19/03/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Private companies

running the roads, regional pay bargaining and a cut in the 50p

rate of tax. Could this week's Budget be the most radical and

controversial for a generation? But two days to go, how big is the

Chancellor's challenge? New research maps were business is

growing and where it is not in the What is so special about special

advisers? Do politicians need an army of political assistants to do

the job? I have not got quite... And how can politicians avoid

interviews turning into disasters? We will unveil the golden rules of

avoiding political interview help. With me on the programme, Peter

Hennessy. Welcome to the programme. You might think it is all over but

it is not. Not yet anyway. Today the Health and Social Care Bill

returns to the House of Lords. The Government hope it will then return

to the Commons and pass, badly mangled but still alive. Today

David Evan will try to force the Government to publish the Risk

Register, the document drawn up by civil servants to examine the the

civil -- the impact of the bill. Do you agree? I am very cautious about

risk registers. I have read a lot about them on the domestic front

and the military. We have a career civil service and not a politicised

one because they have to speak truth under power. They have to

spare ministers nothing and tell them what they need to know and not

what they want to hear. In a Risk Register, you have to have absolute

candour. I am reluctant for President to be set under freedom

of information. Normally I am all for Freedom of Information. But I

am not for this one. In that sense there has been a lot of opposition

from a lot of quarters. Would it help the Government to be more

candid by publishing this? Would this not be a special case? I can

see the argument for that. The whole bill is a special case and it

goes to the heart of so many things. It is not ordinary activity, the

NHS. It is the nearest we have ever come to institutionalise think

altruism and it touches all of us in a special way. But Mike Crawshaw

remains intact and I am not with David. You do -- my caution remains

intact. I don't think he will get the majority. He did not support

the bill initially. I wanted lots of changes. A have the changes

convinced you? Are you doing it with a heavy heart? This bill does

not warm my entrails, to put it mildly. The changes that were

forthcoming after the Lords efforts, making it unambiguous, and I wanted

the NHS constitution, the spirit of 1948, which is deep in my

generation, I wanted that in the bill and the amendment was agreed.

The Secretary of State will have regard to the NHS constitution now,

so there were changes. I think that Freddie how it should be peer of

the year. That has been a gold standard performance. Without him,

the bill would have been even more in the manure in the Lords than it

has been. Talking about it being in the manure, it has been a

disruptive bill, however you look at it. Looking at it historically,

how does it compare to bills that have caused trouble for the

Government? The problem with this bill is that it tries to blend and

makes and reconcile the two great systems of post-war politics, or

one is the free up the point of delivery announced by Clement

Attlee. The other great weather make-up was Margaret Thatcher,

individual market impulses. And in every great Bill, those two weather

systems collide and that makes things very volatile. I think

people will grab on to that. It is the clashing of two great weather

systems. We will sue. There will be lots of bumping and grinding!

will see. George Osborne has been meeting the

other members of the quad for talks this morning. There has been plenty

of speculation about what will be in the Budget box, as well as hints

from George Osborne himself. He is expected to cut the top rate of tax

from 50p to 45p. It is believed to form part of a deal with the Lib

Dems so that the Budget will accelerate movement towards a

minimum income tax threshold of �10,000. The Chancellor said

yesterday that there would be measures to aggressively deal with

tax avoidance. George Osborne also said that the Government wants to

suspend Sunday trading laws during the Olympics. Plans to scrap public

sector pay rates are also possible. Road expansion could also be funded

with private money. On the 50p tax rate, there has been so much mood

music and speculation that one presumes there will be some kind of

movement. How pleased we have is does be if it is gone? The CBI said

it was not a priority. The key thing is the type of business you

are talking to. John Cridland represents major businesses,

members of the FTSE 100 Group of leading companies, and their

priority is on big growth initiatives. Smaller businesses,

including people that go just into the threshold of the 50p tax,

owning more than �150,000 a year, they have felt very strongly about

it. There have been lots of small business groups saying that it

deters entrepreneurs and put some of investing because they have to

pay more tax. The critics are equally saying that if they find

ways around paying it, which seems to be the case, then what is the

problem? The vast majority of small businesses would praise any

initiative like that. It is politically charged if the

Chancellor does go down that route. Is the evidence anecdotal on this

idea that it actually affects entrepreneurial activity? Are there

figures to suggest that people actually take on fewer employees

and so on? We only have one set of figures to go on, the January tax

return data, which came in and was published in February. It showed

that self-assessed income tax brought in a bit less than the

previous year, even with the 50p top rate of tax, after the first

year of operation. Clearly some people would have paid late in

February. People probably thought that was not complete. With the

Budget we will get HMRC and the tax authority's assessment of what it

will raise. The Chancellor will announce what HMRC says and it is

widely expected that they will think it only raises a few extra

hundred million pounds, which sounds like a lot but is not. That

will probably give him the cover if he goes ahead with a cut to say

that he will not be losing very much if he cuts the top rate.

growth, we have had this report looking at business growth over the

last two years. What does it tell us? It shows a wide variation in

experience of business creation. It looks at all types of businesses,

salt traders and so on, that stop operating, and taking out of the

equation anybody that goes bust. -- of sole traders and so on, that

start operating. There has been growth in Scotland, but Northern

Ireland. The report picks up winners and losers. Harlow in Essex

had the strongest growth. Merseyside had the biggest fall.

The growth picture is very varied around the UK. There is a lot of

Mike Crone information, if you like, about what is going on about their

in terms of the creation of wealth. -- minute information. Thank you.

Earlier I spoke to Mark Prisk, and suggested that the research shows

that growth has been patchy. would put it more positively. I

would say it is a huge variety. The idea that there is a neat divide

between North and South is out of date. What evidence have you got?

In Merseyside, they performed the worse. It was minus 21.4%, which is

pretty dreadful. But you show that Halton is better than the St Albans.

Instead of having big regional quangos, we are having local

enterprise partnerships, that deal with the local variations that you

get within each region and that is an important shift. What did that

mean? Looking at the figures across the board, it does indicate that

there is a North-South divide. There may be examples that buck the

trend, but in Belfast there is a decline of minus 1.9%, businesses

are struggling in lots of areas across the North and in Northern

Ireland. It means focusing policies on local priorities. Rather than

having one policy in Whitehall that we think fits the whole of the

North West, it means working with those partnerships. We have started

them and they are up and running. In Merseyside we are setting what

the priorities are. Whether they want to put export, training,

skills at the front of their agenda, then we provide them with the tools,

enterprise zones and so on. The difference between enterprise zones

now and in the past, we let local areas choose where they should be

in their locality. Are you expecting a big jump in growth in

the next two years in Merseyside and Belfast? I am very excited by

the small businesses and they have a great opportunity. I am going to

help them with a coaching growth package. So the figures will grow

up? We are looking forward for growth in many of those Areas.

Absolutely. But in positive figures? Well, it will still be

varied. Where are things growing? The last 10 or 15 years has not

been happy in manufacturing but significant investments stories are

coming through. That is affected by sector and by geography. Most of

the growth is expected in London and the South East in areas like

Financial, insurance and business sector areas. The enterprise zones

are not in the South East. They are in the North West? Yes, Halton.

That is just one example. Well, in the Tees Valley people think they

are struggling but it is actually very positive there. What will the

impact be on business of higher public sector pay, according to the

Government? I come from Cornwall are rigidly. I have found that if

one major employer can pay significantly more than the local

average, it crowds out smaller businesses from recruiting the best.

So it is battered to depress the wages in the whole area? -- it is

better? No. You have to make sure there is not any imbalance. There

are you saying that the brightest and the best are going to the

public sector in Cornwall? There is a real danger of that. You have to

make sure that the pay different is not as wide as in the past. You are

saying that the bright and the best go to the public sector. There is

no evidence that has happened so far. Come with me to the Welsh

valleys and the North East. They will tell you that in our area

people are making that rational decision that if they can get a

steady salary and a better pension with a public agency, why work for

a small business? We have to rebalance that. You are advocating

less wages? That is less money to spend in the community and less

growth. I will not prevent what the Chancellor says in the Budget. --

pre- empt. We want to make sure that start-up businesses have a

chance of competing, which will mean looking at wages so they get

the brightest and best, payroll. there would be less money to spend

in those areas? Not necessarily. Housing costs is the critical issue.

If you are paid a salary in London, you housing costs are radically

different to in the North East or whatever. We are looking at

disposable income, that is key. Looking at Sunday trading, is it

the intention to suspend Sunday trading after the Olympics if it

goes well? I cannot get ahead of what George Osborne will say. We

are looking at the Olympics because that is a one-off period and we

want to make the most of it. Retail in particular has been under great

pressure. It looks like that is what the Government will do. If it

goes well, they will expand it. have to look at the evidence. We

have been very clear on that. We have to make sure there is good

evidence. This is a good chance, the Olympics. Why is it being

brought in parts of Wales and England where there is not even a

sniff of the Olympics? It is a good, practical idea. That is not a real

reason for boosting retail as a result of the Olympics. There are

only a few areas where events are going on. It is not a good enough

justification for doing it across the whole country. The Olympics

will be in London but it is a national event that everybody wants

to be part of. Nobody is going to travel up North during the Olympics.

I don't know the exact locations of every overseas Olympic team, but

many of them are dotted around the country. They are going to be in

the UK and it is important to have a national perspective. What about

the shopkeepers that want to watch the events? They will be restricted

now. The big question is whether they will be working for six hours

or that could be expanded. Some retail outlet will not changed at

all and they will remain closed. We are not for think anybody. It just

freeze it up over that period so that people can see the events and

We know that the idea Rob road- pricing is extremely unpopular.

What is clear is that we believe that in terms of new build, there

is an opportunity for looking at the private contractor or engaging

in this market. And you can assure motorists that it would just be

new-builds? That is what we plan. What about a new road being built

often existing road? The details will be set up by the Prime

Minister. And the full details will be set out to Parliament. Tempting

as it is to give my view as a sneak preview, the Speaker would rightly

say I should not do that. Tolls or no tolls? Quit and see.

So, not clear whether motorists will face new charges or not if the

government's plans on a road so off go ahead. A few minutes ago, this

is what the Prime Minister said. need to look at innovative

approaches to funding our national roads, to increase investment and

reduce congestion. Road tolls are one option, but we are only

considering this for new, not existing capacity. For example, we

are looking at how improvements to the A14 could be part funded

through tolling. But we need to be more ambitious. We should ask, why

is it that other infrastructure, for example water, is funded by

private sector capital through privately owned, independently

regulated utilities, but roads in Britain still call on public

finances? We need to look at the options for getting large-scale

private investment into the national roads network, from a

sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and other investors. That is

why I have asked the Department of Transport and the Treasury to carry

out a feasibility study of new ownership models for the national

road system and to report progress to me in the autumn. This is not

about mass tolling. We are not tolling existing roads. It is about

getting more out of the money that motorists already pay. We are

joined now by the Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle and Philip

Gomm from the RAC. Philip, will members be happy? We are part of

the RAC Foundation, an independent research charity. People will be

happy that the Prime Minister has at last grasped the scale of the

problem and is thinking about a solution. There has been a lack of

political will to grasp the road situation over the last few years.

We have heard about high-speed rail, but most of us use the roads.

Congestion will rise, mostly because of the population increase.

So it is welcome that he is at least recognising the problem.

Maria Eagle, he is welcoming this idea because they are finally

looking at the problem that exists on the roads, a lack of investment.

The devil will be in the detail. But you accept the principle?

will have to see what comes out of it. The Prime Minister is engaging

in double speak when he talks about a new road capacity. It has been

made clear that this could cover existing capacity. If you get a new

junction on existing roads, what happens? The other fear is that

this is a slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge to what will

happen down the line, when all motorists might have to pay a per

mile charge for using the roads. But you accept that something needs

to be done? When you look at what Labour tried to do, the Government

outlined plans for pay as you drive, and I remember the e-petition which

meant that plan was dropped. It would have meant charging drivers.

And it was dropped. They did not go ahead with it. There is no problem

with looking at ideas. But it is not usual that the Prime Minister

announces at a press conference that he will look at an idea unless

it is taken that something will go ahead. It is not just our roads

where the For Sale signs are going up. There is a plan to chop up and

sell off our rail. But this is leasing the roads, not

privatisation. I could say you are scaremongering. It remains to be

seen what happens. We will look closely at this. Motorists could

end up being clobbered, and they are already paying the highest

petrol prices they have ever paid. If while you say something needs to

be done in terms of investing in the roads, the figure of �1 billion,

sounds a lot but it might not be that much. But motorists already

pay quite big taxes. People may think, we will end up paying more

and more. We have never advocated any system of tolling on top of

existing taxation. If you are going to have a wholesale change, you

need to do away with things like fuel duty. Motorists pay too much.

But we have a hand to mouth existence for things like the

Highways Agency and the moment. Each year the Budget said,

politicians do not know if they are coming or going. The water industry

has to make plans for 25 years hence. The railway industry has to

plan for five years hence. We have nothing like that for the roads,

yet we are reliant on them. Why do people think there might be a

danger of skipping on maintenance? There would be no guarantee that

the companies involved would spend money on maintaining the roads.

They would take their profits, and that would be that. Fee I am not

here to support the Prime Minister. But my water is supplied by a

private sector company. My trap worked this morning. I read your

researcher this morning. That worked. I came on the railways this

morning. That worked. What is the alternative? What has happened to

the railway industry is that passengers are paying record fairs.

What is the alternative? We need to look at all options. It is not fair

to say there has been no investment in our roads. Fay but the

concentration has been on the big projects like high-speed rail. A

lot of Transport reports over the years have said what is needed is

something unglamorous to deal with the current system of roads. This

is about the future of our economy. Without good transport

infrastructure that is affordable, people can't get to work. It is not

just about a utility. They can't get to work if the road network is

at a standstill. We have to tackle the problem, so we welcome the

statement this morning. Despite what Philip Gomm has said,

traditionally, people do not like the idea of road pricing. Would

there have to be a big change in public attitude to make this

successful? I think so. But I detect two impulses behind this.

Mrs Thatcher's government hoped their financial position through

the big privatisations. There is nothing left except the Post Office.

So this is another way of easing public finances. And there is a

huge under-investment in the roads. But I preferred this route that is

being floated to the private finance initiative, whereby we

shove the debts for our cousins -- consumption today on to our

children and grandchildren. devil is in the detail. If it was

very clear that it will not affect the existing network, would you

support that? Rebuilt the M6 toll on that basis. This is about

charging people for using junctions or existing -- new lanes on

existing roads. It is a slippery slope to fall charging. People say

we have to do something, and using to be frightening the horses before

the details have come out. We have to look carefully at what comes out

of this proposal. There will be certain principles to bear in mind.

Now, in opposition, David Cameron criticised the number of political

appointees known as special advisers recruited by Gordon Brown

and his ministers, and promised to scare them back. In fact, the

number employed by government has gone up under the coalition. But

what of those who become spin- doctors, those who monitor the

media message? Are they good or a bad thing for British politics?

Today's specialist media advisers for ministers and shadow ministers,

what we somewhat lazy describe as spin-doctors, do do an important

job. They make sure their bosses are heard. They make sure that what

is written is written fairly, and when they are not, that they are

rebutted quickly. They are there to make sure that interviews go

properly, that the message is boarder cross, that kids are not

taken out of context, and that questions are fair, and that the

journalists and their boss have some background before they start.

The Prime Minister's personal press secretary has been working with him

since the days he was Shadow Education Secretary. Once selected

by GQ magazine as one of 100 things you can't live without, she proved

her worth and loyalty to David Cameron, and commands the respect

of many journalists. She worked closely with Andy Coulson and now

Craig Oliver as director of communications of damage it. Ed

Miliband looked to Bob Roberts, on the right, and Tom Baldwin on the

left to address the press. People say they are tabloid and broadsheet,

Roberts the shop message maker who tells it like it is, Baldwin the

more considered strategic thinker. Internally, Baldwin's dog has

changed to head of strategy, although some say that is being

sidelined. But Roberts is still part of the day-to-day operation.

Nick Clegg has traditionally relied on to a party press officer before

he became leader. She became visible as the media adviser to the

Deputy PM, but his count John maternity leave and has been

replaced by Olly Grender, no stranger to TV cameras, as she

swapped being an informed pundit to informing pundits with ease. Nick

Clegg also has James McGrory. a parliamentary researcher. Don't

know how he fed on Eggheads, but he is smart enough to get out of shot

when his boss is about do a photo op. In 2009, Chancellor George

Osborne headhunted his adviser. He is thought highly capable by

colleagues and his boss says he never sleeps. Long and loyal

service is a traitor in these media adviser positions, and Alex has

been working for shadow Chancellor Ed Balls for six years, in

government and opposition, which he says differs in that now it is

about getting your boss heard as much as how he has had. He says the

role is 24/7 and his boss says he is trusted and one of the people

with him who can tell him no. If you have never heard of these

people, that is good. They are doing their job. Those that become

the story do not last, such as Damien McBride and Jo Moore, she of

"Berry bad news" fame, and of course Andy Coulson. But why should

you care? Well, those who wear the -- walk in the wake of one and

politicians, who watch their backs from the background, have a habit

of popping up front again in the future.

John in my hours Patrick Diamond, policy adviser to Tony Blair and

Peter Mandelson, now a Labour councillor in the London borough of

Southwark. Peter Hennessy, the rhetoric was all about fewer

special advisers, but they have got more than before. That suggests

that they are a vital part of the operation. People have become used

to them as part of the entourage. I have always been spectacle about

special advising. I have no Popple -- I have no problem with people

being recruited who have special knowledge. But those who have no

experience, all they can do is reinforce the prejudices of their

Secretary of State. The one attribute that politicians are not

short of is raw political prejudice. Award not touch them if I was a

Secretary of State for unless they really knew something. The test is

between those who know and those who believe. You defend special

advisers. Some of those points do need to be taken seriously. There

are issues about the quality of policy advice provided by civil

servants and special advisers. When we discuss special advisers, we

tend to look at extreme examples like Jo Moore and Damien McBride.

Most would agree that they are extreme examples of what can go

wrong. But if you talk to a lot of civil servants, they will tell you

that special advisers are often very valued in government

departments, because they help provide steers on what the Minister

thinks and can bring new ideas into the policy process. Peter Hennessy,

isn't it a point that some of the political problems that the

coalition have come up against, like the NHS Bill, like forests,

the things that have caused U-turns, political advisers have said to me,

that would not have happened if I had been there. We would have

foreseen that -- how that would have paid out politically. That

intrigues me. I was a political journalist in the '70s. The

politicians then did not need some EUR24 to smell problems in a bill

that was forthcoming. -- they did not need a 24-year-old to smell

problems in a bill that was forthcoming. A lot tougher special

advisers have risen without trace. It is the only job they have ever

done. You can't legislate, but I would want people to have done

proper jobs where evidence is the main determinant of what you do

before you advise government. But We will not pass to a side! The

other important thing about special advises his relationship with the

Civil Service. Are they not there to try and advance policies because

some people would argue that the Civil Service can be a block to the

sort of narrative the Government wants to put through? That is where

special advisers come into their own, whether they be in experienced

or not. But quality ones could push the direction of Government policy.

I would not draw this black-and- white distinction between what

special advisers do and civil servants. But aren't they supposed

to be distinct? There should always be attention to evidence, an

examination of what the best policy ideas available are, in this

country and abroad, and there should always be attention paid to

what we can bring to the policy process. There are clearly some

exceptionally bright civil servants that do that and anything special

advisers have also contributed in that way. It is about getting the

best out of both. If you speak to senior, experienced civil servants,

they will say that special advisers can help to prevent the civil

service from being politicised. If you have advises there in a clearly

political role, then civil servants cannot be put in a position where

they have to handle political issues that are not good for

holding up the best positions of civil servant neutrality. But it is

people just bringing in people that will make them feel good. How can

they add to the total of the political process? And not just be

that he or she is a sycophantic, we will help the minister feel better

and say what they want to hear? will not defend my own appointment

as a special adviser in the light of those comments! I think any

Secretary of State recognises that they need people around them that

are capable of speaking truth to power, in the immortal phrase, of

putting arguments that are contrary to the position of the minister.

When we have had a good Secretary of State, they have assembled a

team of political advisers and civil servants that are capable of

challenging them and bringing new ideas to the table and bring

forward new solutions. That has to be part of the governing process.

And a good training ground for future leaders? Ed Miliband, David

Cameron, Nick Clegg, they were all advisers of one description or

another. I wish they had all done a proper job first. With this stellar

political class now, I am breathless and in all, but they

would be even better if they had done a proper job at some point

between adolescent days as student politicians and now. Rather than

being career politicians? Yes. Let's come on to briefings. Special

advisers do that, successfully sometimes and not so in others.

This has been discussed and argued over, this Budget, more than any

other. I think it is the most elite. Verging on the Continent. -- the

most leaked out. Verging on in Continent. The Conservatives are by

and large carnivorous and they find it difficult to live with the Lib

Dems. That is the big divide in politics, left and right, herbivore,

carnivore. I think the coalition will ensure but it will get harder

and there will be much more of this. -- will endure. A Labour are

slightly crowded out of this, aren't they? It is quite hard for

Labour. The fact that there is a coalition Government will make any

Budget announcement process different to that of previous

governments. I think the level of briefing has been extraordinary and

it is a problem and it raises questions about parliamentary

accountability. Having said that, there were allegations that...

allegations! That Tony Blair did not know what was in the Budget

before Gordon Brown announced it. But people will wonder what George

Osborne will say on Wednesday that is different and you compare to

what has been announced. A fear of an anti-climax, perhaps. -- new

compared to what has been announced. This week is a big week in

Westminster. The Queen will make an address to

both Houses of Parliament as part of a Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

On Wednesday, George Osborne will deliver his third Budget. MPs will

then debate it in the days that followed. On Friday, David Cameron

is expected to rally the troops at the Scottish Conservative

conference. To get some perspective on all that. -- of all that, I am

joined by Anushka Asthana and Andrew Pierce. Political problems

of scrapping 50p. David Cameron desperate to get away from the idea

that the Tories are the party of the rich. The political problem has

always been a problem. Most Conservatives think that it should

be scrapped immediately and down to 40p, not 45p, which still makes us

one of the highest taxed countries in the world. It is a compromise,

and not just in a court of public opinion. They have to compromise

with the Liberal Democrats, by instinct they prefer to keep the

50p tax rate and have the mansion tax which would hit many properties

in David Cameron and George Osborne's affluent constituencies.

Let's say they were to scrap it, be getting a 45p, how much goodwill

does that give George Osborne from the backbenches? It would cheer

them up no end. There are some of them in more working-class

constituencies, like Harlow, where they would be worried. But it would

cheer them up because the Liberal Democrat tale is not wagging the

dog. But this has been so well leaked, that I think it will happen.

I have never seen a Budget like this. What about purdah? No wonder

there are hosepipe bans because this lot have been leaking like a

large service! And for weeks, it seems. The downside is that after

all the speculation, if they don't get some of the policies they have

been pushing for, their mansion tax for instance, the political fall-

out for the Lib Dems will be even greater. We are pretty sure they

will not get the mansion tax. You can tell by the way the leaking has

shifted slightly into. They are trying to argue that the tax

avoidance measures may be packaged up as a tycoon tax and that is the

equivalent. Whether the backbenches and grass roots can be convinced, I

am not sure. They will get the raising of the threshold, even if

it is not as much as they like. And the tycoon tax, is it really

credible? It depends what you mean by it. When people originally

talked about the tycoon tax, they thought of it as the minimum rate

of tax. What they are talking about is a limit on tax breaks. To be

honest, I think that will be very difficult for them to implement. We

will have to see what they say on Wednesday. I spoke to some

grassroots members the other day, and they were not ready to stick

the knife in yet and they wanted to see the details on Wednesday.

child benefit, what is the latest? Where could this cliff edge be

raised to, presuming it is raised? There will be a cliff edge and they

cannot get round it. The policy was first floated one year ago and they

are still scrabbling around with figures. There has been a

compromise to placate Tory rebels again and this will please the

Liberal Democrat, who are keen on this policy. The opinion polls

suggest that George Osborne is not women-friendly and child benefit is

the one benefit paid directly to women. He is aware of that. Will it

be enough to alleviate the political problems? They will still

go ahead with the policy. I think they have still got a problem. If

they raise the threshold to �50,000, there will be a position when it

your income families earning �19,000 will get it and those on

low incomes will lose it. -- �90,000. George Osborne said he was

for the policy. He said that even if you do not feel rich, you are in

the top percentage of income. He said that if they did not take

charge benefit of those families, then those people would hardly

contributed deficit-reduction battle. I think the reason they

will keep it is that otherwise they graphs would turn on their head and

that is the problem they are facing. Looking at this road policy idea,

what is the up side politically? You can talk about investment and

the roads being staff, but headlines say that motorists pay

for road pricing. -- being staffed. Yes, and this has been kicked

around for some time. Labour looked at this and put it away. Unless

there is private money injected into the crumbling road structure,

that will happen, it will crumble. But the problem is if existing

roads get a charged and private companies can improve tolls across

the country. They will look and countries like France, where

motorists routinely pay tolls. But you have to remind people here that

they do already pay road tax. It is a pity that the Government never

spent any of the money on the roads. That will be the big question,

putting it back into the roads. Do you think there will be any

surprises?! There has to be! We found that we could write pretty

much everything that was in it this morning, as far as we could tell.

George Osborne is a very political Chancellor. Surely he will have a

rabbit to pull out of his hat. most popular one would be something

to do on fuel duty which has gone through the roof and is affected by

issues like the Middle East. They are moving away from that, which is

all the more reason to suggest that is what they are going to do.

course! Thank you. Joining me for the rest of the

programme of three of Westminster's finest. Andrea Leadsom, John Leech

from the Lib Dems, and Heidi Alexander it from Labour. Should

the 50p rate go? On a fiscal basis, yes, but on a political basis I

think it can only go at the same time as the public sector pay

freeze ends. You would not like to see it go in this Budget? He needs

to set the direction of travel. There is research that shows that

high rates of tax causes uncertain consequences and people used legal

avoidance measures. If you keep it at a level that people consent to,

you will generate more taxes. girly it is the right thing to do?

-- in fiscal terms? It is not the right thing to do. Ordinary

families are really struggling. A young people cannot get jobs. To

give a tax break to the richest 1% of people is not right. How do you

announce it on the doorstep? More I argue has always been that we

should be increasing the personal allowance. That should be the

number one priority. Personally, I think we get the debate about the

50p tax rate wrong. Yes, people are avoiding it, but rather than

scrapping it because people are avoiding it, I would like to see us

stopping people avoiding it in the first place. So you would keep it?

Yes. I don't think people are avoiding the 50p tax rate. The

point is that people have legal avoidance opportunities in their

general taxation. That is what we need to clamp down on. If you

wanted to define a tycoon tax as stopping wealthy people from being

able to avoid taxes, I don't think the 50p tax rate is one that they

can easily avoid. For most people it is the straightforward measure

of total income. So it is a good thing. You have just argued against

the idea that people will pay it. The Government has always said

people avoid paying it. What happens is that over a period of

time, companies and individuals put in place measures to avoid it.

Turning it into capital gains, equities, whatever it is, to avoid

paying it over time. The problem if you have a top rate of tax that is

too high is that when you come to reduce it, you do not lose his

avoidance measures. Your total tax take reduces permanently and I

would be worried about that. Will other Liberal Democrat be unhappy?

Generally speaking the Liberal Democrats are in favour of

increasing the personal allowance and that must be the priority.

you vote against the Budget if the 50p tax rate goes? Let's see what

is in the Budget before we speculate about how Liberal

Democrat MPs might vote. There seems to be some movement on it

otherwise there would not be all the speculation. You want to see

some balance. If they raise the bottom threshold a bit, will that

be enough to mitigate your fears? My view is that if there is to be

movement on the 50p rate, there needs to be a mansion tax, or and

alternative tax that will take money away from the wealthy. Will

Nick Clegg have failed if there is no mansion tax? Let's wait and see

what is in the Budget. I am confident that there will be

measures to stop richer people avoiding tax payments. Just to stop

them avoiding? Nothing more substantial? I am not privy to

those discussions but I would like to see that. Would you be happy

with a mansion tax? This has come down to the debate that is either

or, mansion tax or 50p rate. you want both? We need the 50p rate

to stay and to be enforced. And people cannot afford it. I have

always thought that the upper rate of council tax band could be

differentiated for. That could be another way around it. There should

Looking at the idea of raising the threshold, that does nothing for

the poor who do not work. And people higher up the income scale

will benefit more than those at the bottom. For a start, people who do

not work have benefited from a reasonable increase in their

benefits that people are working have not benefited from. Which

benefits? A unemployment benefit has gone up by inflation, which

other pay hasn't done. People who are working, on the other hand, on

the lowest incomes, will in future benefit significantly. The

Chancellor will want to adjust bands to make sure those at the low

end benefit most. Last time round, more people were dragged into the

top rate of tax. That will stop any growth prospects at that level,

which the Chancellor wants to encourage. I don't think so,

because if you increase the tax- free threshold for the poorest

workers, it makes it fiscally neutral for those on a high income.

That helps the least well-off and makes it not worse offer for the

higher earners. But you also need to look at the shorter working tax

credits. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen people earning

�80,000 who could lose out as a result of changes to working tax

credits. The proposals that if you are working for 16 hours per week,

you have to increase that to 24 hours per week or risk losing those

working tax credits, that could mean thousands of pounds lost for

families. You have got to bear in mind that this is currently unfair

on single parents who have to work 16 hours to get the tax credits,

whereas a couple only have to work 16 hours. So there is an element of

fairness about increasing the amount of hours that a couple have

to work. But you can't just look at thresholds, you have to look at the

whole system of support to people in work. People in low-paid work at

the moment are struggling the most. Let me ask about regional pay. Is

this something you would support? Let's see what is actually said in

the Budget. In principle, do support the idea that different

parts of the country should have a lower pay? In principle, no I do

not agree. In practice, you have to accept that in the south-east,

there has to be an additional amount of money for people to be

able to live on in places like London. But in principle, I am not

in favour. Do you think it would depress wages overall in these

areas? Apart from the fact that we are trying to encourage departments

to move from the south-east to other regions of the country, how

can we do that if we say people will be expected to be paid less?

disagree. In some regions of the UK, the private sector is crowded out.

Whatever does is there that the private sector, in places like the

north-east, where there is not much private sector, what evidence is

there that it is being crowded out? If you look at the average public

sector salary compared to a private sector salary for a similar job,

the one is considerably higher than the other. Wide-eyed at all down,

then? You would not drag it down, you would be freezing pay. Where

the debate has gone so wrong in this country is, the private sector

pays for the public sector. Without the private sector, we don't have

any public sectors. If we simply say the private sector cannot

compete with the public sector in the regions, we are on a hiding to

nothing. Surely pay rates have to reflect local circumstances?

London, we already have London weighting. That is because the cost

of living are so much higher than elsewhere in the country. But my

problem with this is, why should a teacher in Sheffield be paid

differently from a teacher in Swindon? Are we talking about

frontline services in the same way? Are you talking about teachers and

nurses and so on? I agree that if your house costs you �50,000 for it

three-bedroom house in the north of England, versus your three-bedroom

house costing you �1 million in London, a London weighting is not

enough of a differential to encourage a level playing field.

does not sound like you will like much in this Budget. We will have

to see what is in the Budget, but I am confident that we will see

movement in the direction I would like to see on the personal

allowance. Let's hope so after all the speculation!

Now, if you saw Friday's programme, you might remember this. I have not

got that figure to hand, but I can assure you that Ed Balls, as our

Shadow Chancellor, has. So has Ed Miliband. But the costs are

important. Yes, they are. If you say they are going to be covered by

the Bank of's bonus, people have to be assured that it will raise

enough money and it will cover this real jobs guarantee. I think it is

�600 million. I have not got the fingers at my fingertips. I

apologise for that. The deputy Labour leader's problems are a

reminder that mixing TV and politics can go wrong. Ms Harman's

mistake was much you -- what you might call a schoolgirl error -

never attempt a policy interview if you don't know the policy. In a

spirit of generosity and a desire to help our guests do their best,

here is our guide to the golden rules of political television.

You are a transient, here today and gone tomorrow politician. This is

If you look at our by-election wins, most of them have achieved

something substantial. What did Christchurch achieve? That is a

good question. What is the answer? You are talking in the region of

20... Yeah. I mean, if you take a double income couple, �20,000 each,

that is what you are talking about. It is three agencies of government

when I get there, that are gone - Commerce, education and, what is

Oh, commerce education and um... Can you name the three of them?

Look, what I say is, Tom Harris, Joanne log on, and the third

candidate, who is also putting himself forward. The front-runner,

Ken Macintosh. The Guardian's Simon Hogg it is here, along with our MPs.

Isn't it a bit unfair to expect so much of politicians? They are

interviewed all the time. They have to feed the beast that is 24 hour

news. We can't expect them to remember every detail. Of course. A

lot of politicians have a seven second loop on radio phone-ins in

case anyone says anything obscene or libellous. You have seven

seconds for the host to cut them off. And most politicians have that

loop in their head - am I going to offend my leader or upset someone

in my constituency? And it is one that loop breakdown, when someone

gets too relaxed. David Frost was such a good interviewer because he

made them feel almost soporific he happy. Another problem was not

understanding the way TV works. Keith Joseph, the late and lamented,

was once interviewed and he said, that is terrible. Get rid of that.

And the chap said, that has just gone out live to thousands of homes.

And he said, I don't want any of your technical excuses! I do not

think people would make that mistake now. John Prescott did.

remember that. Cut. Sorry, too late. But people are only human, even

politicians. But are other ways of avoiding being pushed down that

sort of dead-end alley or being asked very specific questions that

need a specific response, like figures and names, that you can try

and avoid? You need a special adviser who says, these are the

questions you will be asked. This is Jeremy Paxman. He takes no

prisoners. This is what you have to say if he asks that. Michael Howard

would not be in such trouble when Jeremy Paxman asked him the same

question 11 times. You have to be prepared. Harriet Harman waved her

hands and said, the figures are over there, as if they were hiding

behind the daffodils in that clip. You can't do that. You have to know

what is going to come up. How much preparation do you do before

interviews? Is there a sense of, you can't remember everything, or

you are vaguely across the issues so that you come on to programmes

knowing enough? I always do some homework and get a brief on the

subject. But in reality, you could always catch me out. You could ask

me, what is the capital of wherever? And I would not know and

I would look stupid. There is an element of trust between

politicians and interviewers. those interviews, you are asking

about the policy on the day. It seems fair that you should have the

figures at hand. But politicians often try and pretend they know

everything. If we are more honest that we don't know everything and

can't be expected to know everything, people would accept it

when we get it wrong. What about party political views, what did you

think when you saw Harriet Harman struggle? We are all human. But

there is that old saying that if you fail to prepare, you prepare to

fail. As far as possible, you have to think through what the obvious

questions will be and try and no those key figures. But as Andrea

said, you always run the risk of being caught out. Worst moments?

worst moment was as a transport spokesperson in the last Parliament.

I forgot to pay my road tax. Did it come out? Yes. From your local

paper? It was hopefully spread in the paper by my opposition. That is

a bit unfortunate. For you, Andrea? At the moment, it is the fear of

that awful day that keeps me on the straight and narrow. But in

response to what John said about needing to show that you don't

necessarily know everything, I do not think the public offer giving

off politicians. As you said, even politicians are human, as if in

slight astonishment. Is it better to just say, I don't know, sorry?

And then try and move on? That is fine, but if you are leader of the

opposition and you do not know your policy on the Budget, that is not a

good idea. It is better to go into a higher level of BS. You know what

that stands for. From a credibility point of view, what does that sort

of faux pas do to make Punshon? Or can a politician just move on?

we have said, with politicians been human, voters do not mind in the

long one. Remember Rochdale, Gordon Brown, Labour took Rochdale from