:00:37. > :00:40.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. So it's last orders
:00:40. > :00:44.for cheap booze. The Prime Minister is worried about irresponsible
:00:44. > :00:51.drinking and says he wants to put an end to scenes like this on our
:00:51. > :00:55.streets. To that end, he wants to introduce a minimum price for
:00:55. > :00:58.alcohol and a ban on cheap deals. The debate over the granny tax is
:00:58. > :01:06.still raging, but is it really the chancellor's biggest Budget
:01:06. > :01:10.blunder? We will be on the campaign trail in the Bradford West by-
:01:10. > :01:12.election. And we will be getting to the
:01:12. > :01:22.bottom of Speaker Bercow's kaleidoscopic speech about the
:01:22. > :01:22.
:01:22. > :01:25.Queen. All that in the next hour. And with
:01:25. > :01:35.us for the programme today are Iain Martin, who writes for the Sunday
:01:35. > :01:38.
:01:38. > :01:41.Telegraph, and the Independent columnist Steve Richards. What a
:01:41. > :01:51.dream team. If you have any thoughts or comments on anything we
:01:51. > :01:52.
:01:52. > :01:58.are discussing, you can send them to us. Let's start with the biggest
:01:58. > :02:01.political event of the week, George Osborne's third Budget. And it is
:02:01. > :02:06.one that is still ruffling feathers and threatening the chancellor's
:02:06. > :02:09.reputation as a master strategist. So was it a Budget for working
:02:09. > :02:15.people or a budget for millionaires? A budget to clobber
:02:15. > :02:25.the rich, or clobber a granny? Or was it, dare we say, just a bit of
:02:25. > :02:27.
:02:27. > :02:31.a mess? I would go for the last of those questions. Surprisingly. I
:02:31. > :02:35.have never understood why George Osborne is regarded as a master
:02:35. > :02:39.strategist. I do not think it is based on March, be on when he
:02:39. > :02:45.announced that he would abolish inheritance tax and stopped the
:02:45. > :02:49.early election. But Mr Brown did bottle out. That was the moment on
:02:49. > :02:55.which it was based. But more widely, I have never understood on what
:02:55. > :02:59.basis is regarded as this tactical genius. I am mystified as to why he
:02:59. > :03:05.did not put more work into the tactics of this Budget. Why didn't
:03:05. > :03:12.he prepared the ground for taxing wealthy pensioners? Why didn't he
:03:12. > :03:16.prepare more fully from his part? I am genuinely mystified. You would
:03:16. > :03:21.have thought they would have talked about what they wanted the press to
:03:21. > :03:27.say the next day and gone about getting it ready. But I see no
:03:27. > :03:33.evidence of that. Is des two after the Budget any better than they
:03:33. > :03:43.want? No, it seems to be getting worse. We have all seen budgets
:03:43. > :03:43.
:03:43. > :03:47.unravel, but this one has been special. Those of us who have
:03:47. > :03:51.written for years and questioned George Osborne's reputation as a
:03:51. > :03:58.political genius are feeling a flush of vindication. When he was
:03:58. > :04:01.in Washington last week on the Cameron-Obama jaunt, sophisticates
:04:01. > :04:05.around Osborne said all was well and that he could afford to go to
:04:05. > :04:10.America for a few days. Now it looks as though he should have been
:04:10. > :04:14.in London, doing more work on the Budget. We will come on to the
:04:14. > :04:19.substance of the so-called granny tax in a minute, but you can see
:04:19. > :04:25.the problems it has caused. There is a broad case, however, for doing
:04:25. > :04:30.what he is trying to do. But they made no effort to prepare the
:04:30. > :04:34.ground, as Steve said. Everyone was taken by surprise. The can feel a
:04:34. > :04:39.certain sympathy in that as the population ages and more people
:04:39. > :04:44.would be on 70, it makes sense. But you have to make a big argument and
:04:45. > :04:50.be honest about it. It is the way you do it. Any strategist could see
:04:51. > :04:54.this. Six months before the Budget, start writing articles about
:04:54. > :04:57.generation inequality. Then say there is a case for getting more
:04:57. > :05:02.money of the pensioners who have done very well over the last few
:05:02. > :05:07.years. And distinguish that not all pensioners are living in a scullery
:05:07. > :05:11.with no money. Then you would get papers calling for a tax of this
:05:11. > :05:16.kind. Then leaked the fact that you are thinking of doing it. If all
:05:16. > :05:20.hell breaks loose, don't do it. If you sense that it is going in your
:05:20. > :05:26.direction, you announce it to regretful country. I can see a job
:05:26. > :05:30.offer coming your way. But it is not just the granny tax. That might
:05:30. > :05:35.be excusable. It is the mess on child benefit, where rather than
:05:35. > :05:38.admitting that they made a mistake and scrapping it, they have put in
:05:38. > :05:45.its place something incredibly complex which creates a marginal
:05:45. > :05:50.rate of tax for those between 50 and 60 if they dare to have kids of
:05:50. > :05:55.up to 65%. Then look at the 40p. That is the real bombshell that
:05:55. > :06:00.will do the most damage. When this government came to power, 3 million
:06:00. > :06:05.people paid 40p tax. When they leave power, it will be 5 million
:06:05. > :06:11.people. It is extraordinary that a Tory Chancellor is doing this.
:06:11. > :06:15.he has several more budgets. This is a mid- term Budget, the last one
:06:15. > :06:20.where as a Chancellor, you can take risks and do what you believe in
:06:20. > :06:24.rather than what you think is electorally necessary. The next few
:06:24. > :06:28.will be made much more with the election in mind. You are right,
:06:28. > :06:33.the papers are just as bad as yesterday, but there was an old
:06:33. > :06:36.maxim that budgets which are trashed the day after, by the
:06:36. > :06:45.following week are praised. And budgets that are praised are
:06:45. > :06:49.trashed the week after. I have always had that. We shall see the
:06:49. > :06:51.Sunday papers this week. It will be interesting. So is the Sunday
:06:51. > :06:59.Politics. Well, MPs spent most of yesterday
:06:59. > :07:03.debating the Budget. Here is a flavour of what was said.
:07:03. > :07:09.Yesterday's Budget was described by the Economist as more of a
:07:09. > :07:12.newspaper review and a Budget. Another said the Budget had all the
:07:12. > :07:17.leak free qualities of a teabag in a sieve. It might be quicker to
:07:17. > :07:23.list what the papers did not publish beforehand. For the benefit
:07:23. > :07:28.of the house,... The they call this a Robin Hood Budget! But they have
:07:28. > :07:33.got it the wrong way round. Robin Hood took from the rich to give to
:07:33. > :07:42.the poor. This Budget takes from low and middle-income families to
:07:42. > :07:48.give to the rich. The Chancellor is not Robin Hood. He is the Sheriff
:07:48. > :07:57.of Nottingham. As for jobs and growth, he couldn't give a Friar
:07:57. > :08:02.Tuck, Mr Deputy Speaker. Being lectured now on how to manage an
:08:02. > :08:09.economy is like being given a talk on seamanship by the captain of the
:08:09. > :08:16.Costa Concordia, another believer in light touch steering. Can we
:08:16. > :08:19.have a statement on the higher rate of tax? The Sun account on Twitter
:08:19. > :08:23.is reporting that friends of the Prime Minister say he does pay the
:08:23. > :08:28.higher rate of taxation. We have not heard from friends of the
:08:28. > :08:33.Chancellor, or doesn't you have any left after mugging the nation's
:08:33. > :08:41.grannies yesterday? Why should this outbreak of openness be confined to
:08:41. > :08:46.members on this side of the house? I'll hope the honourable member
:08:46. > :08:51.will try and persuade all his friends to be as open as he wants
:08:51. > :08:56.us to be. Her So the so-called granny tax
:08:56. > :08:59.dominated much of proceedings. We thought we would have our own
:08:59. > :09:02.little debate about the measure today. Joining us now is the editor
:09:02. > :09:12.at large of Saga magazine, Emma Soames, and Ed Howker, who wrote
:09:12. > :09:16.The Jilted Generation. Emma Soames, the poor pensioners are not
:09:17. > :09:23.affected by this, because they do not pay tax. Wealthy pensioners do
:09:23. > :09:28.not get any benefit, because they do not get, they lose the allowance
:09:28. > :09:33.anyway. So it is mainly the middle band of pensioners we are talking
:09:33. > :09:41.about. Isn't there a case for a lining everybody's personal
:09:42. > :09:46.allowance to be the same? people who are being affected by
:09:46. > :09:54.this new age allowance are the people who have spent all their
:09:54. > :10:01.lives working harder to build up modest amounts of savings. It is a
:10:01. > :10:07.kick in the solar plexus that they build up these funds and then find
:10:07. > :10:12.that in one rather throwaway line, not even called a tax, but a
:10:12. > :10:18.simplification, that they will be �4 a week worse off. It is hitting
:10:18. > :10:25.4 million pensioners. Those who are already pensioners will have their
:10:25. > :10:30.tax-free threshold frozen at �10,500. In cash terms, they are
:10:31. > :10:35.not losing out. The ones losing out are those who are about to become
:10:35. > :10:42.pensioners. They would have had a tax-free threshold of �10,500 which
:10:42. > :10:48.will now be �9,200. But it will rise after that. The intention is
:10:48. > :10:52.to increase that by 2014-�10,000. But it will be frozen until that
:10:52. > :10:56.happens for everybody. The threshold for existing
:10:56. > :11:03.pensioners will be frozen, but for those who are just becoming
:11:03. > :11:13.pensioners, their threshold will rise in line with everybody else's
:11:13. > :11:13.
:11:13. > :11:18.firstly to �9,100 and then to �10,000. The reason it has had so
:11:18. > :11:23.much impact, it is not the number of people affected, but if you are
:11:23. > :11:28.64, you have done a lot of financial planning. You know you
:11:28. > :11:33.will retire next year. You know you were probably worth -- be worse off
:11:33. > :11:38.when not working. You may have seen a financial adviser and discovered
:11:38. > :11:43.that what you thought you would get as a pension will not be anything
:11:43. > :11:47.like it because of quantitative easing. But we agree that if there
:11:47. > :11:52.are losers from this move, and there is no question about that,
:11:52. > :11:58.the real losers are those who are about to become pensioners, rather
:11:58. > :12:02.than existing pensioners, who will simply suffer a freeze on the
:12:03. > :12:08.threshold. The yes, but those who are may freeze once inflation kicks
:12:08. > :12:14.in, will also suffer. That is true, inflation is under 3% and falling,
:12:14. > :12:19.so it may not be too bad for them. It will cost them about �83 a year
:12:19. > :12:25.if you are an existing pensioner. When you are cutting taxes for
:12:25. > :12:30.those earning over �150,000 a year, what is the point in going for
:12:30. > :12:37.pensioners? I am not sure it is appropriate that the Government has
:12:37. > :12:42.made that cut. But pensioners have done terribly well in the last ten
:12:43. > :12:48.years. They have higher rising disposable income than young people.
:12:48. > :12:52.Some of your arguments are powerful, because if you look at NUT rates
:12:52. > :12:56.and the way in which pensioners' savings have not grown, they have
:12:56. > :13:01.had trouble, but they are more successful than other parts of the
:13:01. > :13:06.population. My pitch is straight forward. Young people trying real
:13:06. > :13:10.trouble. 2 million under-thirties are unemployed. There are
:13:10. > :13:13.opportunities are disappearing. It would be better to concentrate on
:13:13. > :13:21.their needs and some of that pension a wealth was moved towards
:13:21. > :13:25.creating jobs for them. So because of the way the economy has been
:13:25. > :13:32.going, because it is tougher for young people now than it was for
:13:32. > :13:36.the most recent generation, but not compared to the '20s and '30s,
:13:36. > :13:41.there for all people, who have paid their taxes and worked all their
:13:41. > :13:46.lives should suffer? De point is straight forward. We have a
:13:46. > :13:51.colossal longevity problem in this country. We are living too long?
:13:51. > :13:55.it is wonderful that we have a longevity problem. But it is a
:13:55. > :13:59.problem for the Government, because they have not prepared for it.
:13:59. > :14:03.Britain has a pay-as-you-go pension system, which means no savings have
:14:03. > :14:08.been made for future generations. That means the current generations,
:14:08. > :14:12.many of whom are unemployed, have to pay these bills. That is not
:14:12. > :14:16.inappropriate. Of course pensioners should be treated well. In fact,
:14:16. > :14:22.they are. They get a massive tax break because they do not pay
:14:22. > :14:28.national insurance. They are not working. But when they are working,
:14:28. > :14:32.they do not pay. Well, of course pensioners should have more
:14:33. > :14:40.disposable income than 23-year-olds. Unless you are called Master Gates
:14:41. > :14:45.almost good with. -- or Miss could win. They have worked all their
:14:45. > :14:51.lives and save for maybe 35 years of their working life. It would be
:14:51. > :14:56.worrying if they did not have disposable income. The way of
:14:57. > :15:00.kicking down wealth is to allow it to happen to families, inheritance
:15:00. > :15:07.and all the people being able to paddle their own can news and not
:15:07. > :15:11.become a burden on their children, rather than having a big stick of
:15:11. > :15:17.government saying that old people are using up too many bedrooms and
:15:17. > :15:19.have to move out of their house, which is outrageous. We are
:15:19. > :15:29.expecting people on welfare benefits to move out of their
:15:29. > :15:33.
:15:33. > :15:37.houses. But they are not their I think we could all agree, what
:15:37. > :15:42.the Government is doing his defence of the law not, but pensioners vote
:15:42. > :15:46.and the turnout of pensioners is much higher than the average. They
:15:46. > :15:50.are an important political constituency. Will this have an
:15:50. > :15:55.impact? Yes, I think it is a massive political risk whatever you
:15:55. > :16:01.think of the substance. I think there is a case that they do make a
:16:01. > :16:04.higher contribution. Although M a powerfully explains the
:16:04. > :16:08.implications for the losses they will make, everybody is making
:16:08. > :16:12.losses at the moment. There's no reason why they should be excluded,
:16:12. > :16:16.but there's always been a powerful political reason, which is they
:16:16. > :16:21.vote, they pay attention. If do you think this will have a political
:16:21. > :16:29.impact on pensioner's? I do. It is as much to do with the way it has
:16:29. > :16:33.been handled as to do with... They are not fools, they feel patronised,
:16:33. > :16:38.furious. It was the only thing in the Budget that was not trailed.
:16:38. > :16:43.Who did he think... Just by calling it a simplification, people
:16:43. > :16:47.wouldn't notice. What is your take? This will be one of the big
:16:47. > :16:52.emerging themes of politics in the next 20 to 30 years, the sense of
:16:53. > :16:57.inter-generational conflict and tension as society continues to age.
:16:57. > :17:00.Our political parties and commentators haven't really started
:17:00. > :17:06.to grapple with this. It will have all sorts of interesting
:17:06. > :17:10.consequences. I think political leaders will become older. Why will
:17:10. > :17:15.those who are still working aged 70, who will massively outnumbered the
:17:15. > :17:21.young, why will they vote forever for 40 year-olds who seemed to be
:17:21. > :17:26.learning on the job? It will force politicians to pick sides between
:17:26. > :17:29.the young and the old. All right. We don't have time to talk about it,
:17:29. > :17:32.but the Chancellor talked about linking the retirement age to
:17:32. > :17:38.longevity, which means the retirement age could be rising
:17:38. > :17:41.indefinitely. I totally agree with that and I also think the new
:17:41. > :17:48.retirement model of people working flexibly and not falling off a
:17:48. > :17:53.cliff edge... It is not either or any more. Exactly. Thank you. Time
:17:53. > :18:03.for the daily quiz. Which of these will not cost any more as a result
:18:03. > :18:05.
:18:05. > :18:13.A rotisserie chicken, hairdressers chairs, Jaffa cakes or hot Cornish
:18:13. > :18:17.pasty East. Interestingly eclectic mix. Steve Andean, who are looking
:18:17. > :18:20.bemused, will maybe give us the correct answer at the end of the
:18:20. > :18:23.show. Easy to work out. Once, Chancellors sipped it when
:18:23. > :18:26.they delivered their Budget, but now the Government worries it is
:18:26. > :18:30.cheaper than the preferred tipple of choice at the despatch box these
:18:30. > :18:32.days - water. So what's their solution? You've guessed it - they
:18:32. > :18:35.want to lighten our pockets. According to the Home Secretary,
:18:35. > :18:38.the Government wants to affect the cheapest end of alcohol that allows
:18:38. > :18:48.people to do something called pre- loading - that's filling up with
:18:48. > :18:49.
:18:49. > :18:53.alcohol before they go out. So what's the plan? The Government
:18:53. > :18:56.wants to consult on a 40p minimum wants to consult on a 40p minimum
:18:56. > :19:04.price per unit of alcohol. That means a �2.99 bottle of red wine,
:19:04. > :19:07.containing 9.4 units of alcohol, would be priced up to �3.76. Cheap,
:19:07. > :19:15.strong lager at 75p a can, with three units per can, would become
:19:15. > :19:20.at least �1.20. It would also considerably increase the price on
:19:20. > :19:24.bulk purchases. So, for example, two crates of 20 cans of cider
:19:24. > :19:30.which could be bought for �20 at one point last year would now cost
:19:30. > :19:33.at least �37.30. Government projections, based on a 40p minimum
:19:33. > :19:43.price, show healthcare costs would drop by �30 million in the first
:19:43. > :19:49.
:19:49. > :19:59.year and �93 million by the tenth year. There would be 50,600 fewer
:19:59. > :20:08.
:20:08. > :20:13.crimes each year, saving �54 And 12,600 fewer violent crimes,
:20:13. > :20:17.reducing costs by �37 million a year. You can believe these figures
:20:17. > :20:23.if you want! Let's see what Theresa May had to say in the House of
:20:23. > :20:26.Commons this morning. This strategy is targeted explicitly at dangerous
:20:26. > :20:31.drinkers, problem pubs, irresponsible shops and harmful
:20:31. > :20:35.drinks. Those who enjoy a quiet drink or two have nothing to fear
:20:35. > :20:39.from these proposals. The local pub has nothing to fear, the
:20:39. > :20:43.responsible off-licence has nothing to fear. We will help tackle
:20:43. > :20:47.problem drinkers. We will help local areas deal with local
:20:47. > :20:52.licensing problems. We will encourage the alcohol industry to
:20:52. > :20:56.act responsibly and we will put a stop to the easy availability of
:20:56. > :21:00.cheap booze that has blighted Britain for too long. The Home
:21:00. > :21:04.Secretary and the measures will apply to England and Wales., and is
:21:04. > :21:12.doing something similar, slightly ahead of what is doing -- happening
:21:13. > :21:15.in England. We are joined by Testament and Jane Davies, the
:21:15. > :21:19.Director of Public affairs at the British Retail Consortium. What
:21:19. > :21:22.evidence is there that raising the price by these relatively small
:21:22. > :21:27.amounts will affect how young people drink? It is pretty clear
:21:27. > :21:30.that young people choose not to go to pubs, not to go into clubs, and
:21:30. > :21:34.actually to buy alcohol in the supermarket or to get somebody else
:21:34. > :21:41.to buy it for them in supermarkets and off-licences. Those who are
:21:41. > :21:47.less responsible. If you can get to a point way you can buy a pint of
:21:47. > :21:52.beer for 34p and cider for 48p, not been responsible pubs, we know we
:21:52. > :21:57.need to do something. What is the evidence that increasing the price,
:21:57. > :22:02.they will not simply move... In some of the prices, the change in a
:22:02. > :22:05.bottle of wine is not that big. is not meant to be. Where's the
:22:05. > :22:11.evidence that they will simply move their drinking habits or spend
:22:11. > :22:17.more... A lot of it is price related. When the local supermarket
:22:17. > :22:19.reduces the price, the sales go up. Supermarkets don't sell cheap booze
:22:20. > :22:25.because they are feeling terribly generous, they do it because they
:22:25. > :22:30.sell more. Have you been to Norway on a Friday night? And no. It is
:22:30. > :22:36.�10 for a pint of beer in Oslo in some pubs. And there are a lot of
:22:36. > :22:40.drunk people around. Why does price matter? It matters a lot. What is
:22:40. > :22:46.really important is the local farmers who are selling side on
:22:46. > :22:53.their premises and the local pubs who are trying to sell alcohol in
:22:53. > :22:58.their hostelries in my area of Somerset. I used the example of
:22:58. > :23:04.Juliet, the landlady of a local pub. She said she is outraged that the
:23:04. > :23:08.Tesco up the road can sell for 34p a pint of fear. For competition.
:23:08. > :23:15.she did that and she served to people who were drunk already, she
:23:15. > :23:19.would lose her licence. The point of this is it is not to help your
:23:19. > :23:24.pub landlord, it is to stop drugs and roaming the streets in the
:23:24. > :23:30.evening in our city and town centres. -- drunks. Isn't it? Or
:23:30. > :23:35.hidden subsidies to pubs. doesn't damage pubs. If you look at
:23:35. > :23:44.the average hospital a Andy at the weekends, it is appalling. -- A and
:23:44. > :23:50.D. I am trying to get the evidence where price would make a difference.
:23:50. > :23:53.The accusation in your trade is that you are selling things
:23:53. > :23:58.sometimes as loss-leaders and disgracefully low prices and you
:23:58. > :24:04.should be more responsible. First of all, you don't make a successful
:24:04. > :24:08.business out of selling at a loss. The vast majority of lines, even
:24:08. > :24:14.when on promotion, are not loss- leaders. Secondly, we have to bear
:24:14. > :24:19.in mind that we have prices here in the UK that of 50% higher than
:24:19. > :24:23.throughout the rest of Europe. For it is not simply a matter of price.
:24:23. > :24:28.Indeed, in Scotland, Alex Salmond has said that consumption in
:24:28. > :24:32.Scotland is 20% higher than England when the prices are the same. This
:24:32. > :24:36.is a cultural issue. Pricing will not be the silver bullet that
:24:36. > :24:43.solves the problem. Let me give you three cities where booze is just as
:24:43. > :24:48.plentiful and often cheaper than in London. New York, Dubai, Paris. And
:24:48. > :24:54.you don't see gangs of drunks are roaming the streets in any of these
:24:54. > :24:59.three cities. It is a cultural problem. What does it have to do
:24:59. > :25:04.with it? The market is sensitive to price and young people, the ones we
:25:04. > :25:08.really need to try to stop arming themselves and harming other people
:25:08. > :25:14.and other people's property, they are sensitive to price. There's no
:25:14. > :25:20.question. Why do you think in New York, for example, there are not
:25:20. > :25:23.kids roaming the streets drunk. If you do, the police pick you up. You
:25:23. > :25:28.will spend a night in jail and if you do it again, you will go to
:25:28. > :25:33.jail. Yes. On our streets, that doesn't happen. We have a different
:25:33. > :25:37.culture. Police are too soft. don't think so. They are much
:25:37. > :25:41.tougher in New York and Paris and Dubai. I was listening to one of my
:25:41. > :25:44.colleagues this morning talking about the 1898 in the Prince act
:25:44. > :25:49.which is something else I would like to look at bringing into my
:25:49. > :25:54.part of Somerset. You are just a Nani state interference. You want a
:25:54. > :25:58.micro-manage halides. You want to fix the price of booze. What does
:25:58. > :26:05.it have to do with you, you're a politician? It is about
:26:05. > :26:10.protecting... Vast resources are being wasted on crimes related to
:26:10. > :26:14.alcohol, resource is being wasted on the health systems, dealing with
:26:14. > :26:17.people who were ill. Look at the explosion of people who need
:26:17. > :26:26.treatment for liver disease. don't you just put the prices up a
:26:26. > :26:29.bit? Retailing is a very competitive business, particularly
:26:30. > :26:35.at the moment. One in four families are saying they run out of money by
:26:35. > :26:39.the end of the month anyway. Making money out of people who then go on
:26:39. > :26:46.the rampage on our streets late at night after buying products from
:26:46. > :26:52.your members. Are you proud of that? 75% of men and four out of
:26:52. > :26:57.five women drink responsibly. is not what we are talking about.
:26:57. > :27:04.Consumption of alcohol is going down because of a lot of different
:27:04. > :27:09.issues that are being taken forward to change that culture. We are
:27:09. > :27:12.talking about those... The ones who drink responsibly on not pre-
:27:12. > :27:17.loading on cheap cider and cheap beer. They are having a glass of
:27:17. > :27:21.Chardonnay of an evening. They are also the ones with health problems.
:27:21. > :27:26.At least they are not on the rampage and affecting me. Why don't
:27:26. > :27:31.you just be responsible and put the prices of these really low priced
:27:31. > :27:38.alcohol units up and then the interfering politicians would not
:27:38. > :27:42.have to get involved? We are responsible. We have taken the lead
:27:42. > :27:49.as the sector in insuring that people understand the number of
:27:49. > :27:54.units there are in a drink. It is a competitive market. Her if you all
:27:54. > :27:59.but the price up... It is dangerous if we start getting into territory
:27:59. > :28:07.where it governments are dictating prices. What is your view? I think
:28:07. > :28:12.we need maximum alcohol prices. The British have a problem with this,
:28:12. > :28:15.but I don't think it is all about price, I think it is about culture.
:28:16. > :28:22.Something changed in the British psyche 40 years ago. Youngsters
:28:22. > :28:28.started drinking in this way, in a way their predecessors hadn't. That
:28:28. > :28:34.can't just be about price. It might be a small factor, but something
:28:34. > :28:38.deeper has happened culturally. Quite what the state to do things.
:28:38. > :28:48.-- I want the state to do things. I wish they would tell me to stop
:28:48. > :28:49.
:28:49. > :28:52.drinking as much mind as I do -- wine. Stop drinking! The smoking
:28:52. > :28:56.ban was arguably one of the most important things the previous
:28:56. > :29:01.government did. It was never in the manifesto, but it changed behaviour
:29:01. > :29:09.for the better. If pricing makes a difference, and I suspect it will,
:29:09. > :29:12.I supported. We shall see. We have run out of time. Thank you.
:29:12. > :29:15.David Cameron is in Scotland today, where he's been addressing the
:29:15. > :29:23.Scottish Conservatives' annual conference. This is what he had to
:29:23. > :29:28.say. Not only can you love Scotland and love the United Kingdom, not
:29:28. > :29:33.only can you drape yourself in the Saltire and the Union Jack, but let
:29:33. > :29:37.me say this. You can be even prouder of your Scottish heritage
:29:37. > :29:42.than your British heritage, as many in Scotland are, and still believe
:29:42. > :29:46.that Scotland is better off in Britain. All of this is why this
:29:46. > :29:50.Prime Minister and his party is going to fight for the United
:29:50. > :29:53.Kingdom with everything we've got. That was the prime minister
:29:53. > :30:02.speaking in Scotland. With us now is David Mundall, the
:30:02. > :30:09.Scotland Office Minister. Why are the Scottish Tories so
:30:09. > :30:15.useless? I don't accept that analysis. Everybody knows we have
:30:15. > :30:20.had our difficulties, but at the UK general election, one in six people
:30:20. > :30:23.in Scotland was voting Conservative. I'm in Troon, which has a council
:30:23. > :30:29.run by the Conservatives. The Conservatives are representing
:30:29. > :30:32.people in Scotland. We have to do better, we have a dynamic new
:30:32. > :30:38.leader in Ruth Davidson who will turn around our fortunes, but we
:30:38. > :30:42.have a big part to play in the campaign coming up to save the UK,
:30:42. > :30:52.keep Scotland at the heart of the UK, and as David Cameron said, that
:30:52. > :30:52.
:30:52. > :31:01.In the Westminster elections in 1997, the Scottish Tories were
:31:01. > :31:08.wiped out. You had no MPs after that, is that right? We had no MPs
:31:08. > :31:15.after 1997. But since 2005, I have been an MP here. How many do you
:31:15. > :31:20.have now? We have me. I am the sole Conservative MP in Scotland. It is
:31:20. > :31:26.not a position I sought, to be the sole MP, but one in six people in
:31:26. > :31:32.Scotland did vote Conservative. 420,000 Scots voted Conservative in
:31:32. > :31:36.the UK general election. So you have added one MP in 15 years, that
:31:36. > :31:43.is your rate of progress. That means that to become a majority of
:31:43. > :31:50.Scottish MPs, it would take you 450 years to become a majority again?
:31:50. > :31:59.Is that your sense of purpose? are not setting out that prospect.
:31:59. > :32:04.We want to grow the number of Conservative MPs in Scotland. We
:32:04. > :32:08.want to grow the number of councillors. There are councillors
:32:08. > :32:13.all over Scotland representing our party in local government. We have
:32:13. > :32:17.16 MSPs in the Scottish parliament. Scottish Conservatives are speaking
:32:17. > :32:24.out for Scotland on issues that represent our values. Of course we
:32:24. > :32:27.want to do better. That is why we have a young leader who is
:32:27. > :32:32.transforming our party's organisation and bringing forward a
:32:32. > :32:36.new policy platform. And most importantly, putting us at the
:32:36. > :32:41.centre of the debate around the future of Scotland. But I do not
:32:41. > :32:49.see the progress you are talking about. You have gone from zero MPs
:32:49. > :32:55.to one MP in 15 years. In 1999, you got 18 Conservatives elected on 15%
:32:55. > :33:04.of the vote. In 2011, you got 15 elected on at 11.6% of the vote.
:33:04. > :33:09.You have gone backwards. We do not suggest that things have been easy.
:33:09. > :33:13.Or that we would not want to do better. That is why Ruth Davidson
:33:13. > :33:17.has become our leader, with a platform of taking forward new
:33:17. > :33:21.policies and new organisation, taking our message to the people of
:33:21. > :33:26.Scotland. One of the ro most important things to do is to say to
:33:26. > :33:34.people who have voted SNP on the basis of Conservative policies such
:33:34. > :33:37.as low council tax and business rates is that their vote is
:33:37. > :33:44.actually a vote to break up Britain. If you want to see these policies
:33:44. > :33:53.pursued and keep the UK, you should vote Conservative. Give my regards
:33:53. > :33:57.to that lovely town of Troon on the Ayrshire coast. Iain Martin, the
:33:57. > :34:00.fact is that progress from the Scottish Conservatives has actually
:34:00. > :34:05.been glacial or in reverse from the number of seats they have in the
:34:05. > :34:11.Scottish parliament. And yet in Wales, the Conservatives have had a
:34:12. > :34:19.comeback. Why in Wales and not Scotland? Is stars look as though
:34:19. > :34:25.what happened in 1997 was not a blip, it was an extinction event.
:34:25. > :34:31.The politics of the Thatcher period, now more than two decades ago,
:34:31. > :34:38.still dominate Scottish politics. It is incredibly difficult, because
:34:38. > :34:41.there is a consensus in Scottish politics. Difficult to get a
:34:41. > :34:47.hearing for arguments about free- market saw education or health
:34:47. > :34:52.reform of the kind that has been engaged in in England. Scotland is
:34:52. > :34:58.substantially to the left, and the Tories have not made progress.
:34:58. > :35:03.it is not just a setback, it could be extinction? I wonder. It is
:35:03. > :35:07.fascinating hearing that interview, because the two of you know about
:35:07. > :35:12.this, but you are reminded that politically, Scotland is so
:35:12. > :35:18.different from England. It is extraordinary. But at some point,
:35:18. > :35:22.the space will surely emerge for a party of the centre right. You
:35:22. > :35:30.can't have a political debate where in effect, the three parties are
:35:31. > :35:36.all on the centre-left. But people have been saying that for ten years,
:35:36. > :35:42.and it has not happened. A large number of people who are natural
:35:42. > :35:48.Tory voters all would be if they lived in the home counties, they
:35:48. > :35:51.voted for Blair. They have now been snaffled by Alex Salmond. The
:35:51. > :35:57.Liberal Democrats are extinct in Scottish politics. The Tories are
:35:57. > :36:01.in trouble. It is a two party fight between Alex Salmond and a Labour
:36:01. > :36:05.Party in trouble. There is little space for the Tories to get a
:36:05. > :36:09.hearing. We shall see. This time next week, we will know
:36:09. > :36:15.the result of the Bradford West by- election, caused by the resignation
:36:15. > :36:20.due to ill health of Labour's Marsha Singh. He is in the running,
:36:20. > :36:25.and what are the candidates talking about?
:36:25. > :36:28.Bill Bryson once said bad for's role in life is to make every other
:36:28. > :36:34.place in the world look better. -- Bradford's role is to make other
:36:34. > :36:40.places look better. But not so fast, it is also carry capital of the UK,
:36:40. > :36:46.home to one of Britain's largest Asian populations and the home town
:36:46. > :36:49.of a member of chart-topping group one direction. Bradford's economy
:36:49. > :36:53.is in serious trouble. Council job cuts and closures to local
:36:53. > :36:57.businesses have meant the amount of people claiming jobseeker's
:36:57. > :37:02.allowance in this constituency has gone up by almost a third over the
:37:02. > :37:06.past year. Youth unemployment has gone up by 40%. Labour has a
:37:06. > :37:10.majority of just under 6000 in Bradford West, but this was a key
:37:10. > :37:14.target seats for the Tories in the last general election. It is the
:37:14. > :37:18.kind of urban, ethnically diverse area they say they need to do
:37:18. > :37:24.better in. We have just had a wonderful Budget for growth and
:37:24. > :37:28.business. I will visit as many of the employers in this area as I can
:37:28. > :37:33.to tell them about the initiatives we have to get young people into
:37:33. > :37:37.work, particularly the work experience and the financial
:37:37. > :37:42.incentives that will help them to take on a young person between 18
:37:42. > :37:46.and 24. With rising unemployment, the Lib Dems may be facing the
:37:46. > :37:52.consequences of going into government with the Tories. But
:37:52. > :37:58.their candidate denies it. This is not a referendum on the coalition.
:37:58. > :38:02.That comes in 2015, when everybody will get a say. This is about who
:38:02. > :38:07.will be the best person to stand up for Bradford West. I have a record
:38:07. > :38:11.of bringing money to the city and getting ministers here to see what
:38:11. > :38:16.is happening. The UK Independence Party came second in the Barnsley
:38:16. > :38:21.by-election last year. They hoped to perform well here as well.
:38:21. > :38:27.want to get third place and beat the Lib Dems. And I think I can. I
:38:27. > :38:32.am a local person. I have been in the area for over 50 years. I have
:38:32. > :38:35.worked for the young and old, the vulnerable. I am aware of the
:38:35. > :38:40.situations here and I would like to fight for Bradford West in
:38:40. > :38:44.Westminster. But one man has come along to mix things up a bit. I
:38:44. > :38:49.have come to a hustings at the University of Bradford. There are
:38:49. > :38:56.two empty chairs on the stage. The Labour and Conservative candidates
:38:56. > :39:00.did not want to take part. So welcome to the George Galloway show.
:39:00. > :39:04.Parliament needs someone to represent the people who are
:39:04. > :39:07.currently not represented there. All three of the main parties
:39:07. > :39:12.support the war in Afghanistan, but most people in Britain don't. But
:39:12. > :39:16.nobody is speaking up for them. you have promised your constituents
:39:16. > :39:21.that if you win, you will be in Parliament and not of making
:39:21. > :39:23.reality TV when you should be serving constituents? I was never
:39:23. > :39:28.on a reality programme when I should have been serving
:39:28. > :39:33.constituents. I served my constituents faithfully. That was
:39:33. > :39:39.why I was elected five times to Parliament. It is not easy. You
:39:39. > :39:45.should try it. Five parliamentary victories in three different
:39:45. > :39:50.constituencies. Next Thursday, we might see another one. The Green
:39:50. > :39:54.Party are also standing in Bradford West. We won't -- we are the only
:39:54. > :39:59.party with a renewed deal and a plan to create thousands of new
:39:59. > :40:02.jobs in areas such as green energy and also to create a new raft of 18
:40:02. > :40:07.to 25-year-old entrepreneur's by freeing up money to get new
:40:07. > :40:12.businesses off the ground. Labour candidate, Imran Hussain, is
:40:12. > :40:16.deputy leader of the local council. He invited me for lunch with Andy
:40:16. > :40:20.Burnham. I was hoping for one of those famous Currys, but he
:40:20. > :40:22.insisted on a pizza, coincidentally at the birthplace of the
:40:22. > :40:29.Independent Labour Party. I asked him if he was running scared from
:40:29. > :40:34.George Galloway. No. I refused to share a platform. But I have said
:40:34. > :40:42.this is a very short campaign. I will be out there, knocking on
:40:42. > :40:46.doors, listening to people in these difficult times. That is the way I
:40:46. > :40:50.want to go into this campaign. Unless there is a Lazarus-like
:40:50. > :40:58.comeback from George Galloway, Labour would use a win in Bradford
:40:58. > :41:01.West to show that they are picking up momentum, and hope it is true.
:41:01. > :41:11.Be there are eight candidates standing in the Bradford West by-
:41:11. > :41:14.
:41:14. > :41:19.Now, we are joined from Leeds by the BBC's political editor from
:41:19. > :41:23.Yorkshire. What have been the highlights of the campaign? One of
:41:23. > :41:29.the things has been George Galloway barnstorming at that meeting that I
:41:29. > :41:33.was present at at the student Unite union. But while he is making an
:41:33. > :41:37.impression that, where it was packed with Respect supporters, he
:41:37. > :41:46.is not making much impression on the streets. This has been a Labour
:41:46. > :41:50.seat since the '70s. There have never been large majorities. There
:41:50. > :41:54.is a 6000 legacy from the previous popular Labour MP. It was a
:41:54. > :42:00.marginal back in the general election. The Conservatives poured
:42:00. > :42:03.lots of resources into it. The result was that the 3500 Labour
:42:03. > :42:11.majority before the general election became 6000 after the
:42:11. > :42:16.general election. Any sense yet on how the Budget in general and the
:42:16. > :42:20.so-called granny tax are playing on the streets? In 30 years of
:42:20. > :42:24.covering politics, I have never been to a by-election where Ray
:42:24. > :42:30.Budget was slap-bang in the middle of it. David Cameron came yesterday
:42:30. > :42:33.bearing gifts. In the Budget, there were a small number of cities that
:42:33. > :42:38.were told they could have extra money to have super-fast broadband.
:42:38. > :42:43.One of those was Bradford, funnily enough. He mentioned all sorts of
:42:43. > :42:48.things. Today we had Ed Miliband in the constituency. Surprise,
:42:48. > :42:54.surprise, he went for it cup of tea with a couple of pensioners. So the
:42:54. > :42:58.Budget is high on the agenda. We are told Nick Clegg will not be
:42:58. > :43:04.campaigning. We expect the deputy leader of that party to be a long
:43:04. > :43:11.next week. It would be a major upset, particularly with Labour in
:43:11. > :43:17.opposition now, if Labour was to lose this by-election. We never
:43:17. > :43:23.know for sure, but is there any prospect of that? By-elections do
:43:23. > :43:28.throw up surprises, but I would be very surprised if Labour does not
:43:28. > :43:34.at least keep the majority it has. We are not seeing any surprises.
:43:34. > :43:39.The only scenario would be if that George Galloway vote managed to
:43:39. > :43:44.nibble away. Can the Conservatives then gallop up on the outside? They
:43:44. > :43:54.were second last time, the Lib Dems a distant third. 6000 is
:43:54. > :43:57.comfortable, but not overwhelming. The issue of dangerous dog was put
:43:57. > :44:02.back in the public eye yesterday after a vicious attack in east
:44:02. > :44:07.London injured five police officers, four seriously. Two of those
:44:07. > :44:12.officers are still in hospital. One is reported to need a skin graft.
:44:12. > :44:17.Specialist firearms officers were called in to shoot what has been
:44:17. > :44:22.described as a pit-bull-type dog. The Government has already
:44:22. > :44:26.committed itself to tackling the issue, promising an announcement on
:44:26. > :44:30.measures before the end of the month. What needs to be done. Chris
:44:30. > :44:40.Mason is on College Green with a Lib-Dem MP and a representative of
:44:40. > :44:44.the postal workers' union, the CWU. Yes, there is a chequered history
:44:44. > :44:49.when it comes to politicians and dangerous dogs. The legislation at
:44:49. > :44:55.the moment, the Dangerous Dogs Act, dates back to 1991. There is a
:44:55. > :45:02.sense that it is out of date. But many criticise that legislation for
:45:02. > :45:06.being rushed to through a and a response to a media campaign in the
:45:06. > :45:13.early '90s. It is a tricky one for the Government to grapple with in
:45:13. > :45:16.terms of which up -- department is responsible. DEFRA, the Environment,
:45:16. > :45:20.food and rural affairs department, calls the shots on this, which
:45:20. > :45:23.seems odd. That may be why it takes a while to get to the bottom of
:45:24. > :45:28.this and dream up a new idea. Let's chat with my two guests, the Lib
:45:28. > :45:38.Dem MP Tom Brake and Dave Joyce from the Communication Workers'
:45:38. > :45:39.
:45:39. > :45:43.Union. Dave, how bigger problem is Dangerous Dogs is a big problem. We
:45:43. > :45:46.have been campaigning since 2008. We believe the coalition have had
:45:46. > :45:51.plenty of time to do something and we want them to take action
:45:51. > :45:55.urgently. 11 people have been killed by dogs in the UK in the
:45:55. > :46:00.last five years, 23 postal workers have been attacked and injured by
:46:00. > :46:05.dogs in the last four years and we want action now. Do you
:46:05. > :46:10.specifically need new laws? We do. Since our campaign started, the
:46:10. > :46:13.Scottish government agreed with us to change the law and have done so,
:46:13. > :46:17.the Northern Ireland government have done the same, as has the
:46:17. > :46:21.Welsh government. We now want Westminster to change the law. You
:46:21. > :46:27.can get rid of at least eight or nine pieces of useless legislation
:46:27. > :46:29.and get -- introduce one new-build. There's a suggestion that the
:46:30. > :46:35.Government will conform with a package of measures that is short
:46:35. > :46:38.of new legislation. How important his new legislation? What we need
:46:38. > :46:43.to address is the Dangerous Dogs Act, the fact it doesn't apply on
:46:43. > :46:47.private land, for instance. Communication workers have the
:46:47. > :46:51.biggest problem there. We also need to look at the breeds affected. I
:46:51. > :46:55.had a tragic case in my constituency of a woman who died as
:46:55. > :46:59.a result of an attack by a Belgian mastiff, not one of the breeds
:46:59. > :47:04.covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Would you be letting down people
:47:04. > :47:09.like Dave and others if there is no specific new legislation? Can't be
:47:09. > :47:13.done without it? We have to look at a range of measures on the table.
:47:13. > :47:17.Microchipping could play a role. We could also look to earlier
:47:17. > :47:21.intervention. One of the big problems with dogs, and this was
:47:21. > :47:26.the case in my constituency, is people are worried about a dog, but
:47:26. > :47:31.until it does something no action can be taken. Thank you both. A
:47:31. > :47:35.very heated issue and plenty of discussion to come. There's a
:47:35. > :47:38.patchwork of different laws around the UK related to this, but
:47:38. > :47:42.specifically for England, we are expecting something from the
:47:42. > :47:48.Government within a couple of weeks, but whether it stacks up to new
:47:48. > :47:51.laws, we don't yet know. Thank you. Beautiful weather out
:47:51. > :47:53.there in Westminster! Spring has sprung.
:47:53. > :47:56.So it's been a busy old week. Stella McCartney launched her
:47:57. > :47:59.Olympic uniform range. And very nice it is, too. The weather's been
:48:00. > :48:09.absolutely lovely and there's been a heck of a lot happening at
:48:10. > :48:11.
:48:11. > :48:18.Westminster. Here's Max with his 60 The Chancellor set out his economic
:48:18. > :48:22.vision for the nation this week. It is goodbye 50p, hello granny tax.
:48:22. > :48:26.Government's controversial proposals to reform the NHS in
:48:26. > :48:30.England cleared their final parliamentary hurdle this week. The
:48:30. > :48:36.bruised and battered Health and Social Care Bill finally got the
:48:36. > :48:41.thumbs-up from MPs on Tuesday night. Her Majesty visited Parliament this
:48:41. > :48:45.week, marking 60 years on the frame. A speech to both Houses of
:48:45. > :48:51.Parliament was attended by a kaleidoscope of the great and good.
:48:51. > :48:56.Are we about to see roads plc? In a speech on infrastructure, the prime
:48:56. > :49:00.minister said there was an urgent need to repair England's roads. He
:49:00. > :49:05.suggested private investors might stump up the cash. And after 11
:49:05. > :49:15.years as a peer of the realm, Michael Heseltine graced the House
:49:15. > :49:21.
:49:21. > :49:28.Making his maiden speech, I thought he had been a lot for ages! I
:49:28. > :49:31.wanted to ask you about the health bill. It has been a terrible
:49:31. > :49:36.experience for the coalition. I think some wish they had never
:49:36. > :49:40.started in the first place. But it is going into law. I wondered
:49:40. > :49:44.whether Labour might, by saying this is privatisation, this is the
:49:44. > :49:49.end of the health service as we know it, fire and brimstone, Sodom
:49:49. > :49:52.and Gomorrah, if in three years' time not much has changed, they
:49:52. > :49:58.will have overplayed their hand. think a lot will have changed.
:49:58. > :50:03.the worse? Yes, I do. This isn't the end of this story as a
:50:03. > :50:07.political problem for the coalition. I think the Lib Dems will be in
:50:07. > :50:13.real trouble in some of their seats because of their support for this,
:50:13. > :50:17.albeit they claim they made it better. For legislative passage has
:50:17. > :50:20.been extraordinary. We now have this weird Bill where all of the
:50:20. > :50:24.amendments contradicted the original intentions of the bill. In
:50:24. > :50:29.that sense it reminds me of the poll tax, where you had a very
:50:29. > :50:32.simple piece of legislation, which was entirely contradicted by all of
:50:32. > :50:36.the legislative amendments. All of the rebates... It countered what
:50:36. > :50:40.the whole thing was meant to be about. They got it through, let's
:50:40. > :50:44.got on with it, and it became a mess. I think it will be a mess on
:50:44. > :50:49.the ground. Even if it is not directly responsible for some of
:50:49. > :50:53.the things that will go wrong, it will create news stories and it
:50:53. > :50:56.will be blamed. This is not the end of this story. If that is the case,
:50:56. > :51:01.it is a running sore for the Government. Her absolutely.
:51:01. > :51:06.Everything that goes wrong in the NHS, even if it had nothing to do
:51:06. > :51:12.with this Bill, will be blamed on it. How many people, after this
:51:12. > :51:16.extraordinary process, can actually explain what the Bill does? It is
:51:16. > :51:19.one of the most extraordinary failings of political management
:51:19. > :51:23.and communication I can remember. It will have implications for the
:51:23. > :51:27.workings of the coalition. David Cameron is conscious that not
:51:27. > :51:31.enough attention was paid to it, it was supposed to be bomb proved by
:51:31. > :51:37.Oliver Letwin and it turned into a complete shambles. You will see
:51:37. > :51:43.more power as a result drawn to the centre as Cameron will be looking
:51:43. > :51:49.to avoid any repeat in other areas. If Oliver Letwin is trying to sell
:51:49. > :51:53.you an air raid shelter, don't buy Now, to the burning question of the
:51:53. > :51:58.week - do we live in a kaleidoscope world? And what makes the UK a
:51:58. > :52:02.kaleidoscope country? Yes, it was all in the Speaker's address to the
:52:02. > :52:12.Queen on Tuesday. We sent Adam out to see if he could make sense of it
:52:12. > :52:12.
:52:12. > :52:16.Up it is the mystery gripping Westminster. Why did this because
:52:16. > :52:22.say this before Her Majesty addressed parliament this week?
:52:22. > :52:26.have become, to many of us, a kaleidoscope Queen of a
:52:26. > :52:30.kaleidoscope country in a kaleidoscope Commonwealth.
:52:30. > :52:40.obviously went down well with the prime minister, who then reference
:52:40. > :52:42.
:52:42. > :52:47.it at PMQs. This is a kaleidoscope Budget. But it split public opinion.
:52:47. > :52:52.Kaleidoscope is many colours, different shapes. The Queen over
:52:52. > :52:55.the years has had to adapt to many changes. People know what a
:52:55. > :53:00.kaleidoscope is and they know who the Queen is. But the two don't
:53:00. > :53:04.relate to each other. I'm not sure what kaleidoscope Queen means, it
:53:04. > :53:10.doesn't sound very polite to Her Majesty. Although one theory has
:53:10. > :53:12.emerged. It turns up the Speaker is honorary President of an
:53:12. > :53:16.international gay rights charity called the kaleidoscope Trust. So
:53:16. > :53:20.was this just a big plug? Speaker is more than capable of
:53:20. > :53:25.writing his own speeches and he did on this occasion. His choice of
:53:25. > :53:28.language is up to him. At the kaleidoscope Trust, we chose the
:53:28. > :53:32.word kaleidoscope because it does represent a bringing together of
:53:32. > :53:35.the sort of diverse nature of Britain and what we would hope
:53:35. > :53:39.would be the diverse nature of the world. A spokesman for Mr Bercow
:53:39. > :53:45.told us that when he was building his kaleidoscope, he just meant it
:53:45. > :53:50.as an image, and metaphor. But Mr Speaker has discovered that even a
:53:50. > :53:55.speech created with the precision of as whips wash maker, if
:53:55. > :54:02.delivered to an audience more cynical than anything, in front of
:54:02. > :54:12.the monarch, can end up like Marmite. Loved and loathed.
:54:12. > :54:17.
:54:17. > :54:21.There we go. Kaleidoscope is derived from three Greek words. An
:54:21. > :54:26.observer of beautiful forms. Who said public service broadcasting
:54:26. > :54:30.was dead?! Some people thought the speech was all right. Is it just
:54:30. > :54:35.the cynical Westminster village that likes to have a go? It was a
:54:35. > :54:38.speech that divided opinion. think that's pretty safe to say!
:54:39. > :54:44.Whether a speech should be dividing opinion... It was fine as a
:54:44. > :54:48.metaphor. What was more interesting, I'm told David Cameron is also
:54:48. > :54:56.livid that John Bercow gave a special emergency debate on the NHS
:54:56. > :54:59.bill the day before. But I think it was a lot of David Cameron to shows
:54:59. > :55:03.such disdain in public at Prime Minister's Questions. Other leaders
:55:03. > :55:10.have been really... There's no love lost between them. It is now the
:55:10. > :55:15.Republic. We would have made more of that if it is not receded the
:55:15. > :55:19.Budget. A public put-down. But from what I have seen of the criticism,
:55:19. > :55:23.the main complaint, other than having fun at the word kaleidoscope,
:55:23. > :55:28.which of course Tony Blair used immediately after 9/11 at the
:55:29. > :55:33.Labour Party Conference... It just seemed the Speaker was
:55:34. > :55:40.grandstanding in front of the Queen and it wasn't his day, it was the
:55:40. > :55:45.Queen's Day. Exactly right. That was a much bigger problem than the
:55:45. > :55:49.word kaleidoscope. All he had to do on this extraordinary day, the sun
:55:49. > :55:53.was shining, Westminster Hall was looking extraordinary, or he had to
:55:53. > :56:02.do was to stand up and say lords, ladies and gentlemen, I give you
:56:02. > :56:07.the Queen. And sit down. They were there to hear her rather than
:56:07. > :56:10.listen to him. I thought it was somewhat ill judged. Except that on
:56:10. > :56:17.the hall on these occasions, would you get preceding the big event is
:56:17. > :56:22.just a few banalities. I think he is an interesting Speaker. He has
:56:22. > :56:26.done a lot to make the House of Commons relevant. He has certainly
:56:26. > :56:32.allowed MPs to get their debates and he sided with Parliament
:56:32. > :56:34.against the executive. His equivalent in the House of Lords,
:56:34. > :56:41.she made a very distinguished speech, she had some strong points
:56:41. > :56:45.in it, she didn't grandstand. Did she make some strong point? His
:56:45. > :56:49.image of the kaleidoscope, whether you like it or not, has been
:56:49. > :56:54.remembered. She talked about the diversity of the Commonwealth and
:56:54. > :56:58.how the Queen to the Commonwealth duties seriously and had presided
:56:58. > :57:04.over the changing country. Fair enough. I think the irritation from
:57:04. > :57:07.David Cameron was partly that, but partly the other issues about
:57:07. > :57:14.granting too many debates, which the Government finds awkward.
:57:14. > :57:17.and Labour have been nip and tuck in the polls for a while. A poll in
:57:17. > :57:22.the Sun shows Labour way ahead after the Budget. A sign of things
:57:22. > :57:28.to come? I think it is. It is only one poll. This weekend will be
:57:28. > :57:33.interesting. Sunday polls will be really interesting. Don't you to
:57:33. > :57:36.forget. There's just time before we go to
:57:36. > :57:39.find out the answer to our quiz. The question was - which of these
:57:39. > :57:41.won't cost any more as a result of the chancellor's Budget?
:57:41. > :57:48.Supermarket rotisserie chicken, hairdressers' chairs, Jaffa cakes,
:57:48. > :57:57.or hot Cornish pasties. What is the answer? Blue nun? It is not on the
:57:57. > :58:02.list. That will surely get a special rebate. Is it Jaffa cakes?
:58:02. > :58:05.You are right. They are not cooked on the premises. Things like
:58:05. > :58:13.Cornish pasty is are cooked on the premises and they will have more
:58:13. > :58:20.VAT. Cornish pasty is a heated. The things that are heated. They are
:58:20. > :58:27.cakes as well, not biscuits. Right. Cakes are not liable. I have no
:58:27. > :58:35.idea. There's no VAT on cake. there not? The BBC's cake expert
:58:35. > :58:39.has just informed me of that. She now says let them eat cake as well.
:58:39. > :58:42.It is clearly easy, who said that government was micro-manage inquest
:58:42. > :58:46.That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One O'Clock News is