23/03/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. So it's last orders

for cheap booze. The Prime Minister is worried about irresponsible

drinking and says he wants to put an end to scenes like this on our

streets. To that end, he wants to introduce a minimum price for

alcohol and a ban on cheap deals. The debate over the granny tax is

still raging, but is it really the chancellor's biggest Budget

blunder? We will be on the campaign trail in the Bradford West by-

election. And we will be getting to the

bottom of Speaker Bercow's kaleidoscopic speech about the

Queen. All that in the next hour. And with

us for the programme today are Iain Martin, who writes for the Sunday

Telegraph, and the Independent columnist Steve Richards. What a

dream team. If you have any thoughts or comments on anything we

are discussing, you can send them to us. Let's start with the biggest

political event of the week, George Osborne's third Budget. And it is

one that is still ruffling feathers and threatening the chancellor's

reputation as a master strategist. So was it a Budget for working

people or a budget for millionaires? A budget to clobber

the rich, or clobber a granny? Or was it, dare we say, just a bit of

a mess? I would go for the last of those questions. Surprisingly. I

have never understood why George Osborne is regarded as a master

strategist. I do not think it is based on March, be on when he

announced that he would abolish inheritance tax and stopped the

early election. But Mr Brown did bottle out. That was the moment on

which it was based. But more widely, I have never understood on what

basis is regarded as this tactical genius. I am mystified as to why he

did not put more work into the tactics of this Budget. Why didn't

he prepared the ground for taxing wealthy pensioners? Why didn't he

prepare more fully from his part? I am genuinely mystified. You would

have thought they would have talked about what they wanted the press to

say the next day and gone about getting it ready. But I see no

evidence of that. Is des two after the Budget any better than they

want? No, it seems to be getting worse. We have all seen budgets

unravel, but this one has been special. Those of us who have

written for years and questioned George Osborne's reputation as a

political genius are feeling a flush of vindication. When he was

in Washington last week on the Cameron-Obama jaunt, sophisticates

around Osborne said all was well and that he could afford to go to

America for a few days. Now it looks as though he should have been

in London, doing more work on the Budget. We will come on to the

substance of the so-called granny tax in a minute, but you can see

the problems it has caused. There is a broad case, however, for doing

what he is trying to do. But they made no effort to prepare the

ground, as Steve said. Everyone was taken by surprise. The can feel a

certain sympathy in that as the population ages and more people

would be on 70, it makes sense. But you have to make a big argument and

be honest about it. It is the way you do it. Any strategist could see

this. Six months before the Budget, start writing articles about

generation inequality. Then say there is a case for getting more

money of the pensioners who have done very well over the last few

years. And distinguish that not all pensioners are living in a scullery

with no money. Then you would get papers calling for a tax of this

kind. Then leaked the fact that you are thinking of doing it. If all

hell breaks loose, don't do it. If you sense that it is going in your

direction, you announce it to regretful country. I can see a job

offer coming your way. But it is not just the granny tax. That might

be excusable. It is the mess on child benefit, where rather than

admitting that they made a mistake and scrapping it, they have put in

its place something incredibly complex which creates a marginal

rate of tax for those between 50 and 60 if they dare to have kids of

up to 65%. Then look at the 40p. That is the real bombshell that

will do the most damage. When this government came to power, 3 million

people paid 40p tax. When they leave power, it will be 5 million

people. It is extraordinary that a Tory Chancellor is doing this.

he has several more budgets. This is a mid- term Budget, the last one

where as a Chancellor, you can take risks and do what you believe in

rather than what you think is electorally necessary. The next few

will be made much more with the election in mind. You are right,

the papers are just as bad as yesterday, but there was an old

maxim that budgets which are trashed the day after, by the

following week are praised. And budgets that are praised are

trashed the week after. I have always had that. We shall see the

Sunday papers this week. It will be interesting. So is the Sunday

Politics. Well, MPs spent most of yesterday

debating the Budget. Here is a flavour of what was said.

Yesterday's Budget was described by the Economist as more of a

newspaper review and a Budget. Another said the Budget had all the

leak free qualities of a teabag in a sieve. It might be quicker to

list what the papers did not publish beforehand. For the benefit

of the house,... The they call this a Robin Hood Budget! But they have

got it the wrong way round. Robin Hood took from the rich to give to

the poor. This Budget takes from low and middle-income families to

give to the rich. The Chancellor is not Robin Hood. He is the Sheriff

of Nottingham. As for jobs and growth, he couldn't give a Friar

Tuck, Mr Deputy Speaker. Being lectured now on how to manage an

economy is like being given a talk on seamanship by the captain of the

Costa Concordia, another believer in light touch steering. Can we

have a statement on the higher rate of tax? The Sun account on Twitter

is reporting that friends of the Prime Minister say he does pay the

higher rate of taxation. We have not heard from friends of the

Chancellor, or doesn't you have any left after mugging the nation's

grannies yesterday? Why should this outbreak of openness be confined to

members on this side of the house? I'll hope the honourable member

will try and persuade all his friends to be as open as he wants

us to be. Her So the so-called granny tax

dominated much of proceedings. We thought we would have our own

little debate about the measure today. Joining us now is the editor

at large of Saga magazine, Emma Soames, and Ed Howker, who wrote

The Jilted Generation. Emma Soames, the poor pensioners are not

affected by this, because they do not pay tax. Wealthy pensioners do

not get any benefit, because they do not get, they lose the allowance

anyway. So it is mainly the middle band of pensioners we are talking

about. Isn't there a case for a lining everybody's personal

allowance to be the same? people who are being affected by

this new age allowance are the people who have spent all their

lives working harder to build up modest amounts of savings. It is a

kick in the solar plexus that they build up these funds and then find

that in one rather throwaway line, not even called a tax, but a

simplification, that they will be �4 a week worse off. It is hitting

4 million pensioners. Those who are already pensioners will have their

tax-free threshold frozen at �10,500. In cash terms, they are

not losing out. The ones losing out are those who are about to become

pensioners. They would have had a tax-free threshold of �10,500 which

will now be �9,200. But it will rise after that. The intention is

to increase that by 2014-�10,000. But it will be frozen until that

happens for everybody. The threshold for existing

pensioners will be frozen, but for those who are just becoming

pensioners, their threshold will rise in line with everybody else's

firstly to �9,100 and then to �10,000. The reason it has had so

much impact, it is not the number of people affected, but if you are

64, you have done a lot of financial planning. You know you

will retire next year. You know you were probably worth -- be worse off

when not working. You may have seen a financial adviser and discovered

that what you thought you would get as a pension will not be anything

like it because of quantitative easing. But we agree that if there

are losers from this move, and there is no question about that,

the real losers are those who are about to become pensioners, rather

than existing pensioners, who will simply suffer a freeze on the

threshold. The yes, but those who are may freeze once inflation kicks

in, will also suffer. That is true, inflation is under 3% and falling,

so it may not be too bad for them. It will cost them about �83 a year

if you are an existing pensioner. When you are cutting taxes for

those earning over �150,000 a year, what is the point in going for

pensioners? I am not sure it is appropriate that the Government has

made that cut. But pensioners have done terribly well in the last ten

years. They have higher rising disposable income than young people.

Some of your arguments are powerful, because if you look at NUT rates

and the way in which pensioners' savings have not grown, they have

had trouble, but they are more successful than other parts of the

population. My pitch is straight forward. Young people trying real

trouble. 2 million under-thirties are unemployed. There are

opportunities are disappearing. It would be better to concentrate on

their needs and some of that pension a wealth was moved towards

creating jobs for them. So because of the way the economy has been

going, because it is tougher for young people now than it was for

the most recent generation, but not compared to the '20s and '30s,

there for all people, who have paid their taxes and worked all their

lives should suffer? De point is straight forward. We have a

colossal longevity problem in this country. We are living too long?

it is wonderful that we have a longevity problem. But it is a

problem for the Government, because they have not prepared for it.

Britain has a pay-as-you-go pension system, which means no savings have

been made for future generations. That means the current generations,

many of whom are unemployed, have to pay these bills. That is not

inappropriate. Of course pensioners should be treated well. In fact,

they are. They get a massive tax break because they do not pay

national insurance. They are not working. But when they are working,

they do not pay. Well, of course pensioners should have more

disposable income than 23-year-olds. Unless you are called Master Gates

almost good with. -- or Miss could win. They have worked all their

lives and save for maybe 35 years of their working life. It would be

worrying if they did not have disposable income. The way of

kicking down wealth is to allow it to happen to families, inheritance

and all the people being able to paddle their own can news and not

become a burden on their children, rather than having a big stick of

government saying that old people are using up too many bedrooms and

have to move out of their house, which is outrageous. We are

expecting people on welfare benefits to move out of their

houses. But they are not their I think we could all agree, what

the Government is doing his defence of the law not, but pensioners vote

and the turnout of pensioners is much higher than the average. They

are an important political constituency. Will this have an

impact? Yes, I think it is a massive political risk whatever you

think of the substance. I think there is a case that they do make a

higher contribution. Although M a powerfully explains the

implications for the losses they will make, everybody is making

losses at the moment. There's no reason why they should be excluded,

but there's always been a powerful political reason, which is they

vote, they pay attention. If do you think this will have a political

impact on pensioner's? I do. It is as much to do with the way it has

been handled as to do with... They are not fools, they feel patronised,

furious. It was the only thing in the Budget that was not trailed.

Who did he think... Just by calling it a simplification, people

wouldn't notice. What is your take? This will be one of the big

emerging themes of politics in the next 20 to 30 years, the sense of

inter-generational conflict and tension as society continues to age.

Our political parties and commentators haven't really started

to grapple with this. It will have all sorts of interesting

consequences. I think political leaders will become older. Why will

those who are still working aged 70, who will massively outnumbered the

young, why will they vote forever for 40 year-olds who seemed to be

learning on the job? It will force politicians to pick sides between

the young and the old. All right. We don't have time to talk about it,

but the Chancellor talked about linking the retirement age to

longevity, which means the retirement age could be rising

indefinitely. I totally agree with that and I also think the new

retirement model of people working flexibly and not falling off a

cliff edge... It is not either or any more. Exactly. Thank you. Time

for the daily quiz. Which of these will not cost any more as a result

A rotisserie chicken, hairdressers chairs, Jaffa cakes or hot Cornish

pasty East. Interestingly eclectic mix. Steve Andean, who are looking

bemused, will maybe give us the correct answer at the end of the

show. Easy to work out. Once, Chancellors sipped it when

they delivered their Budget, but now the Government worries it is

cheaper than the preferred tipple of choice at the despatch box these

days - water. So what's their solution? You've guessed it - they

want to lighten our pockets. According to the Home Secretary,

the Government wants to affect the cheapest end of alcohol that allows

people to do something called pre- loading - that's filling up with

alcohol before they go out. So what's the plan? The Government

wants to consult on a 40p minimum wants to consult on a 40p minimum

price per unit of alcohol. That means a �2.99 bottle of red wine,

containing 9.4 units of alcohol, would be priced up to �3.76. Cheap,

strong lager at 75p a can, with three units per can, would become

at least �1.20. It would also considerably increase the price on

bulk purchases. So, for example, two crates of 20 cans of cider

which could be bought for �20 at one point last year would now cost

at least �37.30. Government projections, based on a 40p minimum

price, show healthcare costs would drop by �30 million in the first

year and �93 million by the tenth year. There would be 50,600 fewer

crimes each year, saving �54 And 12,600 fewer violent crimes,

reducing costs by �37 million a year. You can believe these figures

if you want! Let's see what Theresa May had to say in the House of

Commons this morning. This strategy is targeted explicitly at dangerous

drinkers, problem pubs, irresponsible shops and harmful

drinks. Those who enjoy a quiet drink or two have nothing to fear

from these proposals. The local pub has nothing to fear, the

responsible off-licence has nothing to fear. We will help tackle

problem drinkers. We will help local areas deal with local

licensing problems. We will encourage the alcohol industry to

act responsibly and we will put a stop to the easy availability of

cheap booze that has blighted Britain for too long. The Home

Secretary and the measures will apply to England and Wales., and is

doing something similar, slightly ahead of what is doing -- happening

in England. We are joined by Testament and Jane Davies, the

Director of Public affairs at the British Retail Consortium. What

evidence is there that raising the price by these relatively small

amounts will affect how young people drink? It is pretty clear

that young people choose not to go to pubs, not to go into clubs, and

actually to buy alcohol in the supermarket or to get somebody else

to buy it for them in supermarkets and off-licences. Those who are

less responsible. If you can get to a point way you can buy a pint of

beer for 34p and cider for 48p, not been responsible pubs, we know we

need to do something. What is the evidence that increasing the price,

they will not simply move... In some of the prices, the change in a

bottle of wine is not that big. is not meant to be. Where's the

evidence that they will simply move their drinking habits or spend

more... A lot of it is price related. When the local supermarket

reduces the price, the sales go up. Supermarkets don't sell cheap booze

because they are feeling terribly generous, they do it because they

sell more. Have you been to Norway on a Friday night? And no. It is

�10 for a pint of beer in Oslo in some pubs. And there are a lot of

drunk people around. Why does price matter? It matters a lot. What is

really important is the local farmers who are selling side on

their premises and the local pubs who are trying to sell alcohol in

their hostelries in my area of Somerset. I used the example of

Juliet, the landlady of a local pub. She said she is outraged that the

Tesco up the road can sell for 34p a pint of fear. For competition.

she did that and she served to people who were drunk already, she

would lose her licence. The point of this is it is not to help your

pub landlord, it is to stop drugs and roaming the streets in the

evening in our city and town centres. -- drunks. Isn't it? Or

hidden subsidies to pubs. doesn't damage pubs. If you look at

the average hospital a Andy at the weekends, it is appalling. -- A and

D. I am trying to get the evidence where price would make a difference.

The accusation in your trade is that you are selling things

sometimes as loss-leaders and disgracefully low prices and you

should be more responsible. First of all, you don't make a successful

business out of selling at a loss. The vast majority of lines, even

when on promotion, are not loss- leaders. Secondly, we have to bear

in mind that we have prices here in the UK that of 50% higher than

throughout the rest of Europe. For it is not simply a matter of price.

Indeed, in Scotland, Alex Salmond has said that consumption in

Scotland is 20% higher than England when the prices are the same. This

is a cultural issue. Pricing will not be the silver bullet that

solves the problem. Let me give you three cities where booze is just as

plentiful and often cheaper than in London. New York, Dubai, Paris. And

you don't see gangs of drunks are roaming the streets in any of these

three cities. It is a cultural problem. What does it have to do

with it? The market is sensitive to price and young people, the ones we

really need to try to stop arming themselves and harming other people

and other people's property, they are sensitive to price. There's no

question. Why do you think in New York, for example, there are not

kids roaming the streets drunk. If you do, the police pick you up. You

will spend a night in jail and if you do it again, you will go to

jail. Yes. On our streets, that doesn't happen. We have a different

culture. Police are too soft. don't think so. They are much

tougher in New York and Paris and Dubai. I was listening to one of my

colleagues this morning talking about the 1898 in the Prince act

which is something else I would like to look at bringing into my

part of Somerset. You are just a Nani state interference. You want a

micro-manage halides. You want to fix the price of booze. What does

it have to do with you, you're a politician? It is about

protecting... Vast resources are being wasted on crimes related to

alcohol, resource is being wasted on the health systems, dealing with

people who were ill. Look at the explosion of people who need

treatment for liver disease. don't you just put the prices up a

bit? Retailing is a very competitive business, particularly

at the moment. One in four families are saying they run out of money by

the end of the month anyway. Making money out of people who then go on

the rampage on our streets late at night after buying products from

your members. Are you proud of that? 75% of men and four out of

five women drink responsibly. is not what we are talking about.

Consumption of alcohol is going down because of a lot of different

issues that are being taken forward to change that culture. We are

talking about those... The ones who drink responsibly on not pre-

loading on cheap cider and cheap beer. They are having a glass of

Chardonnay of an evening. They are also the ones with health problems.

At least they are not on the rampage and affecting me. Why don't

you just be responsible and put the prices of these really low priced

alcohol units up and then the interfering politicians would not

have to get involved? We are responsible. We have taken the lead

as the sector in insuring that people understand the number of

units there are in a drink. It is a competitive market. Her if you all

but the price up... It is dangerous if we start getting into territory

where it governments are dictating prices. What is your view? I think

we need maximum alcohol prices. The British have a problem with this,

but I don't think it is all about price, I think it is about culture.

Something changed in the British psyche 40 years ago. Youngsters

started drinking in this way, in a way their predecessors hadn't. That

can't just be about price. It might be a small factor, but something

deeper has happened culturally. Quite what the state to do things.

-- I want the state to do things. I wish they would tell me to stop

drinking as much mind as I do -- wine. Stop drinking! The smoking

ban was arguably one of the most important things the previous

government did. It was never in the manifesto, but it changed behaviour

for the better. If pricing makes a difference, and I suspect it will,

I supported. We shall see. We have run out of time. Thank you.

David Cameron is in Scotland today, where he's been addressing the

Scottish Conservatives' annual conference. This is what he had to

say. Not only can you love Scotland and love the United Kingdom, not

only can you drape yourself in the Saltire and the Union Jack, but let

me say this. You can be even prouder of your Scottish heritage

than your British heritage, as many in Scotland are, and still believe

that Scotland is better off in Britain. All of this is why this

Prime Minister and his party is going to fight for the United

Kingdom with everything we've got. That was the prime minister

speaking in Scotland. With us now is David Mundall, the

Scotland Office Minister. Why are the Scottish Tories so

useless? I don't accept that analysis. Everybody knows we have

had our difficulties, but at the UK general election, one in six people

in Scotland was voting Conservative. I'm in Troon, which has a council

run by the Conservatives. The Conservatives are representing

people in Scotland. We have to do better, we have a dynamic new

leader in Ruth Davidson who will turn around our fortunes, but we

have a big part to play in the campaign coming up to save the UK,

keep Scotland at the heart of the UK, and as David Cameron said, that

In the Westminster elections in 1997, the Scottish Tories were

wiped out. You had no MPs after that, is that right? We had no MPs

after 1997. But since 2005, I have been an MP here. How many do you

have now? We have me. I am the sole Conservative MP in Scotland. It is

not a position I sought, to be the sole MP, but one in six people in

Scotland did vote Conservative. 420,000 Scots voted Conservative in

the UK general election. So you have added one MP in 15 years, that

is your rate of progress. That means that to become a majority of

Scottish MPs, it would take you 450 years to become a majority again?

Is that your sense of purpose? are not setting out that prospect.

We want to grow the number of Conservative MPs in Scotland. We

want to grow the number of councillors. There are councillors

all over Scotland representing our party in local government. We have

16 MSPs in the Scottish parliament. Scottish Conservatives are speaking

out for Scotland on issues that represent our values. Of course we

want to do better. That is why we have a young leader who is

transforming our party's organisation and bringing forward a

new policy platform. And most importantly, putting us at the

centre of the debate around the future of Scotland. But I do not

see the progress you are talking about. You have gone from zero MPs

to one MP in 15 years. In 1999, you got 18 Conservatives elected on 15%

of the vote. In 2011, you got 15 elected on at 11.6% of the vote.

You have gone backwards. We do not suggest that things have been easy.

Or that we would not want to do better. That is why Ruth Davidson

has become our leader, with a platform of taking forward new

policies and new organisation, taking our message to the people of

Scotland. One of the ro most important things to do is to say to

people who have voted SNP on the basis of Conservative policies such

as low council tax and business rates is that their vote is

actually a vote to break up Britain. If you want to see these policies

pursued and keep the UK, you should vote Conservative. Give my regards

to that lovely town of Troon on the Ayrshire coast. Iain Martin, the

fact is that progress from the Scottish Conservatives has actually

been glacial or in reverse from the number of seats they have in the

Scottish parliament. And yet in Wales, the Conservatives have had a

comeback. Why in Wales and not Scotland? Is stars look as though

what happened in 1997 was not a blip, it was an extinction event.

The politics of the Thatcher period, now more than two decades ago,

still dominate Scottish politics. It is incredibly difficult, because

there is a consensus in Scottish politics. Difficult to get a

hearing for arguments about free- market saw education or health

reform of the kind that has been engaged in in England. Scotland is

substantially to the left, and the Tories have not made progress.

it is not just a setback, it could be extinction? I wonder. It is

fascinating hearing that interview, because the two of you know about

this, but you are reminded that politically, Scotland is so

different from England. It is extraordinary. But at some point,

the space will surely emerge for a party of the centre right. You

can't have a political debate where in effect, the three parties are

all on the centre-left. But people have been saying that for ten years,

and it has not happened. A large number of people who are natural

Tory voters all would be if they lived in the home counties, they

voted for Blair. They have now been snaffled by Alex Salmond. The

Liberal Democrats are extinct in Scottish politics. The Tories are

in trouble. It is a two party fight between Alex Salmond and a Labour

Party in trouble. There is little space for the Tories to get a

hearing. We shall see. This time next week, we will know

the result of the Bradford West by- election, caused by the resignation

due to ill health of Labour's Marsha Singh. He is in the running,

and what are the candidates talking about?

Bill Bryson once said bad for's role in life is to make every other

place in the world look better. -- Bradford's role is to make other

places look better. But not so fast, it is also carry capital of the UK,

home to one of Britain's largest Asian populations and the home town

of a member of chart-topping group one direction. Bradford's economy

is in serious trouble. Council job cuts and closures to local

businesses have meant the amount of people claiming jobseeker's

allowance in this constituency has gone up by almost a third over the

past year. Youth unemployment has gone up by 40%. Labour has a

majority of just under 6000 in Bradford West, but this was a key

target seats for the Tories in the last general election. It is the

kind of urban, ethnically diverse area they say they need to do

better in. We have just had a wonderful Budget for growth and

business. I will visit as many of the employers in this area as I can

to tell them about the initiatives we have to get young people into

work, particularly the work experience and the financial

incentives that will help them to take on a young person between 18

and 24. With rising unemployment, the Lib Dems may be facing the

consequences of going into government with the Tories. But

their candidate denies it. This is not a referendum on the coalition.

That comes in 2015, when everybody will get a say. This is about who

will be the best person to stand up for Bradford West. I have a record

of bringing money to the city and getting ministers here to see what

is happening. The UK Independence Party came second in the Barnsley

by-election last year. They hoped to perform well here as well.

want to get third place and beat the Lib Dems. And I think I can. I

am a local person. I have been in the area for over 50 years. I have

worked for the young and old, the vulnerable. I am aware of the

situations here and I would like to fight for Bradford West in

Westminster. But one man has come along to mix things up a bit. I

have come to a hustings at the University of Bradford. There are

two empty chairs on the stage. The Labour and Conservative candidates

did not want to take part. So welcome to the George Galloway show.

Parliament needs someone to represent the people who are

currently not represented there. All three of the main parties

support the war in Afghanistan, but most people in Britain don't. But

nobody is speaking up for them. you have promised your constituents

that if you win, you will be in Parliament and not of making

reality TV when you should be serving constituents? I was never

on a reality programme when I should have been serving

constituents. I served my constituents faithfully. That was

why I was elected five times to Parliament. It is not easy. You

should try it. Five parliamentary victories in three different

constituencies. Next Thursday, we might see another one. The Green

Party are also standing in Bradford West. We won't -- we are the only

party with a renewed deal and a plan to create thousands of new

jobs in areas such as green energy and also to create a new raft of 18

to 25-year-old entrepreneur's by freeing up money to get new

businesses off the ground. Labour candidate, Imran Hussain, is

deputy leader of the local council. He invited me for lunch with Andy

Burnham. I was hoping for one of those famous Currys, but he

insisted on a pizza, coincidentally at the birthplace of the

Independent Labour Party. I asked him if he was running scared from

George Galloway. No. I refused to share a platform. But I have said

this is a very short campaign. I will be out there, knocking on

doors, listening to people in these difficult times. That is the way I

want to go into this campaign. Unless there is a Lazarus-like

comeback from George Galloway, Labour would use a win in Bradford

West to show that they are picking up momentum, and hope it is true.

Be there are eight candidates standing in the Bradford West by-

Now, we are joined from Leeds by the BBC's political editor from

Yorkshire. What have been the highlights of the campaign? One of

the things has been George Galloway barnstorming at that meeting that I

was present at at the student Unite union. But while he is making an

impression that, where it was packed with Respect supporters, he

is not making much impression on the streets. This has been a Labour

seat since the '70s. There have never been large majorities. There

is a 6000 legacy from the previous popular Labour MP. It was a

marginal back in the general election. The Conservatives poured

lots of resources into it. The result was that the 3500 Labour

majority before the general election became 6000 after the

general election. Any sense yet on how the Budget in general and the

so-called granny tax are playing on the streets? In 30 years of

covering politics, I have never been to a by-election where Ray

Budget was slap-bang in the middle of it. David Cameron came yesterday

bearing gifts. In the Budget, there were a small number of cities that

were told they could have extra money to have super-fast broadband.

One of those was Bradford, funnily enough. He mentioned all sorts of

things. Today we had Ed Miliband in the constituency. Surprise,

surprise, he went for it cup of tea with a couple of pensioners. So the

Budget is high on the agenda. We are told Nick Clegg will not be

campaigning. We expect the deputy leader of that party to be a long

next week. It would be a major upset, particularly with Labour in

opposition now, if Labour was to lose this by-election. We never

know for sure, but is there any prospect of that? By-elections do

throw up surprises, but I would be very surprised if Labour does not

at least keep the majority it has. We are not seeing any surprises.

The only scenario would be if that George Galloway vote managed to

nibble away. Can the Conservatives then gallop up on the outside? They

were second last time, the Lib Dems a distant third. 6000 is

comfortable, but not overwhelming. The issue of dangerous dog was put

back in the public eye yesterday after a vicious attack in east

London injured five police officers, four seriously. Two of those

officers are still in hospital. One is reported to need a skin graft.

Specialist firearms officers were called in to shoot what has been

described as a pit-bull-type dog. The Government has already

committed itself to tackling the issue, promising an announcement on

measures before the end of the month. What needs to be done. Chris

Mason is on College Green with a Lib-Dem MP and a representative of

the postal workers' union, the CWU. Yes, there is a chequered history

when it comes to politicians and dangerous dogs. The legislation at

the moment, the Dangerous Dogs Act, dates back to 1991. There is a

sense that it is out of date. But many criticise that legislation for

being rushed to through a and a response to a media campaign in the

early '90s. It is a tricky one for the Government to grapple with in

terms of which up -- department is responsible. DEFRA, the Environment,

food and rural affairs department, calls the shots on this, which

seems odd. That may be why it takes a while to get to the bottom of

this and dream up a new idea. Let's chat with my two guests, the Lib

Dem MP Tom Brake and Dave Joyce from the Communication Workers'

Union. Dave, how bigger problem is Dangerous Dogs is a big problem. We

have been campaigning since 2008. We believe the coalition have had

plenty of time to do something and we want them to take action

urgently. 11 people have been killed by dogs in the UK in the

last five years, 23 postal workers have been attacked and injured by

dogs in the last four years and we want action now. Do you

specifically need new laws? We do. Since our campaign started, the

Scottish government agreed with us to change the law and have done so,

the Northern Ireland government have done the same, as has the

Welsh government. We now want Westminster to change the law. You

can get rid of at least eight or nine pieces of useless legislation

and get -- introduce one new-build. There's a suggestion that the

Government will conform with a package of measures that is short

of new legislation. How important his new legislation? What we need

to address is the Dangerous Dogs Act, the fact it doesn't apply on

private land, for instance. Communication workers have the

biggest problem there. We also need to look at the breeds affected. I

had a tragic case in my constituency of a woman who died as

a result of an attack by a Belgian mastiff, not one of the breeds

covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Would you be letting down people

like Dave and others if there is no specific new legislation? Can't be

done without it? We have to look at a range of measures on the table.

Microchipping could play a role. We could also look to earlier

intervention. One of the big problems with dogs, and this was

the case in my constituency, is people are worried about a dog, but

until it does something no action can be taken. Thank you both. A

very heated issue and plenty of discussion to come. There's a

patchwork of different laws around the UK related to this, but

specifically for England, we are expecting something from the

Government within a couple of weeks, but whether it stacks up to new

laws, we don't yet know. Thank you. Beautiful weather out

there in Westminster! Spring has sprung.

So it's been a busy old week. Stella McCartney launched her

Olympic uniform range. And very nice it is, too. The weather's been

absolutely lovely and there's been a heck of a lot happening at

Westminster. Here's Max with his 60 The Chancellor set out his economic

vision for the nation this week. It is goodbye 50p, hello granny tax.

Government's controversial proposals to reform the NHS in

England cleared their final parliamentary hurdle this week. The

bruised and battered Health and Social Care Bill finally got the

thumbs-up from MPs on Tuesday night. Her Majesty visited Parliament this

week, marking 60 years on the frame. A speech to both Houses of

Parliament was attended by a kaleidoscope of the great and good.

Are we about to see roads plc? In a speech on infrastructure, the prime

minister said there was an urgent need to repair England's roads. He

suggested private investors might stump up the cash. And after 11

years as a peer of the realm, Michael Heseltine graced the House

Making his maiden speech, I thought he had been a lot for ages! I

wanted to ask you about the health bill. It has been a terrible

experience for the coalition. I think some wish they had never

started in the first place. But it is going into law. I wondered

whether Labour might, by saying this is privatisation, this is the

end of the health service as we know it, fire and brimstone, Sodom

and Gomorrah, if in three years' time not much has changed, they

will have overplayed their hand. think a lot will have changed.

the worse? Yes, I do. This isn't the end of this story as a

political problem for the coalition. I think the Lib Dems will be in

real trouble in some of their seats because of their support for this,

albeit they claim they made it better. For legislative passage has

been extraordinary. We now have this weird Bill where all of the

amendments contradicted the original intentions of the bill. In

that sense it reminds me of the poll tax, where you had a very

simple piece of legislation, which was entirely contradicted by all of

the legislative amendments. All of the rebates... It countered what

the whole thing was meant to be about. They got it through, let's

got on with it, and it became a mess. I think it will be a mess on

the ground. Even if it is not directly responsible for some of

the things that will go wrong, it will create news stories and it

will be blamed. This is not the end of this story. If that is the case,

it is a running sore for the Government. Her absolutely.

Everything that goes wrong in the NHS, even if it had nothing to do

with this Bill, will be blamed on it. How many people, after this

extraordinary process, can actually explain what the Bill does? It is

one of the most extraordinary failings of political management

and communication I can remember. It will have implications for the

workings of the coalition. David Cameron is conscious that not

enough attention was paid to it, it was supposed to be bomb proved by

Oliver Letwin and it turned into a complete shambles. You will see

more power as a result drawn to the centre as Cameron will be looking

to avoid any repeat in other areas. If Oliver Letwin is trying to sell

you an air raid shelter, don't buy Now, to the burning question of the

week - do we live in a kaleidoscope world? And what makes the UK a

kaleidoscope country? Yes, it was all in the Speaker's address to the

Queen on Tuesday. We sent Adam out to see if he could make sense of it

Up it is the mystery gripping Westminster. Why did this because

say this before Her Majesty addressed parliament this week?

have become, to many of us, a kaleidoscope Queen of a

kaleidoscope country in a kaleidoscope Commonwealth.

obviously went down well with the prime minister, who then reference

it at PMQs. This is a kaleidoscope Budget. But it split public opinion.

Kaleidoscope is many colours, different shapes. The Queen over

the years has had to adapt to many changes. People know what a

kaleidoscope is and they know who the Queen is. But the two don't

relate to each other. I'm not sure what kaleidoscope Queen means, it

doesn't sound very polite to Her Majesty. Although one theory has

emerged. It turns up the Speaker is honorary President of an

international gay rights charity called the kaleidoscope Trust. So

was this just a big plug? Speaker is more than capable of

writing his own speeches and he did on this occasion. His choice of

language is up to him. At the kaleidoscope Trust, we chose the

word kaleidoscope because it does represent a bringing together of

the sort of diverse nature of Britain and what we would hope

would be the diverse nature of the world. A spokesman for Mr Bercow

told us that when he was building his kaleidoscope, he just meant it

as an image, and metaphor. But Mr Speaker has discovered that even a

speech created with the precision of as whips wash maker, if

delivered to an audience more cynical than anything, in front of

the monarch, can end up like Marmite. Loved and loathed.

There we go. Kaleidoscope is derived from three Greek words. An

observer of beautiful forms. Who said public service broadcasting

was dead?! Some people thought the speech was all right. Is it just

the cynical Westminster village that likes to have a go? It was a

speech that divided opinion. think that's pretty safe to say!

Whether a speech should be dividing opinion... It was fine as a

metaphor. What was more interesting, I'm told David Cameron is also

livid that John Bercow gave a special emergency debate on the NHS

bill the day before. But I think it was a lot of David Cameron to shows

such disdain in public at Prime Minister's Questions. Other leaders

have been really... There's no love lost between them. It is now the

Republic. We would have made more of that if it is not receded the

Budget. A public put-down. But from what I have seen of the criticism,

the main complaint, other than having fun at the word kaleidoscope,

which of course Tony Blair used immediately after 9/11 at the

Labour Party Conference... It just seemed the Speaker was

grandstanding in front of the Queen and it wasn't his day, it was the

Queen's Day. Exactly right. That was a much bigger problem than the

word kaleidoscope. All he had to do on this extraordinary day, the sun

was shining, Westminster Hall was looking extraordinary, or he had to

do was to stand up and say lords, ladies and gentlemen, I give you

the Queen. And sit down. They were there to hear her rather than

listen to him. I thought it was somewhat ill judged. Except that on

the hall on these occasions, would you get preceding the big event is

just a few banalities. I think he is an interesting Speaker. He has

done a lot to make the House of Commons relevant. He has certainly

allowed MPs to get their debates and he sided with Parliament

against the executive. His equivalent in the House of Lords,

she made a very distinguished speech, she had some strong points

in it, she didn't grandstand. Did she make some strong point? His

image of the kaleidoscope, whether you like it or not, has been

remembered. She talked about the diversity of the Commonwealth and

how the Queen to the Commonwealth duties seriously and had presided

over the changing country. Fair enough. I think the irritation from

David Cameron was partly that, but partly the other issues about

granting too many debates, which the Government finds awkward.

and Labour have been nip and tuck in the polls for a while. A poll in

the Sun shows Labour way ahead after the Budget. A sign of things

to come? I think it is. It is only one poll. This weekend will be

interesting. Sunday polls will be really interesting. Don't you to

forget. There's just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. The question was - which of these

won't cost any more as a result of the chancellor's Budget?

Supermarket rotisserie chicken, hairdressers' chairs, Jaffa cakes,

or hot Cornish pasties. What is the answer? Blue nun? It is not on the

list. That will surely get a special rebate. Is it Jaffa cakes?

You are right. They are not cooked on the premises. Things like

Cornish pasty is are cooked on the premises and they will have more

VAT. Cornish pasty is a heated. The things that are heated. They are

cakes as well, not biscuits. Right. Cakes are not liable. I have no

idea. There's no VAT on cake. there not? The BBC's cake expert

has just informed me of that. She now says let them eat cake as well.

It is clearly easy, who said that government was micro-manage inquest

That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One O'Clock News is