:00:41. > :00:45.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Private companies
:00:45. > :00:50.running the roads, regional pay bargaining and a cut in the 50p
:00:50. > :00:54.rate of tax. Could this week's Budget be the most radical and
:00:54. > :00:59.controversial for a generation? But two days to go, how big is the
:00:59. > :01:03.Chancellor's challenge? New research maps were business is
:01:03. > :01:07.growing and where it is not in the What is so special about special
:01:07. > :01:14.advisers? Do politicians need an army of political assistants to do
:01:14. > :01:19.the job? I have not got quite... And how can politicians avoid
:01:20. > :01:29.interviews turning into disasters? We will unveil the golden rules of
:01:29. > :01:33.avoiding political interview help. With me on the programme, Peter
:01:33. > :01:39.Hennessy. Welcome to the programme. You might think it is all over but
:01:39. > :01:42.it is not. Not yet anyway. Today the Health and Social Care Bill
:01:42. > :01:48.returns to the House of Lords. The Government hope it will then return
:01:48. > :01:52.to the Commons and pass, badly mangled but still alive. Today
:01:52. > :01:58.David Evan will try to force the Government to publish the Risk
:01:58. > :02:08.Register, the document drawn up by civil servants to examine the the
:02:08. > :02:11.
:02:11. > :02:15.civil -- the impact of the bill. Do you agree? I am very cautious about
:02:15. > :02:20.risk registers. I have read a lot about them on the domestic front
:02:20. > :02:24.and the military. We have a career civil service and not a politicised
:02:24. > :02:26.one because they have to speak truth under power. They have to
:02:27. > :02:31.spare ministers nothing and tell them what they need to know and not
:02:31. > :02:35.what they want to hear. In a Risk Register, you have to have absolute
:02:35. > :02:39.candour. I am reluctant for President to be set under freedom
:02:39. > :02:45.of information. Normally I am all for Freedom of Information. But I
:02:45. > :02:49.am not for this one. In that sense there has been a lot of opposition
:02:49. > :02:54.from a lot of quarters. Would it help the Government to be more
:02:54. > :02:58.candid by publishing this? Would this not be a special case? I can
:02:58. > :03:03.see the argument for that. The whole bill is a special case and it
:03:03. > :03:08.goes to the heart of so many things. It is not ordinary activity, the
:03:08. > :03:13.NHS. It is the nearest we have ever come to institutionalise think
:03:13. > :03:21.altruism and it touches all of us in a special way. But Mike Crawshaw
:03:21. > :03:25.remains intact and I am not with David. You do -- my caution remains
:03:25. > :03:30.intact. I don't think he will get the majority. He did not support
:03:30. > :03:34.the bill initially. I wanted lots of changes. A have the changes
:03:34. > :03:39.convinced you? Are you doing it with a heavy heart? This bill does
:03:39. > :03:44.not warm my entrails, to put it mildly. The changes that were
:03:44. > :03:49.forthcoming after the Lords efforts, making it unambiguous, and I wanted
:03:49. > :03:53.the NHS constitution, the spirit of 1948, which is deep in my
:03:53. > :03:56.generation, I wanted that in the bill and the amendment was agreed.
:03:56. > :04:03.The Secretary of State will have regard to the NHS constitution now,
:04:03. > :04:08.so there were changes. I think that Freddie how it should be peer of
:04:08. > :04:11.the year. That has been a gold standard performance. Without him,
:04:11. > :04:15.the bill would have been even more in the manure in the Lords than it
:04:15. > :04:21.has been. Talking about it being in the manure, it has been a
:04:21. > :04:24.disruptive bill, however you look at it. Looking at it historically,
:04:24. > :04:29.how does it compare to bills that have caused trouble for the
:04:29. > :04:35.Government? The problem with this bill is that it tries to blend and
:04:35. > :04:39.makes and reconcile the two great systems of post-war politics, or
:04:39. > :04:44.one is the free up the point of delivery announced by Clement
:04:44. > :04:51.Attlee. The other great weather make-up was Margaret Thatcher,
:04:51. > :05:00.individual market impulses. And in every great Bill, those two weather
:05:00. > :05:05.systems collide and that makes things very volatile. I think
:05:05. > :05:12.people will grab on to that. It is the clashing of two great weather
:05:12. > :05:15.systems. We will sue. There will be lots of bumping and grinding!
:05:15. > :05:18.will see. George Osborne has been meeting the
:05:18. > :05:23.other members of the quad for talks this morning. There has been plenty
:05:23. > :05:27.of speculation about what will be in the Budget box, as well as hints
:05:27. > :05:31.from George Osborne himself. He is expected to cut the top rate of tax
:05:31. > :05:34.from 50p to 45p. It is believed to form part of a deal with the Lib
:05:34. > :05:39.Dems so that the Budget will accelerate movement towards a
:05:39. > :05:43.minimum income tax threshold of �10,000. The Chancellor said
:05:43. > :05:47.yesterday that there would be measures to aggressively deal with
:05:47. > :05:54.tax avoidance. George Osborne also said that the Government wants to
:05:54. > :06:00.suspend Sunday trading laws during the Olympics. Plans to scrap public
:06:00. > :06:04.sector pay rates are also possible. Road expansion could also be funded
:06:04. > :06:08.with private money. On the 50p tax rate, there has been so much mood
:06:08. > :06:13.music and speculation that one presumes there will be some kind of
:06:13. > :06:19.movement. How pleased we have is does be if it is gone? The CBI said
:06:19. > :06:23.it was not a priority. The key thing is the type of business you
:06:23. > :06:28.are talking to. John Cridland represents major businesses,
:06:28. > :06:32.members of the FTSE 100 Group of leading companies, and their
:06:32. > :06:36.priority is on big growth initiatives. Smaller businesses,
:06:36. > :06:42.including people that go just into the threshold of the 50p tax,
:06:42. > :06:46.owning more than �150,000 a year, they have felt very strongly about
:06:46. > :06:49.it. There have been lots of small business groups saying that it
:06:49. > :06:56.deters entrepreneurs and put some of investing because they have to
:06:56. > :07:01.pay more tax. The critics are equally saying that if they find
:07:01. > :07:05.ways around paying it, which seems to be the case, then what is the
:07:05. > :07:07.problem? The vast majority of small businesses would praise any
:07:07. > :07:12.initiative like that. It is politically charged if the
:07:12. > :07:16.Chancellor does go down that route. Is the evidence anecdotal on this
:07:16. > :07:19.idea that it actually affects entrepreneurial activity? Are there
:07:19. > :07:25.figures to suggest that people actually take on fewer employees
:07:25. > :07:29.and so on? We only have one set of figures to go on, the January tax
:07:29. > :07:32.return data, which came in and was published in February. It showed
:07:32. > :07:37.that self-assessed income tax brought in a bit less than the
:07:37. > :07:40.previous year, even with the 50p top rate of tax, after the first
:07:40. > :07:45.year of operation. Clearly some people would have paid late in
:07:45. > :07:49.February. People probably thought that was not complete. With the
:07:49. > :07:55.Budget we will get HMRC and the tax authority's assessment of what it
:07:55. > :07:58.will raise. The Chancellor will announce what HMRC says and it is
:07:59. > :08:02.widely expected that they will think it only raises a few extra
:08:02. > :08:05.hundred million pounds, which sounds like a lot but is not. That
:08:05. > :08:10.will probably give him the cover if he goes ahead with a cut to say
:08:10. > :08:14.that he will not be losing very much if he cuts the top rate.
:08:14. > :08:19.growth, we have had this report looking at business growth over the
:08:19. > :08:23.last two years. What does it tell us? It shows a wide variation in
:08:23. > :08:29.experience of business creation. It looks at all types of businesses,
:08:29. > :08:35.salt traders and so on, that stop operating, and taking out of the
:08:35. > :08:39.equation anybody that goes bust. -- of sole traders and so on, that
:08:39. > :08:43.start operating. There has been growth in Scotland, but Northern
:08:43. > :08:47.Ireland. The report picks up winners and losers. Harlow in Essex
:08:47. > :08:53.had the strongest growth. Merseyside had the biggest fall.
:08:53. > :08:57.The growth picture is very varied around the UK. There is a lot of
:08:57. > :09:05.Mike Crone information, if you like, about what is going on about their
:09:05. > :09:09.in terms of the creation of wealth. -- minute information. Thank you.
:09:09. > :09:12.Earlier I spoke to Mark Prisk, and suggested that the research shows
:09:12. > :09:20.that growth has been patchy. would put it more positively. I
:09:20. > :09:24.would say it is a huge variety. The idea that there is a neat divide
:09:24. > :09:33.between North and South is out of date. What evidence have you got?
:09:33. > :09:42.In Merseyside, they performed the worse. It was minus 21.4%, which is
:09:42. > :09:46.pretty dreadful. But you show that Halton is better than the St Albans.
:09:46. > :09:50.Instead of having big regional quangos, we are having local
:09:50. > :09:54.enterprise partnerships, that deal with the local variations that you
:09:54. > :09:58.get within each region and that is an important shift. What did that
:09:58. > :10:02.mean? Looking at the figures across the board, it does indicate that
:10:02. > :10:07.there is a North-South divide. There may be examples that buck the
:10:07. > :10:10.trend, but in Belfast there is a decline of minus 1.9%, businesses
:10:10. > :10:16.are struggling in lots of areas across the North and in Northern
:10:16. > :10:19.Ireland. It means focusing policies on local priorities. Rather than
:10:19. > :10:23.having one policy in Whitehall that we think fits the whole of the
:10:23. > :10:27.North West, it means working with those partnerships. We have started
:10:27. > :10:31.them and they are up and running. In Merseyside we are setting what
:10:31. > :10:36.the priorities are. Whether they want to put export, training,
:10:36. > :10:39.skills at the front of their agenda, then we provide them with the tools,
:10:39. > :10:42.enterprise zones and so on. The difference between enterprise zones
:10:42. > :10:46.now and in the past, we let local areas choose where they should be
:10:46. > :10:51.in their locality. Are you expecting a big jump in growth in
:10:51. > :10:54.the next two years in Merseyside and Belfast? I am very excited by
:10:54. > :10:57.the small businesses and they have a great opportunity. I am going to
:10:57. > :11:07.help them with a coaching growth package. So the figures will grow
:11:07. > :11:13.up? We are looking forward for growth in many of those Areas.
:11:13. > :11:18.Absolutely. But in positive figures? Well, it will still be
:11:19. > :11:22.varied. Where are things growing? The last 10 or 15 years has not
:11:22. > :11:28.been happy in manufacturing but significant investments stories are
:11:28. > :11:32.coming through. That is affected by sector and by geography. Most of
:11:32. > :11:41.the growth is expected in London and the South East in areas like
:11:41. > :11:47.Financial, insurance and business sector areas. The enterprise zones
:11:47. > :11:53.are not in the South East. They are in the North West? Yes, Halton.
:11:53. > :11:58.That is just one example. Well, in the Tees Valley people think they
:11:58. > :12:05.are struggling but it is actually very positive there. What will the
:12:05. > :12:08.impact be on business of higher public sector pay, according to the
:12:08. > :12:16.Government? I come from Cornwall are rigidly. I have found that if
:12:16. > :12:21.one major employer can pay significantly more than the local
:12:21. > :12:29.average, it crowds out smaller businesses from recruiting the best.
:12:29. > :12:36.So it is battered to depress the wages in the whole area? -- it is
:12:36. > :12:39.better? No. You have to make sure there is not any imbalance. There
:12:39. > :12:43.are you saying that the brightest and the best are going to the
:12:43. > :12:47.public sector in Cornwall? There is a real danger of that. You have to
:12:47. > :12:51.make sure that the pay different is not as wide as in the past. You are
:12:51. > :12:55.saying that the bright and the best go to the public sector. There is
:12:55. > :12:59.no evidence that has happened so far. Come with me to the Welsh
:12:59. > :13:02.valleys and the North East. They will tell you that in our area
:13:02. > :13:07.people are making that rational decision that if they can get a
:13:07. > :13:12.steady salary and a better pension with a public agency, why work for
:13:12. > :13:16.a small business? We have to rebalance that. You are advocating
:13:16. > :13:21.less wages? That is less money to spend in the community and less
:13:21. > :13:25.growth. I will not prevent what the Chancellor says in the Budget. --
:13:25. > :13:29.pre- empt. We want to make sure that start-up businesses have a
:13:29. > :13:35.chance of competing, which will mean looking at wages so they get
:13:35. > :13:41.the brightest and best, payroll. there would be less money to spend
:13:41. > :13:44.in those areas? Not necessarily. Housing costs is the critical issue.
:13:44. > :13:48.If you are paid a salary in London, you housing costs are radically
:13:48. > :13:53.different to in the North East or whatever. We are looking at
:13:53. > :13:59.disposable income, that is key. Looking at Sunday trading, is it
:13:59. > :14:03.the intention to suspend Sunday trading after the Olympics if it
:14:03. > :14:06.goes well? I cannot get ahead of what George Osborne will say. We
:14:06. > :14:10.are looking at the Olympics because that is a one-off period and we
:14:10. > :14:14.want to make the most of it. Retail in particular has been under great
:14:14. > :14:21.pressure. It looks like that is what the Government will do. If it
:14:21. > :14:24.goes well, they will expand it. have to look at the evidence. We
:14:24. > :14:33.have been very clear on that. We have to make sure there is good
:14:33. > :14:36.evidence. This is a good chance, the Olympics. Why is it being
:14:36. > :14:45.brought in parts of Wales and England where there is not even a
:14:45. > :14:48.sniff of the Olympics? It is a good, practical idea. That is not a real
:14:48. > :14:51.reason for boosting retail as a result of the Olympics. There are
:14:51. > :14:55.only a few areas where events are going on. It is not a good enough
:14:55. > :14:59.justification for doing it across the whole country. The Olympics
:14:59. > :15:04.will be in London but it is a national event that everybody wants
:15:04. > :15:07.to be part of. Nobody is going to travel up North during the Olympics.
:15:07. > :15:11.I don't know the exact locations of every overseas Olympic team, but
:15:11. > :15:17.many of them are dotted around the country. They are going to be in
:15:17. > :15:21.the UK and it is important to have a national perspective. What about
:15:21. > :15:26.the shopkeepers that want to watch the events? They will be restricted
:15:26. > :15:31.now. The big question is whether they will be working for six hours
:15:31. > :15:35.or that could be expanded. Some retail outlet will not changed at
:15:35. > :15:41.all and they will remain closed. We are not for think anybody. It just
:15:41. > :15:51.freeze it up over that period so that people can see the events and
:15:51. > :15:55.
:15:55. > :16:01.We know that the idea Rob road- pricing is extremely unpopular.
:16:01. > :16:05.What is clear is that we believe that in terms of new build, there
:16:05. > :16:10.is an opportunity for looking at the private contractor or engaging
:16:10. > :16:15.in this market. And you can assure motorists that it would just be
:16:15. > :16:21.new-builds? That is what we plan. What about a new road being built
:16:21. > :16:25.often existing road? The details will be set up by the Prime
:16:25. > :16:28.Minister. And the full details will be set out to Parliament. Tempting
:16:28. > :16:34.as it is to give my view as a sneak preview, the Speaker would rightly
:16:34. > :16:39.say I should not do that. Tolls or no tolls? Quit and see.
:16:39. > :16:42.So, not clear whether motorists will face new charges or not if the
:16:42. > :16:46.government's plans on a road so off go ahead. A few minutes ago, this
:16:47. > :16:51.is what the Prime Minister said. need to look at innovative
:16:51. > :16:55.approaches to funding our national roads, to increase investment and
:16:55. > :16:59.reduce congestion. Road tolls are one option, but we are only
:16:59. > :17:04.considering this for new, not existing capacity. For example, we
:17:04. > :17:09.are looking at how improvements to the A14 could be part funded
:17:09. > :17:15.through tolling. But we need to be more ambitious. We should ask, why
:17:15. > :17:18.is it that other infrastructure, for example water, is funded by
:17:18. > :17:22.private sector capital through privately owned, independently
:17:22. > :17:28.regulated utilities, but roads in Britain still call on public
:17:28. > :17:31.finances? We need to look at the options for getting large-scale
:17:31. > :17:36.private investment into the national roads network, from a
:17:36. > :17:40.sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and other investors. That is
:17:40. > :17:44.why I have asked the Department of Transport and the Treasury to carry
:17:44. > :17:50.out a feasibility study of new ownership models for the national
:17:50. > :17:55.road system and to report progress to me in the autumn. This is not
:17:55. > :17:59.about mass tolling. We are not tolling existing roads. It is about
:17:59. > :18:04.getting more out of the money that motorists already pay. We are
:18:04. > :18:11.joined now by the Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle and Philip
:18:11. > :18:15.Gomm from the RAC. Philip, will members be happy? We are part of
:18:15. > :18:19.the RAC Foundation, an independent research charity. People will be
:18:19. > :18:22.happy that the Prime Minister has at last grasped the scale of the
:18:22. > :18:27.problem and is thinking about a solution. There has been a lack of
:18:27. > :18:33.political will to grasp the road situation over the last few years.
:18:33. > :18:36.We have heard about high-speed rail, but most of us use the roads.
:18:36. > :18:41.Congestion will rise, mostly because of the population increase.
:18:41. > :18:46.So it is welcome that he is at least recognising the problem.
:18:46. > :18:51.Maria Eagle, he is welcoming this idea because they are finally
:18:51. > :18:56.looking at the problem that exists on the roads, a lack of investment.
:18:56. > :19:00.The devil will be in the detail. But you accept the principle?
:19:00. > :19:05.will have to see what comes out of it. The Prime Minister is engaging
:19:05. > :19:10.in double speak when he talks about a new road capacity. It has been
:19:10. > :19:15.made clear that this could cover existing capacity. If you get a new
:19:15. > :19:18.junction on existing roads, what happens? The other fear is that
:19:19. > :19:22.this is a slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge to what will
:19:22. > :19:26.happen down the line, when all motorists might have to pay a per
:19:26. > :19:31.mile charge for using the roads. But you accept that something needs
:19:31. > :19:37.to be done? When you look at what Labour tried to do, the Government
:19:37. > :19:42.outlined plans for pay as you drive, and I remember the e-petition which
:19:42. > :19:47.meant that plan was dropped. It would have meant charging drivers.
:19:47. > :19:54.And it was dropped. They did not go ahead with it. There is no problem
:19:54. > :19:57.with looking at ideas. But it is not usual that the Prime Minister
:19:57. > :20:02.announces at a press conference that he will look at an idea unless
:20:02. > :20:08.it is taken that something will go ahead. It is not just our roads
:20:08. > :20:12.where the For Sale signs are going up. There is a plan to chop up and
:20:12. > :20:18.sell off our rail. But this is leasing the roads, not
:20:18. > :20:23.privatisation. I could say you are scaremongering. It remains to be
:20:23. > :20:26.seen what happens. We will look closely at this. Motorists could
:20:26. > :20:30.end up being clobbered, and they are already paying the highest
:20:30. > :20:38.petrol prices they have ever paid. If while you say something needs to
:20:38. > :20:42.be done in terms of investing in the roads, the figure of �1 billion,
:20:42. > :20:47.sounds a lot but it might not be that much. But motorists already
:20:47. > :20:52.pay quite big taxes. People may think, we will end up paying more
:20:52. > :20:56.and more. We have never advocated any system of tolling on top of
:20:56. > :21:01.existing taxation. If you are going to have a wholesale change, you
:21:01. > :21:05.need to do away with things like fuel duty. Motorists pay too much.
:21:05. > :21:09.But we have a hand to mouth existence for things like the
:21:09. > :21:13.Highways Agency and the moment. Each year the Budget said,
:21:13. > :21:18.politicians do not know if they are coming or going. The water industry
:21:18. > :21:21.has to make plans for 25 years hence. The railway industry has to
:21:21. > :21:25.plan for five years hence. We have nothing like that for the roads,
:21:25. > :21:30.yet we are reliant on them. Why do people think there might be a
:21:31. > :21:33.danger of skipping on maintenance? There would be no guarantee that
:21:33. > :21:39.the companies involved would spend money on maintaining the roads.
:21:39. > :21:42.They would take their profits, and that would be that. Fee I am not
:21:42. > :21:46.here to support the Prime Minister. But my water is supplied by a
:21:47. > :21:51.private sector company. My trap worked this morning. I read your
:21:51. > :21:58.researcher this morning. That worked. I came on the railways this
:21:58. > :22:04.morning. That worked. What is the alternative? What has happened to
:22:04. > :22:10.the railway industry is that passengers are paying record fairs.
:22:10. > :22:15.What is the alternative? We need to look at all options. It is not fair
:22:15. > :22:19.to say there has been no investment in our roads. Fay but the
:22:19. > :22:23.concentration has been on the big projects like high-speed rail. A
:22:24. > :22:28.lot of Transport reports over the years have said what is needed is
:22:28. > :22:32.something unglamorous to deal with the current system of roads. This
:22:32. > :22:36.is about the future of our economy. Without good transport
:22:36. > :22:42.infrastructure that is affordable, people can't get to work. It is not
:22:42. > :22:46.just about a utility. They can't get to work if the road network is
:22:46. > :22:51.at a standstill. We have to tackle the problem, so we welcome the
:22:51. > :22:56.statement this morning. Despite what Philip Gomm has said,
:22:56. > :22:59.traditionally, people do not like the idea of road pricing. Would
:22:59. > :23:05.there have to be a big change in public attitude to make this
:23:05. > :23:09.successful? I think so. But I detect two impulses behind this.
:23:09. > :23:14.Mrs Thatcher's government hoped their financial position through
:23:14. > :23:20.the big privatisations. There is nothing left except the Post Office.
:23:20. > :23:28.So this is another way of easing public finances. And there is a
:23:28. > :23:32.huge under-investment in the roads. But I preferred this route that is
:23:32. > :23:41.being floated to the private finance initiative, whereby we
:23:41. > :23:47.shove the debts for our cousins -- consumption today on to our
:23:47. > :23:52.children and grandchildren. devil is in the detail. If it was
:23:52. > :23:59.very clear that it will not affect the existing network, would you
:23:59. > :24:04.support that? Rebuilt the M6 toll on that basis. This is about
:24:04. > :24:10.charging people for using junctions or existing -- new lanes on
:24:10. > :24:14.existing roads. It is a slippery slope to fall charging. People say
:24:15. > :24:19.we have to do something, and using to be frightening the horses before
:24:19. > :24:27.the details have come out. We have to look carefully at what comes out
:24:27. > :24:31.of this proposal. There will be certain principles to bear in mind.
:24:32. > :24:34.Now, in opposition, David Cameron criticised the number of political
:24:34. > :24:38.appointees known as special advisers recruited by Gordon Brown
:24:38. > :24:42.and his ministers, and promised to scare them back. In fact, the
:24:42. > :24:46.number employed by government has gone up under the coalition. But
:24:46. > :24:55.what of those who become spin- doctors, those who monitor the
:24:55. > :25:00.media message? Are they good or a bad thing for British politics?
:25:00. > :25:03.Today's specialist media advisers for ministers and shadow ministers,
:25:03. > :25:09.what we somewhat lazy describe as spin-doctors, do do an important
:25:10. > :25:15.job. They make sure their bosses are heard. They make sure that what
:25:15. > :25:18.is written is written fairly, and when they are not, that they are
:25:18. > :25:22.rebutted quickly. They are there to make sure that interviews go
:25:22. > :25:27.properly, that the message is boarder cross, that kids are not
:25:27. > :25:31.taken out of context, and that questions are fair, and that the
:25:31. > :25:35.journalists and their boss have some background before they start.
:25:35. > :25:39.The Prime Minister's personal press secretary has been working with him
:25:39. > :25:43.since the days he was Shadow Education Secretary. Once selected
:25:43. > :25:47.by GQ magazine as one of 100 things you can't live without, she proved
:25:47. > :25:51.her worth and loyalty to David Cameron, and commands the respect
:25:51. > :25:55.of many journalists. She worked closely with Andy Coulson and now
:25:55. > :25:59.Craig Oliver as director of communications of damage it. Ed
:25:59. > :26:05.Miliband looked to Bob Roberts, on the right, and Tom Baldwin on the
:26:05. > :26:09.left to address the press. People say they are tabloid and broadsheet,
:26:09. > :26:14.Roberts the shop message maker who tells it like it is, Baldwin the
:26:14. > :26:18.more considered strategic thinker. Internally, Baldwin's dog has
:26:18. > :26:22.changed to head of strategy, although some say that is being
:26:22. > :26:27.sidelined. But Roberts is still part of the day-to-day operation.
:26:27. > :26:31.Nick Clegg has traditionally relied on to a party press officer before
:26:31. > :26:35.he became leader. She became visible as the media adviser to the
:26:35. > :26:39.Deputy PM, but his count John maternity leave and has been
:26:39. > :26:43.replaced by Olly Grender, no stranger to TV cameras, as she
:26:43. > :26:49.swapped being an informed pundit to informing pundits with ease. Nick
:26:49. > :26:53.Clegg also has James McGrory. a parliamentary researcher. Don't
:26:53. > :26:58.know how he fed on Eggheads, but he is smart enough to get out of shot
:26:58. > :27:06.when his boss is about do a photo op. In 2009, Chancellor George
:27:06. > :27:11.Osborne headhunted his adviser. He is thought highly capable by
:27:11. > :27:15.colleagues and his boss says he never sleeps. Long and loyal
:27:15. > :27:18.service is a traitor in these media adviser positions, and Alex has
:27:18. > :27:22.been working for shadow Chancellor Ed Balls for six years, in
:27:22. > :27:27.government and opposition, which he says differs in that now it is
:27:27. > :27:31.about getting your boss heard as much as how he has had. He says the
:27:31. > :27:35.role is 24/7 and his boss says he is trusted and one of the people
:27:35. > :27:39.with him who can tell him no. If you have never heard of these
:27:39. > :27:46.people, that is good. They are doing their job. Those that become
:27:46. > :27:50.the story do not last, such as Damien McBride and Jo Moore, she of
:27:50. > :27:55."Berry bad news" fame, and of course Andy Coulson. But why should
:27:55. > :27:58.you care? Well, those who wear the -- walk in the wake of one and
:27:58. > :28:03.politicians, who watch their backs from the background, have a habit
:28:03. > :28:06.of popping up front again in the future.
:28:06. > :28:10.John in my hours Patrick Diamond, policy adviser to Tony Blair and
:28:10. > :28:14.Peter Mandelson, now a Labour councillor in the London borough of
:28:14. > :28:21.Southwark. Peter Hennessy, the rhetoric was all about fewer
:28:21. > :28:24.special advisers, but they have got more than before. That suggests
:28:24. > :28:28.that they are a vital part of the operation. People have become used
:28:28. > :28:34.to them as part of the entourage. I have always been spectacle about
:28:34. > :28:40.special advising. I have no Popple -- I have no problem with people
:28:40. > :28:44.being recruited who have special knowledge. But those who have no
:28:44. > :28:47.experience, all they can do is reinforce the prejudices of their
:28:47. > :28:53.Secretary of State. The one attribute that politicians are not
:28:53. > :28:57.short of is raw political prejudice. Award not touch them if I was a
:28:57. > :29:01.Secretary of State for unless they really knew something. The test is
:29:01. > :29:05.between those who know and those who believe. You defend special
:29:05. > :29:11.advisers. Some of those points do need to be taken seriously. There
:29:11. > :29:16.are issues about the quality of policy advice provided by civil
:29:17. > :29:20.servants and special advisers. When we discuss special advisers, we
:29:20. > :29:25.tend to look at extreme examples like Jo Moore and Damien McBride.
:29:25. > :29:29.Most would agree that they are extreme examples of what can go
:29:29. > :29:33.wrong. But if you talk to a lot of civil servants, they will tell you
:29:33. > :29:36.that special advisers are often very valued in government
:29:36. > :29:44.departments, because they help provide steers on what the Minister
:29:44. > :29:48.thinks and can bring new ideas into the policy process. Peter Hennessy,
:29:48. > :29:53.isn't it a point that some of the political problems that the
:29:53. > :29:58.coalition have come up against, like the NHS Bill, like forests,
:29:58. > :30:02.the things that have caused U-turns, political advisers have said to me,
:30:02. > :30:06.that would not have happened if I had been there. We would have
:30:06. > :30:13.foreseen that -- how that would have paid out politically. That
:30:13. > :30:18.intrigues me. I was a political journalist in the '70s. The
:30:18. > :30:24.politicians then did not need some EUR24 to smell problems in a bill
:30:24. > :30:30.that was forthcoming. -- they did not need a 24-year-old to smell
:30:30. > :30:35.problems in a bill that was forthcoming. A lot tougher special
:30:35. > :30:38.advisers have risen without trace. It is the only job they have ever
:30:38. > :30:42.done. You can't legislate, but I would want people to have done
:30:42. > :30:52.proper jobs where evidence is the main determinant of what you do
:30:52. > :30:53.
:30:53. > :30:57.before you advise government. But We will not pass to a side! The
:30:57. > :31:04.other important thing about special advises his relationship with the
:31:04. > :31:09.Civil Service. Are they not there to try and advance policies because
:31:09. > :31:12.some people would argue that the Civil Service can be a block to the
:31:12. > :31:16.sort of narrative the Government wants to put through? That is where
:31:16. > :31:21.special advisers come into their own, whether they be in experienced
:31:21. > :31:26.or not. But quality ones could push the direction of Government policy.
:31:26. > :31:29.I would not draw this black-and- white distinction between what
:31:29. > :31:34.special advisers do and civil servants. But aren't they supposed
:31:34. > :31:38.to be distinct? There should always be attention to evidence, an
:31:38. > :31:42.examination of what the best policy ideas available are, in this
:31:42. > :31:46.country and abroad, and there should always be attention paid to
:31:46. > :31:49.what we can bring to the policy process. There are clearly some
:31:49. > :31:53.exceptionally bright civil servants that do that and anything special
:31:53. > :31:58.advisers have also contributed in that way. It is about getting the
:31:58. > :32:02.best out of both. If you speak to senior, experienced civil servants,
:32:02. > :32:06.they will say that special advisers can help to prevent the civil
:32:06. > :32:10.service from being politicised. If you have advises there in a clearly
:32:10. > :32:14.political role, then civil servants cannot be put in a position where
:32:14. > :32:20.they have to handle political issues that are not good for
:32:20. > :32:24.holding up the best positions of civil servant neutrality. But it is
:32:24. > :32:28.people just bringing in people that will make them feel good. How can
:32:28. > :32:32.they add to the total of the political process? And not just be
:32:32. > :32:37.that he or she is a sycophantic, we will help the minister feel better
:32:37. > :32:42.and say what they want to hear? will not defend my own appointment
:32:42. > :32:45.as a special adviser in the light of those comments! I think any
:32:45. > :32:50.Secretary of State recognises that they need people around them that
:32:50. > :32:55.are capable of speaking truth to power, in the immortal phrase, of
:32:55. > :32:59.putting arguments that are contrary to the position of the minister.
:32:59. > :33:02.When we have had a good Secretary of State, they have assembled a
:33:02. > :33:05.team of political advisers and civil servants that are capable of
:33:05. > :33:09.challenging them and bringing new ideas to the table and bring
:33:09. > :33:14.forward new solutions. That has to be part of the governing process.
:33:14. > :33:18.And a good training ground for future leaders? Ed Miliband, David
:33:18. > :33:24.Cameron, Nick Clegg, they were all advisers of one description or
:33:24. > :33:27.another. I wish they had all done a proper job first. With this stellar
:33:27. > :33:30.political class now, I am breathless and in all, but they
:33:30. > :33:35.would be even better if they had done a proper job at some point
:33:35. > :33:40.between adolescent days as student politicians and now. Rather than
:33:40. > :33:46.being career politicians? Yes. Let's come on to briefings. Special
:33:46. > :33:51.advisers do that, successfully sometimes and not so in others.
:33:51. > :34:01.This has been discussed and argued over, this Budget, more than any
:34:01. > :34:03.
:34:03. > :34:10.other. I think it is the most elite. Verging on the Continent. -- the
:34:10. > :34:14.most leaked out. Verging on in Continent. The Conservatives are by
:34:14. > :34:18.and large carnivorous and they find it difficult to live with the Lib
:34:18. > :34:24.Dems. That is the big divide in politics, left and right, herbivore,
:34:24. > :34:30.carnivore. I think the coalition will ensure but it will get harder
:34:30. > :34:34.and there will be much more of this. -- will endure. A Labour are
:34:34. > :34:39.slightly crowded out of this, aren't they? It is quite hard for
:34:39. > :34:42.Labour. The fact that there is a coalition Government will make any
:34:42. > :34:45.Budget announcement process different to that of previous
:34:45. > :34:49.governments. I think the level of briefing has been extraordinary and
:34:49. > :34:54.it is a problem and it raises questions about parliamentary
:34:54. > :35:02.accountability. Having said that, there were allegations that...
:35:02. > :35:07.allegations! That Tony Blair did not know what was in the Budget
:35:07. > :35:11.before Gordon Brown announced it. But people will wonder what George
:35:11. > :35:21.Osborne will say on Wednesday that is different and you compare to
:35:21. > :35:21.
:35:21. > :35:25.what has been announced. A fear of an anti-climax, perhaps. -- new
:35:25. > :35:28.compared to what has been announced. This week is a big week in
:35:28. > :35:31.Westminster. The Queen will make an address to
:35:31. > :35:35.both Houses of Parliament as part of a Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
:35:35. > :35:40.On Wednesday, George Osborne will deliver his third Budget. MPs will
:35:40. > :35:43.then debate it in the days that followed. On Friday, David Cameron
:35:43. > :35:53.is expected to rally the troops at the Scottish Conservative
:35:53. > :35:56.conference. To get some perspective on all that. -- of all that, I am
:35:56. > :36:00.joined by Anushka Asthana and Andrew Pierce. Political problems
:36:00. > :36:03.of scrapping 50p. David Cameron desperate to get away from the idea
:36:03. > :36:07.that the Tories are the party of the rich. The political problem has
:36:07. > :36:12.always been a problem. Most Conservatives think that it should
:36:13. > :36:16.be scrapped immediately and down to 40p, not 45p, which still makes us
:36:16. > :36:20.one of the highest taxed countries in the world. It is a compromise,
:36:20. > :36:24.and not just in a court of public opinion. They have to compromise
:36:24. > :36:28.with the Liberal Democrats, by instinct they prefer to keep the
:36:28. > :36:33.50p tax rate and have the mansion tax which would hit many properties
:36:33. > :36:40.in David Cameron and George Osborne's affluent constituencies.
:36:40. > :36:44.Let's say they were to scrap it, be getting a 45p, how much goodwill
:36:44. > :36:49.does that give George Osborne from the backbenches? It would cheer
:36:49. > :36:56.them up no end. There are some of them in more working-class
:36:56. > :36:59.constituencies, like Harlow, where they would be worried. But it would
:36:59. > :37:04.cheer them up because the Liberal Democrat tale is not wagging the
:37:04. > :37:09.dog. But this has been so well leaked, that I think it will happen.
:37:09. > :37:13.I have never seen a Budget like this. What about purdah? No wonder
:37:13. > :37:21.there are hosepipe bans because this lot have been leaking like a
:37:21. > :37:25.large service! And for weeks, it seems. The downside is that after
:37:25. > :37:30.all the speculation, if they don't get some of the policies they have
:37:30. > :37:34.been pushing for, their mansion tax for instance, the political fall-
:37:34. > :37:38.out for the Lib Dems will be even greater. We are pretty sure they
:37:38. > :37:44.will not get the mansion tax. You can tell by the way the leaking has
:37:44. > :37:51.shifted slightly into. They are trying to argue that the tax
:37:51. > :37:55.avoidance measures may be packaged up as a tycoon tax and that is the
:37:55. > :37:58.equivalent. Whether the backbenches and grass roots can be convinced, I
:37:58. > :38:03.am not sure. They will get the raising of the threshold, even if
:38:03. > :38:08.it is not as much as they like. And the tycoon tax, is it really
:38:08. > :38:12.credible? It depends what you mean by it. When people originally
:38:12. > :38:16.talked about the tycoon tax, they thought of it as the minimum rate
:38:16. > :38:20.of tax. What they are talking about is a limit on tax breaks. To be
:38:20. > :38:23.honest, I think that will be very difficult for them to implement. We
:38:23. > :38:27.will have to see what they say on Wednesday. I spoke to some
:38:27. > :38:31.grassroots members the other day, and they were not ready to stick
:38:31. > :38:36.the knife in yet and they wanted to see the details on Wednesday.
:38:36. > :38:40.child benefit, what is the latest? Where could this cliff edge be
:38:40. > :38:44.raised to, presuming it is raised? There will be a cliff edge and they
:38:44. > :38:49.cannot get round it. The policy was first floated one year ago and they
:38:49. > :38:56.are still scrabbling around with figures. There has been a
:38:56. > :39:00.compromise to placate Tory rebels again and this will please the
:39:00. > :39:03.Liberal Democrat, who are keen on this policy. The opinion polls
:39:03. > :39:08.suggest that George Osborne is not women-friendly and child benefit is
:39:08. > :39:12.the one benefit paid directly to women. He is aware of that. Will it
:39:12. > :39:16.be enough to alleviate the political problems? They will still
:39:16. > :39:21.go ahead with the policy. I think they have still got a problem. If
:39:21. > :39:25.they raise the threshold to �50,000, there will be a position when it
:39:25. > :39:32.your income families earning �19,000 will get it and those on
:39:32. > :39:36.low incomes will lose it. -- �90,000. George Osborne said he was
:39:36. > :39:40.for the policy. He said that even if you do not feel rich, you are in
:39:40. > :39:44.the top percentage of income. He said that if they did not take
:39:44. > :39:47.charge benefit of those families, then those people would hardly
:39:47. > :39:56.contributed deficit-reduction battle. I think the reason they
:39:56. > :40:03.will keep it is that otherwise they graphs would turn on their head and
:40:03. > :40:07.that is the problem they are facing. Looking at this road policy idea,
:40:07. > :40:13.what is the up side politically? You can talk about investment and
:40:13. > :40:21.the roads being staff, but headlines say that motorists pay
:40:21. > :40:25.for road pricing. -- being staffed. Yes, and this has been kicked
:40:25. > :40:28.around for some time. Labour looked at this and put it away. Unless
:40:28. > :40:33.there is private money injected into the crumbling road structure,
:40:33. > :40:36.that will happen, it will crumble. But the problem is if existing
:40:36. > :40:41.roads get a charged and private companies can improve tolls across
:40:41. > :40:44.the country. They will look and countries like France, where
:40:44. > :40:48.motorists routinely pay tolls. But you have to remind people here that
:40:48. > :40:52.they do already pay road tax. It is a pity that the Government never
:40:52. > :40:59.spent any of the money on the roads. That will be the big question,
:40:59. > :41:04.putting it back into the roads. Do you think there will be any
:41:04. > :41:08.surprises?! There has to be! We found that we could write pretty
:41:08. > :41:12.much everything that was in it this morning, as far as we could tell.
:41:12. > :41:16.George Osborne is a very political Chancellor. Surely he will have a
:41:16. > :41:20.rabbit to pull out of his hat. most popular one would be something
:41:20. > :41:24.to do on fuel duty which has gone through the roof and is affected by
:41:24. > :41:28.issues like the Middle East. They are moving away from that, which is
:41:28. > :41:33.all the more reason to suggest that is what they are going to do.
:41:33. > :41:37.course! Thank you. Joining me for the rest of the
:41:37. > :41:42.programme of three of Westminster's finest. Andrea Leadsom, John Leech
:41:42. > :41:47.from the Lib Dems, and Heidi Alexander it from Labour. Should
:41:47. > :41:50.the 50p rate go? On a fiscal basis, yes, but on a political basis I
:41:50. > :41:59.think it can only go at the same time as the public sector pay
:41:59. > :42:05.freeze ends. You would not like to see it go in this Budget? He needs
:42:05. > :42:09.to set the direction of travel. There is research that shows that
:42:09. > :42:13.high rates of tax causes uncertain consequences and people used legal
:42:13. > :42:19.avoidance measures. If you keep it at a level that people consent to,
:42:19. > :42:24.you will generate more taxes. girly it is the right thing to do?
:42:24. > :42:28.-- in fiscal terms? It is not the right thing to do. Ordinary
:42:28. > :42:36.families are really struggling. A young people cannot get jobs. To
:42:36. > :42:41.give a tax break to the richest 1% of people is not right. How do you
:42:41. > :42:44.announce it on the doorstep? More I argue has always been that we
:42:44. > :42:49.should be increasing the personal allowance. That should be the
:42:49. > :42:53.number one priority. Personally, I think we get the debate about the
:42:53. > :42:57.50p tax rate wrong. Yes, people are avoiding it, but rather than
:42:57. > :43:00.scrapping it because people are avoiding it, I would like to see us
:43:00. > :43:07.stopping people avoiding it in the first place. So you would keep it?
:43:07. > :43:11.Yes. I don't think people are avoiding the 50p tax rate. The
:43:11. > :43:17.point is that people have legal avoidance opportunities in their
:43:17. > :43:20.general taxation. That is what we need to clamp down on. If you
:43:20. > :43:24.wanted to define a tycoon tax as stopping wealthy people from being
:43:24. > :43:28.able to avoid taxes, I don't think the 50p tax rate is one that they
:43:28. > :43:32.can easily avoid. For most people it is the straightforward measure
:43:32. > :43:38.of total income. So it is a good thing. You have just argued against
:43:38. > :43:42.the idea that people will pay it. The Government has always said
:43:42. > :43:48.people avoid paying it. What happens is that over a period of
:43:48. > :43:52.time, companies and individuals put in place measures to avoid it.
:43:52. > :43:55.Turning it into capital gains, equities, whatever it is, to avoid
:43:55. > :43:59.paying it over time. The problem if you have a top rate of tax that is
:43:59. > :44:03.too high is that when you come to reduce it, you do not lose his
:44:03. > :44:10.avoidance measures. Your total tax take reduces permanently and I
:44:10. > :44:13.would be worried about that. Will other Liberal Democrat be unhappy?
:44:13. > :44:17.Generally speaking the Liberal Democrats are in favour of
:44:17. > :44:21.increasing the personal allowance and that must be the priority.
:44:21. > :44:25.you vote against the Budget if the 50p tax rate goes? Let's see what
:44:25. > :44:29.is in the Budget before we speculate about how Liberal
:44:29. > :44:32.Democrat MPs might vote. There seems to be some movement on it
:44:32. > :44:37.otherwise there would not be all the speculation. You want to see
:44:37. > :44:42.some balance. If they raise the bottom threshold a bit, will that
:44:42. > :44:47.be enough to mitigate your fears? My view is that if there is to be
:44:47. > :44:51.movement on the 50p rate, there needs to be a mansion tax, or and
:44:51. > :44:55.alternative tax that will take money away from the wealthy. Will
:44:55. > :45:02.Nick Clegg have failed if there is no mansion tax? Let's wait and see
:45:02. > :45:10.what is in the Budget. I am confident that there will be
:45:10. > :45:14.measures to stop richer people avoiding tax payments. Just to stop
:45:14. > :45:19.them avoiding? Nothing more substantial? I am not privy to
:45:19. > :45:24.those discussions but I would like to see that. Would you be happy
:45:24. > :45:30.with a mansion tax? This has come down to the debate that is either
:45:30. > :45:34.or, mansion tax or 50p rate. you want both? We need the 50p rate
:45:34. > :45:38.to stay and to be enforced. And people cannot afford it. I have
:45:38. > :45:44.always thought that the upper rate of council tax band could be
:45:44. > :45:54.differentiated for. That could be another way around it. There should
:45:54. > :45:54.
:45:54. > :45:59.Looking at the idea of raising the threshold, that does nothing for
:45:59. > :46:04.the poor who do not work. And people higher up the income scale
:46:04. > :46:09.will benefit more than those at the bottom. For a start, people who do
:46:09. > :46:12.not work have benefited from a reasonable increase in their
:46:12. > :46:16.benefits that people are working have not benefited from. Which
:46:16. > :46:21.benefits? A unemployment benefit has gone up by inflation, which
:46:21. > :46:28.other pay hasn't done. People who are working, on the other hand, on
:46:28. > :46:32.the lowest incomes, will in future benefit significantly. The
:46:32. > :46:37.Chancellor will want to adjust bands to make sure those at the low
:46:37. > :46:43.end benefit most. Last time round, more people were dragged into the
:46:43. > :46:46.top rate of tax. That will stop any growth prospects at that level,
:46:46. > :46:50.which the Chancellor wants to encourage. I don't think so,
:46:50. > :46:54.because if you increase the tax- free threshold for the poorest
:46:54. > :47:00.workers, it makes it fiscally neutral for those on a high income.
:47:00. > :47:04.That helps the least well-off and makes it not worse offer for the
:47:04. > :47:12.higher earners. But you also need to look at the shorter working tax
:47:12. > :47:16.credits. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen people earning
:47:16. > :47:20.�80,000 who could lose out as a result of changes to working tax
:47:20. > :47:24.credits. The proposals that if you are working for 16 hours per week,
:47:25. > :47:31.you have to increase that to 24 hours per week or risk losing those
:47:31. > :47:36.working tax credits, that could mean thousands of pounds lost for
:47:36. > :47:40.families. You have got to bear in mind that this is currently unfair
:47:40. > :47:46.on single parents who have to work 16 hours to get the tax credits,
:47:46. > :47:48.whereas a couple only have to work 16 hours. So there is an element of
:47:49. > :47:53.fairness about increasing the amount of hours that a couple have
:47:53. > :47:58.to work. But you can't just look at thresholds, you have to look at the
:47:58. > :48:03.whole system of support to people in work. People in low-paid work at
:48:03. > :48:08.the moment are struggling the most. Let me ask about regional pay. Is
:48:08. > :48:12.this something you would support? Let's see what is actually said in
:48:12. > :48:16.the Budget. In principle, do support the idea that different
:48:17. > :48:21.parts of the country should have a lower pay? In principle, no I do
:48:21. > :48:25.not agree. In practice, you have to accept that in the south-east,
:48:25. > :48:29.there has to be an additional amount of money for people to be
:48:29. > :48:33.able to live on in places like London. But in principle, I am not
:48:33. > :48:37.in favour. Do you think it would depress wages overall in these
:48:37. > :48:42.areas? Apart from the fact that we are trying to encourage departments
:48:42. > :48:48.to move from the south-east to other regions of the country, how
:48:48. > :48:56.can we do that if we say people will be expected to be paid less?
:48:56. > :49:01.disagree. In some regions of the UK, the private sector is crowded out.
:49:01. > :49:04.Whatever does is there that the private sector, in places like the
:49:05. > :49:08.north-east, where there is not much private sector, what evidence is
:49:08. > :49:12.there that it is being crowded out? If you look at the average public
:49:12. > :49:16.sector salary compared to a private sector salary for a similar job,
:49:16. > :49:23.the one is considerably higher than the other. Wide-eyed at all down,
:49:23. > :49:27.then? You would not drag it down, you would be freezing pay. Where
:49:27. > :49:31.the debate has gone so wrong in this country is, the private sector
:49:32. > :49:36.pays for the public sector. Without the private sector, we don't have
:49:36. > :49:39.any public sectors. If we simply say the private sector cannot
:49:39. > :49:44.compete with the public sector in the regions, we are on a hiding to
:49:44. > :49:49.nothing. Surely pay rates have to reflect local circumstances?
:49:49. > :49:54.London, we already have London weighting. That is because the cost
:49:54. > :50:00.of living are so much higher than elsewhere in the country. But my
:50:00. > :50:03.problem with this is, why should a teacher in Sheffield be paid
:50:03. > :50:07.differently from a teacher in Swindon? Are we talking about
:50:07. > :50:16.frontline services in the same way? Are you talking about teachers and
:50:16. > :50:21.nurses and so on? I agree that if your house costs you �50,000 for it
:50:21. > :50:25.three-bedroom house in the north of England, versus your three-bedroom
:50:25. > :50:30.house costing you �1 million in London, a London weighting is not
:50:31. > :50:34.enough of a differential to encourage a level playing field.
:50:34. > :50:39.does not sound like you will like much in this Budget. We will have
:50:39. > :50:42.to see what is in the Budget, but I am confident that we will see
:50:42. > :50:46.movement in the direction I would like to see on the personal
:50:46. > :50:52.allowance. Let's hope so after all the speculation!
:50:52. > :50:59.Now, if you saw Friday's programme, you might remember this. I have not
:50:59. > :51:03.got that figure to hand, but I can assure you that Ed Balls, as our
:51:03. > :51:11.Shadow Chancellor, has. So has Ed Miliband. But the costs are
:51:11. > :51:14.important. Yes, they are. If you say they are going to be covered by
:51:14. > :51:22.the Bank of's bonus, people have to be assured that it will raise
:51:22. > :51:26.enough money and it will cover this real jobs guarantee. I think it is
:51:26. > :51:31.�600 million. I have not got the fingers at my fingertips. I
:51:31. > :51:36.apologise for that. The deputy Labour leader's problems are a
:51:36. > :51:39.reminder that mixing TV and politics can go wrong. Ms Harman's
:51:39. > :51:43.mistake was much you -- what you might call a schoolgirl error -
:51:43. > :51:47.never attempt a policy interview if you don't know the policy. In a
:51:47. > :51:57.spirit of generosity and a desire to help our guests do their best,
:51:57. > :51:57.
:51:57. > :52:04.here is our guide to the golden rules of political television.
:52:04. > :52:14.You are a transient, here today and gone tomorrow politician. This is
:52:14. > :52:18.
:52:18. > :52:22.If you look at our by-election wins, most of them have achieved
:52:22. > :52:32.something substantial. What did Christchurch achieve? That is a
:52:32. > :52:37.
:52:37. > :52:45.good question. What is the answer? You are talking in the region of
:52:45. > :52:55.20... Yeah. I mean, if you take a double income couple, �20,000 each,
:52:55. > :53:01.
:53:01. > :53:05.that is what you are talking about. It is three agencies of government
:53:05. > :53:15.when I get there, that are gone - Commerce, education and, what is
:53:15. > :53:27.
:53:27. > :53:33.Oh, commerce education and um... Can you name the three of them?
:53:33. > :53:38.Look, what I say is, Tom Harris, Joanne log on, and the third
:53:38. > :53:44.candidate, who is also putting himself forward. The front-runner,
:53:44. > :53:49.Ken Macintosh. The Guardian's Simon Hogg it is here, along with our MPs.
:53:49. > :53:54.Isn't it a bit unfair to expect so much of politicians? They are
:53:54. > :53:59.interviewed all the time. They have to feed the beast that is 24 hour
:53:59. > :54:04.news. We can't expect them to remember every detail. Of course. A
:54:04. > :54:07.lot of politicians have a seven second loop on radio phone-ins in
:54:07. > :54:13.case anyone says anything obscene or libellous. You have seven
:54:13. > :54:16.seconds for the host to cut them off. And most politicians have that
:54:16. > :54:21.loop in their head - am I going to offend my leader or upset someone
:54:21. > :54:26.in my constituency? And it is one that loop breakdown, when someone
:54:26. > :54:30.gets too relaxed. David Frost was such a good interviewer because he
:54:30. > :54:35.made them feel almost soporific he happy. Another problem was not
:54:35. > :54:40.understanding the way TV works. Keith Joseph, the late and lamented,
:54:40. > :54:45.was once interviewed and he said, that is terrible. Get rid of that.
:54:45. > :54:50.And the chap said, that has just gone out live to thousands of homes.
:54:50. > :54:57.And he said, I don't want any of your technical excuses! I do not
:54:57. > :55:05.think people would make that mistake now. John Prescott did.
:55:05. > :55:09.remember that. Cut. Sorry, too late. But people are only human, even
:55:09. > :55:14.politicians. But are other ways of avoiding being pushed down that
:55:14. > :55:17.sort of dead-end alley or being asked very specific questions that
:55:18. > :55:23.need a specific response, like figures and names, that you can try
:55:23. > :55:27.and avoid? You need a special adviser who says, these are the
:55:27. > :55:32.questions you will be asked. This is Jeremy Paxman. He takes no
:55:32. > :55:37.prisoners. This is what you have to say if he asks that. Michael Howard
:55:37. > :55:40.would not be in such trouble when Jeremy Paxman asked him the same
:55:40. > :55:46.question 11 times. You have to be prepared. Harriet Harman waved her
:55:46. > :55:50.hands and said, the figures are over there, as if they were hiding
:55:50. > :55:55.behind the daffodils in that clip. You can't do that. You have to know
:55:55. > :55:59.what is going to come up. How much preparation do you do before
:55:59. > :56:03.interviews? Is there a sense of, you can't remember everything, or
:56:03. > :56:08.you are vaguely across the issues so that you come on to programmes
:56:08. > :56:13.knowing enough? I always do some homework and get a brief on the
:56:13. > :56:17.subject. But in reality, you could always catch me out. You could ask
:56:17. > :56:21.me, what is the capital of wherever? And I would not know and
:56:21. > :56:26.I would look stupid. There is an element of trust between
:56:26. > :56:29.politicians and interviewers. those interviews, you are asking
:56:29. > :56:34.about the policy on the day. It seems fair that you should have the
:56:34. > :56:38.figures at hand. But politicians often try and pretend they know
:56:38. > :56:41.everything. If we are more honest that we don't know everything and
:56:41. > :56:47.can't be expected to know everything, people would accept it
:56:47. > :56:53.when we get it wrong. What about party political views, what did you
:56:53. > :56:58.think when you saw Harriet Harman struggle? We are all human. But
:56:58. > :57:04.there is that old saying that if you fail to prepare, you prepare to
:57:04. > :57:09.fail. As far as possible, you have to think through what the obvious
:57:09. > :57:13.questions will be and try and no those key figures. But as Andrea
:57:13. > :57:18.said, you always run the risk of being caught out. Worst moments?
:57:18. > :57:24.worst moment was as a transport spokesperson in the last Parliament.
:57:24. > :57:32.I forgot to pay my road tax. Did it come out? Yes. From your local
:57:32. > :57:38.paper? It was hopefully spread in the paper by my opposition. That is
:57:38. > :57:43.a bit unfortunate. For you, Andrea? At the moment, it is the fear of
:57:43. > :57:48.that awful day that keeps me on the straight and narrow. But in
:57:48. > :57:52.response to what John said about needing to show that you don't
:57:53. > :57:57.necessarily know everything, I do not think the public offer giving
:57:57. > :58:04.off politicians. As you said, even politicians are human, as if in
:58:04. > :58:08.slight astonishment. Is it better to just say, I don't know, sorry?
:58:08. > :58:12.And then try and move on? That is fine, but if you are leader of the
:58:12. > :58:18.opposition and you do not know your policy on the Budget, that is not a
:58:18. > :58:22.good idea. It is better to go into a higher level of BS. You know what
:58:22. > :58:28.that stands for. From a credibility point of view, what does that sort
:58:28. > :58:35.of faux pas do to make Punshon? Or can a politician just move on?
:58:35. > :58:43.we have said, with politicians been human, voters do not mind in the
:58:43. > :58:47.long one. Remember Rochdale, Gordon Brown, Labour took Rochdale from