14/02/2013 Daily Politics

Welcome to The Daily Politics. Horsemeat infected with the anti-

inflammatory butte has entered the food chain. The food standards

agency has revealed that in the last few hours. We will bring you

the latest. Labour make their pitch for the squeezed middle, saying

they would hit the rich with a mansion tax and reintroduce the 10p

starting rate of tax. Will be speaking live to the Shadow

Chancellor. How many Bulgarians and Romanians will come to Britain when

employment restrictions are lifted later this year? The government now

admits they do have some figures, they just won't tell us. And it is

50 years since Harold Wilson became Labour leader, but it seems some

things don't change. They want to see this country standing. They are

getting a little tired of seeing Britain pushed around. Harold

Wilson's very romantic view. Jo and I will spend Valentine's Night

tonight watching five hours on the Parliament channel, that's how

romantic we are! All of that coming up in the next hour. With us for

the duration, the golden oldie of the year. Only one of the many

accolades that has gone to Michael Heseltine. The horsemeat scandal

canters on, so do all the bad jokes. This morning, the chair of the

Commons environment select committee has accused the FSA have

been caught on the back foot. Ministers were in the chamber this

morning to tell MPs of the results of the latest test. We can talk now

to our health correspondent, Fergus Walsh. What people will want to

know, is it safe to eat processed meat? The issue this morning is

about beauty in a horsemeat. I've come from a briefing at DEFRA,

where they have revealed that they've checked 206 horse carcasses

and found that eight tested positive for the drug. Horsemeat,

there are five abattoirs in the UK which are licensed to slaughter

horses. About 9000 horses are exported every year. They found

that eight were positive for phenylbutazone. Six were sent to

France and may have entered the food chain. Whether or not any of

those ended up in processed foods that ended up back on tables in the

UK, well, we don't know. But the really interesting issue is some

officials at the Chief Medical Officer's office have worked out

how much you'd have to eat to get one dose of phenylbutazone. You'd

have to eat between 500 to 600 horse burgers in a day to get a

single human does of it. That would suggest a health safety risk is

vanishingly small. That's an awful lot of burgers you'd have to eat.

So are the government saying to the public, we are not taking processed

meat off the shelves and are not going to ban imports from other

countries? Absolutely. The government has been saying from the

start that this is a food fraud, Amis labelling issue rather than a

food safety issue. Obviously consumers are understandably

suspicious if they can't trust what is on the labels. Is that stuff in

their safe? So far, the evidence would seem to suggest that in terms

of food safety there is not an issue here, not a serious issue.

Although it's worth pointing out that processed food, eating lots of

processed, cheap lasagne and Polonaise is not particularly good

for your health and the long term. It does have a known increased risk

of cancers. You really should be trying to steer clear of processed

meat in the first place. The issue is trust. And whether or not the

public is suspicious while tests are still ongoing. These are just

the results from the first sets of tests on these carcasses. Should

the government at an earlier stage have said, we are going to take

more dramatic action, perhaps taken processed food off the shelves?

don't think they should. The last point your commentator made, that

burgers on not that good for your health and the longer term. Excuse

me, are all these high salt, high- fat foods good for one's health?

His smoking good for one's health? There are a whole range of issues

that come in this category, in an advanced society balances have to

be struck. I don't have any personal knowledge of this

particular situation, although I do know that phenylbutazone is used to

Amelia make pain in horses and sentenced -- certain circumstances.

I listened to the food standards agency spokesman talking about a

comprehensive range of cheques they have introduced. There's always a

weak link in any change. Again, talking to a major retailer about

the problem, he explained there are so many people in the chain of all

these supply processors that trying to get 100 % certainty is extremely

difficult. But isn't that the problem, people will feel they

don't know what is in the food that they are buying because of the weak

link you have just outlined? I'm in favour, as the government is in

favour and the European authorities are in favour and the FSA are in

favour, of trying to get that sorted out. But what I don't think,

on any evidence I've seen, is that we have a panic, national scare on

our hands. D you think the government has handled it well up

until now? I think they'd been perfectly sensible, calm and

balanced. We've been through these scares before. Take them seriously

but, in my experience, none of them have proved to be anything like the

scale of the headline which first attended their announcement. If you

ate 600 hamburgers, you have a lot more to worry about than

phenylbutazone. Something would get too long before that! A few weeks

ago on the Sunday politics, I interviewed Eric Pickles, the

Community's Secretary. I asked him how Britain's communities might be

affected by an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians when restrictions on

their ability to move across the EU, including into the UK, are lifted

at the end of this year. Have you done any preliminary work on the

implications for our housing demand as a result of this extra

immigration? I know what number of borrowers are doing it. Have you?

We have been looking into it. is the consequence, how many are

you planning for? That's not something that I think would be

helpful in terms of going through the numbers just yet. Why? Because

I think you'd have to have a degree of confidence in terms of the

numbers before I publicly state it. Inevitably what he said led to a

Freedom of Information request. His department had told me that the

figures Mr Pickles refers to do exist. Some reports had said they

haven't been any at all. Let's get the latest from our correspondent.

The request was from the New Statesman. Some ministers telling

us these figures don't exist. Mr Pickles telling me that they do.

He's just not going to tell us. What's the truth? It's all a bit

confusing. Home Office ministers have been telling the House of

Commons. The Home Office is clear, they say the figures on to there.

The New Statesman and Labour both submitted Freedom of Information

requests. Labour was pretty clear in a text of theirs, asking for an

assessment of potential immigration from Romania and Bulgaria. As you

mentioned, the communities department came back and said they

did have that information but that they might not release it under

freedom of information rules that allow them not to do so. I'm told

by one source that figures, although it's not quite clear which

figures, were discussed at a cabinet, a home affairs cabinet

committee meeting. I can tell you for a fact that there is an

independent assessment of the impact of this immigration. That

has been produced independently for the Foreign Office. I'm told it has

been knocking around white hope for some time. A draft was being read

in the Foreign Office as long as a month or so ago. But that does not

contain figures. It will not say a certain number of Romanians and

Bulgarians expected, so it is still something of a mystery. The Home

Office says there are no such figures. The Department of

communities says it does have that information. All of this against

the backdrop that when Labour tried to forecast how many new people

would come over when the rules were changed, they got it disastrously,

hugely and massively Bron. It is on that long list of things that Ed

Miliband thinks that the former Labour government got one.

According to the communities department, they verified what Mr

Pickles told me, that there are some estimates of how many may come

here but they are just not going to tell us. Is that the simple reply?

They have been formally asked for the assessment of potential

immigration from Romania and Bulgaria in a Freedom of

Information letter. And in a response... Do they have it and are

not going to tell us? They say, we hold it but we might not tell you

under an exemption. On the face of it, it doesn't sit easily with what

the Home Office says. None of this is going to make the questions go

away about what Mr Pickles was thinking of when he had a chat with

you. If these figures do exist, I'll come to whether they are any

use in a minute, but if they do exist, should they be made public?

The two issues are linked. Supposing they are rubbish. Should

you produce a lot of figures which you don't think have any validity,

get some headlines would create scares, or should you simply say,

nobody knows. Nobody knew last time... They got it hopelessly

wrong. But they know that now, Whitehall knows that, the

government machine knows that. Their forward and they make more of

an effort to get them rather more accurate this time? What I think

they would do is to try and put in place machinery in order to make

sure they anticipate the flows and tried to make sure they come within

the targets that they've set. They've got time to do that. These

targets, however you work it, they are but 2014. As a minister, and

this is why I have great sympathy for Eric's point, because he knows

that some London boroughs have been working on these figures, so he's

got some figures from perhaps a few London boroughs. But as a minister,

you can say to officials, look, what do you think? They will do

their best. It is their best good enough, can it be good enough? And

should you be forced, if you get presented with figures which are

somebody's opinion, someone with a slide rule making calculations are,

they may be right there may be wrong, should you be forced to put

that information in the public domain when you yourself as a

Minister regard it as highly doubtful, whether it's based on

Loch? I think it's perfectly legitimate for a minister to save

you don't know the answers to these questions. So why not going to put

out scare stories which will be grossly exaggerated by the media

and the parliamentary opposition. I'm shocked that you have revealed

to the British people today that they still use slide rules in

Whitehall. Look, this is the interesting thing. I don't they use

in Whitehall because ministers get bits of paper with conclusions.

do the assessments then? If ministers are so cynical about it...

It would be perfectly fair to do an assessment which says, look, there

could be this number, they could be that number. No one knows where it

is. But it gives you, as a minister, an indication that you should be

thinking about this problem, because they could be one, not

there will be. The Prime Minister clearly thinks it's going to be a

problem because he's asked his ministers to look at ways of

restricting welfare benefits to the people who come in, housing, health

services. The Prime Minister is dealing with the situation in the

round. But he called a meeting, we know this because Downing Street

briefed us, sparked by the prospect of Romanians and Bulgarians coming

here at the end of the year. you have to see that in the context

of the Government's immigration programmes, which are already

getting down the number of immigrants. They are targeting to

come down significantly further, including the Bulgarians and

Romanians. But surely it would go up against the whole spirit of the

European Union to have any restrictions on those coming in,

who are full European Union members. Real politics. You can't have

unbridled immigration without ministers being involved in the

contrast than conflict. But Green movement of labour is a fundamental

tenet, so how could you stop it? You can try to make sure I good

information, if there are no jobs, their housing, no social... You can

let people know that. The second thing about the whole Bulgarian and

Romanian thing, there may be some people coming, and in some cases we

might need them, if they got engineers then send them fast would

be my advice, but there's the whole of Europe they may go to. There's

probably more jobs in Germany than here. If you start looking at the

number of these people who are going to leave their country, why

assume they're coming here? I'm not, I'm saying if they want to come

here, as part of our membership of the EU, we have no way of stopping

them. As an obligation we let them in. Yes, I understand the policies.

Equally, there are ways in which government, by education,

advertisement, knowledge, local information... Don't come to

Britain, we are rubbish! No, just we don't have a job for you.

having a job in Britain may be better than not having a job in

Bulgaria. But you've got to make sure they don't come for social

security reasons. Under European rules they are entitled to. They

are almost certainly more generous than their own. We can be sure of

that. This is politics, you've got to deal with it, you've got to deal

with the public opinion David Cameron's speech last month

on Britain's relationship with the EU was seen as one of the defining

moments of his premiership. Its commitment to a referendum on a new

deal with Europe delighted the Euro-sceptic wing of his party. But

a new group of Conservative MPs launches today and are using the

other part of the speech, the prime minister's commitment to the EU, as

a rallying cry for the pro-European wing of the party to finally find

its voice. All Conservatives agree on far more

things in the European Union than we ever debate. Kenneth Clarke

believes in fighting for Britain in Europe. Two men who could have led

the Tory party, passionately arguing the case for Britain in

Europe. A generation later, the present incumbent, trying to lead a

party which increasingly looks like it could be heading in the opposite

direction. There was a time when the Tory party was full of big

beasts roaring the case for Europe. These days, it is the Euro-sceptics

making all the noise and they may cause the withdrawal from the EU.

But there are still Conservative MPs who think Europe is a good

thing. They have been keeping their heads down, but now they are ready

to rumble. We feel strongly that our voice has not been heard for

many years. There are new people who have come into Parliament who

want to ensure that we have a stronger focus. So we are setting

up a group called the European Mainstream. It will be looking at

ensuring that the Prime Minister's speech, the Bloomberg speech, is

taking forward, and that the tone he struck will be sustained within

the parliamentary party. The at Bloomberg speech was cheered to the

rafters by Euro-sceptics, but the pro-Europeans were also inspired by

David Cameron's commitment to the EU? How many of them are there?

the past, only 20% of the party would be prepared to stick their

head over the parapet. But after the Bloomberg speech, you will see

more people coming out. I suspect there is actually a majority in

favour of continuing membership of the EU. Here is one of them, Ben

Wallace, Ken Clarke's parliamentary aide. He is ready to take on the

party Euro-sceptics. They are good at getting their message across. I

do not think it is accurate. They are clever at making the case that

it is always somebody over the horizon's fault. We need to

challenge that and say, you are wrong. We need to let the public

make a clear decision based on the facts we put before them. The last

Tory prime minister had a word for the other lot, one we can't use on

a family show. But why have the pro-European wing of the

Conservative Party let the Euro- sceptics drive the debate so far?

With you have an emphatic Euro- sceptic calling for us to leave the

European Union, it is wearing to get involved in an argument with

him. But it has now got serious. This is a group of people who have

arrived on the battlefield to are going to argue the case for

continuing membership of the European Union. I believe

progressively, we will be heard more and will win. Just as the

Euro-sceptics welcome David Cameron's commitment to a

referendum, European Mainstream will hold on to his promise to

attempt to reform the EU from within. The wood we walk away from

any other international organisation because the

relationship was not absolutely as we would like? Relationships are

difficult internationally. It needs courage, a brave vision and

determination to get what we need for this country within Europe.

Europe has done for even the most iconic of Tory leaders. To avoid

the same fate, David Cameron must appease both sides in a fight which

may be about to get more finely balanced.

Joining me are two backbench Conservative MPs, Laura Sandys, we

saw in the film, and Conor Burns, and Lord Heseltine is still with us.

Laura Sandys, what exactly will the group do? Well, as the Prime

Minister outlined, we need a clear vision for Europe. And that is with

Britain at the heart of Europe. In the last six months, we have

already achieved, whether it be the Chancellor making a case when it

comes to banking decoration or last week, with the Prime Minister

reducing the budget, we underestimate our voice in Europe.

We as Conservatives, who have a clear view about Britain in Europe,

want to make that case. You say your view is European Mainstream.

But arguably, you could say that the dominant voice in the

Conservative Party is Euro-sceptic. Would you agree? There are many

views, but what we have had in the past is a passive pro-European

voice. I would accuse myself of being complacent in many ways in

making the case for Britain within Europe. That is now starting to

emerge. We have a clear objective of a referendum, and I think you

will see more Conservatives making the case for our role and

leadership within Europe. But 30 MPs out of 304 Conservative MPs is

about 10%. There are about 100 supporters of the fresh Start group,

with that list of demands to be repatriated. So yours is still not

be popular position within the party. I think it is growing, and

it is 30 backbench Members of Parliament. If you look at

ministers, you will see people who have been exposed to Europe who

have achieved two things in Europe and would be of our view. Do you

feel threatened by this new group emerging? Not in the slightest. I

feel excited that we are having a debate about the future direction

of Europe and Britain's place in it. The Prime Minister showed that far

from being the heir to Blair, he was the heir to Bruges, the speech

that Mrs Thatcher made. Europe is changing because of the failure of

the single currency and France and Germany getting closer together.

That will change Britain's relationship with the other

countries. If David Cameron fails to negotiate a new deal that is

good for Britain, you would advocate pulling out of the EU?

do not think the Prime Minister will fail. The budget negotiations

show that the dynamic is changing. The House of Commons sent a clear

message. The Prime Minister achieved the cut in the Budget that

people said he could not blow. there is a risk. If he can't

renegotiate the deal, will you advocate that Britain pulls out of

the EU? There is a risk to any negotiation. Michael Heseltine

warned us that it would be calamitous not are going the single

currency. Thank goodness we didn't. What would you say to those Euro-

sceptics who say Britain should look for the exit if a deal cannot

be renegotiated? There is nothing new in this European debate, and

there are no new arguments. All the arguments I have listened to are

the same ones I have listened to since the '50s. Except that there

is an offer now that you can vote to come out. But the Prime Minister

will argue to stay in, as will the other parties. And that will be the

outcome. John Major has made a brilliant speech today in which he

outlines the detail of the argument. It is good news about the battle

being joined. And the official Conservative position, I think,

will be one of support for broad European membership. If there was a

symbolic event of the last few weeks, it was the fact that the

prime minister, rightly, said, we will not increase the budget. That

meant that the national leaders, not the commission, made a decision

as to what should happen. That is the reality of Europe, and that is

the point I have always believed. Britain is in Europe for Britain's

self-interest. Howard you rage David Cameron's chances in terms of

repatriating the long list -- how would you rate David Cameron's

chances in terms of repatriating the list of demands? I have not

seen the list of demands. But any demands? Many have said we cannot

have a pick and mix membership. it is Alan Carr. It always has been.

-- it is and a carte menu. I can remember when the French were not

members of NATO. Europe has always taken a pick-and-mix position. My

view has always been that it is in Britain's self-interest to

influence what happens on the Continent, so we have to be part of

its institutions. And threatening an exit is a good part of that

strategy? That is not the Prime Minister's strategy. John Major

dealt with is clearly in his speech. The Prime Minister said, we want to

stay in, but we need to change things. He has done one with the

Budget. I could name other things he could put on the agenda. A Laura

Sandys, when it comes to the call for repatriating powers, do you

think, that if Britain fails to get those, we should still stay in the

EU? The point is that Europe is not static, it is moving all the time.

These deals are done on a daily basis. When re-engage with other

countries and build alliances, we can make it happen for our national

interest. I think actually, Michael, things have changed. The rest of

the world is organising in regional bodies, whether that be south-east

Asia, East Africa, West Africa. If we are not part of Europe, we are

at the bottom of the list when it comes to trade negotiations and

international engagement. I agree with that, but what you saw with

Mrs Merkel on the budget, is that we have a new form of realpolitik

in Europe. They want us to stay, but they understand that the

relationship must change. That is why I am confident that the Prime

Minister will get what he asks for and will be able to put the case

for changing on the basis of a changed relationship with Europe

and be successful. What about the group within the Conservative Party

who will not be satisfied with that? They feel that the

Conservative Party should need some sort of exit from the EU, that we

would be better outside. How does David Cameron deal with such a loud

voice in the Conservative Party? They are a loud voice, but a small

number. The Prime Minister has to negotiate a better arrangement for

Britain within Europe. He will bring the majority of the

Conservative Party with him if he does that. The dynamic has now

changed. We should not underestimate the significance of

the Prime Minister going in and achieving that budget cut. It will

change the nature of the relationship.

Bismarck * realpolitik. You would not get that on Question Time.

Among the powers the Government would like to wrest back from the

EU are some of the 130 European crime and policing measures we are

currently subject to. Yesterday, the Lords EU committee questioned

the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary about their plans for

those opt-outs and what support they had for them.

The Government put in their evidence. Dominic RADA was in

support of the government. And there was the United Kingdom

Independence Party. That is the total of those who support the

government. All the others are against your proposal. Are you

troubled by this? It is not the case, in the discussions we have

had, that those parties are saying that every measure with in this

list are ones that we have to opt back into and therefore should not

go down the route of opting out. The of course we were having

discussions about how useful certain measures are and what

alternatives would exist if we did opt out of certain measures. Could

we achieve the same names in other ways? By bilateral discussions?

Potentially. There are areas where practical co-operation takes place

today, not on the basis of a piece of EU legislation. Which measures

do you say are directly detrimental to the interests of the UK?

All of these are still subject to negotiation. The discussions that

are taking place with other member states and the commission are not

at the level of us got into a list of items and saying, this one and

that one. We are developing the process we have to go through. We

are having those conversations. But we have to produce ourselves,

before we get involved in a serious set of the decisions about the list,

we will have to complete our own decision-making process. I'm afraid

I can't give you a firm indication as to when we can basenji with such

a list. Are you telling me you don't know what kind of lists?

government has yet to take a final decision about what is on its

initial list. The Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary before a

Lords committee. We've got Michael Heseltine with us. 130 of these

measures, and as I understand it become as a package, you have to

get out of all of them, you can't just cherry-pick. Would this, in

your view, ha Mark Bower ability to deal with crime across European

laws? No, this is a technical issue. You have to opt out of the whole

lot in order to start looking at what you want back-in. If you

wanted to opt back into 139 of them, you still have to opt out of the

140. It's a really technical thing. The issue, you then ask the

substantive question - what our self-interest? Detecting crime,

catching criminals. I'm not party to any of these dialogues but my

certain knowledge is that the government will be sitting there

and saying, how do each of these 140 help us in co-operation with

our European colleagues to make the place say four or more lawful? My

guess is they will come up with a conclusion that crime today is

International, that criminals are overseas and that you've got to be

able to get at them. Are we able to say, all right, we are coming out

of the lot and then we will choose... Yes, we'll come back into

that one and that one and that one. You can negotiate that. So the

Commission could say, actually, you can't. My guess is it won't be the

commission. This is not the Commission. This is ministers,

sovereign, elected ministers making these decisions. They think it is

churlish a bus to cherry-pick and therefore not be very helpful.

might. But they've made themselves have a system where things could be

improved. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, has just finished making

a speech in Bedford. With the 0NS, the Office for National Statistics,

figures released this week showing that British workers are now

earning no more in real terms than they did 10 years ago, and Labour

are 12 points ahead in the latest opinion polls over the

Conservatives, the Labour lead firming up in recent weeks. Have

they therefore now got a winning message on living standards?

Ed Miliband is promising to make the 2015 general election in living

standards election. Asking people whether they feel better off than

they did when the coalition government came to power. And

trying to appeal to the squeezed metal. Yesterday, the Governor of

the Bank of England said there was cause for optimism and that a

recovery is in sight. But he warned that inflation was likely to remain

stubbornly above its 2% target rate, putting further pressure on

household budgets. The Governor pointed the finger at the

government policies, saying that increases in university tuition

fees and domestic energy bills are going to make it harder to bring

inflation down. So Ed Miliband has chosen this moment to go to Bedford,

the sight of Harold Macmillan's famous "we've never had it so good"

speech, to argue that now voters are worrying they will never have

it so good again. A one-nation Labour government led by me well

put a fairer tax system at the heart of its new priorities. It is

a crucial part of how we build an economy where everyone can play

their part. A One Nation Labour Budget next month would lay the

foundations for a recovery made by the many Qabun not just a few at

the top of society. And let me tell you about one crucial choice we

would make, it's different from this government and different from

the last government. We will tax houses worth over �2 million. And

we will use the money to cut taxes for working people. We will put

right a mistake made by Gordon Brown in the last Labour government.

We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower

10p starting rate of tax. With the size of the band depending on the

amount raised. This would benefit 25 million basic rate tax payers.

And it would move Labour on from the past and put Labour way it

should always have been. On the side of working people. The shadow

chancellor, Ed Balls, joins us now from Bedford. Tell me, is the

mansion tax a manifesto commitment? I think it is a very clear signal

from us today that this is what we intend to do in government. You

know that we've had a very clear rule, that we are not going to make

our manifesto decisions until our manifesto. You only have to see

George Osborne this week finally dropping a commitment he made in

2007 on inheritance tax to know the dangers on hard manifesto

commitments made two years before. We will not make commitments until

the manifesto. The question you are asking is, does Labour want in

government to reintroduce the 10p tax rate paid for by the Match

Attax? Yes, they should do it now. In government we would do it now

when it's what we want to do after the next election. At the risk of

spelling out the obvious, you are not in Parliament at the moment.

Are you pledging... Are you pledging to introduce a mansion tax

if Labour is elected in 2015? answered the question very clearly.

Pledges and manifestos wait until closer to the election. We are not

going to make the mistake of past oppositions and make cast-iron

pledges on tax spending until the manifesto. But we want to do this,

we intend to do it, it's our plan to do it. In government we would do

it now. If we had a manifesto it would be there. We intend to have

this in our programme for the next government. Is the new starting

rate of tax the manifesto commitment? Is the new 10p rate a

manifesto commitment? As I said, we are saying today we want to put

right the mistake of 20 -- 2007. We want to reinstate the 10p tax rate.

We think that is fair and would help the economy and working people.

We think it contrasts with David Cameron's top rate tax cut. We want

to do this in government. We want to do this in government. We are

going to wait until our manifesto until the manifesto. But we want in

government in 2015 or sooner, to have a man to tax on properties

above �2 million, to pay for a new starting rate of tax at 10p. When

you were at the Treasury, you looked at the mansion tax and

rejected it several times. Why, what's changed your mind? I'm not

sure whether we ever looked in detail at the mansion tax. I'm not

sure if that is right. I'm trying to think back to those days. We

rate stamp duty on high-value properties. But the idea of a

mansion tax on the value was first proposed by the Liberal Democrats

in the 2010 manifesto. We said last year a number of times that we'd

like to do that. I've got some shadow Treasury work going on

looking at that. I've said that Vince Cable and George Osborne,

we'd like to work with you to do it. George Osborne has ruled it out at

the Liberal Democrats still have it in play, but it's what we are

working on. We think if you went for properties above �2 million,

which is sensible and, by the way, half of them, about 70,000, they

are second homes, not main residences, we think you could

raise, the look or Democrats said 1.7 billion, which the IFS said was

reasonable, I think it would be closer to 2 billion now. If we were

to use 2 billion now for a mansion tax, that would allow us to do

close to �1,000.10 pence tax band for basic rate taxpayers, that

wouldn't apply to higher rate taxpayers. 25 million taxpayers

would get the benefit of the 10p tax cut from Labour. And that would

amount to an extra �2 a week. Is that what Labour means, being on

the side of the working poor? said, don't do the top rate of tax,

don't hit working families with a tax credits cap. It's �2 a week.

Andrew, �2 a week may for you not be a huge amount. For struggling

families at the moment, seeing their Petroc, their bills up, with

all people in work going to food banks, are really struggling, any

help is worth having. But that's it, �2 a week. To be honest, I think

you'd be unwise to skier. -- smear. You can either answer yes or no.

gave you a very clear answer. �2 billion from the mansion tax would

allow you to do �1,000... Up to almost �1,000, 10p band, 10 % on

�1,000 would give you about �100 a year, �2 a week. It is a clear

signal from Labour that our tax- cutting priorities, and of course

we'd like to do more if we could, would be focused on middle and

lower income families. We would not be cutting the top rate of income

tax, that is David Cameron's idea. We want to start from hard-working

families. When you were a Treasury minister, Labour abolished the 10p

rate. Why have you changed your mind? We were all part of a

government which did this, and therefore we all defended it... I

was in the Treasury and I have defended it. As I've said to you

during this programme since, both Ed Miliband and I said to Gordon

Brown at the time it was the wrong thing to do, a mistake. But he was

the Chancellor and he made that decision. He thought by cutting 10p,

he would be able to cut the basic rate and people would understand

that. As he discovered and, to be honest, George Osborne has

discovered in the last year, trying to play off one group of working

families against another, the strivers and the shirkers, that

backfires. It backfired badly for Labour because people didn't see

the basic rate cut... You'd told Gordon Brown, don't do it -

correct? Yes. His closest adviser in these matters and he ignored you.

Yes. Why didn't you resign in protest at this attack on the

working poor? At that time there was a debate about the 10p tax cut,

the basic rate tax cut, tax credits went up to compensate. There was an

attempt to put together a package to prevent the losers. It didn't

work. We said to Gordon Brown that it wasn't going to work. Not only

did we get that wrong, but we're going to reinstate it. The thing in

politics is, can you admit when you make big mistakes? We are saying

let's change it now. Labour are saying change it for the future.

Another question, it's also not to spend the same money twice. In

March of last year you told Nick Robinson that the proceeds of any

mention tax would be used to reverse the cuts to tax credits.

Now you are saying it will be used to introduce a 10p rate. What's it

to be and are you spending the money twice? No. I have to say,

today the Conservative Party are obviously pretty desperate with

their attempt to come up with these flaws. I did an interview with Nick

Robinson. I said, we would like to have a mountain tracks. We would

work with the Liberal Democrats or the Tories on it. If they wanted to

use that for cutting the top rate of tax, no way. But we said if they

were to make a proposal, for example to help working families by

cutting taxes, like tax credits or any others, we would support them.

We made no proposal at that time for any tax cuts, including tax

credits. And today we are saying use it for the 10p rate. They are

not tax credits. Let me ask you this, will you need to do, will the

Manton tax be part of a general council tax re-evaluation? --

mansion tax. It depends how you do it. There's a range of options. We

are working on the different options. We would need to find a

way to get that valuation and applied the tax in a way which is

sensible and fair and cost- effective. It's something we are

working on. I've offered to go and have cross-party talks with the

Liberal Democrats and the Tories, to try and find a way in which we

can do this. It can definitely be done. George Osborne set his face

against that. The Liberal Democrats are more open. If they want to join

our discussions, that would be great. In politics, you should that

make your big mistakes. George Osborne is making big mistakes on

the economy at the moment, flatlined ing at the top rate of

tax. If I was interviewing Mr Osborne I would ask him about his

mistakes, but I've Got You and then running out of time. It seems to me

you'd decided how to spend the proceeds of the mansion tax but you

haven't got any idea get how you are going to raise it. Do you

accept that if there is a council tax re-evaluation, everybody's

council tax could go up? There's a range of different ways in which

you could do this. We've been working and looking at the

different options. It can definitely be done. There is work-

in-progress, but we could raise 1.7 to �2 billion on the Manton tax to

cut the 10p. -- mansion tax. We are still working on that. We'd like to

work with the government if they wanted to. If George Osborne would

finally, the programme... It's your idea, you tell us. Why would to

come on your programme? -- why Joining us is the Liberal Democrat

peer Susan Kramer. The next government will be decided by the

voters. On mansion tax, we are always pleased when somebody

finally comes on side. As you know, it was in Power 2010 manifesto. We

would like the current government to take this on board and implement

it. One of my arguments with Ed Balls is, he will apparently used

this to cut at the lowest rate of income tax. But what we have been

doing in government is raise the starting point of tax. So people

who are on standard rates are now some �600-�700 better off. As

Liberal Democrats, we would want to keep raising VAT threshold until

you get to the minimum-wage. That is much more significant than the

programme Ed Balls discussed. we know there are talks going on

between senior Liberal Democrats and Labour about the future. There

would have to be, as we don't know what will happen post 2015. Would

you like to go into coalition with a party now that is stating clearly,

we will introduce a mansion tax, the exact policy the Liberal

Democrats have been talking about? We will fight for our policies. We

have a lot of areas where we agreed a coalition agreement. There are

crucial things like raising the starting point of tax, something

Labour never looked at. It has been a revolutionary approach with a

real impact not just on the people taken out of tax, 3 million, but

everybody else on the standard rate. What the Government looks like is a

decision for voters. Help us where Ed Balls could not help us - how

would it work? Would you have to do a full evaluation? We looked at

doing it as a separate tax, precisely because of the issues you

raced. It is complex to try and approach it through the council tax

mechanism. But we are willing to look at workable solutions. So you

still can't tell us how you would do it? Andrew, you know perfectly

well that there is a viable way to do this. That is to do it as a

separate tax. How would that work? To be honest with you, it is a long

time since I have read the detail. But I can refer you to all our

website. But this is central to party policy, and you come on this

programme and can't explain it? That is an insult to the viewers.

At least Ed Balls has the excuse that he has only just thought of

the idea. You thought of it years ago and you still can't tell us?

call me guilty for not knowing the granular detail. But I will tell

you the fundamental principles. We had a mansion tax in 2010. We have

stood by that and are pressing for it and the current government.

people will be worried about a full re-evaluation. Which is why we have

chosen not to go in that direction. My God Heseltine, the Conservatives

have a problem now -- Michael Heseltine, the Conservatives have a

problem in terms of standards of living. In 2015, people will be

asked whether they feel better off than in 2010, and even the Governor

of the Bank of England said we will not. How do the Tories combat that?

I can't remember an election going back to the '50s in which living

standards were not the determining factor. So are trying to say we

will fight an election on living standards is simply to say they are

going to fight an election. being able to say, backed up by the

fact that wages have not come up with inflation, it will be

difficult. I have also read the Governor's speech, and we all know

there is a great deal of uncertainty. We have an economic

crisis. But this programme is interesting. As a pre- one to the

full 2015 election, you have an architect of the crisis, the guy

who sat with Gordon Brown, creating the mess. Under croppers -- under

cross-examination from Andrew, simple questions, there were no

answers, except one. We will have a mansion tax. That is easy, because

it is rich people and no one cares. They mention a mansion tax because

they are fighting a by-election when they want to roads from the

Lib Dems. Overnight, they have picked one of the Lib Dem policies.

But you have still not answered this question about what the Tory

line will be. I will tell you. We have saved the national economy.

Even if people are worse off? you really want to put the

architects of the disaster are back in the driving seat? Do you really

think that Ed Balls, who could not answer the questions, he would not

even tell you whether it was a certain policy, do you really think

that that guy has got a grip on how we deal with the worst modern

economic crisis we have ever been through? This programme was a real

one, or a pre- rom-com of 2015. That is why David Cameron will win.

What would the Liberal Democrat answer be to that? Ed Miliband

would say living standards it still feel lower to voters than they were

in 2010, and it is a result of the coalition government. Voters are

not so easily fooled. They have had five years of austerity, with the

promise of more austerity. And the Lib Dems themselves have said we

will have a few more years of austerity. The because it is

important to not create false rainbows. He the Labour Party say

there will be austerity as well. But they will argue that under

their policies, are rightly or wrongly, they would not be in this

position. By have they got us into this position. You have to accept

that the crisis we have was not just some meteor from the collapse

of the financial system, it was an underlying crash of our entire

economy, very much fuelled by the spend and borrow a pattern to which

Ed Balls is still addicted. interestingly, the Poles are now,

for the first time, beginning to show that Ed Balls and Ed Miliband,

are beginning to level with George Osborne and David Cameron in terms

of trust over the economy. It this was normal politics, the coalition

government would be 20 to 25 points behind in the mid-term blues of any

government. Actually, they are 10 or 11 points behind. Unemployment

is falling. The economy is probably on the turn, and there are another

two years before the election. All right, before I have a turn!

You have had a few. Now, what day is today? No, not

that one. We don't go in for that mushy love stuff at the Daily

Politics. Today is actually the 50th anniversary of two-time Prime

Minister Harold Wilson becoming leader of the Labour Party. The

following year, in 1964, he won, by a small majority, the first of four

elections. He was arguably the first prime minister of the

television era, so much so that the Tories panicked in 1964 and said,

we need a leader who knows how to do TV as well. Tonight, BBC

Parliament are dedicating an evening of programmes to the man

who once described himself as an optimist, but an optimist who

carries a raincoat. Here is a REPORTER: Mr Wilson, many wonder

whether you would make a good Prime Minister. What issues do you think

are uppermost in their minds? think the first thing is that they

want to see this country standing in the world restored. They are

getting tired of seeing Britain pushed around. The Liverpool crowd

has a sharp eye and a distinctive voice for victory. But early on

Friday morning, they were convinced their man had won. What kind of

Prime Minister do you most admire? A number of those I admire were

wartime prime ministers, such as Churchill. And in certain aspects,

Lloyd George. Among the peacetime ones, I was always impressed by

Robert Peel, especially his great Those were the days when first-

class seats on British Rail were very comfortable. Joining me,

Bernard Donoughue, who was head of Wilson's Downing Street policy unit

during the 1970s. In 1963, when Labour chose Harold Wilson as their

leader, it was a watershed. The previous Labour leaders like Hugh

Gaitskell had been public-school Oxbridge types. They were not that

different from the Macmillans of the Tory side. But here was this

chap with a pipe and a Yorkshire accent, grammar-school boy. It was

a new era. Absolut Klee. Harold was classless. Well, he was really

middle-class, but he was not clearly of the ruling class. He was

provincial, from the north. Completely meritocratic. This was

one of his strengths. To the public, they felt they could identify with

him. He was not from the old ruling regime. And of course, after him,

the Conservatives followed this and did the same. Very much the same

point could be made about Ted Heath. And John Major. And Margaret,

actually. And he was prime minister during the most significant part of

the '60s, if you accept that the '60s did not really start until

1963. Then he came back in the early '70s with the Ted Heath

interregnum. But looking back, is he regarded as a great prime

minister or a disappointment? regarded as a great political

leader and party manager. And he is regarded much more highly in the

Labour Party than in the country at large. I think he raised

expectations too high before he came into power of being able to

modernise Britain in his own image. Of course, he was not able to do

that. It was an impossible task, and he suffered from raising

expectations too high, to the point where many people came to say after

he went that he achieved nothing has Prime Minister. That is totally

untrue. In terms of transforming the social values of the country

and changing the laws, legalising homosexuality, abolishing theatre

censorship, abolishing hanging, dealing with gender inequality and

racial inequality, he achieved a lot. But not as much as he led

people to believe he would. Do you miss him? I miss his style and the

fun of being with him. There are other negative sides to him. Is it

true that he had brandy and cigars in public and the pipe and the beer

were for public? Not always. But he certainly smoked his pipe a lot in

public. I never saw him smoke it in private. It was very useful,

because if you asked him a difficult question, he would light

his pipe and blow a lot of smoke. You can enjoy a whole evening of

programmes looking back at your life and times of Harold Wilson

tonight on BBC Parliament from 6 o'clock. That is it for today.

Thanks to all our guests, especially Lord Heseltine. The One