15/05/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Governor the Bank of England says he can't perform miracles to

Is the only answer to build more homes?

There's been no rush on Lamborghinis so far but will the Government's

radical reforms to pensions still be a crowd pleaser

David Cameron ventures north of the border to make the case

We'll speak to the SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon.

And Michael Gove and David Laws kiss and make up after their

We'll bring you the top political reconciliations.

Did they case, all you being metaphorical? I don't think it

wasn't literal. All that in the next hour and with

us for the duration, our go-to pensions expert,

Ros Altmann. First this morning, raising interest

rates is the last line of defence in controlling the housing market -

that's according to the governor Mark Carney used

his quarterly inflation report yesterday to say the bank couldn't

perform miracles, with house prices growing at their fastest rate

since the crash of 2008. The cost of housing looks set to be

one of the big issues As we all know the housing market is

all about supply and demand, and strong recent demand and limited

supply has pushed prices up by 11% over the last year, the biggest

annual jump since June 2007. It lead to the OECD warning that

Britain needs to take action of soaring prices, through monetary

policy tightening and scaling back Mark Carney said yesterday he was

likely to resist calls to put interest rates up this year

and told journalists rates would stay at historically low levels

for some time. But Mr Carney said the Bank of

England cannot perform miracles to deflate the housing bubble, pointing

out that Financial Policy Committee can't build a single one of the more

than 100,000 additional new homes Governments can build houses though,

and Labour have already nailed their colours to the mast ahead of

the next election by saying they'll be building 200,000 homes a year

by the end of the next parliament. But, as all governments find, saying

it is one thing, actually putting You found it that she sounded like

Bob the builder! With me now is

the housing minister Kris Hopkins, and hedge fund manager and author

of Planet Ponzi, Mitch Feierstein. Also joining us from our Birmingham

studio is the shadow housing Ali experiencing a housing bubble,

or is it a London housing bubble and the rest of the country is quite

normal? What we need to do is have an economic debate about the housing

prices going up. I think it all relates to inflation, the inflation

numbers. If you go back a little bit, to look at oil, or example, for

a 13 year period oil prices stayed flat or down, slightly. If you look

to 99, until 2014, they went up by a lot. If you look at the way

statistics are not related, you can make them say anything. Housing,

1999-2014, it has gone up over 900%. In every market, there is a

correlation between house prices and income. If you look at the inflation

adjustment, with real income, income has gone down while house prices

have gone up precipitously. It seems coincidental that Mark Carney has

been brought in as the head of the Bangkok England, and they are

pushing forward this help to buy scheme, which is more of a Ponzi

scheme. You've not answered my question, is the bubble a London

phenomenon, and in the rest of the country, it is not out of kilter?

There are five datasets you can look at. We don't have time for five. In

the north-east and Yorkshire there are no housing bubbles? There are

pockets in every bubble where you will not have prices exploding at

the same rate that they are exploding in central London. Central

London is a law unto itself, an international market. Property debt

has become a mixture of money-laundering and a new global

international currency. That has nothing to do with the people of

Manchester, Birmingham Glasgow? I would agree with you 100%. But

optimism bias is also part of it. You have extremely wealthy people

buying to let. Buy to let is part of this, perpetuating eight bubble that

will take down the banking system and cause financial havoc. When? I'm

surprised it's been going for so long. You can never tell how big it

is going to get. Either a market is undervalued, fairly valued,

overvalued or ridiculous. We reached ridiculous about one year ago.

Prices in the West Midlands, a key part of the country, they are lower

now than they were in 2008? I looked at a chart and took all the figures

from Nationwide and downloaded them. If you use an average of all prices

in England, excluding London, you can see we are almost back at a

cyclical peak. The graph shows a parabolic move. If you go back to

the beginning of where the datasets are formed, whenever you have a

parabolic move, it looks like this. You always have reversion back to

the norm, where the statistical average will be. I can't tell you

how big the bubble will get, but it will correct, and escape velocity

for Mark Carney means that he will be with his $6 million he is being

paid in Canada, watching that house bubble

paid in Canada, watching that house burst as well. It would not be a

bubble if you build more homes? I think that is the solution. In

London, you are right, there is an issue that is specific to London. It

is 9.1%, in the rest of the country it is 5.8%. In the rest of the

country we need to make more houses. We have the figures this morning and

we have seen a 31% increase on housing. Let me take you up on that.

Housing starts at about 133,000, up on the previous year. The crash

was... Let me get this right, it was six years ago. And you are still

nowhere near the level of house building before the crash. Why is it

taking you so long? There are two things, one final thing I would say

on house prices, we are nowhere near peak at the moment. We are not

expected to go past that peak price until 2018. It is still below peak

across the country. It is about taking an industry, food and 50,000

people were lost, the banking system ground to a halt, if you're going to

kick-start that community to find ways like a help to buy scheme, like

the ?300 million investment in council houses. It's taking a long

while? It does. The biggest number of council houses built since 1991,

1000 council houses. That is really important. 1000? I remember when

Harold Macmillan Ilton 300,001 year. That is only 300 times more? That is

a very low starting base. It will be the biggest number of affordable

houses built for 20 years. House numbers, construction is at a

massive high. Let me bring in Mitch Feierstein. If you look at

affordable housing, I can give you an example. In Wandsworth,

affordable housing was built and none of it was sold to key workers.

It turned into a big scandal that disappeared out of the papers. If

you look at job creation, in 2013, it was one in four or one in five in

the property sector. 89% of first-time buyers are in those

houses. A lot of them are being subsidised by the bank of mum and

dad. If you were the Government, what would you do? Stop stealing

from savers with zero interest rate policies, that helps nobody. You are

the Government, you don't have control over the interest rates. You

hire the people in the Bank of England so you have sway over that.

You would sack Mark Carney? I don't think I would sack him. You can't

tell him what to do. If you can't control interest rates, I think the

government has to rain in the banks. They have zero regulation on the

banks. How many bankers went to jail for the credit crisis? Zero. Royal

Bank of Scotland, in capitalism... What would you do with the banks? I

would regulate them seriously. What does that mean? Zero bankers went to

jail. But there is a difference between sending people to jail and

regulating them, or sending people to jail is the law of the land. I'm

still trying to find one thing that you would do that is practical. The

leveraged and debt structures that are dangerous to the financial

health of the system should be trimmed down. You should not have

500 times leveraged, with sympathetic, derivative products. A

bank like JPMorgan allowed to have 73 trillion on balance Street... I'm

not sure JPMorgan is that big in the British housing market. You were

promising to build 200,000 homes, but not until 2020, why should we

trust you, seeing as you never managed to get close to 20,000 homes

in power? Before the global financial crash, 170,000 homes were

built. We are on the right trajectory. Under this government,

frankly, they have been incredibly complacent. Mark Carney, the Bank of

England governor yesterday, he said that housing is the biggest threat

to economic stability. Kris Hopkins might put figures about house

prices, but there are pockets of the country, London and the south-east

in particular, pockets where this is a real concern. What would you do?

The Government needs to recognise that there are some pretty

fundamental problems with the land market in terms of availability. But

also in terms of the lack of competition from small house

builders in an industry that is now dominated by big house-builders. We

think the Government should get on and help small house-builders so

that we can have more competition in the industry. Would you scrap help

to buy in London? We would reduce the threshold from ?6,000 to

400,000. -- from ?600,000, down to ?400,000. Would you scrap it in

London? We think we should look closely at what is happening. We

would assume you were doing that with everything, otherwise you would

not be running the government. We're not saying we should scrap it, but

we are saying not saying we should scrap it, but

we are we should bring it down. And I just come back to the first point

that I made? Let's take you to 2008, everything went pear shaped after

that. In ten years of constant growth, plenty of money around,

public spending soaring until the year 2008, you never once got near

2000 homes. Why would we trust you at a time when there would be very

little money around and growth could be difficult, that he would get

anywhere near 200,000? We understand there are fundamental problems with

the housing industry. It is the case for three decades now that there has

been a growing gap between supply and demand. We think the Government

needs to get a grip on this. The Government needs to take

leadership. We would not, for example, in 2010, have cut the

Affordable Homes Budget, by a massive 60%. Kris Hopkins talks

about affordability. The Government is encouraging housing associations

and others to charge 80% of market rent. In Wandsworth and London that

is not affordable for key workers. Kris Hopkins? This Government has

built more social houses than they did in 13 years. To lecture us about

what we are doing, they were not building that houses. 445,000

houses, 170,000 by next year. The next programme of 100 and 5000 will

be out by 2014. We are committed to make sure that people get on the

housing ladder. Help to buy, 89% of them are first-time buyers. The

average price of those houses, on the guarantee scheme, it is

?145,000. On the equity scheme, it is 185,000. When the average house

price is ?250,000, this is not boosting a bubble. It is

facilitating first-time buyers to get on the market. Ros Altmann has

listened to this, what do you make of it? We are in a bubble, as far as

I can see. It is stimulated by policies that have boosted demand

without boosting supply. We need to look up the whole housing policy

across the piece. It is not just about building affordable homes,

small flats. We also need to build houses that older people will want

to downsize to, to free up the whole market. Have a real problem. House

price inflation may be good for people that own homes. What about

the younger generation, who are struggling to afford rent? Why is

this a problem outside London? If you look at some of the metropolitan

cities, they are doing very well. The economy is recovering strongly.

House prices are also going up. But they are not back to their peak? The

peak was based on ludicrous borrowing. 120% mortgages and that

sort of thing. We haven't done that, negative equity is still being paid

down. Why is there a bubble? In this particular housing cycle there has

been no increase in negative equity. But if you are at warehouse prices

are really arising. In London, that's the jobs are. So

who has got the better policy, Labour or Conservative 's? I'm not

sure what Labour would actually do. If they were going to be building

houses across the spectrum, I think that would help. The government's

policy now is kicking in, it would have been nice if this had happened

earlier. Which was my original point you have been slow at this. We know

when people build homes, people who buy them have to go and get fridges

and things. You make a strong argument. The thing about it is,

there isn't a press of the button on it. You have to make sure the bank

is going to loan, make sure you have the infrastructure. One of the

issues we have now is we talk about the top ten builders, they don't

have the capacity to go further than they are building at the moment.

They will have to recruit, train to get people in place. Their whole

resources and infrastructure, it takes time to put that in place but

it is there. I will give you the last word. I think the government

isn't doing enough and it didn't do enough at the beginning when they

were in government. I come back to what they did in 2010, which was to

cut the affordable homes budget by 60%. A lot of the affordable homes

that have been built in their first two years in government were homes

that we stimulated in order to come through what was a difficult time

for house-building. The truth is, we are not building half the number of

homes, we need to keep up with demand and we need radical

leadership that we are frankly not seeing. If we're not building half

the number of homes, then you are promising up to 200,000 homes by

2020, the figure you just gave us, you should be building 286,000? I

was talking about completions. I was talking about that because

completions is what you need in terms of output. The government's

own figures suggest there is a housing need of 230,000. We would

love to go beyond 200,000 but we know we're going to be starting from

a very low base. We certainly need central government to get a grip on

the issues that are affecting this industry and we know we're not

building anywhere near enough homes. I thank you all for

estimating discussion. The coalition government has embarked on the most

radical reform of pensions in a generation, with the aim of giving

people more freedom and responsible of the over their own plans for

retirement and to shake up the pensions industry with more com

petition. But is it a risky gamble? How old are you? The thought of a

decent pension has always made us smile and the threat of its loss or

degradation made us worried and angry. The concept is hundreds of

years old and even the principles of pensions today were there in 1946.

11p from your own pocket... The political parties have long known

pensions needed reforming, but in his last autumn statement and

subsequent budget, George Osborne bowled up an unexpected change. For

defined contributions pensions, once you have rolled up to 55, a way you

could go with your whole pension pot, and if you wished, by a

Lamborghini. Let's not that old chestnut out of the game right now.

The average pension pot in the UK is around ?25,000. I haven't bought a

Lamborghini recently but I expect around ?25,000. I haven't bought a

?25,000. People are more sensible than that. At the other end of the

changes, the annuity monopoly was being removed. Nobody will now be

forced into a system that pays a defined sum every month, though some

may still want that and can. But it's clear the changes were as much

about reforming the pensions market place as it was about us, who will

need the products. People would reach retirement and they would be

given an income amount and they would go for that, they wouldn't

look around. What has happened over the last few months with the budget

and also the reports from the ONS is that market has become more

efficient. The jury is still out to see what the industry comes up with

to make these products attractive to people, easily understood and

transparent when it comes to what the costs and charges might be and

what they might have to pay, and to get good quality professional

advice. That's not the government is offering, it's just guidance. They

have changed the word from advice to guidance. Pension changes caused

trouble in the 50s. Changes to pensions in the public sector have

sparked strikes and marches today. Already there have been heated

clashes between the Socialists and the Tories, both of whom accuse the

other of neglecting the old folk... 50 years on, it's clear people still

care about pensions, but the state's involvement is less and

less. The government want people to have pensions. Might they go the

extra step and make it compulsory for all of us to make our own

pension arrangements? I could see we get to a point where it is

compulsory saving but we had the choice at the other end with

education, and that is a sensible framework, really. Pensions are

different from savings, and my concern is that with the changes and

the ability to access our part at the age of 55, this is seen as a

savings product, not a pensions product. What pensions do that

savings don't is guarantee an income for the rest of 1's life. One

wonders if that is what he got. Increasingly, it is a hope that

previously disinterested young are worrying about today for themselves.

We have two pensions experts here. We talked about Lamborghinis, that

memorable quote yesterday, do you think Lamborghini sales will see a

massive increase, metaphorically if not literally? Somehow I doubt it.

The tax system will act as a natural break on people taking money out of

their pension funds, because if you want to take significant sums out

and you go into the price range of a Lamborghini, you would lease 45% of

your money in tax. Most people wouldn't sign up to losing that much

of their savings. If you take small amounts out over time, then you

either pay no tax, or basic rate, 20% tax. That would be more

attractive. If you have got a small pension pot, you might take it all

at once, but does that really matter? You would only get a few

pounds a week extra income. Why would you want to worry about that?

You might have more important things you want to do. What is happening

now, before April 2015, are people being forced to buy annuities

despite the fact they heard the measures being announced? Generally

not. In the past, people didn't literally have to buy an annuity,

they just didn't have much alternative. It was either by that

all go into something complicated that wasn't value for money. So what

is happening is people are waiting till 2015, then we will see a big

expansion of people taking cash, if that is what they want. For me,

letting people choose what they do with their own money, give them

guidance and help, but let them choose, is the right support. But

there is a real pub, pension providers are not letting people

take their tax-free cash -- a real problem. Some people are being

forced to buy an annuity or some other product that doesn't work well

for them. You sit generally, I have a quote here that says that the

reality is pension companies are not accommodating requests when people

say they want to draw down however much they want. You have signed a

contract with a pension provider, the rules of the scheme are tougher

than the rules of the land. the rules of the scheme are tougher

Until 2015, when we can change all these things, we are spending the

year making sure that next year, when these things come in, people

have the freedom, until then, their money is still as tied up. So they

are stuffed? No, no... They are delayed. They can't take the cash as

they want to now but by next April, people are saying to us, this is

break next speed, how can you do it by then? But they can't take any

cash, that's the problem. That is the law of the land. The pension

companies are saying, we're not going to let you, our systems can't

cope, there isn't a single pensions company that is enabling you to do

this. There is one that will let you have it within six months but then

you still have two either buy an annuity within six months or go into

another type of product. On the basis of that, was one of the

problems that you didn't actually consult properly or within enough

time, before you made your announcement, which was fairly

radical? We heard the lady say that she was in a board meeting

discussing pensions strategy during the budget and the announcement

changed everything and was on anticipated by the industry, which

is perhaps led to this situation? They were trapped anyway. If the

accusation is this was big, bold and radical, I plead guilty. We have had

decades of people being locked up, within 12 months, they will be free.

But you didn't know yourself beforehand? Bear in mind that we

have been talking about the failures of the market, people knew things

were changing, we went further than we expected, and on the day of the

budget, she said, this is fantastic reform. It takes 12 months to get it

all in, that is how long it takes. The pensions industry needs to play

its part. We would like to see them putting its customers at heart, and

one of the reasons the reforms were needed is that the pensions and

history itself seemed to worry about its own interests rather than those

of the customer, and we are still seeing that. But about the

face-to-face guidance, because that will be crucial? The quality of

advice people need? It is important. We automatically

enrolling people into pensions schemes. We need to make sure they

understand what to do with their money, and in the past, there has

been nothing to help them. What would you like the government to be

providing? This needs to be got right. Hopefully we will get it

right. Impartial, free, face-to-face guidance, I would prefer advice, but

some minimum standards where people know that somebody is going to help

them make these sessions. What are you going to provide? Face-to-face

guidance could cost up to ?340 million a year, who will pay for

that? First of all, it won't cost anything like that. You have the

right to a race to face conversation, many people may choose

phone -based, web based, they would all want it on the 6th of April, the

pension schemes will have illegals duty to make sure their members get

this guidance and pay for it. -- a legal duty. What we are saying is

that at the moment people have got nothing, they are making life

changing decisions, getting them wrong and there is no one there to

help them. This will equip a whole generation of people to be better

informed. The guidance will help you ask the right questions, you will

need advice to get the right answers. What about making tension

saving compulsory? The case for that is weaker than it was because we

have been doing this opt out business, nine out of ten workers

have stayed in, when nine at people are freely choosing to stay in

something and one in ten are they don't want it, making it compulsory

doesn't seem a good thing. So you are moving further away from calls

to say it should be compulsory. What do you say? That would be a

completely different landscape, we would have to get rid of tax relief,

which might be attractive to the Treasury... I actually want more of

the tax relief going to lower savers and Leicester people like me, I want

to rebalance... You want to cut it for the higher tax payers? And raise

it for the lower taxpayers. Some people probably shouldn't save for a

pension. If you are saving for a deposit for a house, maybe you

should be saving towards that, it may not overall be the optimal

outcome. A question we have had in a tweet, will our pension pots be seen

as an asset that we need to cash in if we need care later in life? The

intention is to maintain the status quo. Currently we don't say you have

to spend all your money on care, the idea is to maintain that intention.

There are a lot of ways that can be done but the intention is not to

bring lots of new people into means testing. This could work out better

for care because at the moment, if you have spent all your money on an

annuity, and you get ill in your 80s and you haven't had all the money

back, there will be some there to give you something to support

yourself with social care. We need incentives to help people use that

money, but the reform of social care won't start giving you any public

money, even if you qualify... You need to spend money on care if your

needs are less than substantial. We have been speaking to some of the

minor parties contesting the elections. One of the parties

involved is Plaid Cymru. Britain First.

Britain's latest addition to nationalist politics like, is a

dramatic video. It's all captions straight out of a film trailer. This

is their leader, Paul Golding, driving around Tower Hamlets in a

reinforced Land Rover, looking very tough. We have these Christian

patrol leaflets. Paul and his Christian patrol send their time

running out informative leaflets, having charming chats with Muslims.

If you want to live here, by by our laws. And drink lager in front of a

mosque. That's not their only attempt to get a bit of attention.

This weekend they launched a series of self-styled mosque innovations in

Glasgow and Bradford. It mostly seemed to consist of wandering

around uninvited, getting lost and doing some hectoring. Jesus Christ,

our Lord, he wants to save you from hell. The visits are being

investigated by the police and it will be the first time Paul Golding

has come to their attention. He's been arrested more than once,

accused of harassing religious extremists. Britain first also using

the slogan remember Lee Rigby on voting slips, which led to the

electoral commission having to apologise to the family of the

murdered soldier. We are joined by the leader of

Britain First, Paul Golding. You saw the EU style yourself as a patriotic

party and a street defence organisation. You are basically a

vigilante group? We are not, we are a street defence Association. We

oppose radical extremists, Muslim extremist 's, highlighting things

like female genital mutilation, the Muslim patrols in east London, the

nonaction by the Muslim community to highlight Muslim grooming gangs. You

look like vigilantes in that film? There will not be any charges, we

have not broken any laws. What we saw was low-level bullying and

intimidation? Not at all. We are there because those people have got

influence over the Muslim communities. They are not doing

anything regarding extremism in Islam, nothing regarding female

genital mutilation, Muslim grooming gangs, hate preachers, anything at

all like that. We are there to pressure them into action. Why do

you have these military style uniforms, the reinforced Land Rover?

It is playing soldiers? Just green activist jackets. Because we want to

stand apart from groups like the EDL, we want to stand apart from

them, so we were green activists jackets. Why did you leave that the

MP, was it not far right enough? That's not the reason, corruption,

stagnation, electoral nonperformance, all sorts of

shenanigans going on around me reckon. And the fact he had gone off

to enjoy the gravy train lifestyle in Europe. Me and hundreds of others

decided to resign from that organisation. And set up this

instead? Why did you turn up at the Mayor of Bradford's house with ten

men? That day, we was going to visit the imams in Bradford, handing out

Bibles and Muslim grooming leaflets, which is a free country, we can do

what we want. I asked him for a face-to-face meeting, he refused, so

we went to his home address. With ten men? Another form of

intimidation? It's not at all. We asked him for a meeting, we turned

up at his house, tried to give him some of our Muslim grooming leaflets

and ask him why he was not doing anything about the scourge of Muslim

grooming in the North of England. You describe Britain First as

wanting to restore justice to politics, but you are being

I was arrested for chasing a hate preacher down the street. For

chasing Anjem Choudary, he radicalised one of the killers of

Lee Rigby. For legal reasons, I can't go into the details of why you

have been arrested. You brought up my arrest. You have been arrested a

number of times, yet your proposal, you stand for principal and decency

in politics, that is all I am asking. The second time was for

exposing an Al-Qaeda training camp operator on terrorist living

anonymously in Essex. Those arrest, I am entirely proud of. Anjem

Choudary, for example, he radicalised one of the killers of

Lee Rigby. I don't care, if you stand up for your people in our

country, you face politically correct pressure from the state. I

am quoting from your website, you want to make Britain a beautiful

country once again where you can leave your door unlocked. But we

have seen a few leave your door unlocked, people like you walking to

it? Of course, if you are an Islamic hate preacher, you will find us on

your doorstep. But you walked in. You were not on the doorstep, you

walked into the mosques. It was a public mosque. You showed no

respect, filmed it, did not take your shoes off, which would have

been a sign of respect for people of a different religion. With people

like you around, why would you leave your door unlocked? You might want

to double bolted! We are not invading temples, because the Sikh

unity is showing respect. The Muslim community is not showing respect for

native traditions and cultures. Is that gives you the right to invade

their mosques? If the police don't take action, if politicians don't

take action, we will. We love our country, we defend our people. That

gives you the right to take the law into your own hands? What laws have

we broken? You have just invaded a mosque. That's not against the law.

You said if the laws didn't do it, you would do it yourself? You would

take the law into your own hands? And then there is Lee Rigby, who you

tried to hijack the murder of Lee Rigby, we saw that on the ballot

paper. Can I just quoted to you what Lee Rigby's mother has said?

Referring to your group, their views are not what he believed in, there

is no support from the family. Yet again, can any more heartbreak be

thrown at me and my family? What do you say I sympathise, she is a

grieving mother. Everybody in the country was appalled. It was the

most high-profile act of Islamic terrorism perpetrated.

But you shouldn't have put the name on the ballot paper, should you? You

asked me a question, allow me to finish. There is a fine line between

hijacking and highlighting. We are here to highlight what happened to

Lee Rigby. Our entire campaign in Britain First is to try and

suffocate Islamic extremism. His mother doesn't want you to, what is

your answer? We are the ones taking the fight to hate preachers and

Islamic preachers. I know what you're doing, I asked you what you

would say to the mother of Lee Rigby, who does not want you to do

this. We apologise to the mother of Lee Rigby, but it was a major act of

terrorism. It was a big public event. He was a serving soldier. A

public serving soldier. If you have so much respect for the this

country, I think we can show a picture, why did you turn up at the

Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday with a pair of underpants on your head?

Yes, this was when I was about 16 years old. I was 16 years old, my

family fought in the Second World War. My own family fought the Nazis.

Why did you do that? I didn't do it, somebody else did it. That is not

you? Somebody else put them on my head and I put them off very

quickly. That actually happened, somebody put it on my head,

conveniently a journalist was waiting with a camera. I think that

is suspicious. I would never, ever, disrespect the memory of my own

great-grandfather or any of the other war heroes. I understand

that, we all had relatives that fought in the Second World War. Can

we show the picture again? If somebody put this on your head, you

did not take it off, you are walking down the street. If you have

something on your head you don't want, you would take it off. You are

walking in a rather determined fashion. No, those were on my head

for about five seconds. Conveniently, there was a camera

present. That is one I was 16 years old. This is a bit silly, childish.

It is slightly strange? Next time you get Liberal Democrats, Tories or

labour, I'm sure you will be digging up stuff. I assure you we have had

Tories in that seal of films -- Nazi uniforms at Swiss parties.

David Cameron will invoke the memory of former Labour leader John Smith

on a visit to Scotland today to make the case for the Union.

Yesterday the Chancellor reiterated his opposition to monetary union

He was speaking to the Treasury select committee.

Let's have a listen to what he had to say.

I am absolutely clear there will not be a currency union if Scotland

votes to become independent. No ifs or buts. That is not just my

position, it is the position of the Labour Party and the Liberal

Democrats. Any combination you can imagine of a British government, for

the foreseeable future, has ruled this option out. Just on

sterlingisation, I still think people might be confused as to why

it is not feasible and what sterlingisation Woodlock like in an

independent Scotland. -- would look like. It means that you don't have

your own currency, you have another country's currency will stop you are

not printing banknotes. That would be the case, even though Scotland,

as we know, prints its own notes? They would not exist any more. Can I

just eat clear, and sterlingisation, Scottish banks would not be able to

print notes? They print their notes with the support and authority of

the Bank of England and Parliament, which has passed legislation to

support this. Let's go to Edinburgh, where the Deputy First Minister and

Deputy leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, is waiting for us. When

you launch the SNP European campaign, you expressed the fear

that UKIP in Scotland might stop you getting a third seat in the European

Parliament. Why are you so worried about them, since only a few years

ago your leader dismissed them as an irrelevance? That is not quite what

I said. I don't expect them to do well in Scotland of the European

elections. What I was saying is that the only way for people in Scotland

to ensure that Nigel Farage does not get a foothold in Scotland is to

vote SNP. If the SNP wins the final seat that everybody thinks is up for

grabs, a young Scottish Asian woman, I can't think of a better

rebuke to the politics of Nigel Farage. You have said that, do you

regard them as an irrelevance or could they stop you getting this

third seat? I don't think UKIP offers anything in Scotland. We have

had experiences in by-elections were UKIP have fielded candidates and

have not saved their deposit, they have done very badly. I don't expect

them to do well. I want to be absolutely sure we don't give Nigel

Farage any foothold in Scotland, that is why an SNP is the best way

to guarantee it. Alex Salmond said that Scotland was a country,

speaking of David Cameron, he said Scotland was a country that never

will elect people like him to govern us. What do you mean by people like

him? What he was saying is that Scotland does not vote for Tory

governments. I am 44 years old, almost. You might not think I like

that, but I am. Never once in my life has Scotland voted Tory. What

does he mean by people like him? Tories. That's it? Scotland doesn't

vote Tory, we don't vote for Tory prime ministers like David Cameron.

Yet we very often end up with Tory prime ministers. Independence would

put a stop to that and make sure it is the parties that win elections

that get to be in government. People like him just means Tories? I'm not

sure what else you are referring. I'm trying to find out, it has a

whiff of ethnic nastiness. For goodness sake, you know the SNP very

well, you know our brand of nationalism. I am not personalising

this to you. Everybody knows the SNP promotes civic nationalism. I just

mentioned to one of our European candidates, a young Scots Asian

woman that I hope to see elected to the European Parliament. The key

point that we argue is that if Scotland becomes independent we no

longer have to put up with a situation where we overwhelmingly

reject the Tories in general elections but have to put up with

Tory governments and Tory prime ministers imposing policies like the

bedroom tax. Other than assertion, can you present evidence to show

that the major Westminster parties are bluffing, as you claim, when it

comes to monetary union after independence? I could cite the

amendment estate in the Guardian who said, of course they would be a

currency union. I think that is a fairly strong evidence. You know

that unnamed minister was talking about a deal of fast lane for

monetary union, you have ruled out... What evidence do you have?

Our position on Trident is clear, but what that minister was saying is

that this position of George Osborne, that there will be no

negotiations over currency, is not true. Perhaps the stronger evidence

is the fact that many reasons, a currency union between an

independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would be as much in the

interests of the rest of the UK as it would be in the rest of

Scotland. It is that argument we will continue to push forward and

the polls suggest that the majority of people in Scotland also think

George Osborne is engaging in bluff and bluster. That is not evidence,

would respect. And if you understand that negotiations for independence,

if you vote yes on the 18th, would be underway when the British general

election comes on in 2015. And having voted for independence, what

would then be the English parties would come under a lot of pressure

to put no money to put no monetary union into their manifestoes. You

may find out they are not laughing at all. The point about the general

election is a good one, but for other reasons. It would be an odd

chancellor or aspiring Chancellor that turned round and said to

businesses in England and said, we're going to impose transaction

costs of ?500 million a year on you in order to allow you to trade with

your second biggest export market, which is Scotland. It would be an

odd chancellor or aspiring Chancellor to turn his back on

Scottish exports with the increase in Detroit ever said that would be

incurred. The arguments are basic common sense. You use this figure a

lot, and it is adjusting you are so concerned that English

entrepreneurs, but it will cost the government about ?20 billion to move

fast lane from Scotland to somewhere else in the UK. So why is ?500

million neither here nor there, in the trillion pound economy? It is

peanuts! I would hope that at some point, the UK would have a

government that sees sense and gets rid of Trident altogether. That

would be entirely up to UK governments, but I believe the

decision to spend ?100 billion replacing Trident is the wrong one

and one of the benefits of independence is we no longer have to

put up with Trident being based here. The people of Scotland have

put up with that for years. If it turns out they are not bluffing and

that all three parties right no monetary union into them and

investors, so no matter the result, there is no monetary union, what is

your fallback position? I don't believe that is the case, but with

that this discussion before, the fiscal commission have set out the

range of currency options that would be open to an independent Scotland,

but the recommended currency union, that is the common sense position

that we will continue to put forward. But if there is nothing to

stop using the pound even without monetary union, but if you did, you

would have no right... That is not my position. But it could be your

fallback position, you would have no right to print money, no right to

issue Scottish bonds and sterling, you wouldn't be independent? I am

not even go to get into the discussion... But you need need a

strategy in case you don't get it. I have cited the reasons I don't think

that is going to be the case. It may be hard for you to grasp that you

could be wrong, but if you are wrong, don't the Scottish people

have a simple right to know what is your alternative? The fiscal

commission report, which I have referred to before, is on the

website of the Scottish government, any member of the public, any

journalist, can go on to that website and read all of the currency

options, the pros and cons of each of them and why the Scottish

government recommends a monetary union, something we know that people

deep within the UK government think will be the case once the referendum

is over. What that doesn't give me is which when you would choose in

the event. I know you're not going to tell me so I guess we will leave

that there! Thank you very much. Plaid Cymru - the party of Wales -

currently have one MEP but are putting up a full slate

of candidates in Wales Their leader - Leanne Wood -

joins us now from Cardiff. What makes you think people will

listen to your campaign? 150,000 jobs in Wales and ?4 billion worth

of investment rely on Wales being a member of the European Union. Unlike

many other countries, Wales doesn't have a seat at the top table in the

Council of ministers, nor do we have a seat at the top table in the

to appoint any EU commissioners. So it is only through the four seats we

have in the European Parliament, that is the only direct voice Wales

has in the corridors of power in Brussels. That is why I am

has in the corridors of power in on people to do what they can to

make sure that they put the only party that will put Wales first into

this election, that they will vote for Plaid Cymru to maintain a strong

voice in Europe and sure that we put the national interest of Wales

first. If you were in control of Wales, would you give the Welsh

people a referendum on whether to stay or leave the EU? Yes, we are

relaxed about holding a referendum. I think that in such a referendum,

we would be putting forward the case that Wales should remain a member,

albeit we would want to change aspects of the EU. But it is in our

interests, and it is more clear for Wales and it is for the rest of the

British state, it isn't in our interest to be a member of the EU

because of all those jobs -- it is in our interest. That stance doesn't

seem to be doing you any good as far as the polls are concerned, they

suggest you are on the way to a very low share of the vote. Why is that?

We have very few polls in Wales that cover the whole of Wales, so it is

difficult to work out a pattern from those. They put you on 11 and 12%.

I'm aware of the polls and what they show but Plaid Cymru is determined

to do what we can to get our vote out. We are speaking to supporters

of other parties who are unlikely to win seats like the Lib Dems and the

Greens, and we have a prominent Lib Dems come out backing our campaign.

We are doing all we can, we have our troops out on the ground between now

and election day to ensure that the boat turns out. Our lead candidate

is returned to the European limit. This morning Michael Gove and

David Laws have penned a joint article in the Times insisting that

it's all sweetness and light in the Department for Education and there

are no disagreements on policy. They're not

the first politicians to engage Here's Giles with

the best political reconciliations . At five, the education secretary

and his Lib Dem deputy joining forces in a national newspaper to

declare they have made up despite a week of bare knuckle smiting over

policy. At four, David Cameron and Nick Clegg finding love in the

roses. At number three, stars and battle stripes in the 2008 five the

democratic presidential nation, the gloves came off between Barack Obama

and Hillary Clinton. In the end, diplomacy prevailed and Hillary

Clinton became secretary of state. A friendship still considered in the

loosest sense of the word. friendship still considered in the

two, Peter Mandelson's third time lucky in government, having twice

quit on the Blair, who would have thought it would be under Prime

Minister Brown? And a number one, Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley

discover an unlikely friendship as joint leaders in Northern Ireland,

earning the nickname the chuckle Brothers. Many on both sides found

the partnership decidedly unfunny. Let's pick up their film ended. That

was the most unlikely of reconciliations. The golf just

seemed too wide between Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, do you Greek

was Mac they were on different sides in what was effectively a civil war,

over 3000 people died. It was fantastic, and it did appear

genuine, both had to shift a lot of ground to get there. Is that the

prospect of power, is adjust the amount of time that has gone by,

when you realise you not go to achieve your individual games? I

think in Northern Ireland, they got the war weary. It had gone on for so

long, no one could win, they realised that. Paisley was thinking

about his place in history, did he want to go out as a figure divided

or somebody who'd united. Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson, bringing

him back into the government for yet another time, that was political

pragmatism, wasn't it? Gordon Brown blamed me for it, try to get me to

work for him and I said no! Thingies, that is why I have got

Mandelson! They did rub along OK for about 18 months, got frayed at the

end but nevertheless, it was sheer pragmatism. We always see splits in

part is, you don't have to be good friends, you just have to have a

common purpose. Except when it comes to the coalition. That is when you

have two parties and to look at David laws and Michael Gove, who

seem to share a sort of ideological common ground and it has gone. They

know that the elections are coming... You don't think it is

real, this split? Those of us have always been told how to behave with

other kids... ! Sent to the headmaster 's office! It won't

last. A lot of papers say this could be the more serious of the spats

within the coalition partners. They have both hoarded documents to leak

against the other side, because the Tories want to blamed the Liberals

for everything and the Lib Dems want to show they were stopping these

nasty Tories... They have huge files! The problem for Ed Miliband

and Labour is, how are they going to get a look in? That is it, we thank

you all. The one o'clock news is

starting over on BBC One now. I'll be on BBC One tonight for

This Week with TV teacher Mr Drew, actor Clarke Peters, and Sarah Smith

with a film from Edinburgh plus And I'll be here

at noon tomorrow with all the big Female artists have rocked the world

for centuries. Not only did she impress and surprise

Michelangelo, in her nineties,

she won the homage of van Dyck. So just how did they push the

boundaries and flout convention?