15/02/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The horsemeat saga takes another turn as the government hits out at

retailers for remaining silent. They're waiting for the results of

tests on how widespread the crisis is. We'll have the latest.

The Budget is just over a month away. What can George Osborne put

in his red box to stop the economic rot?

Did Karl Marx predict the collapse of the banks and the subsequent

credit crunch? And, speaking of brainwashing, we

ask whether joining a political party alters your brain.

All that in the next hour of public sector Friday broadcasting at its

finest. And with us for the whole programme today are two of

Westminster's finest - Rafael Behr from the New Statesman and Anne

McElvoy from The Economist. First up today, an influential

group of MPs have criticised the government's clever wheezes that

are supposed to be injecting growth into the economy. The Public

Accounts Committee says quantitative easing - that's the

scheme the Bank of England uses to effectively create money - is an

expensive experiment, and that the Treasury has limited understanding

of its role. And they have criticised the Treasury's other

This comes from Margaret Hodge's committee. Is she not in danger of

lashing out at too many targets? I'm a great fan of the way she has

run the committee, made it quite irrelevant. I think this may be a

bridge too far. All of the things you say about quantitative easing -

we don't know what the outcome will be - are true. But anything you do

to stimulate growth is by definition untested. It is how you

test the government. The Americans have done the same thing on a huge

scale. We have done more than the Americans. The American economy is

five times bigger. That is not what she is criticising. She is

criticising the principle. I'm not convinced, given the committee has

come out for quantitative easing, I am not convinced that her committee

has the greater knowledge. One does sometimes want to put the question

back, OK, what would you do? The whole business of policy is

complicated. This is uncharted territory. You do wonder what the

public accounts committee brings to the table in this. Margaret Hodge

has carved out quite a big role. I respect that. You have the

executive doing its thing. There's often an accusation that government

just rubber-stamped what is going on. If you have parliamentarians

out there Making noise, saying, look, let's have this massive

policy experiment, I think that is quite good. It puts in the public

domain the question of the Governor waving a wand and creating all this

money. Nobody knows where it has gone. We do, actually! It is in

Barnes! -- bonds! She has made a number of important changes in her

committee. The criticism the committee makes of monetary policy

are very general. They are not specific. Anne's question - what do

we do next? That is the question. If the Chancellor had a theory

about what would happen to the economy and he pursued a certain

strategy and monetary policy was part of that, clearly it has not

worked. The economy is not growing. You don't know if it worked. You

can't know that. What worries me is that Margaret Hodge comes from the

left of the Labour Party. She is unlikely to come out in favour of a

monetarist conclusion. I would imagine see backs Ed Balls's

strategy. -- she backs. She is a powerful chairperson. She is very

well favoured. I think things do tend to end are being like the

chairperson wants them. -- end up. A lot of her reports have had a lot

of impact. We're only a month away from the

Budget. George Osborne has been in his country retreat of Dorneywood

this week, working on the detail with a small team of senior civil

servants and political advisers. He'll be keen to avoid some of the

issues which dogged last year's statement. Initially, last year's

Budget was well received. But within days the Chancellor was

mired in a series of tax rows. It started with the so-called granny

tax, a freeze in the age-related income tax allowance for pensioners,

which raised howls of derision and an e-petition to Downing Street.

Then there was the pasty tax row Then there was the pasty tax row

Then there was the pasty tax row Then there was the pasty tax row

Then there was the pasty tax row Then there was the pasty tax row

over plans to apply VAT to hot over plans to apply VAT to hot

takeaway food. After a backlash from the media and the backbenches,

there was a U-turn. And then there was the caravan tax,

which aimed to impose VAT on static caravans. Cue more outrage and a

watering down of the policy, He'll be hoping the so-called

omnishambles can be laid to rest on March 20th. But the economic

outlook is not good. The UK economy contracted by 0.3%

in the fourth quarter of 2012. And borrowing is not coming down. In

fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says borrowing will be �64

billion higher in 2014-15 than they I'm now joined by the editor of

City AM, Allister Heath, and the Associate Director of the IPPR,

Let me get you to lay out your stores. You are the Chancellor.

Give me two or three of the big things you would do. I would dump

the current policies and embrace a more supply-side policy. I would

cut corporation tax to a level below Ireland, which would reduce

revenues -- increase revenues. I would pursue but of the regulatory

measures. And you were run a bigger budget? The deficit would increase

but I would anticipate spending cuts to anticipate that. And you

are the Chancellor. What would you I think the economy has to be

stimulated. The policies are not working. But differently, I would

look at the OBR and the IMF's analysis. Multiply as for spending

are greater than taxes. The government has only delivered 100

of its infrastructure projects. Let's be that up. Let's improve

energy efficiency in homes. If we are going to have a tax cut, let's

not give it to companies. The Chancellor has tried that. Foreign,

direct investment fell last year. Let's give it to working people.

What do you say to that? problem is, the Chancellor's

tactics have not had a big change effect. I would cut corporation tax

in half. It has already been cut 7%. I would make it 11%. It would make

the UK the most competitive economy in the world. It would send a

message that the UK is open for business. I would/or abolish

capital gains tax. -- I would cut or abolished. It is time for

companies to start investing. The return on investment would suddenly

become larger than it was before. Capital gains tax is a small part

of the overall government revenue. Peanuts. Would it - and it is only

28%. Lots of very smart accountants would start working out how what

was really my income was really a capital gain. It is a risk. We know

how to account for lot of those evasion measures. One would have to

do that. In one day, you would see a recruit -- return to investment

of around 20%. In one day, the bank for the buck was suddenly go up

drastically, making it more worthwhile for them to do that.

would run a big deficit, too? Absolutely. Look at what George

Osborne has done. People warn him about the rate of the deficit

reduction. Borrowing is going to rise this here relative to the

previous year. Of course we have got to bring down the deficit. But

the way to do it is to boost demand. That is the problem we have here.

You are talking about a Keynesian method. If your policy work, Japan

would be the world leader. It would be the booming economy. It has been

trying that for years, and it has not worked. The problem with Japan

is it brought down its interest rates later than we did here. We

were more stimulative on the monetary policy side. We have not

tried expenditure of the same extent. They have not tried the

kind of boost that we are calling for. The Japanese national debt is

around 200% of GDP. Borrowing twice as much has not worked. Japan went

into deflation. Prices started to fall. As a measure of GDP, their

debt rose. That is the reason for it. We have to anticipate that. We

don't want inflation to be too high but we don't want prices to start

slipping back. The problem you budget would face is one of equity

and of a sense of fairness. We live in a country now where people are

on below average earnings and they are suffering. The food prices,

enterprises are taking big chunks of income. There's also a sense

that this is happening because some rich people screwed up the economy.

They are still rich. The poor and the average are suffering. And you

are now going to put in tax cuts which will benefit the rich. You're

right, that is how it would be perceived. Two responses. The most

pro equity measure is to boost growth. If you do it back to proper

levels, you start to create great numbers of jobs and wages will

start to go up. Secondly, the biggest reason for the decline in

real wages, which is a catastrophe, is that inflation is far too high.

I think that is the main issue. Thirdly, we just need to forget

about the short-term distribution effect for once and focus on the

long run. How do we get the economy to grow again? I don't care how it

happens but we have to do it. do you say to me two Chancellor's?

They are good candidates for the job! Better than the incumbent?

That was hanging over the debate. Maybe we should do it, it X-Factor

style. Could be a good programme! Your idea, I fundamentally agree

with that. We are getting too much into distribution. What we really

need to do is get the economy moving and then everyone will

benefit. An interesting thing is you did not have a problem with the

deficit per saved. Your idea is a problem for the Tory government.

They have been saying that the deficit was a big problem. I'm not

surprised that you want to build a bigger deficit. No, it is cutting

the deficit in a different way. well, the Public Accounts Committee

might say that is untested. On the right, you are going in a different

direction to where the government is going. What is your appraisal?

Firstly, it is easy to say that you should not looked back the -- look

at the short-term impact. But there's an election in a couple of

years. A lot of those arguments were brought to bear on the 50p

rate, and that was a political disaster for the government. You

can understand why the Chancellor might think, actually, I have got a

bunch of people who are suffering and I need to show them that I am

on their side. That is his moral obligation. I also think it is

interesting - I agree there to need some kind of Big Bang and thither,

somebody to say we need something new. -- Big Bang manoeuvre. The

Chancellor has staked his reputation on that his cause was

the right one. It is hard to see $:/STARTFEED. You can bring some of

the cuts in in subsequent years. whole bunch of painful cuts. Very

painful and difficult. It's extremely difficult and painful,

but the economy's not growing, people's wages are falling and we

have a big, big problem. If you look in the international context

or the European context, we are not alone here any more. The figures

are out. Germany in the fourth quarter its economy went down 0.6%.

It's forecast very little growth this year. France in the fourth

quarter down 0.2%. Its economy ended 2012 no bigger than it was in

2011 and it's not expected to grow in 2013. So for two years, more

stagnation, unemployment rises. Italy lost almost 1% of its GDP in

the fourth quarter and is expected to lose another 1% in 2013. Even

the Dutch lost almost 1% of their GDP. The Hungarians 2.7%, the

Czechs 1.7. There's one country that's done something a bit

different. That's America. They took a much longer time to bring

down their deficit, they postponed the cuts and are only now starting

to consider it and as a result they are growing at 2%. That tells you

what you need to know about the untested theory. They also have

something called the dollar which has changed. If you look at the low

cost of borrowing to the pound, there's been a similar effect to

the pound as there has for the dollar and our pound's depreciated

against the dollar. If you are borrowing in dollars, you could

pretty much borrow until the cows come home. Like has been in the

case in the UK, with historically low interest rates. The American

response is different. Different responses to the bank there is too.

Congress won't let them get there yet because state budgets were

skhrashed. -- slashed.

Gentlemen, thank you. I'll call Gideon now. We may have

to cut his salary. Call Simon Cowell first. Simon who? ITV, ssh h.

It's been a month since horsemeat was first discovered in meat

products and the scandal grows by the day. Three men were arrested in

abattoirs in Wales and Yorkshire of offences under the fraud act and

ASDA became the latest to withdraw meat products from its she-sms. We

are expecting results from hundreds of tests on minced beef products

stocked in UK stores. -- shelves. Last night, Downing Street launched

an attack on the smarblgts, saying it wasn't acceptable for them to

remain silent -- supermarkets. The Director General of the British

Retail Consortium is Helen Dick inson. She spoke to the BBC this

morning and defended the supermarkets -- Dickinson. We need

facts. That is why today is important because we'll be able to

see the collated picture of the results of all the testing that's

gone on over the last three weeks, much of which has been at the

instigation of the retail industry itself. We'll be able to see the

extent of the problem. What we do know is that any problems that have

already been identified to date, we have acted on them straightaway,

withdrawn the products and apologised to our customers.

We are joined by our Europe correspondent, Matthew Pryce in

Brussels, where the food safety experts from across the continent

are meeting today. Just mark our card here - what is the meeting

about? They are essentially following up

from the meeting of agriculture ministers earlier in the week of

which it was decided to increase both the testing of beef products

for horse DNA and also to increase the testing for this horse

painkiller which is believed could be -- which it's believed could be

many the food chain. They are looking at ways to efficiently set

up basically a much more faster moving system and far greater test

than they have at the moment. To get that done as soon as possible

with the results coming bay some time in April. I understand the

French company, Comigel, has issued a statement this morning?? It's the

other company. The other one, Matthew, sorry? Yes, the French

Government yesterday pointed the finger of blame at that company,

saying 750 tonnes of horsemeat incorrectly labelled as beef had

been sent out by that company over the last six months. One of our

colleagues has spoken to the sales director at the company today

apologising to British consumers but saying the mistake was not

theirs, that they did not mislead anybody, they did not label

horsemeat as beef and saying they've been unfairly hung out to

dry by the French Government. That is their claim at the moment. I

think what's also clear from the extent of this crisis across Europe,

some 16 countries have been involved in some way, shape or form

at the moment, is that this won't be the only company at the end of

this which finds itself having blame pointed at it.

Thank you for that. Just while Matthew was talking to us, we got

the latest results of the independent tests commissioned by

the Co-operative Group announced today. They've proven negative for

horse DNA in all of the 59 out of 102 own brand minced beef products

that were separate tested. No horses in them. It says we have had

68 results on Morrisons products as well. So far we have found no

contamination with horsemeat. The latest results there suggesting

that the horsemeat's not in the ones they've been investigating.

I'm joined by the chairman of the environment Food and Rural Affairs

Anne Mackintosh. Meat producers are forced to carry

out meat testing. How did the FSA let us down in this crisis? I think

it was surprising that they were on the back foot when the Irish FSA

informed the British FSA that they were doing DNA testing on a

particular line of products in November. We were surprised that

the FSA didn't ask more questions and perhaps conduct their own tests

at that time and we'd have had more knowledge and been much further

into the food chain than we currently are. You are the expert,

but in the processing plants where a lot of the different kinds of

meats could be brought together, that is not the responsibility of

the FSA is it? That is the responsibility of local standards

officials employed by local authorities? And their numbers have

been seriously cut in recent years? There are various layers that you

have to unravel. Whether the meat originally came from Romania via

France, Poland, Ireland, it's the responsibility of the exporting

countries authorities to test physically the content of that meat

and that the label says what the content is. Then you have

Environmental Health officers for district councils, Trading

Standards officers for county councils, they all have a role to

play. What we were surprised by was to learn that the FSA does not have

a statutory authority saying that they can compel testing to happen.

They can request retailers and normally retailers will be nice and

say yes, we are prepared to test. We are saying they should have a

statutory authority to test, that it's the responsibility of

retailers to share the results of their tests. Will they be able to

do the testing in the food processing plant? The key is in the

words "Food processing". I mean if horsemeat is getting into our meat,

it's probably in the food processing plants? Most processing

takes place in other countries, so it would appear if there has been a

criminal act, it would potentially have been in another European

country. What I think we need to know is, we need to understand

better the whole food supply chain and I had no idea that the

ingredients were travelling quite so many miles through so many

different countries over a long period.

But the supermarkets who're the ones labelling the products, don't

they have a bigger responsibility for testing to make sure that what

the label says is the correct one? The testing regime that is set up

in the country is risk assessed and you are never going... I was

surprised to learn, you might be as well, that to test all the product

lines for one company, Tesco told us that in one year, it would cost

between �1 million and �2 million simply to do DNA test samples. We

also understand that we don't have the facilities in this country to

do all the tests. What's particularly ironic is that we seem

to have reexforted some of the contaminated meat to Germany where

they have the labs to test. You say Tesco claims it will cost �1

million or �2 million... That's just one company. Yes but the

biggest supermarket. Do you want me to tell you what their profits

were? Go on? �1.7 million. They can afford to do that. -- �1.7 billion.

They don't have to do everything. A random test would give you a fair

idea if the food chain was what it says it was or wasn't. So I put to

you again, haven't the supermarkets got more responsibility to take

better care of labelling the food they sell to us? Well, what I think

should happen is that we should source more of our food from the

British farmers where we have clobbered them with animal welfare,

traceability, inspection costs, labelling costs and what do we do?

We undercut them by taking this inferior meat. That would boost

consumer confidence overnights if, as Waitrose have said that they are

going to do, that Morrisons do most of their food that is sold in North

Yorkshire stores, they take from British farming produce. But there

are arrests at two British abattoirs yesterday? I think that

is shocking. It's not free from horses? What emerges there is that

the horse passport was not marked. This bute, it's not harmful to

human health in the quantities we are talking about. It is if you eat

60 Hamburgers a year? struggling at the moment to eat one.

But that passport should have been marked up as being infected with

bute and the horse should never have entered into the human food

chain. You cannot force anyone to buy British. You and I may agree

it's the west thing to do and we should support our own produce --

best thing to do. But under European rules you can't force

anyone to buy British. Until you can encourage us, and the

supermarkets, to source more from this country, I come back to my

point, I'm surprised at your reluctance to criticise the

supermarkets. They need to do more testing and better labelling?

we have learnt, as a country, from BSE and foot-and-mouth, we know

more about how to put your house in order and it seems ironic that

having clobbered our industry with those costs, we then undercut and

don't take their meat. So yes, the supermarkets have a role and I

would expect them to comment when we know the results of these tests.

But these tests will only tell us what's on the Shells now. It does

not tell us where the contamination entered the food chain -- shelves.

I slightly feel for the supermarkets on this one because

you are asking them to take more responsibility for the labouring

but the key labelling question was, it said it came from a cow and it

came from a horse. One might be reasonably expected to think that

if they think they are buying beef, it is actually beef. Now we realise

something's gone dreadfully wrong in the food chain. Cottage pie

delivered to 57 schools in Lancashire has been contaminated

with horsemeat - that's what I've just been told. People will be

feeling anxious. What I find fascinating is that inevitably when

this happens, people want politicians to respond because they

are our elected representatives and have to do something and you notice

from Downing Street, having a bit of a go at the supermarkets, that

actually, political power is quite dispersed here. There's not much

purchase they can get on it. If you are on the left, you could say,

global capitalism, spread accountability and sort of putting

pressure on the bottom line means we have all this junk in the food

chain and if you are on the right you might say the European Union is

taking power away and Brussels bureaucrats force feeding us donkey.

You can configure it whichever way you like, but the politicians, they

are faced with public anxiety and don't have any levers to pull to

make it go away. I have sympathy with Downing Street on this one.

One thing I noticed early was the way the blame was immediately

passed along the line. I didn't get the impression the supermarkets

were saying, we'll stand back and loots mp look at where our

responsibility might lie here. It was like we had a supplier, they

have a supplier and we had another supplier. They all pride themselves

on corporate social responsibility, they have expensively paid people

being employed to do this and yet when push comes to shove, they put

up big signs in the supermarkets saying all the great things they

are doing, the labelling is a farce. It's made to look as if we are

being given information, but when it comes to it, the information

isn't there. I think the supermarkets do bear a lot of the

blame and after this, they will have to do more, whether they

resist it now or not. Anne Mackintosh, this story's

cranked up a notch now that we have found out that horse has gone into

the food chain in schools in Lancashire. Your reaction to that?

It's deeply worrying. I'm not saying there is any health aspects

but it comes to the basic point that we need to find out where in

the food Hain the contamination is taking place. I'm not convinced

it's taking place in the UK. I believe, particularly the evidence

we heard from Tescos, that there was a degree of complacency that

yes, they went to huge lengths when they set up a new supply chain, but

once that supply chain was in place, they didn't revisit it often enough

and I don't think we'll see that Is capitalism doomed to failure?

Marxists have long thought so. But the global financial crisis has

even got some economists wondering whether Marx was right. So can

Marxism do it any better? If the Soviet Union's anything to go by,

probably not, and socialist states like Venezuela haven't been spared

from having financial troubles. Susana Mendonca has been speaking

to one Marxist thinker, though, who thinks the tide is turning.

Meet Alan Woods, a Welshman in east London whose writings have

influenced a nation. He is a founder of a campaign called hands

of Venezuela. He had the ear of the President, Hugo Chavez.

He did not describe himself as a socialist, let alone a Marxist. It

was not in his programme. I think he has evolved. Without wishing to

exaggerate my own role. Venezuela's revolution has not put

an end to unemployment and poverty. Its inflation rate is one of the

highest in the world. There are serious problems of crime, of a

certain dislocation of the economy. But I would say the reason is not

so much that they have preceded too fast and too far with

nationalisation of the economy, but on the contrary, they have not

proceeded far enough. He would like to see them and the rest of the

world go the way this man suggested. Karl Marx. He was buried here in

Highgate cemetery back in 1883. In his lifetime, he argued that

capitalism was unfair and therefore doomed to failure. 130 years on,

the current crisis has led some to wonder whether he was right all

along. The capitalist system inevitably

involves crisis. One prominent American economist, Nouriel Roubini,

said recently that Marx was right. We thought that the market worked.

It does not. The global financial crisis has been met by anti-

capitalist protests. This village outside St Paul's was one example.

A sign, according to Allen, that Marxist ideas are resurfacing.

You have the Occupy movement. You have the events in Spain. Even in

sleepy old Britain, there's the beginnings of a movement. At the

very least, you could say, there is now a question about this system

and its values and the way it is run but was not there before.

By it if Marxism is the answer, why did the Soviet Union for? Wife has

China embraced state capitalism? don't defend the Stalinist regime.

But what it did show, as in Russia, was that by nationalising the means

of production, the Chinese people achieved what they never did in the

past. So, Marxist theory lives on. But despite predictions of his

demise, capitalism is still with us for now.

Susana Mendonsa reporting. We're now joined by Dr Madsen Pirie of

the Adam Smith Institute. It may be a long shot to say that

Marxist ideology is making a comeback. But the sense that the

rich are another country, that they have brought a lot of badness in

recent years and that ordinary people are getting a rum deal, that

has taken root. It is prevalent at a popular level. When Marks of

aside that the destiny of capitalism was to of press the

workers, he was wrong. Capitalism has done more to lift the standard

of the common man than any other force. It is one of the most benign

things that people have done. now. In this country, the median

wage is now back to where it was in 2003.

British -- which is further ahead than it was 10 years earlier.

Capitalism has some crisis, but it is flexible. Always, we come back

with an improved version and start to generate wealth again. Even on

the right, you see an awareness of class politics. Mr Cameron is

uncomfortable about talking about having gone to Eton. The Chancellor

is anxious not to be seen as part of a coterie of well-off by public

schoolboys. On the Labour side, you see a class rhetoric. Class in the

Marxist sense is back in our politics. It is not necessarily an

equation with wealth. Class in Britain is not the same as wealth.

It's part of background, education, culture or choices. Britons have

always been obsessed with class. But this is not necessarily anti-

rich. But there and anti- rich movement, isn't there? But when the

rich get richer, the poor get richer too. It is the best thing

that can happen to poor people. the rich are getting much richer.

am not worried about the gap. It is capitalism that allows the advance.

Does the gap not matter at all? When the gap is so large, the

globalised rich live a life and a style just totally beyond most

people. It is part of the process of development that initially, when

a country goes from relatively poor to affluent, part of the process

involves income disparities increasing. This has been happening

in China. There are more billionaires in China than America.

This affects the world figures. The result will be that the ordinary

people in China will benefit, as they have done spectacularly

already in these last two decades. Where are you on this? Capitalism

is not really going anywhere. If you look at the leader of the

Labour Party, who is to the left of Tony Blair, and what he wants is a

kinder, more gentle capitalism. It is not useful to discuss it in

terms of whether anybody is going to junk capitalism. This point

about the super rich is about political consent. It is hard for a

government to achieve things if it is felt to be for the benefit of a

tiny number of people. fundamental question is, do count

conditions lead to a revival of Moxon? -- current conditions.

would be dubious about what will Marxist in the film was saying. He

was saying that Marxism is a good way of articulating discontent. The

problem with relying so heavily on Karl Marx was that he predicted a

lot of things that did not happen. I don't really see where it takes

you. Unless you are prepared to sign up to his agenda or support

deranged autocrats like Hugo Chavez, how do you bring it into the

political system in a democracy? On the other hand, I think you are

complacent to say that it does not matter that you have a massive

wealth gap. It does make life more difficult to put across a good case

of capitalism. To say you are not interested in it is not convincing.

I don't think it is as important as people think it is. The important

thing is to have economic growth. Deeply in an expanding society,

that see their future as being better off than the past are more

likely to be happy. -- people. you don't care about relative

wealth, when a lot of people do. this end of the? I think that is a

reasonable response. I would not dismiss it. If you see a Super

Class pulling away from you, this is going to be a problem. As the

left and regroups after the crash of 2008 and tries to evolve

policies for a post-crash world, are Marxists playing any role in

that? I don't think they are, substantially. The interesting

point about the tented village is not that it existed but that so few

can -- few people rallied to it. If you look at the point about what

makes people cross, the stagnation of ordinary people's wages started

in 2002. That was before the big crash. This disparity, I'm speaking

on behalf of ordinary middle-class people, it is hard to do

politically when you see a small number of people taking more of the

pie for themselves. And that is bought raw anger.

-- that his middle-class anger. Wages have been stagnant for a

while in this country. Some estimates suggest average real

wages today in America are not higher than they were in 1973.

Corporate profits have gone through the roof. There is something not

functioning for the majority of people here. It is not that the

balance has shifted from wages to profits. The difference has been

made by taxation. It is government share that has increased. That is

what has made the difference between the two. Share of profits

as a percentage of GDP was higher in recent years than in the 1950s

or 1960s. We are in a crisis of capitalism, people say. But nobody

is suggesting we go back to state- controlled planning. Whenever we

have this crisis, everybody says, it is over. But it always comes

back in a different form. On your optimism, we will leave it there.

Now, we all like to think that our views are the right ones. Or the

left ones. But can you tell someone's political views just by

looking at their brains? Well, scientists from the Universities of

California and Exeter observed 82 people gambling. And from the

results they say left wing and right wing people use different

parts of their brains when they make risky decisions. So someone on

the left, like Ed Miliband, would show significantly greater activity

in the left insula - as you all know, that's the region associated

with sociability and self-awareness - and someone on the right - David

Cameron, for instance - would have significantly greater activity in

the right amygdala, which is, of course, the region involved in the

body's fight-or-flight system. The scientists say affiliating with

a political party may alter the brain. Well, we all knew that.

Joining me now are Dr Jonathan Rowson, director of the Social

Brain Centre at the RSA, and Lucy Beresford, who's a psychotherapist.

Do you buy this? Yes, but it is not surprising. I'm not sure what

people think where we would hold our values if not our brain. Your

brain shows activity when you eat horsemeat or think of Karl Marx. It

is not, in itself, news. Is a chance to reflect on where people

are coming from. It is a chance to renew democratic debate. It is a

chance to say that Ed Miliband and David Cameron come from a different

place. Do they come from a different place because of their

brains? The brain is there when you are thinking and walking and

talking. People tend to use the brain as if it is innate and fixed.

The brain is plastic. It responds to experience. Just because it is

in the brain, doesn't mean it is fixed. What do you think? I agree

with Jonathan in that this report is reductionist. It implies that

people can't change their mind. We only have to look at what is

happening in Eastleigh. A whole group of people are descending on

Eastleigh with the sole purpose of trying to change the mind of

another group of people in the idea that people can be swayed in the

political appellations. -- affiliations. They're not entirely

wasting their time. Politics is more than just the personalities.

The desire whole constellation of things that makes people change

their mind. -- There is a whole constellation. Run-through how

joining a political party alters the brain. From early on, Ed

Miliband is left of centre partly because of his father. As that was

happening, his but -- his brain was changing. David Cameron was

undergoing different structures. I don't see why that is surprising.

It is something we have known for a long time. The brain functions as a

kind of touchstone. If Ed Miliband had been born with the same brain

but brought up in David Cameron's household, he would be leader of

the Tory party? Not necessarily, but the point is valid. We have our

brains, which are not just a blank slate. They are organised in

certain ways. But the impact is $:/STARTFEED. This research implies

everything is fixed and never changes and it simplifys the way

that brains work. The problem with this kind of research for me is

that it grabs the headlines and perhaps attracts more money, more

funding for the scientists, but it can be so easily unpicked that it

denigrates really important research, for example, looking at

the way brains function for gamblers in particular, the way

that they are attitude to risk can help clinicians predict relapse for

example. That's really important research. This kind of research

grabs the headlines, states statements that are obvious. I have

top political brains with me. I bet you are a bit sceptical of this?

Funnily enough I disagree slightly because I've seen similar research.

The Economist with whom I work for wrote about this. There's

disposition, some inherited. Jack Straw is his dad. Occasionally you

get a push back against that but there is a grain of preference

against left or right which runs strongly in families. Attitudes to

risk or the big state versus individualism, they seem to get

fixed quite early on many people. But it doesn't mean that they turn

necessarily Labour or Conservative. A Blairite might have a view of a

smaller state and be a bit like a Conservative to that degree and on

other things, they are have been Labour. What is coming out of the

broader mass of research is that political dispositions are possibly

more accounted for by this kind of newer science than we might have

thought a few years ago. question you would have to ask is,

how useful... You were born with the left-wing brain? I very much

doubt it. Were you born with a brain? It's in there somewhere, I'm

very confident about that. If you are practicing politics, how is

this useful to you? As Anne says, there's evidence that there are

arguments that Conservatives are better at appealing to emotion and

fear. You take an argument that there might not be an obvious left

right position on, say Scottish independence, do you frame that

argument in terms of your view that we are terribly afraid that the

country will go to rack and ruin if we go along with this, or do you

build rational arguments about where GDP will fall. That might

tell you whether you are appealing to people on the left better or the

right. That's strategic as to how you frame an argument. Let's assume

this research is right. Where do we go from here? What does it mean?

means politicians are coming at issues from different angles. They

may agree with you because they have a different sit of assumptions.

To some extent it being lodged in the brain is not the story, the

story is we start from somewhere and we should come from that point

that comes in a good place that's different from ours and not always

assume that they are wrong all the time or immoral.

Never assume that they are wrong or immoral, at least not all of the

time but part of the time. Thank you. A council is introducing �80

pont spot fines for anyone caught spitting or urinating in public.

It's true! David Thompson's been out and about in Walthamstow. That

is the place asking if the new fines leave... I'm not going to say

that, let's just run the tape. Spitting. Bob Carol gees and spit

the dog did it. If they come here, they could be in for a nasty shock.

A quick gob could land you a fine of 80 quid. It will be enforced by

the civil enforcement officers who'll get you for urinating in

public or dropping litter. From the feedback we got when this was

announced yesterday, we think we have tapped into a real national

mood that set, spitting, gobbing in public is disgusting, ruern naiting

up against houses and shops is disgusting and someone needs to do

something and here in Waltham Forest we are doing something --

urinating. Believe it or not, there was a pro-spitting lobby and they

were ready to gob off about the council's plan. It's. Some people

are used to it, you know. �80 is too much. If you are pregnant or

sick and you want to get something out, sometimes it suddenly comes

out, don't it? I would say yes there should be a restriction on it

but I wouldn't agree with charging �80 for spitting on the street.

you think it's a good idea? I spit in the street all the time. She's

from North Carolina, mate. However, North Carolina aside, there were

those who wanted to make Waltham Forest a spit-free zone. What's

next, the world? Not sure if it would work but it's a good idea. It

would be nice if it worked. Spreads germs and looks foul. I don't know

why people do it. It's a good idea. You have to enforce certain things.

Once enforced, people accept them and then there's no reason why

anybody ends up paying an �80 fine. Sadly, the man who was made for

this job, my colleague, Adam phlegming, was made unavailable for

comment! The BBC would like to apologise to

our many viewers in South Carolina if they took offence at the

gratuitous remarks of your lovely state.

A lot of people might say yes, good on Walthamstow Council trying to

raise the level of behaviour and reduce the yobbish behaviour on our

streets? I'm complete lit with them. I can't see what the problem is,

unless you have to be sick if you are pregnant and you are discreetly

sick, you won't be brought to book for that. I like the idea of the

council taking responsibility and saying a lot of people don't like

this and it's a sort of low level antisocial behaviour which builds

into worse behaviour like extreme drunkenness. What do you think?

tend to agree. I question the quif lens of urinating and spitting,

they are not equivalent. Perhaps the councils have different levels

of fines. What about hanging for those who spit chewing gum out on

the pavement? You would probably have to have... Is that too far?

You might need to have... It costs a fortune to clean it up? It does.

The other way you could go about it is a nudge thing where you make it

easy for people to throw away the chewing gum and have more reminders.

There's a lot of chewing gum in some places. I think urinating and

spitting shouldn't be on the streets. Tax the chewing gum

companies and they can have the chemicals put in that make it

easier to get off the pavement. thumbs up for Walthamstow Council

from our panel? Three thumbs from me. Three thumbs you have. Strange!

It's been a week of Popes and pancakes, abattoir raids, political

tirades and an unwanted spaghetti ready-made meal. Here is jiels to

serve it up within 60 seconds -- Giles. Holy smoke, God's elect, the

Pope resigns over failing health, a bold move since the last time the

Pope gave up for lent was 1415. He'll leave at the end of the month

to withdraw from the world. Glory glory, President Obama gave his

State of the Union address saying his second term will focus on

immigration, gun control and the economy.

Holy cow. Actually, holy horse. 100% beef products turned out to

have nagging doubts about content. My concern is that many of the

answers may contain 100% bull. businesss in the UK are raided.

Horsemeat is seize and the Chancellor is offered a hot meal,

though not a pasty. Ed Miliband makes a speech. He reinstates the

10p tax and uses a mansion tax to pay for it. He thanked the audience

for being with him and Ed Balls for Valentines. Tuesday was flat. For

some, the week just got better and better.

How long can it be before some Government minister's stuffing a

beef lasagne down? Yorn didn't look very pleased. -- George Osborne.

Parliamentary mid term break - well it's in recess now for all of next

week. A few things have happened and they are not necessarily

supporting each other. David Cameron's laid out the European

policy, but secondly, Labour's lead in the polls has consolidated and

grown? Yes. Very interesting? Ed Miliband looks to me like a much

more confident performer watching him speaking this week. I think he

really feels he's now got command of his part and that's a good step

to feeling very sure of yourself. He doesn't have a lead on

immigration, the economy or welfare, so the worry among strategists is

it's very encouraging but very soft. Also on basic deficits. The public

is still very divided, more so than you might expect, given the lack of

growth. What have we learned since the Christmas break? The people who

care passionately about a European Union won't be bothered when David

Cameron stands up and gives them what they want which is significant.

I agree the Labour Leader is very weak or soft largely because of the

economy. The budget might change that either way. Strengthened

though? But still weaker than you think it should be? Single issues.

When you drill down what people care about, they care about the

economy, immigration, welfare spending being got under control.

Those are things were Labour are weak. What they don't care about

that much actually is the European Union and the Prime Minister's

biggest political gambit of this political term so far was on that.

It hasn't done anything. I don't agree with that. I think this

referendum had to have been offed. He would have been dead meat. If

you can't sort out your own party, you are not going to be Prime

Minister for long. And you are not if people think your only care

about your own party. I don't agree with that. His problem arises if he

wins the election he has to campaign for a yes-vote. It gets

him through and cuts often UKIP where it was beginning to advance.

He had to do it, not because anybody else cares but his own

party needed it. People who care enough about this to really care

about the referendum and hate Brussels with every fibre in their

being, remember David Cameron's made promises like this before,

those people will still vote UKIP. Who has the vote? Lib Dems. UKIP.

The people I've spoke to have no idea, don't care or say the Libs

have done good why let Chris Huhne spoil it for the rest of them.

for Mr Clegg but not Mr Cameron. They got the wrong candidate. Could

have been a liberal seat. We'll hold on to that and if they are

wrong, we'll rerun that. A full list of candidates for the

Eastleigh by-election is on the BBC website. That's it for today.

Thanks to all the guests. The One o'clock news is starting on BBC One