04/12/2011 The Politics Show London

Show. We may have less than a week to save the euro. Merkel and

Sarkozy meet tomorrow to try and prevent collapse. They are talking

about individual eurozone countries having far less power over their

own tax and spend. But what would that mean for us? The Energy

Secretary wants a lot more of these. Tens of thousands more, with wind-

turbines providing the electricity to run every car in the land. We'll

ask him why. Do we want a Boris for Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and

Liverpool? Next year we'll find out with Mayoral referendums in many of

England's biggest cities. There will be 41 newly elected police

commissioners too. But who is asking for all this extra local

democracy? In London, what does the Autumn Statement mean for the

capital? We know the Government is borrowing more, but what about us?

Do ordinary Londoners need more protection from short-term lenders

We'll be speaking to Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas

Alexander about that crisis in the eurozone, to the Police Minister

about those new commissioners next year, and to the Energy Secretary,

Chris Huhne, about wind turbines and the big climate change talks in

Durban. Joining me throughout the programme are Tim Montgomerie,

editor of the website ConservativeHome, and by Anne

McElvoy, Public Policy Editor of the Economist Magazine. But first

the news with Tim Willcox. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick

Clegg says the coalition would legislate if necessary to curb

excessive executive pay. Mr Clegg said it was important that the

private sector shared some of the economic pain, along with public

sector employees facing pay caps and increased pension contributions.

His comments came as Lord Hutton, who reviewed public sector pensions

for the coalition, said the Government's proposals for the

sector were perfectly credible. Terry Stiastny reports. Are week

all in this together or are some more in it than others? Well the

government tries to keep the costs of the public sector down, there is

some concern those at the top of the private sector are earning more

than they are worth. These are tough times for everybody, whether

you are in the private or public sector, whether you are a taxi

driver or the civil servant, and we need to make sure people in the

public sector don't feel they are doing the heavy lifting. The public

sector workers who went on strike do feel the heavy lifting is

largely theirs. But Lord Hutton, the former Labour minister who

wrote this Government's report on pensions reform, has warned change

is necessary, or else he says we could be heading for the rocks as

the economy has grown far less than we expected. The ground underneath

the system that has changed radically and in the wrong

direction, so we can't be sure the cost will fall over time. He called

the Government's position a credible offer. For ministers, that

was welcome. He is right that is the right thing to do, but his

warning, given the nature of the economy about us and the Western

world, made in the future mean this will not be enough so in truth this

is a generous package for public sector workers. In the new year,

the government will consider what action it could take on high

executive pay, the question is whether giving more people a share

of the pain will create the conditions for more long-term game.

-- gain. Private health firms could be given access to NHS patient

records and other NHS data, under plans being considered by the

Government. In a speech tomorrow, the Prime Minister will say that

giving researchers access to such information, which would be

anonymous, would encourage more medical research. Campaigners fear

such a move could undermine patient confidentiality but the Government

says all necessary safeguards would be put in place to protect personal

details. Voting has begun in Russia's

parliamentary elections. The ruling United Russia party of the Prime

Minister, Vladimir Putin, is expected to hold on to power. Even

before the polls opened, independent election monitors were

highlighting thousands of alleged violations of electoral law. Mr

Putin has accused foreign powers of meddling in the election process.

Two giant pandas on loan from China will arrive at Edinburgh Zoo this

afternoon. They're the first to stay in a British zoo for 17 years.

Tian Tian and Yang Guang are expected to arrive within the hour

on a specially-chartered flight. Laura Bicker is at the zoo for us.

A long journey and quite an expensive process, Laura? It is a

very expensive process. The zoo will spend around �600,000 a year

for these pandas and it will be �70,000 also in Bamber 0. It is no

ordinary day here, everybody is very excited. These pandas were

loaded on to the specially chartered aeroplane. As you can see

from these pictures. That is expected to arrive at Edinburgh

airport within the next hour, it will then get a police escort for

these pandas and they will arrive by motorcade outside here to these

gates at Edinburgh's it. The air will then be filled with the sound

of bagpipes. They will be piping them into the enclosures. Hundreds

of people are expected to line the streets to try to glimpse these

pandas. There is a lot of hope riding on these pandas, not that

they will just produced cubs, but also that they will help trading

ties with China. Thank you. The former Brazil

captain Socrates has died in hospital at the age of 57. Socrates,

who was widely regarded as one of the greatest ever midfielders,

played in two World Cups, winning 60 caps for his country between

1979 and 1986. He graduated as a doctor of medicine during his

playing career. That's it for now. There's more news on BBC One at six

o'clock. Rarely has a week felt more in need

of the sound of Eric Idle and the Monty Python team belting out

"always look on the bright side of life" because there are not a whole

lot of reasons to be cheerful over the state of the UK economy, over

what is happening in Europe. Can you remember a time like this? It

genuinely feels a bit scary now. does feel scary now. The time it

reminds me and a lot of people of is the 1980s. There was a feeling

everything was being curtailed and we were getting a much more

bitterly divided politics. All it took for me was seeing Billy Bragg

re-emerging the other night on the BBC! It is even scarier because the

eurozone, are back up system on the Continent, is in even more dire

trouble than the British finances. That combination of having these

things playing against each other is scary for politicians and

everyone else. And the headline about a number of dates to save the

euro and whatever, actually we think this time it might be true.

My own feeling is that saving the euro might not be the right thing.

There are very divergent economies in a very one-size-fits-all

interest rate. I am not sure if Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy

have a plan that will succeed, but more significantly I don't want to

because the country should be free from having to live under one

interest rate. A my gut would be with Tim on that one, I do think

the price of breaking it up now... It was welded together so firmly

and I think the price of breaking it up would be perhaps too high and

we would therefore have to tolerate this fiscal union between France

and Germany. That has huge implications for how David Cameron

pursues his economy. How does this play out in terms of UK internal

Conservative Party politics? Hearing Iain Duncan-Smith earlier

about what it would require for there to be a referendum if the

whole treaty negotiations get reopened. Nick Clegg earlier said

there would not need to be a referendum if British sovereignty

was not affected, then you have very different body language from

Iain Duncan Smith suggesting a referendum would be needed if in

some way Britain was affected. This is the problem. The referendum lock

that has been passed, that is only triggered if British sovereignty is

somehow eroded but most Euro- sceptics believe if you have fiscal

union on the Continent, although we may not lose powers, this emergence

of like an aircraft carrier, which we will be towed along by, it

affects us so much that if we don't have referendum it won't work at

all. Thank you for the moment. Christmas is coming, presents are

being wrapped, and turkeys all over the country are getting more than a

little bit nervous. According to one survey this week, we Brits are

a satisfied bunch. Ask us if we're happy and apparently we give you a

score of seven and a half out of 10. But that survey obviously didn't

poll many economists! And this week we've had little in the way of

tidings of comfort and joy. Behind every door of the advent calendar

this week, it was bleak midwinter. On Monday the OECD warned that

Britain would fall back into a recession. We live in very

difficult times. I believe we can define this political moment. The

situation in the euro area it is deteriorating. On Tuesday, the

Chancellor admitted austerity would have to last for years, much longer

than he had hoped. Our debt challenge is even greater than we

thought because the boom was even bigger, the bust even deeper, and

the effects were last even longer. Wednesday saw public sector workers

out on strike. Not everyone was impressed. It looks like something

of a damp squib. Come Thursday, it was the Bank of England's turn.

Faced with a crisis of the euro area system, we are seeing the cost

of financial instability first hand. So deck the halls with those of

holly, and keep cheerful, but the message this Christmas is that

economic midwinter is here to stay, and stay for quite some time.

Very cheery and festive. The Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne is here,

just before he sets off for a major round of climate change talks in

South Africa. For the past two years, the coalition has been

working on the premise you will do everything you can to clear the

structural deficit by 2015, then go into election and set out your own

agendas. When did you realise that wouldn't happen? The Autumn

Statement had to take on board the things that have been happening in

the global economy. We have seen an increase in gas prices, and we have

had the happenings in the eurozone so the Treasury is projecting

things on even beyond general elections. Unfortunately the

economy and the numbers don't stop at the time the general election.

Do you believed the figures? I used to be an economic forecaster and we

are not very good at doing forecast one year ahead, let alone five

years ahead, so I would be confident the world will not look

like the Treasury thinks it will in 2015,/16. The reality is there are

bound to be changes and a change in directions, as there always are,

and we have to take into account what is happening. But the Treasury

is right to make the best possible guest at the time and the markets

expect that. They say with forecasting it is like a grenade,

you throw it as far away as possible so you don't get hit by

the shrapnel. Or you make a forecast so far away that no one

will remember it. Do you think that is what they have done? Do you

share the analysis this is best guess? No, I think we have a

reasonable stab, but not a perfect one given what has happened over

the last year, at what can happen in the near term, but when you look

at five years away, you are basically trying to at least make

sure your policies are consistent, that they add up, and there are

going to be so many things that can change over that time that frankly

it doesn't make sense having a row about something. Let me consider

the implications for your party. How do you go into an election in

2015 differentiating yourselves from the Conservatives when you

have supported the same policies. OK, you can say it was a national

emergency, but you will have the same projections going forward.

Obviously there is a difference between projections in terms of the

overall aggregate on borrowing and so forth, and the values of what

you do in terms of meeting particular objectives which will be

the balance between tax and spend, how you intend to spend particular

pot of money, and that seems to leave an enormous field open for

political disagreement, as we have seen. Danny Alexander has set you

on the same course until 2017. the number of overall aggregate,

first of all there is the question of whether they are likely to be in

the ballpark by the time we get there, but also of there is the key

issue which is the overall aggregate still leave an enormous

field of different over how you intend to make the splits between

tax and spend, how you intend to do that within spending, in particular

projects, and the values of the parties will be very clearly on

display in the run-up to the election. We will be fighting as an

independent party with an independent programme and a very

clear manifesto. What do you mean when you said George Osborne was a

Conservative Chancellor delivering Exactly that. He has constituencies

within the Conservative Party, Tim Montgomery will be one of them,

that he wants to keep on board. he care about keeping you on board?

He doesn't have to keep me on board, I have my own constituency is with

the Liberal Democrats. The key point, surely, is that you, as a

journalist, should judge people by what they do and not by what they

say. If you look at the actions the Government has taken... So you did

not like the speech? I think that the reality is that the

announcement in the speech that there would be another �200 million

to make a success of our pioneering Green Deal programme was very

sensible. Do I think that we can solve financial debt problems today

at the cost of creating environmental debt problems

tomorrow, no, I do not. Did he consult with you before that

passage in the speech? Government should never discuss

what goes on within government. would always tell us if he had

consulted you! You would have been absolutely on the same page...

I come back to is the key point, if you look at what the Government is

doing, the key issues that have been brought forward on renewable

subsidies so that they can be clear support their, electricity market

reform, a big thrusts towards low- carbon electricity. We have the

support for clean heat. �800 million from the Treasury. An extra

�200 million in the Autumn Statement. So there are these

massive road-building programmes, which has led people to say that it

is the least green friendly government they have seen. You are

gliding over substantial achievements, including achievement

that the Government has set out that our world firsts, a real

pioneering programmes on energy- saving and on clean heat. They have

been done nowhere else in the world. George has absolutely signed up and

been very supportive on all of those. Judge people on what they do,

not what they say. So you didn't like the words, but you like the

actions. Good summary? That is not what I said, that is what you are

saying. Or wind turbines, is it right we are going to go from 3000,

up to 32,000? The Sunday Times's maths is out of date. We have set

out what, on one scenario, would be a substantial increase. As it

happens, we will continue to use very small turbines. The latest are

seven megawatts, more than three times the size. The reality is that

the actual number... Where would they go? A large number would go

out to sea. Dogger Bank is a shallow area of the North Sea, the

same size as Wales. If we can get serious amounts of electricity

based in that area, we could enormously increase our ability to

withstand the shocks we have had. Let me go on to cars... And let me

finish this. Will we have electric cars by 2050? We will have to

import nine out of �10 of our energy by 2050. If we don't see

Wisley generate, from domestic By 2050, every car will be

electric? Our vision is that the future of the economy will be an

electric future. That is the way we know, from existing technology,

that we can have a sustainable future without destroying the

planet for our children, our grandchildren. Electric cars are

probably the way forward. There are a lot of uncertainties and other

possibilities like hydrogen fuel cells. A on Durban, earth do you

think that there is anything concrete going to come out of it?

Or is it just a lot of talk? All of these international negotiations

take time. They always have done, this I think there is a potential

big step forward. That we can get the world committed to coming up

with a global, overarching treaty by 2015 so that we are all at least

heading in the same direction with a clear road map, so that we get

global emissions down by 2020. That is what the science is telling us

is essential. I have to bring you in, because he brought you into the

interview so much earlier wrong. What do you make of that? Chris,

unfortunately, from my perspective, is one of the Cabinet's most

effective ministers. Despite some of the shift in rhetoric, he is

pursuing his green agenda relentlessly. My worry,

particularly in the international context of climate change, is that

we have had so many promises that these international conferences are

going to deliver something. The only people that seem to do

anything our countries like our own. That means domestic bill players in

Britain are paying higher energy bills and the world's carbon

footprint goes higher and higher. Two key points. Energy bills,

because of the rise in gas prices, may be going up. But the impact of

our policy will be to bring them down. Not in the short term, the

contrary. Within three years we will actually been seeing, having

dealt with the inheritance of the Labour government, we will be

seeing the impact of the Government policy will be to reduce energy

costs. According to the forecasts. Well, it is easier to forecast on

that than it is the economy. The point about other countries not

doing anything, a other countries say the same thing. Why does my

country have to do things when nobody else's? We have over 70

countries signed up to targets. Look at what the Chinese are doing.

A quarter of the population are covered by low-carbon Soames. They

have the six biggest renewable energy companies in the world. They

have 10 kilometres of high-speed Let's look at the wind farm

situation in Britain. You have a story today, and I don't agree with

the calculations. If I can just get to the end of half descendants. You

have a situation where you have a big expansion in wind farms. You

make it sound as if wind and renewables, by extension, it is a

guaranteed answer to energy supply, security in terms of dealing with

energy sources in the outside world. I don't think it is that simple.

There are still major doubts about what wind power and renewables can

deliver. You have your argument on it being as effective as it could

possibly be. We simply do not know that is the case. You are also

I don't accept we are damaging the environment. There are

uncertainties about the technology is and the global outlook for oil

and gas prices. We need a portfolio of different options, to make sure

we are not betting the barn. Wind and renewables are part of it, so

his nuclear and clean coal. If we can use wind power, that is what

the market will determine. What we mustn't do is to decide now, when

there are still some substantial uncertainties about the future of

this technology, that we are going to get everything on one thing.

Chris Huhne, a final question before we go. A crucial week for

the euro. Do you believe that it is going to survive intact, with all

17 countries as members? The one key thing to learn about the

lessons of the European Union, since it was started in the 1950s,

is that it proceeds through crisis. There has never yet been a crisis

where it has not come out with a resolution. Has there been a crisis

like this one? There has, over the years. They have been at crisis

around the exchange rate mechanism, all sorts. The key point is that

there has never been a situation yet where the European Union has

not emerged with a revolution. -- Resolution. It would be foolhardy

to bet against that. The French President and German

Chancellor are meeting tomorrow with the euro in crisis. What they

will be discussing may decide whether the currency and even the

whole European project lives or dies, even with Chris Huhne's

cautionary words. They are expected to agree to a full fiscal union

with central oversight of how each and every eurozone country raises

its taxes and spends its national budget. Financial penalties would

be put in place for any nation that breaks the rules. They hope that

would be enough to calm the current storm in the market. Our current is

the leader of a conservative group of MPs. Do you think that full

fiscal union is the way to go? could well be. What we should never

forget is that treaty change on this level could take several years.

It has to be ratified in 27 member- state parliaments. Member countries

will probably have a referendum on it. It will not solve the problem

in the immediate future, it is a long way down the tracks. Angela

Merkel clearly wants a treaty change. Do you support that? I am

not sure it is completely necessary. As I said, it is not going to solve

the problems in the short term. She clearly does want to pursue it.

What Germany wants, Germany normally gets in the EU. It looks

like the summit will be dominated with apocalyptic warnings of all

the things that will happen if they don't reach an agreement. She will

probably get the treaty change that she wants. But it is a long,

complicated road before it is finally agreed. If you go down the

option of a treaty change, does there have to be a UK referendum on

it? Iain Duncan-Smith says anything that is a sizable change, you have

to. Nick Clegg says it is not like that, it is only if we are giving

substantial new powers. How do you read it? We will have to wait and

see what it says. We are dealing with hypothetical tier. We don't

even know what the proposals are yet. We had a pretty clear idea.

will have to see the details, how much it affects the UK, what David

Cameron manages to achieve in terms of negotiations. I hope he will

manage to build in a number of safeguards for the EU. It has a

number of potential problems for the UK. We want to see a

repatriation of powers in areas that can help the economy grow. It

is a huge hypothetical question. In principle, I have no problem with

the referendum. I think we have had far too few referendums. If there

had been more when the euro was established, not least in Germany

itself, we might not have the same problems we do now. How do you see

fiscal union affecting the UK? main problem for the UK is the

corpsing aspect of it. If the countries of the euro-zone draw

together, if they do vote as a block in the European Union, that

is a qualified majority. They could out to vote the UK. We are already

seeing a number of quite blatant attacks on the City of London, on

financial services. However unpopular they might be in the UK,

they are a critical part of the UK economy. There are lots of people

with an agenda to transfer that business to Paris and Frankfurt. We

have to protect our position in that, as well as in areas that are

key for our growth. How do you do that when you are marginalised?

You're not, of course. David Cameron has a detail. That is the

thing about negotiations. -- AVG Cho Seung-Hui. All national

parliaments have to approve. The democratic problems that are going

to be caused by this, and what the Germans are talking about doing is

imposing treaty change that will say that every tax decision, every

spending decision, every fiscal policy is not set in the individual

country but by a committee in Brussels, presumably dictated to by

Germany. It has tremendous democratic implications. What about

elections in those countries? It will not be long before an

extremist party puts forward an alternative vision, and then you

will see proper break-up. Thank you so much for be with us. I am joined

by the shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander. Thank you for

being with us. If you have the 17 countries that pursue full fiscal

union, what are the national governments of that country for?

Let's see what is proposed that the European summit. We have a very

strong national interest in making sure that the single market, the 27

members of the European countries in the single market, continue to

be the body that makes decisions about British exports and have a

profound effect on British jobs. As we have seen from the comments of

Iain Duncan-Smith and Nick Clegg, we have a coalition that is not

talking to each other, never mind talking to European partners, at a

critical point for the economy and the future of Europe. But the point

is, let's decide what it looks like before we work out if we need a

referendum? I think people will struggle to reconcile the language

we have heard from Iain Duncan- Smith and Nick Clegg. That is not a

source of joy, it is a source of concern to me. One of the reasons

Britain is in the position it is in at the moment is because David

Cameron is obliged to spend more time negotiating with backbenchers

than European partners. I welcome the fact he was in Paris. I welcome

the fact that, even at this late hour, there are discussions with

European partners. The stakes are extremely high for Britain's it

national interests. There have been crisis in the European Union before,

if you look at history, they tend to get sorted. Chris Huhne seemed

pretty sanguine. He was saying that the European Community grows

through crisis. But even the greatest advocates of the European

Union's nerve would be tested by what we are witnessing. We have a

situation where the European economy is minutes from midnight.

We need a European summit that, for once, actually get ahead of the

markets rather than being behind the markets. That is why I think

change is inevitable in the eurozone. It is overdue. I hope we

see a comprehensive enough package emerging from European leaders that

it will command confidence, rather than lose confidence. That involves

the political support being given to the European Central Bank, that

But there is a fundamental problem that Angela Merkel and Nicolas

Sarkozy don't see it in the same way. My sense is they are moving

closer together. I think there will be a joint paper produced by the

French and the Germans anticipating the conference that takes place at

the end of the next week, and that will look at how you make sure

there is broader oversight, but that carries significant

implications in terms of the broader functioning of the European

Union. We do support a referendum if there was a treaty change?

law is there will be a referendum if there is significant change in

powers for Britain giving up powers, but let's see what emerges next

week. I can see how fiscal union might solve the problems going

forward for the eurozone, but that doesn't deal with the immediate

problem that we have a Continent burdened by debt and countries on

the periphery like Greece that are uncompetitive within the eurozone

and I can't see that changing unless they have the option of

devaluation. Is it the Labour Party's position that the eurozone

has to stay as one single currency area? Our judgment is it is up for

them to make those decisions. Issues of Greece leaving the

eurozone have to be resolved by the countries themselves but it is in

Britain's interest that it does resolve these problems.

Schadenfreude is not a good economic strategy for Britain at

the moment. The Labour Party has been broadly EU comic even went

through a period of being brought me he knew, and you seem to be

suggesting a more sceptical tone without coming out directly and

saying that. We always thought economics should lead the politics.

We should maintain a position that economics leads the politics. More

broadly, we need a clear-headed sense of where Britain's national

interest is, and I think it is served being part of the European

Union. The way we can advance global public goods, whether it is

climate change, security, global poverty, Britain's interests are

amplified by being part of the European Union, but we also want to

be a part of the single market. It is crucial David Cameron can do

what he can to secure a global market, because to shrink our home

market is just daft. Are you sure you can get away with being in a

single market if you're not in the fiscal union? I believe we need to

see the endurance of the single market. The break-up of that would

be as disastrous for Britain as would a break-up of Europe. We have

heard about the caucus in aspect, how can you stop that? So unthought

is being given to an emergency brake procedures before next

weekend so you could have issues relating to financial services that

largely affect the City more than any other part of the European

economy, if they are significant enough being graduated up to a

government decision, so there are various ways you can work to

protect Britain's national interest but that requires a prime minister

who knows what his premises are. My genuine fear it is that if you

maintain the position that you are overriding national interest as the

repatriation of powers, not only would you likely be unsuccessful

but you would also miss the opportunity to get the guarantees

the British economy needs. Thank you.

Later in the programme, the political impact of pandas - all

will be explained, but first the Politics Show near you.

Hello and welcome to the London part of the Politics Show, where

coming up later - Christmas comes but once a year but for some their

debts go on and on. We look at the rise of short-term credit lenders

and loan sharks. It has been quite a week for the economy. The Autumn

Statement, thousands protesting on the streets of the capital, and

dire warnings about rapidly lowering living standards. There

were promises about future transport improvements and a

handout to soften the mayor's planned fare rises, but where else

was there to here? Perhaps Greg hands, Conservative MP for Chelsea

and Fulham can provide it. You had seen the statement, presumably,

before it was delivered? Not much before. Did you expected to be

quite so gloomy? Actually, I think it is quite good news for London,

in terms of some of the extra spending and in terms of the good

provision for London pensioners, for those having to pay petrol tax,

and also keeping interest rates down, doing everything the

government can to make sure businesses can borrow at a

reasonable rate and that mortgage rates are kept down. Do you think

that is how Londoners feel? The Autumn Statement? We will have to

see. The overall package has turned out to be good for London. It is a

difficult set of circumstances at the moment with the economy, which

obviously the Office for budget responsibility forecast showed the

economy slowing for Europe and the rest of the world, but within that

context London has done very well. How do you think Londoners will

feel about household income going down almost to record levels? The

last decade we have been 2016 hearing about? Clearly these are

difficult times and we haven't tried to avoid that question. Most

Londoners will realise this is a follow-on effect from the recession,

the deepest recession this country had been the year's 2008/2009, and

when we became the government last year we inherited the largest

budget deficit in the G20. Most Londoners will recognise the

economic inheritance that Labour passed on makes our job very

difficult. They might think that, they also know you felt you could

get a lot of the pain out of the way in four years, but now we know

it will be much longer. And a 1% pay rise Cap for public sector

workers in a couple of years' time, projections of tens of thousands

more public sector workers out of work, really? We tried to make sure

some of the savings are shared out equally, and that everybody shares

some of the paint and some of the game. Do you think we have shared

it? Yes, we have the new bank levy raising 2.5 million from the banks,

there is the 50p tax rate, and others measures to make sure people

right across the income curve will be sharing it out. Are they paying

as much as, for instance, those children who will not get the rise

in the child tax credit? The child tax credit is still rising, it just

won't be rising as fast or by as much as we had projected last year.

It will be in line with inflation, which will still be a real benefit

for Londoners in difficult circumstances. What is the idea

behind, and how convinced are you, that this can work and generate

growth in the economy? These ideas of infrastructure projects?

Infrastructure is very important for London to make sure it keeps

its competitiveness as a world city, that we keep London moving, that we

make sure London has got the right transport in place, and schools

will also be very important. will look at that in some detail

now, about that Investment. Was it as presented a shot in the arm for

London? Investing, building, creating jobs? The main focus was

on the river, or have to get across it. In the 20 miles between

Kingston Bridge and the City, there are 19 ways to drive across the

Thames, but then it all comes to a halt. Unfortunately for people in

East London, they are not so lucky. Between Tower Bridge and the

Dartmouth tunnel, there are no bridges whatsoever over a 10 mile

stretch of river. The links their art are slightly random. The best

bet by car are these tunnels, both notorious for delays. Two ft Dolls

at Greenwich and Woolwich are both being refurbished, and the

Greenwich ferry runs once every 10 minutes. Next year, east London as

slightly eccentric river crossings will be joined by another. The

mayor of London's cable-car across the Thames put on show for the

first time this week. Transport for London reckon they will take about

500 passengers a day on these things. They are pretty cool on the

inside and you get a great view crossing the Thames but are they

any use for a business that need to transport a large amount of

freight? The Chancellor's Autumn Statement this week appears like it

could be good news if that is what you want. We will work with the

mare on options for other new river crossings... He made reference to

two potential Crossens, one in the east of the City and another just

outside it, possibly at Dartford, but both projects have been opposed.

According to Labour, it is hardly an announcement at all. There is

very little in this statement for London, and I think this is a

window-dressing announcement. He is trying to make it look like There

is more for London but there is nothing. This was meant to be the

Thames Gateway Bridge. Ken Livingstone's solution to the

problem, but the six-lane road bridge would have been noisy and

polluting, and was unpopular with some locally. The plan was scrapped,

although he has now committed to another crossing at the same point.

But when the mayor scrapped this bridge, old with it went the

funding. The project could have been paid for. The difficulty is

now but the mayor and the Government are committed to

building a new crossing, there is very little detail on where the

cash for that will come from. understand their issues with

private finance initiative, that is how it would have been financed,

and if you look at other projects like the DLR, they are not

delivering what they should have done and they are costing the

taxpayer more. It was right to look at the finance, but to scrap some

of these major projects was a huge mistake. Another Road Bridge in

East London have some sort has been in the pipeline for about 50 years

but some will question whether this announcement will move us any

closer to building one. Joining us now, the deputy mayor

for Transport. Some felt it was fairly flimsy, these transport

improvements, apart from the first themselves which are quite fat. --

the trouble first themselves. Anybody who lives in Newham or

Bexley knows exactly what you are talking about, that the absence of

a river crossing is cataclysmic for regeneration. Transport is almost

the secondary objective. We could have had the bridge completed by 20

did team if we had gone for that in 2008. When you look at the road,

where it would have been, you understand why thousands of locals

would have died in a ditch, opposed to that. Did you back the decision

when you were there? That was ages ago, nothing to do with me.

probably thought it was a good idea, back when. I didn't get involved.

How much further forward are we? There is no money on the table, but

the Chancellor said he would work with you. The key thing for these

projects is political will. You can spend all the time in the world

consulting on it, developing finance packages. If you look at

the Northern Line extension that has been proposed, that is one of

the big regeneration opportunities in London, but unless people

actually want to build it, we can spend a lot of time coming up with

finance packages... I will come on to that. These are the 48 words

from the Chancellor - right here in London, we will work with the mayor

for options on all the new river crossings, for example on

Silvertown, and we will support the extension of the Northern Line to

Battersea in partnership with the private sector. This could bring

25,000 new jobs to the area. The Chancellor was there on Monday with

the mayor, saying the developers would pay three-quarters of a

billion pounds of the cost for these two new tube stations on the

Northern Line. Two days later, the developers heading for

administration. In terms of the overall development, this is

fantastic news. What about that though? Doesn't it show the

difficulty immediately? The Chancellor says this will be built

by the private sector developer, Owen lots of money, looks like

have to see on that, but the important thing is this is a

fantastic opportunity. You mentioned twenty-five 1000 jobs,

also 16,000 new homes that would be built, making sure the central

government support working with Boris Johnson, making sure the

central government does what it can. The aspiration sounds fantastic.

How could the Chancellor go to the site like this for a photo

opportunity and claim it as the kind of thing the government is

doing? When there is no central government money going into it.

There is a lot of central government money going into the

Into that project. Specifically, there is no central government

money. It is often showing the political will, showing that the

Government will support this, is supporting this... How important is

that to you? Political will. A Chancellor there with a hard hat,

next to Boris Johnson in a hard hat. Would you like the money?

Battersea development that you talked about is only part of quite

a lot of activity in that area. you're not going to tell me that

Battersea Power Station is and the single most important part, and

they were paid for the most part of it? Do you agree? Yes. But it is

quite counter-intuitive. That project, with that particular

structure collapsing, it is a good thing to push that forward. You

don't want something languishing for years, and there has been a

succession of those problems. point is, the significance of that

and the Autumn Statement for Londoners, that was that George

Osborne could be photographed next to Boris Johnson and they say, we

want this to happen sometime? is in place for the Northern Line

extension is a detailed package that has been discussed between the

boroughs, the mayor and government. What is missing, it is not the case

that it is all coming from the developer, it is a complex

financing structure. What is missing is that we need a few tools,

financing mechanisms, and that is where we are looking for the

Government to come forward. could happen anyway, it is nothing

to do with a way out of the financial or economic difficulties

we have got, is it? We have been waiting for some of those tools for

a couple of years. If we can get movement, that will be fantastic.

One thing that is undeniable is that they raise more money to

soften the blow of what was going to be fare rises. 2% above

inflation will now be 1%. What difference will that make? It is

quite significant on a certain product in particular. If you look

at buses, the fare rises will be slightly below plus one. If you

look at the weekly bus pass, that a lot of low-income workers used, we

have managed to reduce that significantly. For the first time,

you are putting up a bus fare by 10 -- 5p. It has always been 10 before.

Why five? We have been trying to spread the benefits across so

everybody can benefit. Why haven't you done that before, a five pence

increase? There is a long story behind that. A fair has to be

offered at a 50% discount, for example, if it is �1.35, you get

into all kinds of complicated calculations. But he didn't do that

last year, or the year before. Has it got, be honest, has it got

anything to do with the fact there is an election next year. We really

have tried to spread that funding from government, which has enabled

us to protect every penny of investment across the packages. We

were conscious that buses are especially used by... Did the head

of the Commission for Transport suggest the five pence increase was

sensible? This discussion happens between TfL and the mayor. TfL puts

forward a proposal for how that money is going to be spread out so

that everybody in London can benefit. How welcome do you think

it will be? Did the Chancellor do this because of the anger there is

about the fare rises on the railways up and down the country?

He just felt he had to bring London in line? Or is this actually to

help Boris Johnson? You'll know that is where Ken Livingstone, his

opponent, will try to make the most hey, about the effect of

Conservatives running it. I think it is designed to help Londoners in

general. They are facing a loss of fixed cost pressure on things like

energy bills, transport bills. We wanted to do something, in a very,

very import of the -- important part of the economy, to bring costs

down for regular people. My constituency has more commuters in

than any other constituency in Britain. It will be hard pressed

people that will welcome it. Annual travel cards, they are still going

to have to pay �120 per year? will not be going up as much as

previously thought. This will keep it down for Tim or three years? You

agree? The whole cost of reducing affairs has been covered. But two

or three years. What happens then? You are going to put them up even

more to compensate for what will be removed in two or three years'

time? What we are proposing, with RPI plus 1%, it is a far more

realistic proposition than that being put forward by Ken

Livingstone. He says he wants to cut fares, but he has and said how

he would pay for it. But you recognise that Boris Johnson has

said, supported by you, supported by Transport for London, that he

would not alter that trajectory affairs, it was needed for

investment. The first sign of trouble, you have distorted that by

putting some money back in? I think central government recognised this

was an important thing to do because of the pressures facing

Londoners. Contrast that with somebody that has recklessly gone

out to pledge a completely unfunded, huge cut in tube fares, which he

knows he will not be able to deliver, I think that shows the

contrast between Boris Johnson, a sensible approach to running London,

and Ken Livingstone, going back to the past. A final thought, at this

time of particular financial trouble, is it right for fare

payers to be paying more, well above inflation, or a above-

inflation still, for improvements tomorrow, instead of central

government paying for it? It it's a difficult message. I take the Tube

every day. I understand why people find that difficult. I'm amazed how

well people understand and are prepared to accept that everyone

knows there is unprecedented amounts of people on the Tube. We

have never seen so many people on the buses. They've got no choice,

they had to get round. A final thought? There is huge government

investment going in. One of the first things George Osborne decided

was to put the money in for Crossrail and to put the money in

for the Tube improvements at a time when central government inherited a

situation where the public finances were in a total mess. We made sure

that Crossrail and the Tube improvements were protected and

It may be a bleak economic forecast, but short term, up to Christmas, at

least, spending is expected to rise. For many people, that might only be

possible because without much credit for coming from banks they

are turning to other sources of finance.

To get extra seasonal cash, it can be very tempting to take up the

offers that many high-street loans, credit and pay-day companies offer.

Louise took out a short-term loan and struggled with my repayment

rates. She eventually paid it off, but then found herself being

bombarded with offers from similar companies. Christmas is one of the

worst times. If you have children, you on your own, you don't have

money coming from other places, you've not got anywhere to turn to.

You cannot go to the bank and you have a letter saying, borrow �500

instantly. You are going to say, right, that will pay my Christmas

for me. You are not sinking -- thinking in the long term. What

London MP has been calling for a change in law and more regulations

for the short term loan industry. I asked how big a problem it is in

the capital. London is always at the sharp end of anything to do

with debt and the cost of living. It is expensive to live in the

capital city. There are 500,000 people who have put mortgages on

credit cards, according to Shelter. They are not borrowing money to buy

fancy goods and flash TV's, 40% are to buy basics like food and

transport costs. Do you think the Government has been willing to

listen or act in any way? really frustrated with the

Government. When they were elected, they made a number of commitments.

18 months on, they have done nothing about this and problems are

getting worse. We know that capping the cost of credit means that less

people go to illegal lenders. It is the illegal loan sharks that people

are worried about. It also means that credit is more affordable.

When we are facing an economic downturn, we need people to have

access to credit. The impact these loans can have is all too clear.

Whether it is the man that ended up with nine different Pay Day Loans

because he was trying to pay one off with another, or the woman who

borrowed �100, got chased by the company that she owed the money too,

ended up paying back �300, and 48 hours later they rang her back and

asked if she wanted another one. A 16-year-old who took out a loan

with doorstep lenders, he will never pay that off. His family paid

it off because they were so worried about what it would do to him, to

Troy Deeney is Gavin Hayes, general secretary of Compass. In our

Manchester studio, John Laver Day from the Consumer Finance

Association. You recognise some of those issues, presumably. What do

you want to be done? Firstly, there is no panacea to this problem. As

Stella was alluding to, we are calling for a total cap on the cost

of credit. That would include not only the interest rates. Often,

people get charged various administration fees and so on. Also,

we would like to see things like that rolling over of loans stopped.

We would also like to see the number of Pay Day Loans people can

take out in any 12 month period limited. That is pretty clear.

Would that work? Would it work to do what? You have to take the idea

of borrowing short-term, small sum loans in context. Pay Day Loans are

just one method. You can also use your bank overdraft, or an

unauthorised bank overdraft. Or you might go over your limit on your

credit card. What I would say to you is, no, it will not work. Cabin

the cost of Pay Day Loans will not make loans cheaper. It will reduce

choice for consumers. It will actually push them to more

expensive alternatives such as unauthorised overdrafts and going

over their credit card limit. accept that people seeking short-

term loans are often vulnerable and do need more protection? Absolutely

not. We leant across age ranges, across income bands. Pretty equally

loans to anybody who has got a bank account, a job and disposable

income, 94% of our customers come from a household where there is at

least one full-time worker. In the country as a whole at the moment,

one in five households have no full-time worker are tall. We are

not lending to people on the margins. We are lending to normal,

ordinary people, that just want to smooth out the peaks and troughs of

income and expenditure. They just want to smooth them out, if you

make that impossible, they will go to loan sharks. There is absolutely

no evidence of that, if you look at how caps on the cost of credit

worker. I think actually the point that we are trying to make is that

we accept the fact that pay-day lenders have a role to play in

terms of helping people in financial emergencies. But I think

it has become very clear in recent years that some of these pay-day

lenders are charging excessive interest rates. I looked on the

interest -- internet the other day, there was one charging over 5000 %

APR for short-term loans. Do you recognise that, in the 30 seconds

we have left? There is huge competition. A Pay Day Loans will

cost you between �10.30 pounds for every �100 that you borrow. One

company is offering a totally free deal at the moment. They got

lambasted in the media for doing it. You can't really win. I'm afraid,

actually, we have come to the end. I wish we had had a bit longer, but

that is all we had time for. Back Well, there have been poles not

just to choose councillors, but police commissioners. There will

also be referendums on whether or not to have directly-elected mayors

in cities like Liverpool and Leeds. Is it a much needed democratic

revolution, or a costly PR exercise that will accomplish the square

This government is going to break up concentrations of power and

handed back to people. It is why we want elected mayors in our great

cities. We are drawing up even more radical plans to open a public

Power to the people - the warcry of revolutionaries up to and including,

er, Nick Clegg and David Cameron. Who wouldn't want a greater say

over how local services are run, or over policing priorities? Nick and

Dave believe they can deliver that through directly elected mayors and

police commissioners. But here's a thought - what if the people aren't

actually sure if they want the power? We do already have a fair

few elected mayors in England. Here's one you may know. It is a

system which is directly accountable. It means you know that

there's some person who is accountable to you for your

services, the state of your roads, the success of your police in

fighting crime in that area and you can hold them to account. And if

they're not succeeding, then you can chuck them out, it's very

important. Actually, it was Labour who introduced directly-elected

Mayors, but not every Blairite thinks it's always a good idea.

theory, all of this is very good, providing people with the power to

cut through red tape and bureaucracy, the all-powerful

leader actually going ahead on a white charger. In practice, of

course, it means you're centralising rather than diffusing

power. We're obsessed with putting power into the hands of charismatic

individuals. And if you've got a Boris Johnson or a Ken Livingstone

in London and if you've got a Mayor Bloomberg in New York, you can pull

it off, but actually most people want somebody at very local level,

their councillor, that they can hold to account. In May next year,

11 of England's biggest cities will be asked if they'd like an elected

mayor. A consultation is underway about exactly what powers they

should have. The pay? Not formally set yet, although so far, the

average is just under �70,000 a year. But 38 cities have already

held referendums in the last few years. 13 have said yes, but 25

said no. Outside London, there'll be 41 police commissioners in

England and Wales. Salary? Between �65-100 grand. Chief Constables

will still run the police, but the Commissioner will control the

budget, hold senior officers to account and set local policing

priorities. But recent polls have suggested that few members of the

public actually realise they'll be here in less than a year's time.

And some Coalition MPs think mayors and elected police chiefs are an

idea best left alone. I think Nick and Dave both come back from a sort

of PR background so something which to me is polishing the shiny bits

to them sounds a good idea. The problem is the good idea is to

elect somebody and then leave them to get on with it for four years

without any checks and balances, so if they go off the rails there's no

one to put them back on the rails, unless they get sectioned. Even

some of the high priests of people power are a bit sniffy about

elected police chiefs. What do they want? Super-mayors with super

powers! I don't support individual public services having elected

chiefs. What you want is mayors or local authorities which can join up

across the public services. If you have individual elected head of the

police, why not have an individual elected head of the education

service or the NHS and so on? And that really just isn't feasible and

wouldn't bring the joining up that you need. So I hope in due course

we'll have not just mayors of city councils but of regional, metro

mayoral authorities where you could bring together the police,

transport, urban regeneration, housing other regional functions,

as happens with the Mayor of London. And guess what that mayor thinks

that Nick, Dave, and especially George here, have to do if they

really believe in power to the people. I think the most important

thing that central government needs to do is to recognise that all

other big cities in Europe, around the world which have successful

mayoralties have a greater ability by the central city authority to

spend taxes that are raised locally and for that tax money to be

democratically accountable and that's the way, I think... The

Treasury's got to relax and the Treasury's got to accept that

there's got to be real devolution in this country. Good luck with

that Boris - because some critics think that for all the talk of

people power, these Westminster types speak with forked tongue.

of the absolute paradoxes at the moment is that the Government are

preaching localism when every step they take from mayors and police

commissioners through determining whether local government should

empty the bins one week or two, they're actually determining the

major policies from the centre. They've also got the idea that you

can centralise the power and devolve the pain and individuals -

police commissioner or mayors - take the flak. Gesture politics or

a real desire to listen to the people? Ultimately, the success of

elected mayors and police commissioners might just depend on

how much power really flows from this place to your place.

The Police Minister and the man who has pioneered this whole idea is

Nick Herbert, and he joins me now from his rather lovely looking

constituency in Sussex. Thank you for being with us. Who wants these

police commissioners? There is plenty of survey evidence that

people feel they don't have enough say over policing and would like

more of a say and they are attracted to the idea of being

given one. We know from London that this has been broadly very popular.

The mayor has been given responsibility for policing in

London, that is a quarter of all police officers in the country, and

that means the mayor can respond to what the public are saying. He has

responded on things like knife crime, keeping police officers on

the street. If you were to ask Londoners now if they wanted that

taken away and given a quango, people invisible, unaccountable to

you, deciding those priorities, people would give a pretty dusty

response. We want to extend it across the rest of England and

Wales, and that will happen with elections in November next year.

What if they are elected on a very low Democratic turnout, does that

give them legitimacy? Any turnout will confirm a greater legitimacy

that we -- than we have at the moment. The public simply don't

know who to go to, they can't name their police authority chair, so

there will be a greater legitimacy. It is interesting that a poll

recently conducted found that two thirds of the public, when asked,

said they would vote, and we know there is a great deal of concern

about crime. It is always a top priority for the public, and people

will be motivated turnout because they care about these matters

aren't there will be a lot of local media interest as we approach the

elections next November. Who will be funding the campaigns for these

people? I know that it sounds a very granular question, but

political parties are strapped for cash so they will not one to. Who

will run these campaigns? Were have been clear that political parties

are free to field candidates if they want to, but we have also

served as the government that we are more than happy for

independents to stand. We are looking for people of real Kaaba,

people who have run big organisations, who have a track

record of success, to put their names forward for election. They

don't need to be party candidate. What matters is that we have Virk

group of people who think they can make a difference and it is

important to understand they won't be interfering in the operational

independence of police officers but they will be holding them to

account and they will be the voice of the people. Have you got big

figures coming forward? I think there will be. We have already seen

a lot of interest in these elections. Can you name a few?

know that Colonel Tim Collins has put his name forward in Kent.

know that - any other names? just wait, I think there will be

them, and parliament has just agreed this policy. You will find

that interesting people put their names forward, and it is not you or

me deciding who will be elected, it is the people deciding who they

want to put in office to hold the police to account, to make sure

there is a better deal for victims, and that people's priorities are

reflected in policing. People have not had a say outside London in

that before. This policy is about people power. Don't you worry about

the populism that might follow from this, that you might have elected

police commissioners coming to the end of their term, they will need

to come up with an eye-catching initiative. If the case hasn't been

sold, they will be calling for heads to roll - is that the best

way to do policing? They can't interfere with individual

operations, but we have not seen that in London. The mayor stood on

a platform of wanting to deal with things like a knife crime,

responding to public concern. In the end, I trust the people to

elect who they think will be best to hold the police to account. I

don't believe this argument about extremism is a valid one because it

is tantamount to saying you can't trust the public to make a decision

in their area so we will leave this to be decided by independent or

unelected bodies with no accountability at all. Let's trust

the people, give them the say for the first time outside of London.

Thank you. A pint designed -- behind you looks quite enticing.

Didn't David Blunkett have it right in that film that politicians love

to talk the talk of handing power down, and hate the idea of it in

practice? Yes, having said that we must give the coalition a fair

hearing on this. They have said from the beginning they wanted to

do this. The question is how this works in practice and how they then

feel about it because they have these things they want to deal of

local mayors and police commissioners. In Birmingham they

have a strong candidate for mayor, among many, but she wouldn't

control policing buyer would tease. How can this makes sense? This

person is capable senior political person, and then she has to deal

with another police commissioner. It seems you could add more layers

than you have suggested. I agree, the London model is of course where

Boris is in charge of the police but also in charge of transport and

budget as well. What we are lacking is almost a lack of integration. We

have too many people being elected here. I think it is a good idea,

but the question you asked about, there have candidates would be

addressed if it was integrated. Both of you, thank you. That is it

for this week. Thank you took all of our guests. By next week, two

giant pandas will be installed in London Zoo. They had just landed

from China. They first are the first of these creatures to live in

this country for many years, but let's face it the most dangerous