:00:39. > :00:41.Afternoon, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:42. > :00:45.The horsemeat saga takes another turn as the government hits out at
:00:45. > :00:51.retailers for remaining silent. They're waiting for the results of
:00:51. > :00:54.tests on how widespread the crisis is. We'll have the latest.
:00:54. > :00:59.The Budget is just over a month away. What can George Osborne put
:00:59. > :01:02.in his red box to stop the economic rot?
:01:02. > :01:07.Did Karl Marx predict the collapse of the banks and the subsequent
:01:07. > :01:14.credit crunch? And, speaking of brainwashing, we
:01:14. > :01:17.ask whether joining a political party alters your brain.
:01:17. > :01:23.All that in the next hour of public sector Friday broadcasting at its
:01:23. > :01:25.finest. And with us for the whole programme today are two of
:01:25. > :01:31.Westminster's finest - Rafael Behr from the New Statesman and Anne
:01:31. > :01:34.McElvoy from The Economist. First up today, an influential
:01:34. > :01:38.group of MPs have criticised the government's clever wheezes that
:01:38. > :01:40.are supposed to be injecting growth into the economy. The Public
:01:40. > :01:43.Accounts Committee says quantitative easing - that's the
:01:43. > :01:45.scheme the Bank of England uses to effectively create money - is an
:01:45. > :01:48.expensive experiment, and that the Treasury has limited understanding
:01:48. > :01:58.of its role. And they have criticised the Treasury's other
:01:58. > :02:06.
:02:06. > :02:12.This comes from Margaret Hodge's committee. Is she not in danger of
:02:12. > :02:17.lashing out at too many targets? I'm a great fan of the way she has
:02:17. > :02:21.run the committee, made it quite irrelevant. I think this may be a
:02:21. > :02:26.bridge too far. All of the things you say about quantitative easing -
:02:26. > :02:35.we don't know what the outcome will be - are true. But anything you do
:02:35. > :02:38.to stimulate growth is by definition untested. It is how you
:02:38. > :02:46.test the government. The Americans have done the same thing on a huge
:02:46. > :02:51.scale. We have done more than the Americans. The American economy is
:02:51. > :02:56.five times bigger. That is not what she is criticising. She is
:02:56. > :03:00.criticising the principle. I'm not convinced, given the committee has
:03:00. > :03:04.come out for quantitative easing, I am not convinced that her committee
:03:04. > :03:10.has the greater knowledge. One does sometimes want to put the question
:03:10. > :03:17.back, OK, what would you do? The whole business of policy is
:03:17. > :03:22.complicated. This is uncharted territory. You do wonder what the
:03:22. > :03:28.public accounts committee brings to the table in this. Margaret Hodge
:03:28. > :03:34.has carved out quite a big role. I respect that. You have the
:03:34. > :03:38.executive doing its thing. There's often an accusation that government
:03:38. > :03:44.just rubber-stamped what is going on. If you have parliamentarians
:03:44. > :03:48.out there Making noise, saying, look, let's have this massive
:03:48. > :03:54.policy experiment, I think that is quite good. It puts in the public
:03:54. > :04:00.domain the question of the Governor waving a wand and creating all this
:04:00. > :04:10.money. Nobody knows where it has gone. We do, actually! It is in
:04:10. > :04:11.
:04:11. > :04:18.Barnes! -- bonds! She has made a number of important changes in her
:04:18. > :04:24.committee. The criticism the committee makes of monetary policy
:04:24. > :04:32.are very general. They are not specific. Anne's question - what do
:04:32. > :04:36.we do next? That is the question. If the Chancellor had a theory
:04:36. > :04:43.about what would happen to the economy and he pursued a certain
:04:43. > :04:49.strategy and monetary policy was part of that, clearly it has not
:04:49. > :04:54.worked. The economy is not growing. You don't know if it worked. You
:04:54. > :05:00.can't know that. What worries me is that Margaret Hodge comes from the
:05:00. > :05:07.left of the Labour Party. She is unlikely to come out in favour of a
:05:07. > :05:17.monetarist conclusion. I would imagine see backs Ed Balls's
:05:17. > :05:21.
:05:21. > :05:26.strategy. -- she backs. She is a powerful chairperson. She is very
:05:26. > :05:32.well favoured. I think things do tend to end are being like the
:05:33. > :05:42.chairperson wants them. -- end up. A lot of her reports have had a lot
:05:42. > :05:45.of impact. We're only a month away from the
:05:45. > :05:48.Budget. George Osborne has been in his country retreat of Dorneywood
:05:48. > :05:51.this week, working on the detail with a small team of senior civil
:05:51. > :05:54.servants and political advisers. He'll be keen to avoid some of the
:05:54. > :05:56.issues which dogged last year's statement. Initially, last year's
:05:56. > :05:59.Budget was well received. But within days the Chancellor was
:05:59. > :06:02.mired in a series of tax rows. It started with the so-called granny
:06:02. > :06:06.tax, a freeze in the age-related income tax allowance for pensioners,
:06:06. > :06:08.which raised howls of derision and an e-petition to Downing Street.
:06:08. > :06:08.Then there was the pasty tax row Then there was the pasty tax row
:06:08. > :06:08.Then there was the pasty tax row Then there was the pasty tax row
:06:09. > :06:10.Then there was the pasty tax row Then there was the pasty tax row
:06:10. > :06:14.over plans to apply VAT to hot over plans to apply VAT to hot
:06:14. > :06:18.takeaway food. After a backlash from the media and the backbenches,
:06:18. > :06:24.there was a U-turn. And then there was the caravan tax,
:06:24. > :06:32.which aimed to impose VAT on static caravans. Cue more outrage and a
:06:32. > :06:42.watering down of the policy, He'll be hoping the so-called
:06:42. > :06:42.
:06:42. > :06:48.omnishambles can be laid to rest on March 20th. But the economic
:06:48. > :06:58.outlook is not good. The UK economy contracted by 0.3%
:06:58. > :07:00.in the fourth quarter of 2012. And borrowing is not coming down. In
:07:00. > :07:10.fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says borrowing will be �64
:07:10. > :07:18.
:07:18. > :07:21.billion higher in 2014-15 than they I'm now joined by the editor of
:07:21. > :07:31.City AM, Allister Heath, and the Associate Director of the IPPR,
:07:31. > :07:37.
:07:37. > :07:42.Let me get you to lay out your stores. You are the Chancellor.
:07:42. > :07:46.Give me two or three of the big things you would do. I would dump
:07:47. > :07:54.the current policies and embrace a more supply-side policy. I would
:07:54. > :07:58.cut corporation tax to a level below Ireland, which would reduce
:07:58. > :08:06.revenues -- increase revenues. I would pursue but of the regulatory
:08:06. > :08:10.measures. And you were run a bigger budget? The deficit would increase
:08:10. > :08:15.but I would anticipate spending cuts to anticipate that. And you
:08:15. > :08:20.are the Chancellor. What would you I think the economy has to be
:08:20. > :08:27.stimulated. The policies are not working. But differently, I would
:08:27. > :08:34.look at the OBR and the IMF's analysis. Multiply as for spending
:08:34. > :08:42.are greater than taxes. The government has only delivered 100
:08:42. > :08:47.of its infrastructure projects. Let's be that up. Let's improve
:08:47. > :08:52.energy efficiency in homes. If we are going to have a tax cut, let's
:08:52. > :08:58.not give it to companies. The Chancellor has tried that. Foreign,
:08:58. > :09:06.direct investment fell last year. Let's give it to working people.
:09:06. > :09:10.What do you say to that? problem is, the Chancellor's
:09:10. > :09:18.tactics have not had a big change effect. I would cut corporation tax
:09:18. > :09:22.in half. It has already been cut 7%. I would make it 11%. It would make
:09:22. > :09:27.the UK the most competitive economy in the world. It would send a
:09:27. > :09:33.message that the UK is open for business. I would/or abolish
:09:33. > :09:37.capital gains tax. -- I would cut or abolished. It is time for
:09:37. > :09:42.companies to start investing. The return on investment would suddenly
:09:42. > :09:52.become larger than it was before. Capital gains tax is a small part
:09:52. > :09:56.
:09:56. > :10:04.of the overall government revenue. Peanuts. Would it - and it is only
:10:04. > :10:14.28%. Lots of very smart accountants would start working out how what
:10:14. > :10:15.
:10:16. > :10:20.was really my income was really a capital gain. It is a risk. We know
:10:20. > :10:24.how to account for lot of those evasion measures. One would have to
:10:24. > :10:30.do that. In one day, you would see a recruit -- return to investment
:10:30. > :10:34.of around 20%. In one day, the bank for the buck was suddenly go up
:10:34. > :10:39.drastically, making it more worthwhile for them to do that.
:10:39. > :10:43.would run a big deficit, too? Absolutely. Look at what George
:10:43. > :10:48.Osborne has done. People warn him about the rate of the deficit
:10:48. > :10:52.reduction. Borrowing is going to rise this here relative to the
:10:52. > :10:58.previous year. Of course we have got to bring down the deficit. But
:10:58. > :11:05.the way to do it is to boost demand. That is the problem we have here.
:11:05. > :11:10.You are talking about a Keynesian method. If your policy work, Japan
:11:10. > :11:15.would be the world leader. It would be the booming economy. It has been
:11:15. > :11:18.trying that for years, and it has not worked. The problem with Japan
:11:18. > :11:22.is it brought down its interest rates later than we did here. We
:11:22. > :11:27.were more stimulative on the monetary policy side. We have not
:11:27. > :11:35.tried expenditure of the same extent. They have not tried the
:11:35. > :11:44.kind of boost that we are calling for. The Japanese national debt is
:11:44. > :11:49.around 200% of GDP. Borrowing twice as much has not worked. Japan went
:11:49. > :11:55.into deflation. Prices started to fall. As a measure of GDP, their
:11:55. > :11:59.debt rose. That is the reason for it. We have to anticipate that. We
:11:59. > :12:06.don't want inflation to be too high but we don't want prices to start
:12:06. > :12:14.slipping back. The problem you budget would face is one of equity
:12:14. > :12:18.and of a sense of fairness. We live in a country now where people are
:12:18. > :12:22.on below average earnings and they are suffering. The food prices,
:12:22. > :12:26.enterprises are taking big chunks of income. There's also a sense
:12:26. > :12:31.that this is happening because some rich people screwed up the economy.
:12:31. > :12:36.They are still rich. The poor and the average are suffering. And you
:12:36. > :12:42.are now going to put in tax cuts which will benefit the rich. You're
:12:42. > :12:46.right, that is how it would be perceived. Two responses. The most
:12:46. > :12:49.pro equity measure is to boost growth. If you do it back to proper
:12:49. > :12:53.levels, you start to create great numbers of jobs and wages will
:12:53. > :12:58.start to go up. Secondly, the biggest reason for the decline in
:12:58. > :13:04.real wages, which is a catastrophe, is that inflation is far too high.
:13:04. > :13:07.I think that is the main issue. Thirdly, we just need to forget
:13:07. > :13:11.about the short-term distribution effect for once and focus on the
:13:11. > :13:17.long run. How do we get the economy to grow again? I don't care how it
:13:17. > :13:23.happens but we have to do it. do you say to me two Chancellor's?
:13:23. > :13:29.They are good candidates for the job! Better than the incumbent?
:13:29. > :13:38.That was hanging over the debate. Maybe we should do it, it X-Factor
:13:38. > :13:46.style. Could be a good programme! Your idea, I fundamentally agree
:13:46. > :13:50.with that. We are getting too much into distribution. What we really
:13:50. > :13:55.need to do is get the economy moving and then everyone will
:13:55. > :14:00.benefit. An interesting thing is you did not have a problem with the
:14:01. > :14:05.deficit per saved. Your idea is a problem for the Tory government.
:14:05. > :14:11.They have been saying that the deficit was a big problem. I'm not
:14:11. > :14:16.surprised that you want to build a bigger deficit. No, it is cutting
:14:16. > :14:22.the deficit in a different way. well, the Public Accounts Committee
:14:22. > :14:27.might say that is untested. On the right, you are going in a different
:14:27. > :14:34.direction to where the government is going. What is your appraisal?
:14:34. > :14:38.Firstly, it is easy to say that you should not looked back the -- look
:14:38. > :14:48.at the short-term impact. But there's an election in a couple of
:14:48. > :14:51.
:14:51. > :14:54.years. A lot of those arguments were brought to bear on the 50p
:14:54. > :14:59.rate, and that was a political disaster for the government. You
:14:59. > :15:05.can understand why the Chancellor might think, actually, I have got a
:15:05. > :15:11.bunch of people who are suffering and I need to show them that I am
:15:11. > :15:14.on their side. That is his moral obligation. I also think it is
:15:14. > :15:24.interesting - I agree there to need some kind of Big Bang and thither,
:15:24. > :15:30.somebody to say we need something new. -- Big Bang manoeuvre. The
:15:30. > :15:40.Chancellor has staked his reputation on that his cause was
:15:40. > :15:49.
:15:49. > :15:53.the right one. It is hard to see $:/STARTFEED. You can bring some of
:15:53. > :15:56.the cuts in in subsequent years. whole bunch of painful cuts. Very
:15:56. > :15:59.painful and difficult. It's extremely difficult and painful,
:15:59. > :16:04.but the economy's not growing, people's wages are falling and we
:16:04. > :16:09.have a big, big problem. If you look in the international context
:16:09. > :16:14.or the European context, we are not alone here any more. The figures
:16:14. > :16:18.are out. Germany in the fourth quarter its economy went down 0.6%.
:16:18. > :16:24.It's forecast very little growth this year. France in the fourth
:16:24. > :16:30.quarter down 0.2%. Its economy ended 2012 no bigger than it was in
:16:30. > :16:34.2011 and it's not expected to grow in 2013. So for two years, more
:16:35. > :16:41.stagnation, unemployment rises. Italy lost almost 1% of its GDP in
:16:41. > :16:49.the fourth quarter and is expected to lose another 1% in 2013. Even
:16:49. > :16:54.the Dutch lost almost 1% of their GDP. The Hungarians 2.7%, the
:16:54. > :16:58.Czechs 1.7. There's one country that's done something a bit
:16:58. > :17:01.different. That's America. They took a much longer time to bring
:17:01. > :17:05.down their deficit, they postponed the cuts and are only now starting
:17:05. > :17:12.to consider it and as a result they are growing at 2%. That tells you
:17:12. > :17:15.what you need to know about the untested theory. They also have
:17:15. > :17:19.something called the dollar which has changed. If you look at the low
:17:19. > :17:22.cost of borrowing to the pound, there's been a similar effect to
:17:22. > :17:26.the pound as there has for the dollar and our pound's depreciated
:17:26. > :17:31.against the dollar. If you are borrowing in dollars, you could
:17:31. > :17:36.pretty much borrow until the cows come home. Like has been in the
:17:36. > :17:46.case in the UK, with historically low interest rates. The American
:17:46. > :17:47.
:17:47. > :17:56.response is different. Different responses to the bank there is too.
:17:56. > :18:00.Congress won't let them get there yet because state budgets were
:18:00. > :18:07.skhrashed. -- slashed.
:18:07. > :18:15.Gentlemen, thank you. I'll call Gideon now. We may have
:18:15. > :18:20.to cut his salary. Call Simon Cowell first. Simon who? ITV, ssh h.
:18:20. > :18:24.It's been a month since horsemeat was first discovered in meat
:18:24. > :18:29.products and the scandal grows by the day. Three men were arrested in
:18:29. > :18:32.abattoirs in Wales and Yorkshire of offences under the fraud act and
:18:33. > :18:37.ASDA became the latest to withdraw meat products from its she-sms. We
:18:37. > :18:41.are expecting results from hundreds of tests on minced beef products
:18:41. > :18:46.stocked in UK stores. -- shelves. Last night, Downing Street launched
:18:46. > :18:50.an attack on the smarblgts, saying it wasn't acceptable for them to
:18:50. > :18:53.remain silent -- supermarkets. The Director General of the British
:18:53. > :18:59.Retail Consortium is Helen Dick inson. She spoke to the BBC this
:18:59. > :19:02.morning and defended the supermarkets -- Dickinson. We need
:19:02. > :19:06.facts. That is why today is important because we'll be able to
:19:06. > :19:13.see the collated picture of the results of all the testing that's
:19:13. > :19:16.gone on over the last three weeks, much of which has been at the
:19:16. > :19:21.instigation of the retail industry itself. We'll be able to see the
:19:21. > :19:26.extent of the problem. What we do know is that any problems that have
:19:26. > :19:30.already been identified to date, we have acted on them straightaway,
:19:30. > :19:34.withdrawn the products and apologised to our customers.
:19:34. > :19:37.We are joined by our Europe correspondent, Matthew Pryce in
:19:37. > :19:42.Brussels, where the food safety experts from across the continent
:19:42. > :19:45.are meeting today. Just mark our card here - what is the meeting
:19:45. > :19:49.about? They are essentially following up
:19:49. > :19:52.from the meeting of agriculture ministers earlier in the week of
:19:52. > :19:59.which it was decided to increase both the testing of beef products
:19:59. > :20:03.for horse DNA and also to increase the testing for this horse
:20:03. > :20:08.painkiller which is believed could be -- which it's believed could be
:20:08. > :20:13.many the food chain. They are looking at ways to efficiently set
:20:13. > :20:18.up basically a much more faster moving system and far greater test
:20:18. > :20:23.than they have at the moment. To get that done as soon as possible
:20:23. > :20:32.with the results coming bay some time in April. I understand the
:20:32. > :20:36.French company, Comigel, has issued a statement this morning?? It's the
:20:36. > :20:40.other company. The other one, Matthew, sorry? Yes, the French
:20:40. > :20:43.Government yesterday pointed the finger of blame at that company,
:20:43. > :20:48.saying 750 tonnes of horsemeat incorrectly labelled as beef had
:20:48. > :20:52.been sent out by that company over the last six months. One of our
:20:52. > :20:56.colleagues has spoken to the sales director at the company today
:20:56. > :21:02.apologising to British consumers but saying the mistake was not
:21:02. > :21:06.theirs, that they did not mislead anybody, they did not label
:21:06. > :21:10.horsemeat as beef and saying they've been unfairly hung out to
:21:10. > :21:16.dry by the French Government. That is their claim at the moment. I
:21:16. > :21:19.think what's also clear from the extent of this crisis across Europe,
:21:19. > :21:22.some 16 countries have been involved in some way, shape or form
:21:22. > :21:25.at the moment, is that this won't be the only company at the end of
:21:25. > :21:29.this which finds itself having blame pointed at it.
:21:29. > :21:33.Thank you for that. Just while Matthew was talking to us, we got
:21:33. > :21:37.the latest results of the independent tests commissioned by
:21:37. > :21:42.the Co-operative Group announced today. They've proven negative for
:21:42. > :21:50.horse DNA in all of the 59 out of 102 own brand minced beef products
:21:50. > :21:56.that were separate tested. No horses in them. It says we have had
:21:56. > :21:59.68 results on Morrisons products as well. So far we have found no
:21:59. > :22:03.contamination with horsemeat. The latest results there suggesting
:22:03. > :22:13.that the horsemeat's not in the ones they've been investigating.
:22:13. > :22:14.
:22:14. > :22:17.I'm joined by the chairman of the environment Food and Rural Affairs
:22:17. > :22:22.Anne Mackintosh. Meat producers are forced to carry
:22:22. > :22:26.out meat testing. How did the FSA let us down in this crisis? I think
:22:26. > :22:31.it was surprising that they were on the back foot when the Irish FSA
:22:31. > :22:34.informed the British FSA that they were doing DNA testing on a
:22:34. > :22:38.particular line of products in November. We were surprised that
:22:38. > :22:42.the FSA didn't ask more questions and perhaps conduct their own tests
:22:42. > :22:46.at that time and we'd have had more knowledge and been much further
:22:46. > :22:51.into the food chain than we currently are. You are the expert,
:22:51. > :22:54.but in the processing plants where a lot of the different kinds of
:22:54. > :23:00.meats could be brought together, that is not the responsibility of
:23:00. > :23:03.the FSA is it? That is the responsibility of local standards
:23:03. > :23:08.officials employed by local authorities? And their numbers have
:23:08. > :23:12.been seriously cut in recent years? There are various layers that you
:23:12. > :23:19.have to unravel. Whether the meat originally came from Romania via
:23:19. > :23:21.France, Poland, Ireland, it's the responsibility of the exporting
:23:21. > :23:28.countries authorities to test physically the content of that meat
:23:28. > :23:31.and that the label says what the content is. Then you have
:23:31. > :23:36.Environmental Health officers for district councils, Trading
:23:36. > :23:40.Standards officers for county councils, they all have a role to
:23:40. > :23:45.play. What we were surprised by was to learn that the FSA does not have
:23:45. > :23:49.a statutory authority saying that they can compel testing to happen.
:23:49. > :23:53.They can request retailers and normally retailers will be nice and
:23:53. > :23:55.say yes, we are prepared to test. We are saying they should have a
:23:55. > :23:59.statutory authority to test, that it's the responsibility of
:23:59. > :24:04.retailers to share the results of their tests. Will they be able to
:24:04. > :24:10.do the testing in the food processing plant? The key is in the
:24:10. > :24:15.words "Food processing". I mean if horsemeat is getting into our meat,
:24:15. > :24:19.it's probably in the food processing plants? Most processing
:24:19. > :24:22.takes place in other countries, so it would appear if there has been a
:24:22. > :24:26.criminal act, it would potentially have been in another European
:24:26. > :24:29.country. What I think we need to know is, we need to understand
:24:29. > :24:32.better the whole food supply chain and I had no idea that the
:24:32. > :24:35.ingredients were travelling quite so many miles through so many
:24:35. > :24:40.different countries over a long period.
:24:40. > :24:46.But the supermarkets who're the ones labelling the products, don't
:24:46. > :24:54.they have a bigger responsibility for testing to make sure that what
:24:54. > :24:59.the label says is the correct one? The testing regime that is set up
:24:59. > :25:03.in the country is risk assessed and you are never going... I was
:25:03. > :25:07.surprised to learn, you might be as well, that to test all the product
:25:07. > :25:11.lines for one company, Tesco told us that in one year, it would cost
:25:11. > :25:15.between �1 million and �2 million simply to do DNA test samples. We
:25:15. > :25:18.also understand that we don't have the facilities in this country to
:25:18. > :25:23.do all the tests. What's particularly ironic is that we seem
:25:23. > :25:30.to have reexforted some of the contaminated meat to Germany where
:25:30. > :25:35.they have the labs to test. You say Tesco claims it will cost �1
:25:35. > :25:39.million or �2 million... That's just one company. Yes but the
:25:39. > :25:47.biggest supermarket. Do you want me to tell you what their profits
:25:47. > :25:51.were? Go on? �1.7 million. They can afford to do that. -- �1.7 billion.
:25:51. > :25:56.They don't have to do everything. A random test would give you a fair
:25:56. > :25:59.idea if the food chain was what it says it was or wasn't. So I put to
:25:59. > :26:04.you again, haven't the supermarkets got more responsibility to take
:26:04. > :26:07.better care of labelling the food they sell to us? Well, what I think
:26:07. > :26:10.should happen is that we should source more of our food from the
:26:10. > :26:15.British farmers where we have clobbered them with animal welfare,
:26:15. > :26:19.traceability, inspection costs, labelling costs and what do we do?
:26:19. > :26:23.We undercut them by taking this inferior meat. That would boost
:26:23. > :26:29.consumer confidence overnights if, as Waitrose have said that they are
:26:29. > :26:34.going to do, that Morrisons do most of their food that is sold in North
:26:34. > :26:38.Yorkshire stores, they take from British farming produce. But there
:26:38. > :26:47.are arrests at two British abattoirs yesterday? I think that
:26:47. > :26:51.is shocking. It's not free from horses? What emerges there is that
:26:51. > :26:56.the horse passport was not marked. This bute, it's not harmful to
:26:56. > :27:00.human health in the quantities we are talking about. It is if you eat
:27:00. > :27:04.60 Hamburgers a year? struggling at the moment to eat one.
:27:04. > :27:09.But that passport should have been marked up as being infected with
:27:09. > :27:14.bute and the horse should never have entered into the human food
:27:14. > :27:18.chain. You cannot force anyone to buy British. You and I may agree
:27:18. > :27:22.it's the west thing to do and we should support our own produce --
:27:22. > :27:25.best thing to do. But under European rules you can't force
:27:26. > :27:31.anyone to buy British. Until you can encourage us, and the
:27:31. > :27:35.supermarkets, to source more from this country, I come back to my
:27:35. > :27:39.point, I'm surprised at your reluctance to criticise the
:27:39. > :27:45.supermarkets. They need to do more testing and better labelling?
:27:45. > :27:50.we have learnt, as a country, from BSE and foot-and-mouth, we know
:27:50. > :27:54.more about how to put your house in order and it seems ironic that
:27:54. > :27:58.having clobbered our industry with those costs, we then undercut and
:27:58. > :28:02.don't take their meat. So yes, the supermarkets have a role and I
:28:02. > :28:08.would expect them to comment when we know the results of these tests.
:28:08. > :28:14.But these tests will only tell us what's on the Shells now. It does
:28:14. > :28:16.not tell us where the contamination entered the food chain -- shelves.
:28:16. > :28:18.I slightly feel for the supermarkets on this one because
:28:18. > :28:23.you are asking them to take more responsibility for the labouring
:28:23. > :28:27.but the key labelling question was, it said it came from a cow and it
:28:27. > :28:32.came from a horse. One might be reasonably expected to think that
:28:32. > :28:36.if they think they are buying beef, it is actually beef. Now we realise
:28:36. > :28:40.something's gone dreadfully wrong in the food chain. Cottage pie
:28:40. > :28:45.delivered to 57 schools in Lancashire has been contaminated
:28:45. > :28:48.with horsemeat - that's what I've just been told. People will be
:28:48. > :28:51.feeling anxious. What I find fascinating is that inevitably when
:28:51. > :28:54.this happens, people want politicians to respond because they
:28:54. > :28:58.are our elected representatives and have to do something and you notice
:28:58. > :29:03.from Downing Street, having a bit of a go at the supermarkets, that
:29:03. > :29:08.actually, political power is quite dispersed here. There's not much
:29:08. > :29:11.purchase they can get on it. If you are on the left, you could say,
:29:11. > :29:14.global capitalism, spread accountability and sort of putting
:29:14. > :29:18.pressure on the bottom line means we have all this junk in the food
:29:18. > :29:22.chain and if you are on the right you might say the European Union is
:29:22. > :29:25.taking power away and Brussels bureaucrats force feeding us donkey.
:29:25. > :29:30.You can configure it whichever way you like, but the politicians, they
:29:30. > :29:35.are faced with public anxiety and don't have any levers to pull to
:29:35. > :29:39.make it go away. I have sympathy with Downing Street on this one.
:29:39. > :29:42.One thing I noticed early was the way the blame was immediately
:29:42. > :29:45.passed along the line. I didn't get the impression the supermarkets
:29:45. > :29:51.were saying, we'll stand back and loots mp look at where our
:29:51. > :29:57.responsibility might lie here. It was like we had a supplier, they
:29:57. > :30:00.have a supplier and we had another supplier. They all pride themselves
:30:00. > :30:04.on corporate social responsibility, they have expensively paid people
:30:04. > :30:07.being employed to do this and yet when push comes to shove, they put
:30:07. > :30:11.up big signs in the supermarkets saying all the great things they
:30:11. > :30:14.are doing, the labelling is a farce. It's made to look as if we are
:30:14. > :30:16.being given information, but when it comes to it, the information
:30:16. > :30:19.isn't there. I think the supermarkets do bear a lot of the
:30:19. > :30:25.blame and after this, they will have to do more, whether they
:30:25. > :30:29.resist it now or not. Anne Mackintosh, this story's
:30:29. > :30:34.cranked up a notch now that we have found out that horse has gone into
:30:34. > :30:38.the food chain in schools in Lancashire. Your reaction to that?
:30:38. > :30:41.It's deeply worrying. I'm not saying there is any health aspects
:30:41. > :30:44.but it comes to the basic point that we need to find out where in
:30:44. > :30:48.the food Hain the contamination is taking place. I'm not convinced
:30:48. > :30:51.it's taking place in the UK. I believe, particularly the evidence
:30:51. > :30:56.we heard from Tescos, that there was a degree of complacency that
:30:56. > :31:01.yes, they went to huge lengths when they set up a new supply chain, but
:31:01. > :31:11.once that supply chain was in place, they didn't revisit it often enough
:31:11. > :31:19.
:31:19. > :31:22.and I don't think we'll see that Is capitalism doomed to failure?
:31:22. > :31:24.Marxists have long thought so. But the global financial crisis has
:31:24. > :31:28.even got some economists wondering whether Marx was right. So can
:31:28. > :31:30.Marxism do it any better? If the Soviet Union's anything to go by,
:31:30. > :31:32.probably not, and socialist states like Venezuela haven't been spared
:31:32. > :31:40.from having financial troubles. Susana Mendonca has been speaking
:31:40. > :31:45.to one Marxist thinker, though, who thinks the tide is turning.
:31:45. > :31:49.Meet Alan Woods, a Welshman in east London whose writings have
:31:49. > :31:54.influenced a nation. He is a founder of a campaign called hands
:31:54. > :32:01.of Venezuela. He had the ear of the President, Hugo Chavez.
:32:01. > :32:07.He did not describe himself as a socialist, let alone a Marxist. It
:32:07. > :32:13.was not in his programme. I think he has evolved. Without wishing to
:32:13. > :32:18.exaggerate my own role. Venezuela's revolution has not put
:32:18. > :32:24.an end to unemployment and poverty. Its inflation rate is one of the
:32:24. > :32:27.highest in the world. There are serious problems of crime, of a
:32:27. > :32:33.certain dislocation of the economy. But I would say the reason is not
:32:33. > :32:38.so much that they have preceded too fast and too far with
:32:38. > :32:45.nationalisation of the economy, but on the contrary, they have not
:32:45. > :32:53.proceeded far enough. He would like to see them and the rest of the
:32:53. > :32:58.world go the way this man suggested. Karl Marx. He was buried here in
:32:58. > :33:03.Highgate cemetery back in 1883. In his lifetime, he argued that
:33:03. > :33:07.capitalism was unfair and therefore doomed to failure. 130 years on,
:33:07. > :33:15.the current crisis has led some to wonder whether he was right all
:33:15. > :33:19.along. The capitalist system inevitably
:33:19. > :33:28.involves crisis. One prominent American economist, Nouriel Roubini,
:33:28. > :33:33.said recently that Marx was right. We thought that the market worked.
:33:33. > :33:38.It does not. The global financial crisis has been met by anti-
:33:38. > :33:45.capitalist protests. This village outside St Paul's was one example.
:33:45. > :33:52.A sign, according to Allen, that Marxist ideas are resurfacing.
:33:52. > :33:55.You have the Occupy movement. You have the events in Spain. Even in
:33:55. > :34:01.sleepy old Britain, there's the beginnings of a movement. At the
:34:01. > :34:06.very least, you could say, there is now a question about this system
:34:06. > :34:13.and its values and the way it is run but was not there before.
:34:13. > :34:20.By it if Marxism is the answer, why did the Soviet Union for? Wife has
:34:20. > :34:26.China embraced state capitalism? don't defend the Stalinist regime.
:34:26. > :34:30.But what it did show, as in Russia, was that by nationalising the means
:34:30. > :34:36.of production, the Chinese people achieved what they never did in the
:34:36. > :34:39.past. So, Marxist theory lives on. But despite predictions of his
:34:39. > :34:42.demise, capitalism is still with us for now.
:34:42. > :34:50.Susana Mendonsa reporting. We're now joined by Dr Madsen Pirie of
:34:50. > :34:59.the Adam Smith Institute. It may be a long shot to say that
:34:59. > :35:05.Marxist ideology is making a comeback. But the sense that the
:35:05. > :35:08.rich are another country, that they have brought a lot of badness in
:35:08. > :35:13.recent years and that ordinary people are getting a rum deal, that
:35:13. > :35:20.has taken root. It is prevalent at a popular level. When Marks of
:35:20. > :35:25.aside that the destiny of capitalism was to of press the
:35:25. > :35:29.workers, he was wrong. Capitalism has done more to lift the standard
:35:29. > :35:34.of the common man than any other force. It is one of the most benign
:35:34. > :35:40.things that people have done. now. In this country, the median
:35:40. > :35:45.wage is now back to where it was in 2003.
:35:45. > :35:49.British -- which is further ahead than it was 10 years earlier.
:35:49. > :35:53.Capitalism has some crisis, but it is flexible. Always, we come back
:35:53. > :35:58.with an improved version and start to generate wealth again. Even on
:35:58. > :36:05.the right, you see an awareness of class politics. Mr Cameron is
:36:05. > :36:13.uncomfortable about talking about having gone to Eton. The Chancellor
:36:13. > :36:19.is anxious not to be seen as part of a coterie of well-off by public
:36:20. > :36:25.schoolboys. On the Labour side, you see a class rhetoric. Class in the
:36:25. > :36:28.Marxist sense is back in our politics. It is not necessarily an
:36:28. > :36:34.equation with wealth. Class in Britain is not the same as wealth.
:36:34. > :36:37.It's part of background, education, culture or choices. Britons have
:36:37. > :36:47.always been obsessed with class. But this is not necessarily anti-
:36:47. > :36:51.rich. But there and anti- rich movement, isn't there? But when the
:36:51. > :36:59.rich get richer, the poor get richer too. It is the best thing
:36:59. > :37:07.that can happen to poor people. the rich are getting much richer.
:37:07. > :37:13.am not worried about the gap. It is capitalism that allows the advance.
:37:13. > :37:17.Does the gap not matter at all? When the gap is so large, the
:37:17. > :37:22.globalised rich live a life and a style just totally beyond most
:37:22. > :37:27.people. It is part of the process of development that initially, when
:37:27. > :37:30.a country goes from relatively poor to affluent, part of the process
:37:30. > :37:34.involves income disparities increasing. This has been happening
:37:34. > :37:38.in China. There are more billionaires in China than America.
:37:38. > :37:41.This affects the world figures. The result will be that the ordinary
:37:41. > :37:47.people in China will benefit, as they have done spectacularly
:37:47. > :37:50.already in these last two decades. Where are you on this? Capitalism
:37:50. > :37:59.is not really going anywhere. If you look at the leader of the
:37:59. > :38:04.Labour Party, who is to the left of Tony Blair, and what he wants is a
:38:04. > :38:08.kinder, more gentle capitalism. It is not useful to discuss it in
:38:08. > :38:12.terms of whether anybody is going to junk capitalism. This point
:38:12. > :38:18.about the super rich is about political consent. It is hard for a
:38:18. > :38:22.government to achieve things if it is felt to be for the benefit of a
:38:22. > :38:32.tiny number of people. fundamental question is, do count
:38:32. > :38:35.conditions lead to a revival of Moxon? -- current conditions.
:38:35. > :38:42.would be dubious about what will Marxist in the film was saying. He
:38:42. > :38:46.was saying that Marxism is a good way of articulating discontent. The
:38:46. > :38:52.problem with relying so heavily on Karl Marx was that he predicted a
:38:52. > :38:58.lot of things that did not happen. I don't really see where it takes
:38:58. > :39:03.you. Unless you are prepared to sign up to his agenda or support
:39:03. > :39:07.deranged autocrats like Hugo Chavez, how do you bring it into the
:39:07. > :39:10.political system in a democracy? On the other hand, I think you are
:39:10. > :39:14.complacent to say that it does not matter that you have a massive
:39:14. > :39:20.wealth gap. It does make life more difficult to put across a good case
:39:20. > :39:24.of capitalism. To say you are not interested in it is not convincing.
:39:24. > :39:28.I don't think it is as important as people think it is. The important
:39:29. > :39:33.thing is to have economic growth. Deeply in an expanding society,
:39:33. > :39:38.that see their future as being better off than the past are more
:39:38. > :39:45.likely to be happy. -- people. you don't care about relative
:39:45. > :39:54.wealth, when a lot of people do. this end of the? I think that is a
:39:54. > :40:02.reasonable response. I would not dismiss it. If you see a Super
:40:02. > :40:09.Class pulling away from you, this is going to be a problem. As the
:40:09. > :40:15.left and regroups after the crash of 2008 and tries to evolve
:40:15. > :40:21.policies for a post-crash world, are Marxists playing any role in
:40:21. > :40:27.that? I don't think they are, substantially. The interesting
:40:27. > :40:33.point about the tented village is not that it existed but that so few
:40:33. > :40:40.can -- few people rallied to it. If you look at the point about what
:40:40. > :40:48.makes people cross, the stagnation of ordinary people's wages started
:40:48. > :40:52.in 2002. That was before the big crash. This disparity, I'm speaking
:40:52. > :40:55.on behalf of ordinary middle-class people, it is hard to do
:40:55. > :41:03.politically when you see a small number of people taking more of the
:41:04. > :41:08.pie for themselves. And that is bought raw anger.
:41:08. > :41:12.-- that his middle-class anger. Wages have been stagnant for a
:41:13. > :41:17.while in this country. Some estimates suggest average real
:41:17. > :41:21.wages today in America are not higher than they were in 1973.
:41:21. > :41:25.Corporate profits have gone through the roof. There is something not
:41:25. > :41:29.functioning for the majority of people here. It is not that the
:41:29. > :41:34.balance has shifted from wages to profits. The difference has been
:41:34. > :41:41.made by taxation. It is government share that has increased. That is
:41:41. > :41:47.what has made the difference between the two. Share of profits
:41:47. > :41:53.as a percentage of GDP was higher in recent years than in the 1950s
:41:53. > :41:59.or 1960s. We are in a crisis of capitalism, people say. But nobody
:41:59. > :42:03.is suggesting we go back to state- controlled planning. Whenever we
:42:03. > :42:13.have this crisis, everybody says, it is over. But it always comes
:42:13. > :42:17.
:42:17. > :42:20.back in a different form. On your optimism, we will leave it there.
:42:21. > :42:23.Now, we all like to think that our views are the right ones. Or the
:42:23. > :42:26.left ones. But can you tell someone's political views just by
:42:26. > :42:30.looking at their brains? Well, scientists from the Universities of
:42:30. > :42:32.California and Exeter observed 82 people gambling. And from the
:42:33. > :42:35.results they say left wing and right wing people use different
:42:36. > :42:38.parts of their brains when they make risky decisions. So someone on
:42:38. > :42:41.the left, like Ed Miliband, would show significantly greater activity
:42:41. > :42:44.in the left insula - as you all know, that's the region associated
:42:44. > :42:47.with sociability and self-awareness - and someone on the right - David
:42:47. > :42:50.Cameron, for instance - would have significantly greater activity in
:42:50. > :43:00.the right amygdala, which is, of course, the region involved in the
:43:00. > :43:05.
:43:06. > :43:14.body's fight-or-flight system. The scientists say affiliating with
:43:14. > :43:17.a political party may alter the brain. Well, we all knew that.
:43:17. > :43:26.Joining me now are Dr Jonathan Rowson, director of the Social
:43:26. > :43:30.Brain Centre at the RSA, and Lucy Beresford, who's a psychotherapist.
:43:30. > :43:37.Do you buy this? Yes, but it is not surprising. I'm not sure what
:43:37. > :43:42.people think where we would hold our values if not our brain. Your
:43:42. > :43:46.brain shows activity when you eat horsemeat or think of Karl Marx. It
:43:46. > :43:52.is not, in itself, news. Is a chance to reflect on where people
:43:52. > :43:56.are coming from. It is a chance to renew democratic debate. It is a
:43:56. > :44:01.chance to say that Ed Miliband and David Cameron come from a different
:44:01. > :44:06.place. Do they come from a different place because of their
:44:06. > :44:12.brains? The brain is there when you are thinking and walking and
:44:12. > :44:16.talking. People tend to use the brain as if it is innate and fixed.
:44:16. > :44:22.The brain is plastic. It responds to experience. Just because it is
:44:22. > :44:26.in the brain, doesn't mean it is fixed. What do you think? I agree
:44:26. > :44:30.with Jonathan in that this report is reductionist. It implies that
:44:30. > :44:34.people can't change their mind. We only have to look at what is
:44:34. > :44:36.happening in Eastleigh. A whole group of people are descending on
:44:36. > :44:40.Eastleigh with the sole purpose of trying to change the mind of
:44:40. > :44:46.another group of people in the idea that people can be swayed in the
:44:46. > :44:51.political appellations. -- affiliations. They're not entirely
:44:52. > :44:58.wasting their time. Politics is more than just the personalities.
:44:58. > :45:05.The desire whole constellation of things that makes people change
:45:05. > :45:11.their mind. -- There is a whole constellation. Run-through how
:45:11. > :45:21.joining a political party alters the brain. From early on, Ed
:45:21. > :45:26.Miliband is left of centre partly because of his father. As that was
:45:26. > :45:31.happening, his but -- his brain was changing. David Cameron was
:45:31. > :45:35.undergoing different structures. I don't see why that is surprising.
:45:35. > :45:41.It is something we have known for a long time. The brain functions as a
:45:41. > :45:45.kind of touchstone. If Ed Miliband had been born with the same brain
:45:45. > :45:51.but brought up in David Cameron's household, he would be leader of
:45:51. > :45:54.the Tory party? Not necessarily, but the point is valid. We have our
:45:54. > :46:04.brains, which are not just a blank slate. They are organised in
:46:04. > :46:08.
:46:08. > :46:12.certain ways. But the impact is $:/STARTFEED. This research implies
:46:12. > :46:17.everything is fixed and never changes and it simplifys the way
:46:17. > :46:21.that brains work. The problem with this kind of research for me is
:46:21. > :46:27.that it grabs the headlines and perhaps attracts more money, more
:46:27. > :46:29.funding for the scientists, but it can be so easily unpicked that it
:46:30. > :46:35.denigrates really important research, for example, looking at
:46:35. > :46:40.the way brains function for gamblers in particular, the way
:46:40. > :46:44.that they are attitude to risk can help clinicians predict relapse for
:46:44. > :46:51.example. That's really important research. This kind of research
:46:51. > :46:57.grabs the headlines, states statements that are obvious. I have
:46:57. > :47:03.top political brains with me. I bet you are a bit sceptical of this?
:47:03. > :47:08.Funnily enough I disagree slightly because I've seen similar research.
:47:08. > :47:14.The Economist with whom I work for wrote about this. There's
:47:14. > :47:18.disposition, some inherited. Jack Straw is his dad. Occasionally you
:47:18. > :47:22.get a push back against that but there is a grain of preference
:47:22. > :47:26.against left or right which runs strongly in families. Attitudes to
:47:26. > :47:30.risk or the big state versus individualism, they seem to get
:47:30. > :47:33.fixed quite early on many people. But it doesn't mean that they turn
:47:33. > :47:37.necessarily Labour or Conservative. A Blairite might have a view of a
:47:37. > :47:39.smaller state and be a bit like a Conservative to that degree and on
:47:40. > :47:44.other things, they are have been Labour. What is coming out of the
:47:44. > :47:48.broader mass of research is that political dispositions are possibly
:47:48. > :47:53.more accounted for by this kind of newer science than we might have
:47:53. > :47:57.thought a few years ago. question you would have to ask is,
:47:57. > :48:01.how useful... You were born with the left-wing brain? I very much
:48:01. > :48:05.doubt it. Were you born with a brain? It's in there somewhere, I'm
:48:05. > :48:12.very confident about that. If you are practicing politics, how is
:48:12. > :48:16.this useful to you? As Anne says, there's evidence that there are
:48:16. > :48:22.arguments that Conservatives are better at appealing to emotion and
:48:22. > :48:26.fear. You take an argument that there might not be an obvious left
:48:26. > :48:30.right position on, say Scottish independence, do you frame that
:48:30. > :48:36.argument in terms of your view that we are terribly afraid that the
:48:36. > :48:39.country will go to rack and ruin if we go along with this, or do you
:48:39. > :48:43.build rational arguments about where GDP will fall. That might
:48:43. > :48:46.tell you whether you are appealing to people on the left better or the
:48:46. > :48:51.right. That's strategic as to how you frame an argument. Let's assume
:48:51. > :48:56.this research is right. Where do we go from here? What does it mean?
:48:56. > :49:03.means politicians are coming at issues from different angles. They
:49:03. > :49:08.may agree with you because they have a different sit of assumptions.
:49:08. > :49:12.To some extent it being lodged in the brain is not the story, the
:49:12. > :49:17.story is we start from somewhere and we should come from that point
:49:17. > :49:20.that comes in a good place that's different from ours and not always
:49:20. > :49:23.assume that they are wrong all the time or immoral.
:49:23. > :49:30.Never assume that they are wrong or immoral, at least not all of the
:49:30. > :49:36.time but part of the time. Thank you. A council is introducing �80
:49:36. > :49:40.pont spot fines for anyone caught spitting or urinating in public.
:49:40. > :49:45.It's true! David Thompson's been out and about in Walthamstow. That
:49:45. > :49:55.is the place asking if the new fines leave... I'm not going to say
:49:55. > :49:58.
:49:58. > :50:03.that, let's just run the tape. Spitting. Bob Carol gees and spit
:50:03. > :50:09.the dog did it. If they come here, they could be in for a nasty shock.
:50:09. > :50:14.A quick gob could land you a fine of 80 quid. It will be enforced by
:50:14. > :50:20.the civil enforcement officers who'll get you for urinating in
:50:20. > :50:24.public or dropping litter. From the feedback we got when this was
:50:24. > :50:27.announced yesterday, we think we have tapped into a real national
:50:27. > :50:33.mood that set, spitting, gobbing in public is disgusting, ruern naiting
:50:33. > :50:38.up against houses and shops is disgusting and someone needs to do
:50:38. > :50:42.something and here in Waltham Forest we are doing something --
:50:42. > :50:46.urinating. Believe it or not, there was a pro-spitting lobby and they
:50:46. > :50:52.were ready to gob off about the council's plan. It's. Some people
:50:52. > :50:56.are used to it, you know. �80 is too much. If you are pregnant or
:50:56. > :51:02.sick and you want to get something out, sometimes it suddenly comes
:51:02. > :51:06.out, don't it? I would say yes there should be a restriction on it
:51:06. > :51:12.but I wouldn't agree with charging �80 for spitting on the street.
:51:12. > :51:17.you think it's a good idea? I spit in the street all the time. She's
:51:17. > :51:24.from North Carolina, mate. However, North Carolina aside, there were
:51:24. > :51:28.those who wanted to make Waltham Forest a spit-free zone. What's
:51:28. > :51:33.next, the world? Not sure if it would work but it's a good idea. It
:51:33. > :51:39.would be nice if it worked. Spreads germs and looks foul. I don't know
:51:39. > :51:42.why people do it. It's a good idea. You have to enforce certain things.
:51:42. > :51:48.Once enforced, people accept them and then there's no reason why
:51:48. > :51:53.anybody ends up paying an �80 fine. Sadly, the man who was made for
:51:53. > :51:57.this job, my colleague, Adam phlegming, was made unavailable for
:51:57. > :52:03.comment! The BBC would like to apologise to
:52:04. > :52:06.our many viewers in South Carolina if they took offence at the
:52:06. > :52:12.gratuitous remarks of your lovely state.
:52:12. > :52:18.A lot of people might say yes, good on Walthamstow Council trying to
:52:19. > :52:24.raise the level of behaviour and reduce the yobbish behaviour on our
:52:25. > :52:30.streets? I'm complete lit with them. I can't see what the problem is,
:52:30. > :52:37.unless you have to be sick if you are pregnant and you are discreetly
:52:37. > :52:39.sick, you won't be brought to book for that. I like the idea of the
:52:39. > :52:46.council taking responsibility and saying a lot of people don't like
:52:46. > :52:52.this and it's a sort of low level antisocial behaviour which builds
:52:52. > :52:58.into worse behaviour like extreme drunkenness. What do you think?
:52:58. > :53:02.tend to agree. I question the quif lens of urinating and spitting,
:53:02. > :53:07.they are not equivalent. Perhaps the councils have different levels
:53:07. > :53:12.of fines. What about hanging for those who spit chewing gum out on
:53:12. > :53:18.the pavement? You would probably have to have... Is that too far?
:53:18. > :53:23.You might need to have... It costs a fortune to clean it up? It does.
:53:23. > :53:29.The other way you could go about it is a nudge thing where you make it
:53:29. > :53:36.easy for people to throw away the chewing gum and have more reminders.
:53:36. > :53:41.There's a lot of chewing gum in some places. I think urinating and
:53:41. > :53:44.spitting shouldn't be on the streets. Tax the chewing gum
:53:44. > :53:53.companies and they can have the chemicals put in that make it
:53:53. > :54:00.easier to get off the pavement. thumbs up for Walthamstow Council
:54:00. > :54:06.from our panel? Three thumbs from me. Three thumbs you have. Strange!
:54:06. > :54:11.It's been a week of Popes and pancakes, abattoir raids, political
:54:11. > :54:19.tirades and an unwanted spaghetti ready-made meal. Here is jiels to
:54:19. > :54:23.serve it up within 60 seconds -- Giles. Holy smoke, God's elect, the
:54:23. > :54:27.Pope resigns over failing health, a bold move since the last time the
:54:27. > :54:31.Pope gave up for lent was 1415. He'll leave at the end of the month
:54:31. > :54:34.to withdraw from the world. Glory glory, President Obama gave his
:54:34. > :54:38.State of the Union address saying his second term will focus on
:54:38. > :54:43.immigration, gun control and the economy.
:54:43. > :54:49.Holy cow. Actually, holy horse. 100% beef products turned out to
:54:49. > :54:53.have nagging doubts about content. My concern is that many of the
:54:53. > :54:56.answers may contain 100% bull. businesss in the UK are raided.
:54:56. > :55:03.Horsemeat is seize and the Chancellor is offered a hot meal,
:55:03. > :55:06.though not a pasty. Ed Miliband makes a speech. He reinstates the
:55:06. > :55:12.10p tax and uses a mansion tax to pay for it. He thanked the audience
:55:12. > :55:19.for being with him and Ed Balls for Valentines. Tuesday was flat. For
:55:19. > :55:24.some, the week just got better and better.
:55:24. > :55:32.How long can it be before some Government minister's stuffing a
:55:32. > :55:37.beef lasagne down? Yorn didn't look very pleased. -- George Osborne.
:55:37. > :55:40.Parliamentary mid term break - well it's in recess now for all of next
:55:40. > :55:42.week. A few things have happened and they are not necessarily
:55:42. > :55:48.supporting each other. David Cameron's laid out the European
:55:48. > :55:53.policy, but secondly, Labour's lead in the polls has consolidated and
:55:53. > :55:56.grown? Yes. Very interesting? Ed Miliband looks to me like a much
:55:56. > :56:03.more confident performer watching him speaking this week. I think he
:56:03. > :56:06.really feels he's now got command of his part and that's a good step
:56:06. > :56:09.to feeling very sure of yourself. He doesn't have a lead on
:56:09. > :56:16.immigration, the economy or welfare, so the worry among strategists is
:56:16. > :56:21.it's very encouraging but very soft. Also on basic deficits. The public
:56:21. > :56:27.is still very divided, more so than you might expect, given the lack of
:56:27. > :56:31.growth. What have we learned since the Christmas break? The people who
:56:31. > :56:35.care passionately about a European Union won't be bothered when David
:56:35. > :56:38.Cameron stands up and gives them what they want which is significant.
:56:38. > :56:43.I agree the Labour Leader is very weak or soft largely because of the
:56:43. > :56:50.economy. The budget might change that either way. Strengthened
:56:50. > :56:54.though? But still weaker than you think it should be? Single issues.
:56:54. > :56:58.When you drill down what people care about, they care about the
:56:58. > :57:02.economy, immigration, welfare spending being got under control.
:57:02. > :57:06.Those are things were Labour are weak. What they don't care about
:57:06. > :57:08.that much actually is the European Union and the Prime Minister's
:57:08. > :57:15.biggest political gambit of this political term so far was on that.
:57:15. > :57:20.It hasn't done anything. I don't agree with that. I think this
:57:20. > :57:23.referendum had to have been offed. He would have been dead meat. If
:57:23. > :57:26.you can't sort out your own party, you are not going to be Prime
:57:26. > :57:31.Minister for long. And you are not if people think your only care
:57:31. > :57:35.about your own party. I don't agree with that. His problem arises if he
:57:35. > :57:38.wins the election he has to campaign for a yes-vote. It gets
:57:38. > :57:42.him through and cuts often UKIP where it was beginning to advance.
:57:42. > :57:45.He had to do it, not because anybody else cares but his own
:57:45. > :57:49.party needed it. People who care enough about this to really care
:57:49. > :57:54.about the referendum and hate Brussels with every fibre in their
:57:54. > :58:04.being, remember David Cameron's made promises like this before,
:58:04. > :58:06.
:58:06. > :58:13.those people will still vote UKIP. Who has the vote? Lib Dems. UKIP.
:58:13. > :58:19.The people I've spoke to have no idea, don't care or say the Libs
:58:20. > :58:27.have done good why let Chris Huhne spoil it for the rest of them.
:58:27. > :58:32.for Mr Clegg but not Mr Cameron. They got the wrong candidate. Could
:58:32. > :58:37.have been a liberal seat. We'll hold on to that and if they are
:58:37. > :58:39.wrong, we'll rerun that. A full list of candidates for the
:58:39. > :58:45.Eastleigh by-election is on the BBC website. That's it for today.
:58:45. > :58:48.Thanks to all the guests. The One o'clock news is starting on BBC One