 hours. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, says he's
:01:40. > :01:50.extremely concerned. He says President Assad must respond to the
:01:50. > :01:53.
:01:53. > :01:57.will of the Syrian people. Refugees along the border between
:01:57. > :02:02.Syria and Turkey. They have fled with what they can carry, the
:02:02. > :02:07.barest essentials. With them, they are bewildered children. This is
:02:07. > :02:12.apparently what they fled. These pictures, impossible to verify
:02:12. > :02:16.appear to show what activist say is the first use of Syrian helicopters
:02:16. > :02:20.in the tax. There are reports of troops and tanks bombarding the
:02:20. > :02:27.town of Jisr al-Shughour. The Syrian Government says it is being
:02:27. > :02:31.confronted by armed gangs. Official estimates are of more than 4,000
:02:31. > :02:35.refugees having crossed the border into Turkey. The US Government has
:02:35. > :02:40.accused the Syrian Government of creating a humanitarian crisis, as
:02:40. > :02:45.international concerns about events in Syria continued to mount. I am
:02:45. > :02:53.deeply concerned and saddened by so many people have been killed in the
:02:53. > :03:03.course of peaceful demonstrations. I again urge President a sad, his
:03:03. > :03:04.
:03:04. > :03:11.Government authorities to take maximum care, to protect human
:03:11. > :03:16.lives. I am urging again to allow the humanitarian assessment team to
:03:16. > :03:20.enter Syria. For now, charities and the authorities are on the Turkish
:03:20. > :03:30.side of the border continue to make preparations to help what could be
:03:30. > :03:32.
:03:32. > :03:34.a further influx of refugees. At least 34 people have been killed
:03:34. > :03:37.in two bomb attacks in Pakistan. The explosions happened minutes
:03:37. > :03:40.apart in a supermarket in the north western city of Peshawar. Officials
:03:40. > :03:43.say nearly 100 other people have been injured. The blasts happened
:03:43. > :03:51.just after midnight in an area of the city that is home to army
:03:51. > :03:55.housing. Police say the first explosion had
:03:56. > :04:02.been small. But as bystanders gathered and emergency personnel
:04:02. > :04:07.were arriving, there was a second, much larger blast.
:04:07. > :04:11.I was passing through when the blast occurred. As we were near the
:04:11. > :04:16.square there was a big blast. When we came back there was no rescue
:04:16. > :04:21.team or officials. I saw a dead bodies lying under the transformer
:04:21. > :04:25.and some four to five bodies were lying under the hotel building.
:04:25. > :04:31.is the latest in a series of militant attacks across the country,
:04:31. > :04:34.that have targeted both Pakistan security forces and civilians. Many
:04:34. > :04:39.believe is Lammas groups are taking revenge for the death of Osama Bin
:04:39. > :04:43.Laden, but there are other factors, include -- including a recent
:04:43. > :04:52.upsurge in drone attacks and Pakistan are preparing to carry out
:04:52. > :04:58.an offences against and North stronghold.
:04:58. > :05:02.The chairman of the BBC Trust plans to Labiche -- lobbied the Foreign
:05:02. > :05:06.Secretary over Government plans to end funding for the BBC World
:05:06. > :05:09.Service. In an interview he said he considered the World Service to be
:05:09. > :05:13.at the core of what the BBC does and is vital to project Britain
:05:13. > :05:15.around the world. The Royal Family is marking the
:05:15. > :05:18.Duke of Edinburgh's 90th birthday at a special service of
:05:18. > :05:20.thanksgiving this morning. The Queen and more than 750 guests,
:05:20. > :05:22.including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are attending the
:05:22. > :05:25.service at Windsor Castle's St George's Chapel.
:05:25. > :05:33.That's it for now, there's more news here on BBC One a little
:05:33. > :05:36.earlier than usual at 4:35pm. Jon. So you have problems piling up for
:05:36. > :05:40.the coalition with U-turns here and climb-downs there. And what do you
:05:40. > :05:50.read in the papers this weekend? Labour in disarray. How did that
:05:50. > :05:50.
:05:51. > :05:56.happen? It has been pretty torrid for Ed Miliband. He comes back of
:05:56. > :06:00.his honeymoon, but the honeymoon is over? It has been Torridge, and he
:06:00. > :06:04.has struggled before these headlines to make headway. They
:06:04. > :06:08.could not be a more propitious time for Labour to show people they have
:06:08. > :06:12.alternative. Ed Miliband is struggling to project himself and
:06:12. > :06:18.is struggling to show it is different from the old, Tony Blair,
:06:18. > :06:24.Gordon Brown days when you have these two clans fighting each other.
:06:24. > :06:30.I liken it to bulls locking horns. It was an unattractive proposition.
:06:31. > :06:38.Do you believe the brothers are fighting each other? A David
:06:38. > :06:42.Miliband remains upset, I wouldn't put it any more stronger than that.
:06:42. > :06:46.He intimates it from time to time. Labour's own focus groups suggest
:06:46. > :06:51.that when they are asked to his Ed Miliband, they say he is the one
:06:51. > :06:58.who did over his brother. He has got to move away from that.
:06:58. > :07:04.serious is it? He comes down to Original Sin issues that if Tony
:07:04. > :07:12.Blair was rejected in a way to what Margaret Thatcher was by
:07:12. > :07:19.illegitimate means, it does leave a legacy. Again, you have David
:07:19. > :07:23.Miliband done over by his brother. You think, this is ancient history,
:07:23. > :07:28.personalities and let's talk about the issues. But it is in issue.
:07:28. > :07:36.is also a reprisal of the Tony Blair, Gordon Brown rivalry. Most
:07:36. > :07:40.of the detail was known to people in the political inner circle, and
:07:40. > :07:48.have been written about in books. But it showed a party not at ease
:07:48. > :07:53.with itself. If there is someone co-ordinating all of these events,
:07:54. > :07:59.it is like an at sales operation. To get from a position where Labour
:07:59. > :08:04.say, we want to change the leader. From getting from A to B will be
:08:04. > :08:10.difficult and bloody? It is, and it is ripe to have this long-term
:08:10. > :08:14.policy review. But at the same time there has got to be a sense what
:08:14. > :08:17.Labour is advocating is qualitatively different from the
:08:17. > :08:21.Conservatives and also the joint coalition message. As long as he
:08:21. > :08:26.struggles to get that across and struggles to show that actually
:08:26. > :08:30.they have moved on hugely from the New Labour era, then he is not
:08:30. > :08:33.going to succeed. Thanks for the moment.
:08:33. > :08:36.Now, the last time Norman Lamb appeared on the Politics Show all
:08:36. > :08:39.hell broke loose. Eight weeks ago, Nick Clegg's political adviser told
:08:39. > :08:42.me he might have to resign if there weren't big changes to Andrew
:08:42. > :08:46.Lansley's plans for the NHS. Since then Nick Clegg and David Cameron
:08:46. > :08:48.have been signalling furiously that there will be. And when the
:08:48. > :08:51.Government's review on the subject is published tomorrow we'll have a
:08:52. > :08:56.better idea exactly how the revised proposals will look. So will they
:08:56. > :08:58.go far enough for Mr Lamb and his colleagues? We'll ask him that
:08:58. > :09:08.question in a moment, but first a reminder of the controversial
:09:08. > :09:13.proposals and the likely changes. The Government's original plan
:09:13. > :09:17.would have transferred control over most of the NHS budget to a
:09:17. > :09:23.consortia of GPs. Private companies would have a bigger role under the
:09:23. > :09:26.idea any willing provider could offer NHS treatment. And the
:09:26. > :09:31.regulator monitor would have been responsible for promoting
:09:31. > :09:36.competition. But after our objections from Liberal Democrats
:09:36. > :09:40.and NHS professionals, the reforms will paused to allow a chance to
:09:40. > :09:45.listen to concerns. Nick Clegg's senior adviser, Norman Lamb told
:09:45. > :09:49.The Politics Show he would resign unless there were changes. I have
:09:49. > :09:52.said if it is impossible for me to carry on in my position, I will
:09:52. > :09:57.step down. I don't want to cause embarrassment but I feel very
:09:58. > :10:01.strongly about this issue. This week, David Cameron confirmed the
:10:01. > :10:05.plans will be altered. The interest of patients will override
:10:05. > :10:08.competition in the NHS and there will be no American-style
:10:08. > :10:13.privatisation of health care. recognise many people have had
:10:13. > :10:17.concerns. Tomorrow the Government will receive the report from a
:10:17. > :10:21.panel of experts to have been reviewing the reforms. Then we will
:10:21. > :10:24.find out whether the Lib Dem partners are satisfied, but also
:10:25. > :10:30.whether his own backbenchers are happy about the change of direction.
:10:30. > :10:35.And Norman Lamb joins me now from Norwich.
:10:35. > :10:39.You said last time a few weeks ago through controversy, he would
:10:39. > :10:43.resign if there were not substantial changes. Have you won
:10:43. > :10:47.those substantial changes? It is not a question of people winning
:10:47. > :10:53.things. Raise the number of concerns. Concern shared by many
:10:53. > :10:58.people within the health service and I am satisfied the concerns
:10:58. > :11:01.raised have been met. It has been a constructive process. Nick Clegg
:11:02. > :11:07.has been effective in the way he has engaged both with clinicians
:11:07. > :11:12.but then argued the case for the Government. The first really
:11:12. > :11:15.significant shift, which I raised on The Politics Show was this sense
:11:16. > :11:20.of a top-down, imposed reorganisation. That will no longer
:11:20. > :11:25.happen, it will be a voluntary process moving away from top-down
:11:25. > :11:29.restructuring. The patient, the patient's voice will be heard more
:11:30. > :11:34.effectively with the changes coming through. There will be no special
:11:34. > :11:38.favours for the private sector. I was really pleased to hear the
:11:38. > :11:42.Prime Minister earlier this week or last week, talking about the
:11:42. > :11:49.central importance of integrating care. All of the leading countries
:11:49. > :11:51.in health policy terms are moving towards a system of integrated care,
:11:51. > :11:57.particularly for patients with long-term, chronic conditions. We
:11:57. > :12:01.will be able to pursue that route and it is quite exciting. Sorry to
:12:01. > :12:06.interrupt, do you believe your party, your fellow MPs will now
:12:06. > :12:10.accept this? They have been discussions all the way through
:12:10. > :12:15.this with the party, both in Parliament and outside Parliament.
:12:15. > :12:21.We had a discussion last week, I think the changes were very well
:12:21. > :12:25.received, the changes that looked like happening. This isn't a case
:12:25. > :12:29.of triumph and Phyllis and, it is improving the policy. We heard
:12:29. > :12:34.about the storm clouds that gathered over the reforms and it
:12:34. > :12:38.was right that we stopped. This is a good demonstration of why the Lib
:12:38. > :12:44.Dems are in Government. We can be effective in Government, achieving
:12:44. > :12:50.changes and acting as a safety valve. Norman Lamb, you say it is
:12:50. > :12:53.not a moment of triumphalism, or are moments of declaring victory
:12:53. > :12:59.and you are not responsible for briefing the Sunday papers, but
:12:59. > :13:04.every paper is full of "Nick Clegg declares victory". Where did they
:13:04. > :13:07.get that from? I have no idea. My concern is protecting the health
:13:08. > :13:11.service and making sure it is sustainable in the future.
:13:12. > :13:15.Improving it where it needs to be improved. I think the changes we
:13:16. > :13:20.have secured, in the decisions with the Conservatives will improve
:13:21. > :13:24.reforms. We have said all along, reform is necessary because rising
:13:24. > :13:29.health costs with an ageing population, it is essential we make
:13:29. > :13:33.the money go further. Otherwise we will end up with a crisis in the
:13:33. > :13:37.health service with services being lost. We have to avoid that. Was it
:13:37. > :13:42.you, the BMA, the King's Fund or the RCN that change the
:13:42. > :13:46.Government's mind? It has been an effective collaboration. I have
:13:46. > :13:51.attended meetings with Nick Clegg and other Lib Dems meeting with
:13:51. > :13:54.connections, the King's Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Royal
:13:54. > :14:00.College of Nursing, talking through the changes people felt it
:14:00. > :14:05.necessary. -- clinicians. What I have been impressed by is the
:14:05. > :14:10.people I respect in the NHS have said they feel the changes meet
:14:10. > :14:13.their concerns. By collaboration and negotiation with the
:14:13. > :14:19.Conservatives in Government, we will have ended up securing a much
:14:19. > :14:23.more effective set of reforms. you explain one thing? How come on
:14:23. > :14:29.a devoted against it when these proposals originally came before
:14:29. > :14:34.the Commons? Every Liberal-Democrat MP seemed happy. The heart of
:14:34. > :14:39.reforms, they are good principles, devolving power from the centre.
:14:39. > :14:45.Labour had created this highly bureaucratic, centralised NHS,
:14:45. > :14:51.25,000 people working... You all went along with it? What I'm saying
:14:51. > :14:56.is good principles behind the reforms. It became very clear.
:14:56. > :15:01.bill wasn't just principles, it was details. What I'm saying is, people
:15:01. > :15:05.in the NHS came forward and said, we don't think the way the
:15:05. > :15:09.principles are being implemented in legislation as our right. We think
:15:09. > :15:14.changes are necessary. Surely the Government should be applauded for
:15:14. > :15:18.stopping, listening and getting them right. The old traditional way,
:15:18. > :15:22.governments plough on regardless. In this coalition the Lib Dems have
:15:22. > :15:31.acted as a safety valve and we have secured changes that will improve
:15:31. > :15:34.Do you think Andrew Lansley can carry on? I think you should be
:15:35. > :15:38.applauded for taking on the concerns that many people were
:15:38. > :15:43.racing, and being prepared to go along with that. Politicians are
:15:43. > :15:53.often accused of being stubborn. He has listened, taking it on board
:15:53. > :15:57.It looks like the government, the Conservatives, have won over the
:15:57. > :16:00.Liberal Democrats now. Very skilfully handled. If you let the
:16:00. > :16:05.Lib Dems say it's a victory, you can achieve what you like as long
:16:05. > :16:08.as you don't want to take credit for it. I would hope that reforms
:16:08. > :16:14.now go ahead as planned. He hasn't mentioned the 20 billion a year
:16:14. > :16:17.that they are trying to save. The only thing that worries me is that
:16:17. > :16:21.we all talk about co-operation rather than competition. I hope it
:16:21. > :16:24.makes the same thing and competition goes on. If the private
:16:24. > :16:28.sector of providing services more cheaply and effectively, I don't
:16:28. > :16:32.think they should be penalised. you think there was an element of
:16:32. > :16:35.political confection about this? When Norman Lamb said he might
:16:35. > :16:39.resign, that actually he knew change was coming and therefore the
:16:39. > :16:44.Liberal Democrats, you look at the Sunday papers, they are all saying
:16:44. > :16:48.Nick Clegg claims victory over the NHS. And how come all this appeared
:16:48. > :16:52.in the newspapers. The spin-doctors of all parties in government and
:16:52. > :16:55.opposition, they briefed the Sunday papers on Friday afternoon and then
:16:55. > :17:00.they have another go on Saturday morning. But there was a lot of
:17:00. > :17:03.politics in what Norman Lamb said. Your point about how come he didn't
:17:03. > :17:07.see this coming when the Bill went through in the second reading is a
:17:07. > :17:11.valid one. I would put that down to the fact that there was collision
:17:11. > :17:15.practice before May and the elections and the AV referendum was
:17:15. > :17:19.lost, and there was practice after. Before, the Lib Dems didn't want to
:17:19. > :17:23.cause trouble. They saw it almost as a badge of pride, being seen to
:17:23. > :17:26.be very close to the Conservatives. Now they make a point has been seen
:17:27. > :17:30.to make a difference. Norman is happy and so it seems on many of
:17:30. > :17:34.the professional bodies formally against the Lansley proposal. What
:17:34. > :17:40.about Labour? John Healey, Shadow Health Secretary, joins us from
:17:41. > :17:44.Leeds now. Are you happy? I'm going to say, and I think doctors and
:17:44. > :17:49.nurses and patients will wait and Judge David Cameron on what he does
:17:49. > :17:53.and not what he says. We need to see what changes the government
:17:53. > :17:57.suggests after this unprecedented pause in which they were forced to
:17:57. > :18:00.hold on to the changes they were making. My fear is that we will
:18:00. > :18:04.hear the Prime Minister claimed these are substantial and Signet
:18:04. > :18:08.have been changes, but the long term, ideological plan to turn the
:18:08. > :18:13.NHS into a market, to open up all parts of the images to private
:18:13. > :18:16.companies, will remain. The test will be not whether the Lib Dems
:18:16. > :18:20.back Cameron but whether his own Tory backbenchers back him on the
:18:20. > :18:26.bill in the future. If they don't, won't that convince you that these
:18:26. > :18:29.are very substantial changes? Rather than appeasing the
:18:29. > :18:34.Conservative right, David Cameron has been very centrist about this
:18:34. > :18:39.and consensual. Let's see. People have seen David Cameron make and
:18:39. > :18:43.break promises on the NHS before. He promised the NHS a real rise in
:18:43. > :18:47.funding, he promised to protect the NHS and stop top-down
:18:47. > :18:52.reorganisations. In the end, if he is going to force this
:18:52. > :18:56.reorganisation through the NHS, whatever pace he does it, whatever
:18:56. > :19:00.the details of the Health Bill, then he will be forcing hospitals
:19:00. > :19:05.to make deeper cost cutbacks this year and next, and he will be
:19:05. > :19:08.wasting nearly �2 billion on the cost of reorganisation, when that
:19:08. > :19:11.was promised for patient care. Could you envisage Labour
:19:11. > :19:15.supporting these proposals now? less David Cameron is prepared to
:19:15. > :19:20.change the fundamentals of what underlies his plans, breaking of
:19:20. > :19:24.the NHS as a national service with national standards for patients
:19:24. > :19:28.wherever they live, turning the NHS into a full-scale market so private
:19:28. > :19:34.companies can move in on any part, and making the NHS, as it should be,
:19:34. > :19:39.in all parts properly and publicly accountable. He has answered that,
:19:39. > :19:43.hasn't he? And no, he's made a series of I Love the NHS speeches.
:19:44. > :19:47.We will judge David Cameron on what he does and not what he says, and
:19:47. > :19:51.by how far he's ready to listen to the very serious concerns from
:19:51. > :19:55.doctors, nurses, patient groups, argument I was making and Labour
:19:55. > :19:58.was making almost alone back in the autumn, it's been made in the
:19:58. > :20:02.spring by these other groups. That's what David Cameron needs to
:20:02. > :20:07.respond to. You say you need to see the detail before you can comment
:20:07. > :20:13.further. In a sense you've kind of exhausted where we can go with this.
:20:13. > :20:19.No, with respect, underlining the whole of this legislation is that
:20:19. > :20:28.basic Tory belief - private sector, good, public sector, bad. Unless
:20:28. > :20:31.you remove that... I was going to move on to another... On to another
:20:31. > :20:36.subject. You mentioned private involvement. It more or less
:20:36. > :20:41.doubled under Labour in 2007, when it was �2.4 billion from the
:20:41. > :20:44.private sector involved in the NHS rising to �4.1 billion. Let's get
:20:44. > :20:48.this into perspective. Fewer than one in 20 operations were carried
:20:48. > :20:51.out by non NHS providers this time last year. We were prepared to use
:20:51. > :20:55.the private sector and competition where it could clear waiting lists
:20:55. > :20:59.and bring benefits for the patience. But it was always properly planned,
:20:59. > :21:02.properly managed, publicly accountable and the very different
:21:02. > :21:05.system and the want the Conservatives want to set up in
:21:05. > :21:12.David Cameron's Health Bill. It's been a tough week for the
:21:12. > :21:18.government over the NHS, promote - this -- criminal-justice - you name
:21:18. > :21:21.it. Why is all the focus on Labour's woes? I don't think it is.
:21:21. > :21:24.This was David Cameron's new Conservative policy. They are
:21:24. > :21:31.seriously on the back foot on that, like they are on crime and police
:21:31. > :21:35.cuts. What about Labour? We are forcing the government on the areas
:21:35. > :21:39.where people are most concerned. We are not just the official
:21:39. > :21:42.opposition but the only opposition at the moment. So why is there some
:21:42. > :21:47.of whispering about the ineffectiveness of Ed Miliband's
:21:47. > :21:55.leadership? There's no whispering or plots against Ed Miliband.
:21:55. > :21:59.There's a lot of speculation in the Sunday papers... Coming from where?
:21:59. > :22:03.You talk to these people and I don't. Many of the figures quoted
:22:03. > :22:06.today have denied absolutely what is attributed to them in the papers.
:22:06. > :22:11.What Labour has at the moment is a unity and determination that we've
:22:11. > :22:14.never had before at this stage, soon after losing our period in
:22:14. > :22:18.government. It's a determined to try and stop the worst of what the
:22:18. > :22:21.government is planning. And it is determined also to develop an
:22:21. > :22:25.alternative, a vision for the future that is different to the
:22:25. > :22:34.Tories and the Liberals. That is what Ed Miliband is concentrating
:22:34. > :22:37.on. What is your message to those people who may think they're being
:22:37. > :22:42.helpful in Labour circles, who may be special advisers or whatever,
:22:42. > :22:46.who are denigrating Ed Miliband's leadership? I get around the
:22:46. > :22:49.country a lot. There is this determination to confront the
:22:49. > :22:53.Conservatives. Ed Miliband has this long-term vision, a very clear view
:22:54. > :22:57.that we, Labour, and only we, will be talking about the things for the
:22:57. > :23:00.future that matter to people. The millions of people in Britain who
:23:00. > :23:04.are working hard put under more pressure because of this
:23:04. > :23:07.Government's plans. The promise that Britain has always made to the
:23:07. > :23:11.new generation that things will be better and with more opportunities
:23:11. > :23:14.than for their parents. Finally, you will hear this tomorrow from Ed
:23:14. > :23:17.Miliband, a determination that we don't lose sight of what is most
:23:17. > :23:21.important in our communities and pulls us together. All of those
:23:21. > :23:24.things are at risk under this government. Ed Miliband is starting
:23:24. > :23:32.to talk about those big things that matter for the country for the
:23:32. > :23:35.You'd think after the crushing defeat in the fault macro
:23:35. > :23:38.referendum, Nick Clegg would want to steer clear of any more
:23:38. > :23:42.constitutional wheezes. But House of Lords reform is very much on his
:23:42. > :23:46.mind, perhaps to convince his party that the coalition can deliver on
:23:46. > :23:49.cherished Lib Dem goals. But peers of all parties have been lining up
:23:49. > :23:52.to tell anyone who will listen what a terrible idea it would be to
:23:52. > :23:58.elect the second chamber. The coalition draft bill suggests
:23:58. > :24:01.replacing the existing Lords with 300 new members. 80 % of there
:24:01. > :24:05.would be elected by proportional representation, with the rest
:24:05. > :24:08.appointed. Critics say this would damage the Lords, whose membership
:24:08. > :24:13.currently includes independent- minded peers with a wide range of
:24:13. > :24:17.political and life experiences. Worse still, wouldn't it inevitably
:24:17. > :24:20.lead to tensions between the Lords and the Commons because of the
:24:20. > :24:30.enhanced democratic legitimacy of the second chamber? It's a hard
:24:30. > :24:30.
:24:30. > :24:34.sell, not least for Mr Clegg's How well is the House of Lords
:24:35. > :24:39.working at the moment? Rather well. And has done consistently over the
:24:39. > :24:42.course of the last few years. One of the difficulties the Government
:24:42. > :24:46.has in explaining the reason why we want to make this more democratic
:24:46. > :24:49.change. There's a lot of resistance in both houses it Parliament. In
:24:49. > :24:54.part, it's because the House of Lords does the job it is asked to
:24:54. > :24:58.do and does it well. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's been
:24:58. > :25:02.running for over 100 years. But that doesn't mean that a
:25:02. > :25:06.responsible government, which we are, should not look very carefully
:25:06. > :25:12.at our political institutions. At the last general election, all
:25:12. > :25:15.three main parties stood on a platform, there should be a
:25:15. > :25:20.democratic reform of the second chamber, either wholly or
:25:20. > :25:23.substantially elected. That's the promise that we are putting through
:25:23. > :25:28.on this draft bill. Lord Strathclyde, when did you change
:25:28. > :25:32.your mind? Shall I do the quote from 1993? They are answerable to
:25:32. > :25:36.no one, members of the House of Lords speak for themselves entirely.
:25:36. > :25:40.Not for lobbies, not for groups, not what interests, unions - they
:25:40. > :25:45.are there on their own behalf. a good quote but it's nearly 20
:25:45. > :25:48.years old. Since then, life has changed. We now have a house which
:25:49. > :25:54.is almost entirely appointed. I think it's entirely right for the
:25:54. > :25:57.government to ask the question - if political power is to be used in
:25:57. > :26:02.the 20th century, 21st century, you should do it with the permission of
:26:02. > :26:06.the people. So you would have elected peers. How independent-
:26:06. > :26:09.minded would they be? One of the strength of the current House of
:26:09. > :26:13.Lords is that people are generally more independent than the House of
:26:14. > :26:18.Commons. In order to preserve that, we should get them elected but
:26:18. > :26:21.elected for long term, say up to 15 years, and not re-elect them. That
:26:21. > :26:24.preserves the element of independence but creates the
:26:24. > :26:27.democratic legitimacy that is important. But will it change the
:26:27. > :26:31.type of people they are? You will get people who appealed to the
:26:31. > :26:35.Labour Party, Conservatives all Liberal Democrats. They won't be
:26:35. > :26:38.the same people who had a lifetime in business, the lifetime in
:26:38. > :26:41.whatever it happens to be, and bring that special and their
:26:41. > :26:46.expertise to the Lords which makes their debates feel so different to
:26:46. > :26:49.the Commons. There's an element of truth in that, but no one seriously
:26:49. > :26:57.suggests that the House of Commons is devoid of people of expertise or
:26:57. > :27:03.experience. It's full of people who've worked as The Searchers. --
:27:03. > :27:06.researchers. But while I'm keen on 80 % is we should retain that for
:27:06. > :27:09.the kind of people who would never normally choose to stand for
:27:09. > :27:14.election. The Chief of Defence Staff, the people who run the army,
:27:14. > :27:19.the Cabinet Secretary, our top civil servants, even the art trade
:27:19. > :27:22.unionists who wasn't part of a political forum. I think that is an
:27:22. > :27:27.important preservation within Parliament of those kinds of people.
:27:27. > :27:31.What about the argument that is so often made - if you have an 80 %
:27:31. > :27:35.elected House of Lords, it's not going to accept that the will of
:27:35. > :27:39.the Commons should prevail. It's going to say, hang on, we've got
:27:39. > :27:43.democratic legitimacy as well. do read that there's a problem in
:27:43. > :27:46.Parliament as a whole, that many people regard the form of the House
:27:46. > :27:50.of Lords is an issue of the House of Lords, winning some extent it's
:27:50. > :27:55.about the House of Commons and the relationship between the two houses.
:27:55. > :28:00.We've come forward with a plan that will preserve the House of Commons,
:28:00. > :28:05.maintain the conventions that apply with the relationship between the
:28:05. > :28:07.two houses. But I think the House of Commons needs to be convinced
:28:07. > :28:14.that they are not creating a competitive body but a compliment
:28:14. > :28:19.to one. I don't know whether you are a betting man. I am not. If you
:28:19. > :28:23.were to have a tiny wager, when would you say we will see the first
:28:23. > :28:27.elected peer or senator or whatever you want to call him or her?
:28:27. > :28:35.have every intention of having the first elections to a Senedd, a
:28:35. > :28:38.second chamber, in May 2015. -- Senate. If they are senators, it
:28:39. > :28:43.will be a third elected. It will be a great moment and the end of a
:28:43. > :28:51.story that's run for well over 100 years. Do you believe that will
:28:51. > :28:55.happen? I think there's every possibility and livelihood. I think
:28:55. > :29:00.we are all sensing wiggle room here. I'm trying very hard not to say, we
:29:00. > :29:04.mean it this time. But we do need it. That's why the publication of
:29:04. > :29:08.this Bill has been so important and is a real milestone in the debate.
:29:08. > :29:14.For this has been going on for so long. If you could explain what you
:29:14. > :29:19.want from the second chamber and whether you need it at all...
:29:19. > :29:23.What's it for? To do the things that it currently does, which is to
:29:23. > :29:29.revise legislation, to scrutinise the work of government, to provide
:29:29. > :29:33.a forum for debate from serious- minded people, to give Parliament,
:29:33. > :29:36.government, an opportunity to have another look at legislation. All of
:29:36. > :29:40.those things it does well, it should continue. It's about the
:29:40. > :29:44.methodology of how we will get that. So the people don't like the faces,
:29:44. > :29:48.basically. We want the electorate to be more involved in that process,
:29:48. > :29:51.and the best way of doing that is through an election. I've always
:29:51. > :29:55.thought there was something a bit bizarre about the idea that because
:29:55. > :29:59.the House of Lords is not elected, therefore it has no democratic
:29:59. > :30:04.legitimacy, therefore it has very little power. Well, that's all a
:30:04. > :30:09.good thing, it gives the House of Commons primacy. All modern
:30:09. > :30:14.equivalent countries - Germany, the United States, France - they have a
:30:14. > :30:17.perfectly flourishing elected system, different kinds of
:30:17. > :30:22.elections exactly as you are envisaging. What's the problem with
:30:22. > :30:32.having a fully elected House of Lords, albeit elected Evenley, but
:30:32. > :30:35.
:30:35. > :30:40.In the House of Commons in particular, there is a genuine fear
:30:40. > :30:44.if you create a substantial, or a wholly elected second chamber, it
:30:44. > :30:50.would begin to take power away from the House of Commons. Why would
:30:50. > :30:53.that be about thing? You don't have to be much of a historian, in 1968
:30:53. > :30:58.there was a Lord Reform Bill shut down in the House of Commons by
:30:58. > :31:02.Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. We don't want that to happen again.
:31:02. > :31:08.could do though, couldn't it? All sorts of people opposed to this
:31:08. > :31:12.very idea? The interesting thing is how the divisions exist within the
:31:13. > :31:17.parties. So this manifesto, the last election, all three parties
:31:17. > :31:21.sticking together on this substantial reform. But there is a
:31:21. > :31:26.huge disagreement between the houses, within the parties and no
:31:26. > :31:30.clear consensus, but we are working on it. The fact Nick Clegg has
:31:30. > :31:33.published this bill for the first time laying out what a second
:31:33. > :31:38.chamber would look like, is an important milestone.
:31:38. > :31:42.Strathclyde, great to have you with There is no area of policy more
:31:43. > :31:48.important to the Government and welfare reform. David Cameron
:31:48. > :31:53.reiterated this week to impose a limit on the benefit a family can
:31:53. > :31:57.receive. This cap is set at �26,000 and is a key part of the
:31:57. > :32:00.Government's strategy to bring down the welfare bill. The strategy that
:32:00. > :32:05.allows it will enter its final stages in the Commons tomorrow.
:32:05. > :32:08.While this policy may chime with the public, the Liberal Demo Heart
:32:08. > :32:15.-- Liberal Democrat part of the coalition is worried.
:32:15. > :32:20.Can you live on �26,000 a year? Tax free? The Chancellor, George
:32:20. > :32:24.Osborne things a family on out-of- work benefits should get each year
:32:24. > :32:28.as explained at the Tory party conference last year. Unless they
:32:28. > :32:36.have disabilities to cope with, no family should get more from living
:32:36. > :32:40.on benefits than the average family get them going out to work.
:32:40. > :32:46.Will it get such a rapturous reception in Chingford on the Essex
:32:46. > :32:53.border, which happens to be the constituency of the work and
:32:53. > :32:57.pensions secretary, Iain Duncan- Smith. Why should people get it for
:32:57. > :33:01.nothing? If they want more than that, go out and work for it and do
:33:02. > :33:06.what everybody has to do. Some people have up to 10 children and
:33:06. > :33:13.they are getting thousands of pounds a year. And that is just
:33:13. > :33:19.living on the state. I would love to be living on 26,000. I work hard,
:33:19. > :33:24.running my own business and 26,000 is a very nice number indeed.
:33:24. > :33:28.planned of the cap will come into force in 2013. It will affect
:33:28. > :33:32.benefit claimants who are unemployed but there will be it
:33:32. > :33:36.exemptions for war widows and disabled. Figures show 50,000
:33:36. > :33:41.households will be effective and the majority of them with three or
:33:41. > :33:47.more children. �93 a week is the average amount each family will
:33:47. > :33:52.lose. Paul is from one of them. receive housing benefit which
:33:52. > :33:58.covers a part of my rent and council tax. I receive child tax
:33:58. > :34:01.credits on child benefit which is more than 26,000 a year. He gets
:34:02. > :34:06.all of those benefits because his parents are not around and he gave
:34:06. > :34:13.up work to become the guardians to his six half-brothers and sisters
:34:13. > :34:17.and it means he will be caught up in the cap. The effect would be
:34:18. > :34:22.enormous from where the children go to college, to how they are brought
:34:22. > :34:28.up. It wouldn't alter the way I love them, but we live in a world
:34:28. > :34:34.where money does speak and school trips do cost large sums of money.
:34:34. > :34:39.It would hinder myself and the children on a social level, I am
:34:39. > :34:44.thankful they are helping us, the Government. It would be unfortunate
:34:44. > :34:48.if they do not look at individual cases. Cases like this are causing
:34:48. > :34:53.tension in the coalition because they concern many Liberal Democrats
:34:53. > :34:58.at Westminster. Jennie Willett it is a spokeswoman for work and
:34:58. > :35:02.pensions. We need to make sure those larger families, were there
:35:02. > :35:06.are exceptional circumstances, they get the benefits they need rather
:35:06. > :35:10.than it being capped the too low so they don't have enough to pay for
:35:10. > :35:14.the daily cost of living or even to pay enough for their housing.
:35:14. > :35:19.legislation paving the way will go into its final stages in the
:35:19. > :35:24.Commons in the next few days. Then, it is heading for the Lords and we
:35:24. > :35:29.have spoken to several Democrat -- Liberal Democrat and crossbench
:35:29. > :35:33.Peers who are unhappy about it. is a process we have engaged with,
:35:33. > :35:38.in talking to Government, making sure they understand it and we will
:35:38. > :35:41.be raising it obviously in the chamber. But what we want to see is
:35:41. > :35:44.the Government recognising this problem and coming back and
:35:44. > :35:48.reflecting that when it makes its decision at the end of the bill.
:35:48. > :35:52.There could be trouble for the Government when the cap comes
:35:52. > :35:56.before the Lords. But, the Conservative peer who is one of the
:35:56. > :36:00.architects of the welfare reforms hinted to us that there may be some
:36:00. > :36:07.changes. We have quite a lot of protections in this. If you are in
:36:07. > :36:10.work, you are not affected. If you are a disabled person or there is a
:36:10. > :36:17.disabled person in the household, you are not affected. If you are a
:36:17. > :36:20.war widow or widower, you are not affected. We are looking at
:36:20. > :36:23.exceptional circumstances which some people may find themselves in
:36:23. > :36:28.and we will be putting out arrangements for that later in the
:36:28. > :36:33.year. What form could they take? is where ever we think there is
:36:33. > :36:39.something happening that is undesirable. We are looking very
:36:39. > :36:44.carefully at how to draw up those protections. The problem with that,
:36:44. > :36:49.is that watering down the policy will anger its many supporters and
:36:49. > :36:58.will save less money. The coalition has discovered that cap doesn't
:36:58. > :37:02.always fit. Will they change? I think they will
:37:02. > :37:06.introduce some help, but this crackdown on benefit scroungers
:37:06. > :37:10.makes for good populist politics. But what annoys me and others who
:37:10. > :37:14.are critical of this policy, the Government and all governments seem
:37:14. > :37:17.to focus on this end of things, the welfare end of things, they don't
:37:17. > :37:21.deal with the super-rich, but bankers and others who are the ones
:37:21. > :37:27.who have screwed the country financially. I was talking to a
:37:27. > :37:32.Labour MP who said they don't get banker's salaries raised on the
:37:32. > :37:36.doorstep, they get people who may be living up the road? Because it
:37:36. > :37:44.they are living next door. If you are in an unpleasant job and the
:37:44. > :37:47.person next to you has chosen not to, it is hard to take. As long as
:37:47. > :37:50.there are exceptional circumstances taking into account, but I think it
:37:50. > :37:58.is high time and I have no trouble with it.
:37:58. > :38:03.We will be back later on, time for the Politics Show where you are.
:38:03. > :38:07.Hello and welcome to the London part of the programme, were coming
:38:07. > :38:14.up later - the Lib Dems needs a candidate for mayor fast. Can
:38:14. > :38:18.anybody stopped OPM bit? Plans for a new private university
:38:18. > :38:24.in London have been causing a storm. A smoke bomb thrown by a protester
:38:24. > :38:27.halted one of the launch events in a bookshop. But it is clear quite a
:38:27. > :38:31.few publicly-funded universities in the capital may have to consider
:38:31. > :38:37.the private route. Feeling with cuts to teaching grants they can no
:38:38. > :38:42.longer make the sums add up. This college in Sidcup has 1000
:38:42. > :38:47.students and offers a range of students, acting, costume design,
:38:47. > :38:53.lighting, sound and more. But they are under great financial strain.
:38:53. > :38:58.At the moment they get a teaching grounds worth about a few million
:38:58. > :39:04.pounds worth from the Government. But in 2012 it will stop and drop
:39:04. > :39:07.by a third. After that, they simply do not know. Indeed, according to
:39:07. > :39:12.the university, even if they charge �9,000 a year it wouldn't be enough
:39:12. > :39:16.to cover costs of the course. It would lose money for every student
:39:16. > :39:21.they taught. The result is the college is considering a radical
:39:21. > :39:26.move. Abandoning the Government and going it out alone as a private
:39:26. > :39:32.university. The Government would no longer be our paymaster. We would
:39:32. > :39:36.go it alone, charge our own fees, set our own fees. A private
:39:36. > :39:39.institution has tremendous flexibility. There are all the in
:39:39. > :39:45.build quality control measures of any public institution, but a whole
:39:45. > :39:49.lot of reckoning we no longer have to do. Other public universities in
:39:49. > :39:59.London are looking at going the same way. The Central School of
:39:59. > :40:04.
:40:04. > :40:07.The idea of public education as we know it is quickly disappearing.
:40:07. > :40:13.Whether a future Government or a Labour Government puts it back into
:40:13. > :40:17.place, it is hard to imagine. But once we move to 2012 and beyond we
:40:17. > :40:22.are in a totally different world and finance world. Universities
:40:22. > :40:26.have to become to some extent, like businesses. We have to look at
:40:26. > :40:30.profit and loss, look at the customer and the student will be
:40:30. > :40:33.the customer. Any private university in this country,
:40:33. > :40:38.Buckinghamshire, all regions College in London to look at their
:40:38. > :40:42.students in that way. Not in a negative way, the student
:40:42. > :40:46.experience of those two institutions is always at the top
:40:46. > :40:50.of the list. This week, an influential committee of MPs said
:40:50. > :40:55.the new funding arrangements could force some universities to close
:40:55. > :40:59.completely. Others wonder in the circumstances, the institutions may
:40:59. > :41:03.go private bench shut their doors. The chair of the committee told us
:41:03. > :41:11.her concerns about the growth of private institutions. There is a
:41:11. > :41:15.concern about access. If you are charging over �9,000 and your
:41:15. > :41:21.student body cannot get help with that, either in meeting a fee
:41:21. > :41:25.upfront or in having help with living expenses and you off from a
:41:25. > :41:28.poor background, you won't go to their university. She also fears if
:41:28. > :41:35.there were too many private universities, society as a whole
:41:35. > :41:38.may suffer. All universities are private institutions. The way in
:41:38. > :41:45.which Government and the state has an interest is because the money we
:41:45. > :41:49.put in. Government does have an interest in ensuring people have
:41:49. > :41:53.the appropriate skills that are needed in the economy of today and
:41:53. > :41:58.of tomorrow. So Government does have an interest in what is taught
:41:58. > :42:03.in universities. If the university sector is entirely privatised, it
:42:04. > :42:10.would inhibit Government's capability -- ability to influence
:42:10. > :42:15.what was taught in our universities. In the last week, the philosopher's
:42:15. > :42:21.A C Gryaling's plans for a private university had caused much debate.
:42:21. > :42:25.The Government is turning education into a market... Combined with the
:42:25. > :42:29.possibility of public institutions going the same way, it may be
:42:29. > :42:33.private universities come to change the face of higher education in the
:42:33. > :42:37.capital. Simon Hughes is here, Liberal-
:42:37. > :42:41.Democrat MP for Bermondsey who is the Government's advocate for
:42:41. > :42:47.access to education. What is your thoughts on that idea? Good
:42:47. > :42:54.afternoon. He is a constituent of mine, I have known him for many
:42:54. > :42:57.years. It is a maverick idea. He is entitled to do it, this country has
:42:57. > :43:01.one private university, it is possible for people to set up. It
:43:01. > :43:05.is not where we should be looking, we should be concentrating on what
:43:05. > :43:09.will be the main places, delivering the main courses for most of the
:43:09. > :43:13.students. That is where most readers will go. It is a bit
:43:13. > :43:18.distracting, some are suggesting the fees could be �18,000 a year,
:43:18. > :43:24.it is not going to be for end-of- body but other than a handful of
:43:24. > :43:26.people. If the academic world feels there is a need for it and at
:43:27. > :43:32.universities have got too complacent, isn't it a good liberal
:43:32. > :43:38.idea? In a free society, of course. That is why we have an independent
:43:38. > :43:43.school, we have an independent university. You cannot ban people
:43:43. > :43:48.from setting up an independent institution. The real challenge is
:43:48. > :43:54.what sort of student experience does it give? It was referred to by
:43:54. > :43:58.one of the people from Rose Bruford. A lot of people I universities say
:43:58. > :44:02.they are not getting a good enough product. When the new regime for
:44:02. > :44:07.pain comes in it will be much more obvious whether they are being
:44:07. > :44:11.overcharged for what they are getting. Do you realise and accept
:44:11. > :44:15.we could be, and would you welcome if it had to happen, lots more
:44:15. > :44:19.universities that become private? think it is unlikely. I think if
:44:19. > :44:25.you might. I think a few universities who have struggled to
:44:25. > :44:31.make their books balanced, may disappear. Or the universities may
:44:31. > :44:35.realise putting on courses may not be good. The Government funds a
:44:35. > :44:39.certain number of places and even if more people wanted to go to do
:44:39. > :44:45.that course, there aren't places there. Sometimes there are places
:44:45. > :44:50.unfilled. It is not driven by the demands of the students. You hear
:44:50. > :44:53.the Rose Bruford, we have heard from the central dramatic Arts
:44:53. > :44:57.institution as well, institutions will work intensive on staffing and
:44:57. > :45:00.the number of hours taught. Many of them thinking they won't survive
:45:00. > :45:05.because of the reduction in teaching hours, are you happy with
:45:05. > :45:10.that? Of course not, we would like to be in a position where there was
:45:10. > :45:14.central money going to universities. Universities have had to take a cut
:45:14. > :45:19.just like local Government have had to take a cut because we have to
:45:19. > :45:23.meet the deficit. You hear it on your programme every week. We are
:45:23. > :45:27.paying �120 million a day just on the interest we owe. It will lead
:45:28. > :45:31.to a number of those institutions, the Rose Bruford, even if they
:45:31. > :45:36.charge 9,000 it does not cover their costs. They only have that
:45:36. > :45:40.option. They can go private and then charge whatever they like?
:45:40. > :45:44.is a whole set of procedures. If they want to charge over six
:45:44. > :45:50.thousands they have to get an access agreement. Let's see if they
:45:50. > :45:56.get that. But it 9,000 isn't enough? If it isn't enough, they
:45:56. > :46:01.have that choice. A lot of them will cry foul at the moment.
:46:01. > :46:05.Whereas, in fact what they need to do is give good value for money.
:46:05. > :46:11.Lots of universities have highly paid vice-chancellors, highly paid
:46:11. > :46:17.lectures, not lecturing for many hours a week. Universities need to
:46:17. > :46:22.do more costing themselves and not spend money on things that are poor
:46:22. > :46:26.products. If this is accepted by the Liberal Democrats in the
:46:26. > :46:29.coalition that higher education has to pay more of its own weight which
:46:29. > :46:34.is accepted by all parties, that will lead people to make very hard,
:46:34. > :46:37.financial decisions. It will lead the way to more private
:46:37. > :46:47.institutions or looking into private funding and coming out of
:46:47. > :46:49.
:46:49. > :46:53.the public system. You must accept My old university now asks its
:46:53. > :46:58.students to make a contribution. Many universities do that. There
:46:58. > :47:03.will be a request for donations. Would you expect an expansion in
:47:03. > :47:09.private endowments? Private companies involved? Universities
:47:09. > :47:17.will have to go out, as they already do, you get that privately
:47:17. > :47:22.funded. Philanthropists are very willing. If we are going to start
:47:22. > :47:28.to go down this route, and you can see whether it succeeds or fails,
:47:28. > :47:33.this New College can charge what it likes, does this give you any cause
:47:33. > :47:37.for unease in terms of the kind of people that can go and access?
:47:38. > :47:41.kid on the Old Kent Road in the estate opposite where I live or to
:47:41. > :47:46.have the same chance of going to university as you or me or anybody
:47:46. > :47:51.in the studio or anybody watching. The question is - what is the cost
:47:51. > :47:55.to that person going to university? I'm not so bothered as to what is
:47:55. > :47:58.charged for the course, I'm bothered as to what the cost is.
:47:58. > :48:02.The really good point about the change, there are difficulties that
:48:02. > :48:07.we all know, but the good point about it is in future you will paid
:48:07. > :48:12.in this country according to your ability to pay. So if you earn 22
:48:12. > :48:18.grand, just over the threshold, your pay �7.50 a month out of your
:48:18. > :48:20.taxes to go to university. If you earn 100 grand, you will pay more.
:48:21. > :48:25.The potential for private institutions, at the moment you
:48:25. > :48:30.would not let students going to private institutions get the
:48:30. > :48:34.maximum 9000 loan. There's only a �6,000 loan available. Surely you
:48:34. > :48:42.need to accept and offer students the opportunity and give them the
:48:42. > :48:46.same. You are confusing two things. The cost of fees is one thing. No
:48:46. > :48:49.fees, you know what the new regime is, nobody will pay fees up front,
:48:49. > :48:55.not whether you were doing a part- time course or full-time course.
:48:55. > :49:01.You will only pay from your income if you have... The second issue is,
:49:01. > :49:05.do you get a grant or loan to help you with your living costs? That is
:49:05. > :49:09.based on the income of your family. The whole idea is it your family
:49:09. > :49:14.has a bigger income you get more that you have to pay back. If your
:49:14. > :49:17.family has a lower income, you get more that your family doesn't have
:49:17. > :49:22.the payback. If there are lots of private players in the market in a
:49:22. > :49:25.few years, the system will be looked at again. Other testers -
:49:25. > :49:29.are we making sure we cover the cost of youngsters that of poor,
:49:29. > :49:33.but universities go out and reach out to every school in London. I
:49:33. > :49:36.want us to see that every school in London and England will have
:49:36. > :49:40.scholarships on offer for universities, for pupils from that
:49:40. > :49:46.school. I'm recommending that a government. If that happens, we are
:49:46. > :49:50.going to make some progress. Simon Hughes once tilted for this ground,
:49:50. > :49:54.but the 2012 London mayoral race is still short of a Liberal Democrat
:49:54. > :49:59.contestant. The party's selection process has been somewhat delayed
:49:59. > :50:02.but resumes this week. We know that the former M P Lembit Opik has
:50:02. > :50:06.declared, and some say the Lib Dems are very keen to find someone
:50:06. > :50:14.substantial to go against him. Have they at last found that person?
:50:14. > :50:18.Liberal Democrats, 236,000. Many have accused previous Liberal
:50:18. > :50:24.Democrat candidates for male of underperforming. I think I'm going
:50:24. > :50:26.to win. The highest vote every chip was 50 % in 2004, when Simon Hughes
:50:27. > :50:32.stood for the party. This time around they may be looking to
:50:32. > :50:36.improve on that figure. The most high-profile candidate to throw
:50:36. > :50:41.their hat into the ring is the former M P Lembit Opik. We've got
:50:41. > :50:44.to differentiate, we have looked different to the Conservatives. I'm
:50:44. > :50:48.left-leaning and libertarian. With a package of policies which really
:50:48. > :50:52.is an alternative to Ken and Boris, we can do better than we've done
:50:52. > :50:56.before. Last time we got 9%, that wasn't a good result. This time we
:50:56. > :50:59.are even more under the pump in terms of the national polls. The
:50:59. > :51:03.only way we will do better is by being colourful and really quite
:51:03. > :51:07.challenging, and hopefully by having someone high profile. That's
:51:07. > :51:10.why I want to do it. Lembit Opik is considered a maverick and party
:51:10. > :51:14.outsider who the high command of the party are said to be less than
:51:14. > :51:18.enthusiastic about. Another Lib Dem candidate to declare this week his
:51:18. > :51:24.London Assembly Member Mike Tuffey, who has served in the assembly
:51:24. > :51:27.since 2002 and is the former leader of Lib Dems at City Hall. He is
:51:27. > :51:29.knowledgeable in London politics, but for critics he may lack the
:51:29. > :51:37.presence and name recognition needed to make an impact on the
:51:37. > :51:41.election. Mike Kufri joins us now. Have you been under a lot of
:51:41. > :51:45.pressure to make a race of this, to stop Lembit Opik? I've been
:51:45. > :51:48.thinking about what I should do. I'm happy to tell you that this
:51:48. > :51:52.week I will be announcing that I'm throwing my hat in the ring to be
:51:52. > :51:55.the Lib Dem candidate. A certain amount of pressure... And no
:51:55. > :51:58.pressure at all, we are a democratic party. The thousands of
:51:58. > :52:03.members across London will now decide who they want to be their
:52:03. > :52:07.candidate, I'm hoping it will be me. Are you standing for the assembly
:52:07. > :52:13.again? And I'm not. There are two different jobs. There's an assembly
:52:13. > :52:18.election going, there's two elections happening in 12 months'
:52:18. > :52:23.time. You were going to give of your political career, but this
:52:23. > :52:26.isn't just a thank-you gesture to the party you've served so well?
:52:26. > :52:31.don't call it giving up my political career. I was first
:52:31. > :52:33.elected to the GLC more than 25 years ago. I've been battling Ken
:52:33. > :52:37.Livingstone and now Boris Johnson to try and get the things that
:52:37. > :52:42.Londoners want - whether it's the housing, jobs or health care that
:52:42. > :52:49.they need. It's been difficult, we have a Simon Hughes who stared at
:52:49. > :52:54.once. It's difficult to break through. This two horse race, big
:52:54. > :52:58.personalities, big characters. not a two-horse race. It's entirely
:52:58. > :53:01.up to Londoners. What I will be putting forward are very strong
:53:01. > :53:05.policies cover serious solutions to the problems we face in London. We
:53:05. > :53:08.have a massive housing problem, we have 300,000 on the waiting list
:53:09. > :53:12.while prices and friend race ahead taking the prospect of a home out
:53:12. > :53:15.of reach. We need some serious solutions. We got the land in
:53:15. > :53:20.London, we got a mayor with the planning permission to make it
:53:20. > :53:24.happen. The two things we don't have is an ambitious mayor who is
:53:24. > :53:28.ambitious for London, and we don't have the private money. It's time
:53:28. > :53:32.that the bankers, that we've all bailed out, to put the money into
:53:32. > :53:37.London housing of a 30 year period. You've been watching him up close,
:53:37. > :53:40.how is this mayor doing? He turns a good joke but when it comes to
:53:40. > :53:45.serious solutions we don't see the housing. What about unemployment?
:53:45. > :53:48.We now have 400,000 people unemployed in London. It was the
:53:48. > :53:56.same under Ken Livingstone, London has had the highest unemployment in
:53:56. > :54:00.the country. Isn't that a scandal! I'm talking about the issues.
:54:00. > :54:03.part of a coalition, will you make it clear that voters understand it?
:54:03. > :54:07.This election is about the big issues that face London, so that
:54:07. > :54:11.this city can continue to grow, house people and continue to be a
:54:12. > :54:16.great place to start a family and grow up in. The next 12 months, we
:54:16. > :54:19.need a serious debate about these issues. On that point, because it's
:54:20. > :54:24.one of the features of the electoral system in London that you
:54:24. > :54:28.have two votes. So that has been an issue in the past. It may be more
:54:28. > :54:33.relevant here because we now have a coalition. At what stage when you
:54:33. > :54:38.make clear that he would be the second choice? We are 12 months of
:54:38. > :54:41.the election. Intricacies of the system... Have you decided yet?
:54:41. > :54:46.putting my policies out there for Londoners to decide. Do they want
:54:46. > :54:49.something done about housing, unemployment and the transport
:54:50. > :54:54.system? What we have 700,000 people coming into the city over the next
:54:54. > :54:57.10 years, it will seize up unless we really move ahead, which the
:54:57. > :55:05.present mayor is not of doing. The upgrade is a shambles at present.
:55:05. > :55:07.We need serious action. I'm not going to ask you to choose between
:55:07. > :55:10.candidates or whatever, but at least it looks like there's going
:55:10. > :55:14.to be some kind of contest. Why has there been so delayed? There is
:55:14. > :55:18.going to be a contest, that's good. The party wanted to concentrate and
:55:18. > :55:22.other things first. We now need to get on with it. I've always taken
:55:22. > :55:25.the view that you don't need to select years and years before. In
:55:25. > :55:30.the old politics you have to because you didn't have the media.
:55:30. > :55:35.Has there been some kind of legal challenge that has held his prop --
:55:35. > :55:38.process up? Someone complains he's been taken procedure. There was a
:55:39. > :55:44.small issue which barely crossed the radar. I wasn't involved. We
:55:44. > :55:47.now have Mike... What was that? Honestly, it would be unfair for me
:55:47. > :55:52.to comment because I don't know the details. Is that what held it up?
:55:52. > :55:55.No. You start of this election process back in October and no one
:55:55. > :56:00.came out that was appropriate. There were a selection of people,
:56:00. > :56:04.but it was thought that the field ought to be widened. Then it was
:56:04. > :56:08.thought to decide upon concentrating on the London mayoral
:56:08. > :56:14.elections. Mike, who I've known for 30 years, has put his hat in the
:56:14. > :56:18.ring, that's very welcome, he's a serious contender. You need a very
:56:18. > :56:22.safe pair of hands, someone who will serve the London Assembly very
:56:23. > :56:27.well and knows the ropes. You just need to get through this election
:56:27. > :56:30.without Lembit Opik perhaps. want to win the London mayoral
:56:30. > :56:34.election. I hope we will win it next year. Who knows what's going
:56:35. > :56:38.to happen? It's quite possible that Ken will put his foot in his mouth
:56:38. > :56:41.or self-destruct. It's quite possible that Boris will self-
:56:41. > :56:46.destruct - they're both that sort of character. It should be judged
:56:46. > :56:51.on policy. In terms of how you deal with, you try and match them for
:56:51. > :56:58.all their gags and stands? I think London has always looked to the
:56:58. > :57:01.policies first. -- Londoners. I live on the Old Kent Road. We have
:57:01. > :57:04.desperate housing shortages, desperate shortages of people in
:57:04. > :57:08.training and jobs. The government is doing a lot to go in the right
:57:08. > :57:13.direction but the mayor ought to be concentrating on the sort of issues
:57:13. > :57:16.that Mike has talked about. I'll give you about 30 seconds. Imagine
:57:16. > :57:20.you are there, you will have the first hustings with these
:57:20. > :57:24.characters. Everyone thinks it's Boris against Ken again. What are
:57:24. > :57:28.you going to say to attract some attention? I will put out the
:57:28. > :57:32.things that we need to do. Do you one more housing, because I have a
:57:32. > :57:36.plan to get that. Do you want things done about unemployment, do
:57:36. > :57:40.you want job security? Do you want to bring down the cost of living in
:57:40. > :57:43.London, which is racing ahead, and the present mayor was pushing up
:57:43. > :57:53.fares to pay for the investment. I don't think current communities
:57:53. > :58:05.
:58:05. > :58:09.should pay for the investment, we And that is it for today. Jo Coburn
:58:09. > :58:14.will be in the chair next week at the usual time of 12 noon. In the