15/03/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May's plans for greater surveillance powers are back

Labour say want substantial changes to the Bill.

The shadow home secretary Andy Burnham joins us live.

There are just 100 days until polling day in the EU

Referendum and today sees the Confederation

Of British Industry throw its weight behind the campaign to remain.

We'll hear from the CBI's head honcho, Carolyn Fairbairn.

The Green Party have also launched their own campaign to keep

Britain in the EU, saying they're 'loud and proud' about their support

And if you thought delivering the Chancellor's Budget speech

was tricky enough, spare a thought for the leader of the opposition -

We'll discuss how to prep for the big day.

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today, Ukip's immigration and financial

Ahead of tomorrow's budget, George Osborne has been busy this

morning, bigging up government investment in new infrastructure

Here's the Chancellor speaking in central lobby -

suited up in the obligatory high-vis jacket.

Five years ago as part of our long-term economic plan

we gave the go-ahead to Crossrail and here it is nearing completion.

In the Budget tomorrow, I'm giving the green light

to Crossrail 2 in London and the new High-speed 3 link

across the North of England and in the Budget we will not go

for short-term fixes in this uncertain world,

we're going to have long-term solutions to Britain's long-term

problems and the Budget is going to make sure Britain is fit

That was Central London he was speaking in, not the central lobby!

Confused. He has a wardrobe of high visibility jackets, are you excited

by the announcements? I am intrigued and I will be open-minded about it

because I come from the North West of England, born in Manchester, and

some ideas about opening up railways from Manchester to Sheffield and

Leeds, for me, somebody who loves the countryside, believing there is

an opportunity to build tunnels underneath the beautiful landscape,

that can be an option. What I want to look at is the greater detail of

cost. You are against HS2? Yes, it is a folly which has been proved in

many ways to be over expensive. But it will open up, to the government,

vast areas of the countryside. It will do a number of things, it will

ensure only the wealthiest can use it because it is expensive. It is

displaced if, it will move people from London to buy houses in the

north of England so they can commute to work which will have increased

pressure on housing in northern England and there are relevant

studies which show you will not get the economic and if it is they

suggest you do. You look at the equivalence between Lil and Paris

and we saw big changes on that. -- Lille. Do you think it does help the

economy despite Nigel Farage saying it is a waste of money and will only

benefit a small number of people? HS2 has to be taken out of the

equation and we have looked at expanding or improving their weight

structures in England. Are you in favour of Crossrail to? We may have

to consider the argument on that. -- two. I have not seen the

implications two. I have not seen the

rail. I want to look at a roadway system which is creaking at the

seams and has not had a great deal of investment, particularly in the

North, where you can look at the immediate problem with trains going

to Sheffield and Leeds, why are we not looking at expanding the

railway, the trains themselves, the platforms? These can be done

immediately. I want to look at the immediate impact on costs and review

the whole idea in the future. The question for today is -

which TV couple have been discussing their trip to Chequers

for a dinner with Tony Blair, over which they discussed

the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction

with the then prime minister? Was it a) Adrian Chiles

and Christine Bleakley? Theresa May's plan to grant powers

to the state to collect the web-browsing histories

and internet connection records of individuals is back

in the Commons today. The Investigatory Powers Bill

is the latest attempt to give the secret services legal backing

for internet surveillance of anyone suspected of criminal

or terrorist activity. The issue led to a bust-up

in the coalition government, with Nick Clegg blocking

the so-called 'Snoopers' Charter'. Theresa May introduced the bill

to update legislation for police and security services "to keep pace

with the modern world" - addressing gaps that degrade

the government's ability to combat Among the provisions of the Bill

is the collection and storage by communications companies of 12

months of everyone's web browsing history, known as internet

connection records. A statutory framework for the police

to apply to hack someone's smartphone or computer -

a so-called equipment interference. And the creation of

an Investigatory Powers Commission. A senior judge who will oversee

the use of all investigatory powers supported by a number

of Judicial Commissioners. Labour say they will put aside party

politics to work "constructively" with the government

if the Home Secretary allows lengthy But the SNP and the Liberal

Democrats will oppose it, Joining me now from central lobby in

the Palace of Westminster is the Shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham.

Welcome. The Labour Party are going to add Stein today, isn't that

handing the government a blank cheque? No, it is not. This Bill is

needed because we have a law which is going to expire later this year

so these are not normal circumstances. The country needs a

new law in this area that gives powers to the police but also create

strong safeguards for the public. That is my challenge to the Lib Dems

and SNP because if they let the current law for, what will they put

in its place? Otherwise they leave people at risk of more loss of

privacy. We are going to work constructively but what I will do is

set out very clear concerns and I will say to Theresa May that if she

does not listen to them, we will withdraw support from the timetable

of this ill because we are not prepared to have a substandard Bill

on the statute book. How will you do this? You have been called gutless

by the Lib Dems who are opposing it and you say that you will withdraw

support further down the line but is that going to do anything to

persuade Theresa May to change her mind? Yes, as I said before this

Bill is on a tight timetable so the government needs our support.

Interesting words from the Liberal Democrats but from my point of view,

it is irresponsible to say, we are going to go into outright opposition

because I don't think that is right or in the interests of the country.

The police and security services need the powers to do the job.

However, a big however, I will set tough test for the government.

Internet connection records, I believe at the moment that they are

far too widely drawn. I believe they should be very strictly limited to

the domains visited on the Internet, not Urls. It needs to be a much

tighter set of information. Secondly, the current Dell says that

the police should access them in respect of any crime, the prevention

and detection of any crime. I don't think that is acceptable. It is not

acceptable for police to look at someone's connection record in

respect of motoring crimes. Only in respect of more serious crimes. What

will they be? It is very easy to agree with it in principle. You

think the government has drawn the net to white in terms of the number

of public bodies which can use the new Lords. -- laws. Where would the

boundaries be? I don't see why the Food Standards Agency or gambling

commission would have access to the connection records and I will warn

the Home Secretary that she should reduce that list before they have

our support. I want the definition and scope of Internet connection

records much reduced and I also want a higher threshold for their use. I

also want a presumption of privacy at the very start of this ilk. It

needs to be clear that if you are to depart from that and intrude on

someone's privacy, you must have very strong reasons for doing so. --

Bill. The current law says that it should be on the grounds of national

security at present. In the past we have seen the label to cover a

multitude of sins. I have worked with trade unionist who have been

investigated by the police for nothing more than going about their

lawful right to strike so we need to have clarity in the legislation that

the law cannot be used in that way. -- unionists. Ordinary people cannot

have their powers taken away from them. People will remember Doreen

Lawrence, whose family were surveilled after the loss of her son

and that is fundamentally unacceptable. The Bill must

completely rule out any possibility of the misuse of these powers. Why

do you not just oppose the Bill? That is a massive shopping list of

changes you want to stop surely your leverage in negotiating would have

been heightened if you had said we are not going to support the Bill

unless you make changes? Outright opposition just drags the whole

thing right down. As I said, the country needs a Bill on the statute

book by the end of the year because the interim legislation is about to

expire. It would be irresponsible in my view to let the legislation fall

without anything in its place. I have spoken to people in the police

force who say the world is going dark on them, they cannot see

communications in the way they used to to. Conversations are in online

forums rather than traditional telephones and they are losing the

ability to disrupt terrorist. That is not acceptable and I think the

SNP and Liberal Democrats are wrong to turn away from these issues. We

are trying to find a reasonable way through. My prices play, there is no

blank cheque. On the six areas outlined in the Commons, I want to

see significant movement from the government on all of them and we do

not see it, I will withdraw support from the timetable on this Bill. The

Labour Party have suspended for a second time a member posted

anti-Semitic tweet. A spokesperson has said Vicki Kirby has been

suspended from the Labour Party pending investigation. Is the Labour

Party dealing with these sorts of incidents quickly enough? Well, we

have today and I am glad to hear that because from what I have seen,

the comments were completely abhorrent. Labour has always led

from the forefront in tackling anti-Semitism, and I am glad to hear

that this action has been taken today, and to be honest, for a party

that believes in true equality and has always fought racism and

xenophobia of all kinds, we have to maintain full public confidence in

our procedures and I want there to be no question at all that our party

has no tolerance at all of any form of anti-Semitism, is phobia or any

other kind of racism. What is your position on the Investigatory Powers

Bill? I am deeply concerned by it because if you listen to Big Brother

What you have analysed this, they say the danger is that this could go

into the extreme of any democratic country. -- Big Brother Watch. The

average unity to catch -- the opportunity to catch criminals

causes a great deal of concern. 95% of people are not involved in any

criminality and yet all of them are going to be brought within this. As

Andrew has said, he does not seem to be putting a very strong case

towards the government by, as you pointed out, just abstaining on

this. Would it be irresponsible to let the whole Bill fall and take the

legislation with it? This goes to the argument of opposition. You

stand on a principle that you want to stand on and say you want to

protect the interest of people, and therefore withdrawing the timetable

is the way forward. I think he should be joining in terms of the

Lib Dems. And opposing the government? To ensure that the

combined elements of strength brings in the changes he wants. That is

typical that we have seen the Labour Party of late, they want their cake

and eating it. Which specific bets would you like to see changed

dramatically? You say that the net would be too wide and trying to many

bits of private data, what about leaving the country without any sort

of surveillance powers? He is suggesting they would not have any

position to be able to protect people, but we've got a vast web of

legislation that the police can use. What I would look at, for example,

when considering individuals using the web, why can councils and other

organisations have the same access? We had similar problems with local

council getting expanded powers, that has caused huge problems with

ordinary members of the public. We are joined by Victoria Atkins, who

has been sitting on the joint Parliamentary committee scrutinising

the plans. Why do you think so many people are opposed to this Bill?

Many people are not opposed to this Bill. Most people recognise the need

to have an act that looks after national security, gives the police

and security services the powers they need but protects civil

liberties. People clearly feel it does not make that balance. Both our

guest said it is an acceptably intrusive. You will be able to sweep

records of every individual and hold them for a year. Andy, on the 4th of

November, when the draft Bill was introduced, praised the Home

Secretary for getting the balance broadly right having listened to

legitimate concerns. But this Bill is absolutely critical. We cannot be

under any illusions. The criminal world is using the Internet, just as

we do. We need to make sure the police and security services have

the powers they need. What is there to make sure the powers are not

exploited? There have been cases when councils have used the powers

to spy on people. There was a great deal of upset about that and the

powers of the council were restricted. But in this bill we

have, for the first time, all of the powers connected together in one

place and we've got a real world leading oversight. Why is it world

reading? The senior judge will be appointed by the Prime Minister and

only set for three years. That does not show great independence. We had

form the Lord -- we heard from the former Lord Chief Justice, that

shows the robust independence of the judiciary. We have real oversight

with judicial commissioners who will be working with secretaries of

state. They will be reviewing the oversight provisions as a whole. The

investigatory Powers Tribunal will be very much overseeing the work of

the security services and the police. But how is bulk interception

and hacking going to help fight terrorism? We got briefings from

GCHQ and others who use these powers. The difficulty of these

powers is by definition there is a limit to what the security services

can say about the use of these powers because if they tell us

everything then the criminals will change their methods accordingly.

But what they have done is produce an explanatory note, try to give

Case studies of how these powers work, and I'm in no doubt, having

seen some of this evidence myself, that these powers are necessary,

just and proportionate. Those are the themes that run throughout this

Bill, I know that Andy was talking earlier about council officials

being able to access data. Any accessing the data will need to fit

with the law, which will be that it is necessary, just and

proportionate. That sort of wording is very vague and it does lack

clarity on when, where and in what circumstances these powers can be

used. You can see there is plenty of room for abuse. I don't accept that,

if we look at communications data, in the past it has been accessing

mobile phone records to see who called when and why. That data is

absolutely critical in 95% of organised crime cases. It is used in

100% of counterterrorism cases. We have to be realistic. The criminal

world has moved on into the digital age. We did ask a Home Office

minister to come onto the programme but none was available. There are 90

days until the EU referendum. This morning the former shadow

business secretary, Labour's Chuka Umunna,

phoned-in to Boris Johnson's radio show on LBC, to take him to task

about his motivations I look at those who are campaigning

for us to come out, look at Michael Gove, I disagree

with Michael on a huge amount, but he is

a man of conviction. You brought a circus to your house

to make the announcement... Instead of campaigning with Michael,

Iain Duncan Smith and others and what you need to understand,

this isn't about you, This is about the prospects

of the British people and their democracy and I have

to say that it is very sad that we are being invited

to continue to remain in a system that I think is less

and less democratic. We have a huge opportunity now

to strike out for freedom and all you hear from the remaining

campaign is gloom and negativity This morning the body

which represents thousands of British businesses -the CBI -

threw its weight behind And the CBI's director general,

Carolyn Fairbairn, joins me now. You gave an interview where you back

to Britain remaining in a reformed EU but today we find out you won't

be officially aligning so will not be able to campaign. Why the change

of heart? We have a very clear mandate from our members. We've been

consulting and serving and we know that our members employ 7 million

people across the UK. They've given us a resounding voice that 80%

support remaining in the EU. However, we don't think economics is

the only issue, we think there are broader issues and we are going to

be making the economic case on their behalf. 80% of your members have

backed staying in. Would it be seen as fence sitting if you don't

officially align yourself to campaign? I really don't think so.

We are not a political organisation and we never have been but we are

very strong in the voice we have for prosperity, growth, employment, and

the general health of the economy. That is the voice we want to have.

It will be about informing the debate so people understand the

implication for jobs and growth and the future of the economy. But you

won't be allowed to spend more than ?10,000 during the six weeks, you

will be limited in outlining the arguments you want to present. If

it's so important, why are you sitting on your hands? Between now

and April the we can do whatever we like, and we will be making the case

strongly. -- April 15. And not after that? It is worth thinking about

what we do, we speak out, talk on platforms, we write. We can continue

to do those things. We've been in discussion with the Electoral

Commission about how we can do that. The important thing is we have a

resounding voice from our members in terms of staying in the European

Union. Were you scarred by your experience in the Scottish

independence referendum? This is about making a case that is the case

that our members would like to make around prosperity and growth, not

about making a political statement. The position we had is an extremely

clear and simple one. Are you breathing a sigh of relief that a

powerful organisation are not going to align themselves? Not

necessarily, when I was a junior barrister we had to prepare cases on

expert witnesses and when you had an expert witness you needed to have an

expert that was generally right on the issues. When you look at the

CBI, they were wrong on the Euro, and 100 years ago they were wrong on

the gold standard. If I was presenting them as a case before a

judge they would throughout the fact that on almost every major political

issue which they've espoused the view, they've been wrong. One other

point. They would be asked whether they have a conflict-of-interest in

this case. It is right and I'm sure that Carolyn would say it, they have

received over ?800,000 from the European Union, whether through

research or other ways, that would be regarded as a conflict of

interest. I think the British public will say, they were wrong before and

will be wrong now. On the issue of conflicts of interests, there are

absolutely none. We provide a commercial service to a small part

of the European Union, less than 0.5% of our revenue. It is a

ludicrous claim. In terms of the position, the euro was a very

different question. What we are facing is an issue, we have enjoyed

a period of real prosperity as part of the European Union and what many

businesses up and down the land are saying is they can prosper within

the European Union. They want to reform it further but they can

prosper. The prospect of uncertainty that will come from triggering

Article 50 and not knowing the alternative... You say this is a

different case but the arguments you are using are identical. You're

using the fear mongering. You say that Britain will fall into a mire

and never be successful in the future. You say that business will

not be able to trade with the EU that we will have no access to these

markets. First of all, the free trade element which only Belarus and

Russia are not part of. Will we be excluded from Turkey and Iceland?

Then you have a single regulatory regime, which we have very little

influence over. Those arguments are identical, they have been

replicated. I don't accept that. What the European Union gives at the

moment is a guarantee of tariff free access to 500 million consumers. The

moment article 50 is triggered, that guarantee is lost. We cannot go

back. For two years, we are OK. When you say the CBI have been wrong,

what about the figures looking at the views of business? People always

say small businesses support leaving but the figures are quite damning.

Just 6% of firms in the CBI think leaving the EU would be in the best

interest of the economy. Why do so few businesses back this? I've seen

quite a few that support leaving the European Union but looking at the

analysis is quite interesting. Over 95% of the businesses in the UK are

less than 50 people but if you look at 73% of this poll, they consist of

businesses over 250 people, which is 0.1%. Why do they not back the exit?

It comes down to the arguments they hear from government affairs

officials, lobbyists, who keep telling them, as I kept hearing,

that these companies will not be able to trade, we would have tariffs

imposed upon us, when none of this is the case. I saw it before as a

lawyer advising companies. I was often in conflict to those lobbyists

who have financial interest. They deal with the regulations that

compounded the cost. Does your poll fairly reflect the businesses in the

UK? Absolutely. What you will see, not one single business survey of

any size of business, even the FSB survey, has a majority in favour of

leaving. You've never explained how you have any influence. Are you

saying small businesses under 50 people, of which there are hundreds

of thousands, are overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU? Yellow

might not one survey has shown a majority. There are many businesses

that are global and immediately want to trade and have access to the

single market. We are talking about a small business environment where

many of them value that tariff. When I was a private equity lawyer,

someone wanted to invest in housing in Poland and it did not stop them.

Trade was still going on even though they were not in a common market.

When I was looking at small Internet businesses, exactly the same. Trade

continues irrespective of the countries. You are concerned about

whether there would be tariff, which I argue there would be none, and the

regulations. Now, the campaign over

whether the UK should stay in or quit the European Union

is already a pretty crowded, and occasionally complicated field,

with numerous groups forming ahead of the referendum on

Britain's EU membership. out its campaign to keep

Britain in the EU. Here's what party leader

Natalie Bennett had to say I think probably many people in this

room have been at and will be I think this one will sound and look

a lot different to a lot I am proud to be on an

all-women panel talking I am proud to be on a panel

where we talk positively The fact is that what the EU

is about is what the Green Party Internationalism, thinking

for the long-term, collaborating rather than focusing

on competition, working together And we've been joined

by the Green MP Caroline Lucas. What is the case for staying in the

EU? It is essentially that we believe we have a better chance of

tackling the major challenges we face day, whether it be climate

change, the refugee crisis or terrorism, by working with others

rather than walking away from that, and what the Green Party can bring

to this debate is a different tone and issues. You heard just now that

the debate is dominated by jobs and the economy, and that is incredibly

important and important it gets out there but there are other ways of

mobilising people, reaching out to young people in particular, you may

not be particularly exercised by those issues but are worried about

the environment and social rights and I think the Green Party can run

a strong campaign, Bloom entry to the main campaign but reaching out

to different kinds of people. -- but, elementary. Last year, Jenny

Jones wrote that Green support for the EU should end and the EU stands

for corporate empowerment and the trampling of Greek democracy, is she

wrong? I do think she is wrong. Do you support the transplanted

investment partnership? No, I do not, I oppose it but you have to

make a distinction between the right wing governments that inhabit most

of the seats around the council table and the European institutions.

One of the biggest cheerleaders for TTIP is David Cameron. Anybody who

thinks that by withdrawing from the EU, we will have a cuddly trade

policy, they live in fantasyland and David Cameron will put the same

principles of TTIP into bilateral trade agreements. The best way of

fighting TTIP is to work with our colleagues in Germany, 255 thousand

who were in Berlin recently mobilising against TTIP, it is by

lobbying against members of Parliament to have the power to stop

TTIP, and the people who signed a petition across Europe to stop TTIP.

We should recognise that by putting right wing policies into Europe, you

get right wing policies out. You need to make a distinction between

the right-wing governments around the table and the importance of

working at the EU level. You are supporting staying in the EU because

you don't like the policies of David Cameron. I did not say that. That is

the logic of your argument. If Jenny Jones is indulging in fantasy

politics, issue not right about the contradiction between Green

opposition to TTIP and yet its continued support for the EU? You

won't be able to counter what is going on in the EU by staying in

stock I object to all sorts of thing that the government is doing but I'm

not saying we should turn our back on democracy. I am a democratic. I

will fight that. The question about the referendum is, do we think we

will be safer, greener, safer, longer if we stay in the EU or come

away and all the evidence suggests we have a better chance of a better

outcome for our kids and their kids if we stay in the EU rather than one

thing we can fight the battles by being on R.N.. The party's policies

are against so many things in the EU. They are not happy with the

single market. You sort of thing, what is there left to support but

Mark... By being in the EU. It is beyond conception that we would be

better off dealing with issues like climate change is a single country.

The reason the outcome of the Paris climate talks was better than many

feared was because the EU was working as a block and had so much

more leverage and was able to ensure that of the new countries in the EU

had more ambitious targets. That as a positive campaign, and that is the

difference between the Green campaign and some of the other

remain campaigns. Caroline's position, looking at the environment

and green issues, is very important. And works better by staying in the

EU. She takes that view because she says you need to work together with

people and other countries and organisations but I take an opposite

view to that. It is one of democracy and I don't believe the EU is a

democratic organisation, I think it is anti-democratic and it has shown

that in its history in the way it treated Ireland and Holland and

France and the way it treats Greece in terms of its austerity. The

structure and nature in which the commission controls everything,

creates everything working in secret, means it is an

anti-democratic organisation. As Andrew Huxley put in his book, a

brave New World. Would Greece have had a better chance outside of the

EU? Would it have been better for the treatment of people there, not

being part of this construct? Let me make a distinction between being a

member of the EU and the single currency. The Green Party have never

supported the week and the way in which the Greeks were treated was

wrong but I think it is interesting that even the party in power at the

time is not arguing that we should come out of the EU, they clearly see

that their future is working with others in the EU to reform it. I am

not saying that the whole of the EU with perfect, I have been a member

of the European Parliament and out how cumbersome it can be. -- know

how cumbersome. People elected to the British government are elected

under a far less fair and proportional voting system than the

European Parliament. If we want to stop TTIP is doing gauge with

members of the European Parliament. -- is dying engaging. -- is by

engaging. The 13% of people unemployed across the EU, the

average youth unemployment hits at 13%, the highest levels of suicide

sit there in Greece, the EU is a factor and cause of this. If you are

talking about is rising governments, the 255,000 in Germany would have

more of an impact on a single government than... The EU has been

better at giving access to the TTIP governments than the British

government. If you want to stop TTIP, you need to get to Parliament

about against it, and similarly, other MPs need to vote against it.

Talk to your colleagues and get them there as well. Caroline Lucas, thank

you. The Prime Minister likes to say

he and his party offered the referendum on our membership

of the European Union. UKIP like to say he never would have

if they hadn't grown so strong. 3.8 million votes at the General

election, an MP, and it won If the Referendum is causing

internal trouble inside the Conservative and Labour parties,

UKIP is no different. Giles has been unpicking the real

battles between senior Kippers... they like him, he's very good

at media, with people and on stage. But it's always been an insider

issue that you don't want to get He still has a great

deal of support in UKIP. It's been a long 23 year

slog but you know what? Ukip has grown up enough

to have proper in-fighting, which is fair to say is the same

in many other older parties, I am a man of my word,

I don't break my word. ..and three days later

changed his mind and winning just one seat in Parliament,

with an MP who does not always see eye to eye with the leader,

who did not win a seat, there are other big characters

in this insurgent party who are learning all the time

how to get their way. Four years ago I made this film

for the Daily Politics asking whether Ukip was a one-man band,

that one man being in Nigel Farage, and the party did not like that

sort of question partly They are not any more and that holds

the key to why they might be fighting inside

the party these days. What Nigel wants Nigel gets used

to be the way but it isn't any more and actually, that might be quite

a good thing. Nigel Farage had a big influence

over the Ukip's NEC, Lots of new members were elected

to that last year and there were rumours around

at the time that Farage was thinking of abolishing the NEC

and having a different kind of governing body which he appointed

people to do. As a result the NEC is throwing

its weight around a bit more and we saw this with the selection

for candidates in A list was put forward which Farage

did not like and he came back with his own list for the NEC

and the NEC said, right, we will scrap this and go out

to members and get a ballot on this. This was the first time that the NEC

really pushed back against Nigel and he did not get

the results he wanted. He did not want Neil Hamilton top

of the list and Neil Hamilton got on the list and now he has

a good chance of being elected I am delighted I am the choice

of Ukip members in Wales. Whatever Nigel Farage's views are,

he did not have a vote in this election process but the ordinary

Ukip members in Wales did. Win - they can claim a victory

for their 23 year cause. Lose by just by a little,

they can scoop up those crushed by the narrow defeat as did

the SNP after the indy ref. But it's also providing grit to some

of the internal rivalries - party lines blur, and some

in the party back different It will get to the point

where they are fighting so hard Nigel is not someone who likes this

kind of check and balance, he is someone who is sure

of himself, he points at his many accomplishments and you can't deny

this, he has taken the party from nowhere to winning

the European elections, to getting millions of votes

and basically getting He looks at it and goes I delivered

this, why are you questioning me? Other people in the party

want to change the tone of Ukip, I can't see how it will be resolved

and let some nicknames really shift Owen Bennett ending the report.

Douglas Carswell, Neil Hamilton, Lord Pearson, all senior figures who

found themselves briefed against by the leadership. What is it about

Farage where he falls out with everybody? I don't necessarily think

he everybody? I don't necessarily think

political party, people have very strong views about Wallace or

direction or the ideas and then you have a robust argument with the

leader sometimes. I have had discussions with Nigel. Arguments

question my Antony you can call them argument or discussion. I respect

the fact he is willing to engage with you about the debate. Is he

willing to engage? It sounds like he is losing the iron grip he had on

the party and maybe that is a good thing. Every leader comes to a stage

where... You have to look at this, this man has achieved what most

people have not, which is force our government to have a referendum that

people are about to have. They took us through the elections that we won

in the election and he did not do that through force of will but

actually listening to other people about direction and views and

getting the message through. I don't think it is fair to say that he does

not listen to people because I know he does. Does he take a strong view?

Absolutely and that is what parties do. Is it a good thing that Farage

is not getting his way in the way he once did? He is actually being

challenged by Neil Hammerton and said he did not wanting to get top

of the list but he is. Is it good? It shows we have a party that has

more people involved in the discussions, there is more openness

in the way these discussions come into the press, I don't and that is

necessarily the right thing to do so, but what it also shows is that

underneath there will always discussions about whether people

succeeded or not. Not because Nigel wanted them to but because there

were differences in the party. What do you think will happen to

Douglas Carswell after the referendum? There is a difference in

style between him and Nigel Farage. Is he likely to jump back to the

Conservatives? I would not know what Douglas wants to do. He is as

passionate as me and the other members of the party in leaving the

European Union and is campaigning to do so. If I was to make a guess, I

believe Douglas would take the issues he has at hand about opening

up democracy, bringing more opportunity for people, to get

involved and try to push that through into the policies of Ukip

and others. Will there be a leadership contest after the

referendum? I would not know about that. Do you think there will be?

I'm not sure, what happens after June the 23rd is there will be some

major issues to face. If we win, and I believe we will, from seeing

people campaigning on the streets, we need to ensure that we leave. We

will be concentrating on making sure Cameron commits to his word of

leaving the European Union. Tomorrow is Budget Day -

complete with Downing Street photo-calls featuring

the Chancellor's red budget box, discussion of what the Chancellor

will drink during his speech, and the weighty budget red books

which provide all the detail conveniently left out

of the statemetn. It's perhaps the biggest day

of the year in the Chancellor's calendar - but it's also a tricky

day for the leader of the opposition who has to respond to the Budget

speech having only just In a moment we'll discuss the best

way to prepare to give First though, here's how the last

Labour opposition leader and last Conservative opposition leader

coped with the task. Today, everyone can see what an

utter mess this Labour government have made of the British economy.

The fastest rise in unemployment in history, the worst recession

since World War II, and the worst peacetime public

As of today, any claim they have ever made to economic competence

Mr Deputy Speaker, the hopes of millions of working

people are more important than his hopes of being the future

We know this Chancellor is personally ambitious

but when the economic recovery is still fragile,

he should be ambitious not just for himself but for the country.

We've been joined by Torsten Bell, former policy advisor

to Ed Miliband, who was involved with prepping the former labour

How much site do you get of the contents of the statement? I have

worked for chancellors and Shadow Chancellor is and the job, you might

think is harder for chancellors because they need to put together a

budget, whereas all the opposition leader has got to do. It turns out

that the Chancellor has thousands of civil servants and Leader of the

Opposition has probably got about five people stuck in a room, not

even with him in the chamber. It is definitely a harder gig. Do you get

much of a chance, usually the Shadow Chancellor will say, thank you for

giving me a little bit beforehand, what are we talking about? We

talking about nothing. You get a few pages of a four with heavily

redacted text. It might tell you something has happened to

productivity. What has changed is the British newspapers give you more

advanced site of parts of the budget. That has made the job

slightly easier than it was in the 1990s when Ken Clarke believed in

secrecy. What do you do to prepare? One of the things about budgets is

they do two things, not just the announcement of policy measures, it

is also a state of the nation debate. One of the jobs of Leader of

the Opposition is to make their case about what they think the state of

the nation is. Clearly, you can write most of that in advance. You

look at what is in the newspapers and plan for what you think might be

announced and hopefully you show yourself to be fleet of foot in the

chamber. That's the most difficult bit of all. In terms of what goes on

behind-the-scenes, it must be pretty nerve wracking. Particularly if you

set up a narrative that is then shot down by George Osborne before you

stand up. That would be a bad result. You are looking to avoid

that happening. It has happened. Ed Balls had a difficult time on one

occasion. It is difficult for everybody and I would say different

politicians deal with it in different ways and the other thing

you cannot tell from watching it on TV is the sheer wall of noise. It is

always load in the House of Commons, budget day and particular government

benches after the Chancellor has given a speech are particularly

loud. Keeping going through that wall of noise is not

straightforward. What about the difference between the Shadow

Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition. How different is it? The

Shadow Chancellor answers the statement. The overall shape of the

challenge is the same but clearly autumn is slightly lower key. It

depends on the individuals in those posts. Some have a good grasp of

economics, some are slightly less versed. Who are you thinking of? I

could not possibly say. It is an unenviable task having to stand up

and respond on those occasions. What would you do to prepare? Pretty much

the same lines as this. When you are a barrister you need to prepare for

some severe judges. You've got to marshal the arguments as best as you

can. I would back that up with evidence, prepares statements and

lines, then use experience of debating style. The other thing to

say is the Chancellor says a lot and he speaks for an hour, he is

prepared that in advance. The job of the Leader of the Opposition is not

to respond to everything. The big things, if you don't say anything

about the big things then people like you and others have a harsh

judgment but they definitely should not be in the business of saying, on

your 15th point, I think you could improve this. The challenge is to

have something to say on the state of the nation and respond to the big

things in the budget. How prepared is Jeremy Corbyn?

I have no idea but I'm sure he's been doing the preparation. Do you

think he will do well? I've no idea. I don't know where he's up to. Top

tips? The world has changed and in the olden days you passed notes into

the chamber but nowadays there is text message and Twitter and I

recommend he uses those. That very neatly moves into the last item,

free advice. Now, if you're watching this show

close to a computer or a smartphone, chances are you are interacting

with us on Twitter using But did you know Twitter is fast

approaching its tenth anniversary? Joining us to discuss

its increasingly important role in political life -

using slightly more than 140 characters, I hope -

is Lewis Wiltshire, Twitter's senior But before we discuss the highs,

let's remind ourselves of some David Cameron himself made the first

prominent Twitter gaffe when he told Absolute Radio in 2009

that "too many tweets make a bleep" - a prophetic lesson

he was to fail to learn himself. The next year Bristol East MP

Kerry McCarthy learnt to her cost that revealing postal vote counts

during the General Election was a big no-no - she was cautioned

by police for election fraud. Perhaps the most popular gaffe

was committed by Ed Balls in 2011 after he tweeted his name instead

of searching for it. Ever since, each April 28th,

thousands pay homage by tweeting Tweeting photos has often got

politicians into trouble. In June 2013 George Osborne posted

a photo of him eating a burger Those lampooning him

included Eric Pickles, who tweeted a picture

of him in similar pose, There were more serious consequences

for Emily Thornberry when she posted a photo of a house draped

in St George's flags while campaigning in the Rochester

Strood by-election. Miliband himself was responsible

for some sloppy tweeting following the death of Bob Holness

in 2012, saying that "a generation will remember him fondly

from Blackbusters". In 2013 David Cameron wrote "@IDS-MP

and I are determined Sadly for the Prime Minister @IDS-MP

is a parody account of the Work Pensions Secretary -

the real Iain Duncan Smith And who can forget UKIP -

who complained that @reporterboy - that's our Giles the way -

had filmed a piece about Actually, it was Westminster

Cathedral. Lewis Wiltshire from

Twitter has joined us. No doubt enjoying those

recollections. We've seen lots of politicians messing up. Therefore

the grace of God go I. What is your favourite Twitter mistake? The Ed

Balls one, I am fond of, he still tweaked it every year. What they

show is not only is everything that MPs say a matter of public record,

that's always been the case, but also, with Twitter, everybody has a

voice. The voting public can challenge MPs. Is it just an echo

chamber? Are you just seeing these sentiments reverberating back? I

don't think so because we see all ranges of the political spectrum

reflected back. In any group that big you will always get political

views covered but all the parties use it and followers use it as well.

Is it worth the risk? There are loads more mistakes. Is Iain Duncan

Smith right not to be on Twitter? 88% of UK MPs are on Twitter. They

use it in a very powerful way to connect to the electorate. They also

use it in a way that is dialogue. Everyone has a voice, people can

speak truth to power. They can challenge MPs and ask them

questions. Are you a fan of Twitter? I have made mistakes. I feel that

Twitter users will go in search of mine. But it is essential to get

messages out. How difficult is it to distil your thoughts into 140

characters? You get better at it very quickly. Is that the truth of

it? I think politicians have found an authenticity of voice. Barack

Obama, the most followed, in the UK as well, Nicola Sturgeon, David

Cameron, Boris, others. Nigel Farage as well. Right across the range.

Politicians that speak with an authenticity of voice.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

Which TV couple have been discussing their trip to Chequers

for a dinner with Tony Blair, over which they discussed

the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction

Was it a) Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley

b) Richard and Judy c) Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn

or d) Ant and Dec So Steven what's the correct answer?

I think it was Ant and Dec. It was Richard and Judy! I thought it was

obvious. Tomorrow is budget day and we will

have full coverage. I will be presenting from Bolton.

You and I - we're gonna change this country...

He said, "I am President of the United States,

# All my friends know the low rider... #