04/10/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. Ed Miliband urges the


owner of the Daily Mail to take a long, hard look at theure and


practises of his -- practises of his newspaper. Two years on from the


increase in tuition fees for students in England, undergraduate


numbers are buoyant. Were opponents of the fee hike wrong? How are the


new-slimmed-down England rules opposed by environmentalists working


out? We report from the frontline battle between conversation and


construction. It was the real hot topic at the Tory conference - no,


not the speech, George Osborne's new haircut. We will talk fashions with


Britain's top hair stylist, Kenneth Clarke.


Thaw in the -- Nicky Clarke. With us is Anne Diamond and Kevin Maguire.


Welcome to both of you. Let's start with the news that Big Brother Watch


is taking Government comun kags Government Communication


Headquarters to the European Court of Human Rights over allegations


that it has been illegally intercepting and analysing millions


of e-mails and other digital communications. Let's talk to Nick


Pickles, from Big Brother Watch. What are you hoping to achieve. At a


time when we had copper telephone cables, does the policy change? Are


you hoping to get a new legislative framework which is fit for the 21st


century? Absolutely. This is something the court will look at in


detail. How do the checks and balances work for such an enormous


amount of data when GCHQ's activities touch everyone's lives


which are lived over the internet. You do accept that in today's


dangerous world the line between secrecy and privacy, or non-secrecy


is rather fussy? Yes. No-one is saying that spies should not spy.


What we do need is a framework that reflects the different kinds of


lives we live. Every Internet message is being looked at by GCHQ.


It is about bringing it forward. In America, they are having public


hearings with the people and they have a court process. In Britain, we


have none of those things. The area is ripe for change. There'll be many


who worry that actually if the balance changes too much the other


way, then many of the plots which have been foiled, no doubt, some of


the attacks we have heard about which have been prevented, will


actually happen in the future. That is a big presumption. We simply have


not had that debate here. In the US last week, there was a discussion


about this. And how many cases had been prevented by the NSA's


unprecedented surveillance. When pressed on, is it as high as people


have been led to believe, the NSA's leadership said, no. Because this is


the debate we have not had because these powers on both sides of the


Atlantic have been used and developed in absolute secrecy. Now


we are learning that only in the recent years the feddal court that


oversees the N -- Federal Court that oversees the NSA ruled it


unconstitutional because it had been kept secret from its oversight court


for many months. That should not be happening. Anne Diamond, are you


worried about the access that security forces might have over your


personal data? Yes. I think so. Most of us are very worried about it. But


we struggle with the whole concept. Again, at the same time, I know that


I'm naive to think that my e-mails - if you have a credit card, a mobile


phone, they are out there, with a capital "ty" know your move already.


Is it silly to get too worked up about this? If we have a legal


framework, at least for what we consider as acceptable and not


acceptable, then you have some right of redress if you feel your privacy


is being abused. So, we do need a legal framework, but at the same


time, I think you have to be careful not to get too paranoid about the


fact that Big Brother is already watching you. To some extent all our


data is out there. We put it out there ourselves on a daily basis.


Look at the developments in the Madeleine McCann case and now, after


all these years the police will trawl through mobile phone records.


There will not be many people who say, that will be an invasion of my


privacy if they find out what happened. I am not sure those mobile


phone records will be there comprehensively for them to look at.


Companies know about you. With the state, you would not like somebody


down the Post Office steaming open your letter to read it. So, you will


not like anybody reading your e-mails, texts or reading your


e-mails. Spooks have to operation within the law. If it needs


updating, so be it. The great field of the GCHQ, as they sub-contract to


the Americans who do it for them and then they send it back to Britain,


so they get around the law, any way. What you have to be able to do, if


it is used against you at any point have a purpose of appeal... You


cannot stop them doing it. Yes. You can. They should act within the law.


They should not be above the law. If you say they have not acted within


the law? That is the allegation that comes out - the Guardian


allegations. They do what they like, don't they? You should may be


relaxed about it, I am not. Even if they would argue it was for a


greater good to protect your security? Let them show that. If


nobody is up to no good, you get a warrant, go after them, you can go


back, you can look after them, but Joe and Jean public should not have


their privacy invaded. Our question for today is: What creature was John


Bercow compared to by a woman in Chelsea after a row about parking.


Was it A, a Toad? B, a chicken. C a weasel or D, a worm?


At the ends of the show Anne and Kevin will give us the correct


At the ends of the show Anne and answer and the noise I hope for the


correct animal! This has been the week that Ed Miliband took on the


Daily Mail. It all started when the Daily Mail printed an article


claiming that his father hated Britain. The Labour leader


complained about the headline and the picture of his father's grave


stone which appeared on the online version, with the caption "grave


socialist." The paper removed the photograph and gave Mr Miliband the


right to reply in Thursday's edition. But provoked the leader by


right to reply in Thursday's saying they stood by every word they


published and the headline. A Mail on Sunday reporter had gatecrashed a


private memorial service for Mr Miliband's uncle N a letter to the


paper's own, a letter said that crosses the line of common decency


and called him to reflect on the nature of his newspapers. The editor


of the paper has unreservedly apologised for the episode. Speaking


on BBC breakfast the Labour leader made clear he thinks the paper needs


to go further. It is an important step that he has apologised for


gatecrashing my uncle's memorial service. I aif had my say now. The


ball -- I've had my say now. The ball is in their court. They need to


look at the practises of their newspapers to ask why these sort of


things are happening. It says something about the way they


operate, these newspapers. I hope they will do that. Ed Miliband


speaking there. We can expect a lot more of this next week, as the prif


I have council will -- Privy Council will discuss a new press regulator.


We have been joined by Neil Wallace, form former executive from News of


the World. You may argue it is justified because of the influence


Ed Miliband said he had on him. What about the headline? If I had been


the editor, I don't think I would have put that headline on it. No!


Why not? I don't think it necessarily reflected the tone and


the point of the article. The reason the BBC is still pumping away at


this story today, almost a week later, is because Ed Miliband is


touring the newspaper offices and TV studios, beating the drum and


desperately keeping it alive. Ed Miliband had a perfectly valid point


to make and when he defended his father, I absolutely thought that


was completely understandable. Why he is still harking on about it,


when even the Mail aren't running anything more about this now, I


think takes us probably into the next part of the discussion... Which


we will come on to. It is political. We are not the only ones discussing


it and the Labour leader has been talking about it. You didn't think


the headline was appropriate. What about the photograph - and the


caption - "Grave social list."? It is important, Kevin works at the


Mirror and Kevin will know the same thing, that there is, particularly


at the Mail a complete separation between the Mail website and the


Mail newspaper itself. The website would have been provided with a


copy, but they will have e-Februaryingively edited it --


effectively edited themselves. They were right to remove it. Just like


the Mail on Sunday, to someone like me and again, I am sure these two


guys as well were astonished by the idea of a Mail journalist turning up


at the memorial service. It was a bad, terrible decision. But you know


what, mistakes get make. You make mistakes, the BBC makes mistakes.


These things happen. And they did apologise and move quickly after


that. What about Ed Miliband's point about the culture and practises?


This is what he's talking about this morning, that actual they need to do


more, the Mail? This to me, as the week has gone on, is plainly the nub


of what Ed Miliband and the Labour Party and their sort of spokesmen


like Campbell - this is really about - this is about lef son now. This is


-- Leveson now. This is not about a strongly arguable piece that was in


last Saturday's Daily Mail. This is about the future of press regulation


now. They are using this as a way to try to set the agenda in a negative


way. And the newspapers have not helped themselves. Do you think


though that that was also the motivation, partly behind the


original article about Ralph Miliband by the Mail - you don't


think the timing of it... I think what you are missing, with respect,


is the fact we had just had a Labour Party Conference, in which a certain


Ed Miliband had talked about socialism. He used the word,


"socialism" repeatedly. They were back to socialism. All stuff going


back. He referred constantdly, in that time, to -- constantly in that


time to the influence of his father, who was a socialist thinker. There


is an agenda there that Ed Miliband has replied robustly.


Now, as he crossed the line into trying to use this as a potential


stick to beat the press with when it comes to press regulation? I am not


sure he has crossed a line. He has a knife to the general election. He


thinks if he can push back the Mail now, make them feel guilty about it,


if they come for me during the campaign, people will know they have


a political agenda. The Mail can be a miserable and bullying paper at


times. They made an error of that headline. The piece did did not


reflect Ralph Miliband. Then the Mail on Sunday would run separately,


it has to be said, gatecrashes his memorial service for his uncle. It


is uncredible. There is a lot of anger in other newspapers that the


Mail are not helping the course for independent regulation, as against


statutory regulation. I think it is tough to blame this on Ed Miliband


at the moment. You say the Daily Mail made a mistake and owned up for


it and then they did it again and said sorry again. Then the Mail on


Sunday gate crashed the memorial service. This is the way, we all


know this, this is the way some newspapers play the game. It is


cruel and it continues the whole story.


This is just the cynical opportunities of hacked off hacks


who want to jump on this. But that is all it was. They have apologised


the two things. They have apologised for the online version. Which again,


Anne, it is not the paper. It is still the Daily Mail. They use those


things as an excuse as well. You are hacked off. Now I am not. Anne, you


have written the the Daily Mail? I have written for lots of papers. I


will only write what I will write for it. I will not write what others


want. So you won't take its money? I certainly will, I am a journalist,


if I do a job, I will have the money. You are attacking the basic


ethos of the paper... I am saying, I am a journalist and I write for lots


of different outlets, I just wish we could look at the crack this and


of different outlets, I just wish we morals of some of our newspapers. By


thought that is what the Leveson Inquiry was for. Let's look at what


is going to be proposed and discussed. This will dominate, it


will overshadow what is said next week. The independent press


organisations is a watered-down version of Parliament's plans.


Former editors will be allowed to serve on the panel, Parliament could


not block or disapprove. I love the independence of you saying it is a


seriously watered down version. It is a different version of how people


believe that the newspapers of this country should be regulated. They


don't believe they should be regulated by politicians. It is not


about the BBC agenda. It is the consensus. A consensus of who? It is


my point, if you let me say it. It is the consensus from every


newspaper in this country, from the Guardian with its circulation of


15,002 the Sun newspaper of 23 million. The only opposition is in


Prince, the Guardian has issues, the Independent cannot make up its mind.


Do you think it will inspire public confidence? It is very easy to knock


public confidence, yes. The newspaper industry has shot itself


in the foot to a certain extent. We have 320 years of press freedom in


this country. It is a principle in the end. The Americans are being


horror -- horrified at what is being proposed in Britain. The Times has


said it will have a chilling effect on free speech. But what has


happened over the past few days, I agree, it has made it harder to sell


to the public. Nothing being proposed would have prevented the


Daily Mail printing that article? No, where the Daily Mail went wrong,


they gave Ed Miliband the right to reply and then they machined him


down. You are saying in America it is having a chilling effect in the


terms of freedom of speech, but the freedom of speech would have still


been undermined wouldn't it? , yet it would have got in, but it is how


it would have been handled. Where was Ed Miliband, where was the left,


where was the Guardian went after Mrs Thatcher died, the BBC and other


people were running articles and coverage of, " the witch is dead".


Where were they when the sun and the daughter were absolutely horrified.


Hacked Off, did they make an error? What is known as the pizza night? I


understand on the pizza night there were regular phone calls may to the


editors. If it is not true, they were wrong not to include the press.


We are all very proud of a free press, so respect the fact they have


a right to their say. But they don't have a right to any longer, is to do


what they want, behave the way they want. They do need some sort of


regulation. I agree. I am about the human rights act, everybody has a


right to oversee. Should an editor be sitting on what is formed in the


future? If you are a former editor, if you can get people on there who


have experience, but still not involved in newspapers. Can this be


evolved without the agreement of the press and can it operate properly


because the newspapers will not sign up to it? That is absolutely true.


The idea in this democracy of ours that you can Compal thousands of


local newspapers, who will be devastated by this. It will destroy


the local paper in your town, my town. They will be torn apart by


some of these suggestions. They will not be able to support it. It will


destroy them. The biggest papers of the ball walks of democracy. The


regional papers know they will be taken to the wall. The Sunderland


Echo needs to survive, this could kill it. Thank you all very much.


Tuition fees have been one of the hottest political topics of recent


years - don't take my word for it, ask any passing Lib Dem. Last year,


student applications fell by almost 60,000 as the maximum charge rose to


£9,000 per annum. But what do the numbers look like this year and


where does the debate go next? Here's David.


The University of Greenwich. A traditional setting with modern


values. Fees cost between six and £9,000 a year and student numbers


are booming. The critics said paying up to 9000 a year in tuition fees


would like the generation of would-be students. This year, the


stats don't bear that out. Numbers are back up. Everything on campus is


sunny, right? It seems students do appear to have grasped how tuition


fees work. One thing universities and the government have succeeded in


communicating is students don't have to pay upfront. You only pay when


you graduate, earning over a certain limits. I think that financial


parsec -- package is better understood and students are applying


again to go to university in the same numbers as before. It is not


just about fees, the National union of students say English members


still have to find more than £7,500 a year in living costs. There is an


issue with the cost of living. The government supplies money to


students but it is not reflecting the growing cost of people having to


feed themselves and having to travel to university and back again. It is


looked at in terms of how much money students how to live. If students


can follow -- swallow £9,000 a year in student fees, why not a bit more?


There is a risk of universities thinking, or at least the government


thinking, if £9,000 has not deterred too many people, why can't we put it


up? There have got to be groups of students not coming to university


because they fear the fee is not too much. The higher you go, the more


people it will turn away. Turns out, Alex might be right to be worried. I


don't think there is any appetite to rise that now. But year on year,


that will have a real impact on the financial sustainability of


universities. From the students view, the fees may have tripled, but


the income from student loans has replaced direct government funding.


So they have not seen an increase, so long term there is a question


about whether or not the £9,000 is sustainable. Which means that while


the heat may have gone out of student funding for now, sooner or


later the cost of learning might be back to bite another generation of


universities, politicians and students.


David Thompson reporting. And we've been joined by Toni Pearce, the


president of the National Union of Students, and by Wendy Piatt, the


chief executive of the Russell Group of top universities. Welcome to the


programme. Toni, the number of students going to university has


returned to the same levels before the £9,000 fees were brought in. Do


you think higher education is in a good state? I am really glad people


are still going to university. It is a good thing. But you have to look


deeper into those statistics is. We have seen a 14% drop in the number


of mature students going into higher education and a 40% drop of people


going to pop time study. We cannot say this has not had an impact. --


part-time study. Sticking to the undergraduate levels, the NUS


campaigned against tuition fees. You said students from disadvantaged


backgrounds would be put off from applying to university. That has not


happened has it? Students need to support themselves because they are


from disadvantaged backgrounds. But the fees have not put them off


coming? No, but we don't know what the long-term effects will be. It is


not surprisingly but have continued to go to university when there are


millions of unemployed at the moment. What about your position?


There were people who claimed there was scaremongering going on and


there was an initial fall because many students believed they would


still have to pay those fees upfront? I think there is some


confusion about the system, but the NUS has been in the business of


explaining that to students. I would never want to see people being put


off from going into higher education and I don't think that is what the


NUS was doing. But you accept it has not had the damaging effect you said


it would, or certainly not yet rushed to mark we have not begun to


see the impact it might have particularly in the economic


situation we are in. Do you accept that? Applications are almost


back-up, but we are in special circumstances. Toni I be right,


people might begin to university because there is no other option? It


is not just the numbers who have recovered, but students from


disadvantaged backgrounds have increased more in their numbers. I


am very pleased why it, but I am not surprised. We have always said, and


the evidence shows this clearly, finance is not the key barrier to


getting disadvantaged students to go to university. There is the issue of


the cost of living? Let me get onto that. It is about the achievement


school, that is the biggest barrier. If we can focus on addressing that,


we would solve this problem of getting more disadvantaged students


to go to university, which is what we want. What do you say to that,


Toni? I don't think it is possible to save those students who can


afford to get private tuition and go to private schools are more


intelligent or deserved to go to university more. There is a problem


with social mobility in the UK. But it is not the fees that have put


them off? You cannot just look at the higher education system in


isolation, but it does have a responsibility to do something. On


the cost of living, that is becoming a greater issue the students at


university or thinking of going? It is good we have managed to explain


the fee situation and we are moving off that. Most people understand you


pay nothing up front. You only pay back when you are earning £21,000.


Even then you only pay a proportion of your income. It is nothing like a


loan from a bank or a mortgage. Martin Lewis has been suggesting we


change the lane because it is not the same as a normal loan. In terms


of the cost of living, my university can appreciate it is tough for some


students. It was tough in my day, I ended up getting lots of jobs as


well. But I universities give considerable bursaries. My third of


all students who go to a Russell group university qualify for an


additional bursary and that is on top of what the government gives


you. We are desperate people understand that will stop you get


quite a bit of help on top of what the government gives. But the chair


of your organisation said in May that £9,000 fees will constrain


quality. When will you push up the fees? Sofrgets the fee will decrease


over the next few years. It depends, for a lot of subjects that Russell


Group universities provide, chemistry, physics - engineering,


they are expensive and £9,000 goes nowhere near paying for those


subjects. I bet you make money on politics or something. I've heard


working class kids talking about they don't want £40,000 debts, then


your cost of living. Maybe they are just talking about it as an excuse.


I accept, aspirations is part of it. And the figures show pupils... From


the very bottom. If you don't qualify because your parent are


earning in the £20,000s early £30,000 they get caught. You look up


the income scale. The higher you are up the income scale, the more likely


you are to go to university. I cannot believe that putting up the


price of a football match, put up beans, you are less likely to buy


them... It is true that high unemployment is a recruit recruiting


Sergeant for universities. The threat of debt does put some people


off. I agree with you. It is not the same


as buying a tin of beans or package holiday. That is why I don't think


you have to pay a fee for it because it is not transactional. One of the


really big problems with this system is you turn it into something you


can say is similar to a football match and we know that, we still


know that. People from the most advantaged backgrounds are much more


likely to go to university than those from a disadvantaged... That


is not about money. For various reasons, unfortunately they are


outperforming... Let's look ahead. There will be a fee that fees will


have to go up because public funding is not going to, I am sure, it will


not fill the gap in the next few years, so £9,000 will not be the


upper limit. All universities charge the same. I have four sons at the


moment, two of whom have gone through university and two who are


going through. Only the first one through at £3,000 a year. I worry


that it is like worrying about whether the Government's help to buy


scheme will cause a housing bubble, 10-15 years down the line. I worry


about the way we are encouraging youngsters to look at finance. It is


not a loan, it is different because you pay it back differently. We are


encouraging them to leefr university with massive debt. Then, if they


want to think of going on the housing ladder, get the Government's


help to buy scheme, which gives them more pretend debt. Everything will


be pretend debt... What will happen in 25 years' time? It is like a tax.


A tax, can you award... About 40% of graduates will not pay the full loan


back. How is the Government going to afford it? This is the irony. It is


so generous from the Government. The system will collapse. When? Probably


not that far away because so many people are not paying it back or


they are paying it back rather slowly because wages are going down


not up. Maybe the Russell Group, they ought to go up to whatever. I


don't know what you want - £40,000? I don't know if you will cap your


subjects and then you will only get kids who have the bank of mum and


dad to help them out. What is your answer though to that scenario? You


ask when it will collapse. In the early 2030s, it is estimated


there'll be a £94 billion cost on the state for this system now. And


let's be really clear, the people who will be paying that off are me


and my generation. Then when it falls apart. Not only are we paying


for it now, we will pay for it then. Who will pay for it? You cannot


complain it is too generous and that the state is subsidising you too


much. This is the irony. The public funding for yuan is on a par with


chilly. Whereby if we compete with India, Brazil, China, any of the


emerging... And public funding... We have to undergo a culture change. It


is like we heard Americans talking about when they had a baby they


would start a college fund. We'll have to become that sort of society


in order to send any of our kids to university. It is really important


to get the message across that going to university is absolutely


affordable. Yes, it may be tough and you do need perhaps to have a job


and work really hard... How are you supposed to find a job now? You


benefit from that investment. If you don't, then you don't have to pay


anything back. If it doesn't work out for you.


Thank you very much. Last year, the Government replaced


over 1,000 pages of planning guidance for England with a slimmer


50 pages - thank goodness, including a presumption in favour of


sustainable development, which minister said would boost the


economy. At the time, it prompted a vociferous campaign by conservation


groups who claimed the changes threatened England's countryside.


One year on, how have the changes affected planning decisions? Our


south-east political reporter has been looking at a test case in Kent,


where plans to widen an A-road will mean the loss of some ancient


woodland. Majestic and awe-inspiring. This


wood hand has taken more than 400 year -- woodland has taken more than


400 years to mature. Now it may signal the fate of other ancient


wood lands around the country because 22 acres of these woods may


have to make way for this... The decision on widening this stretch of


the A 21 between Tonbridge and Pembury is being seen as a landmark


ruling on the Government's planning policy reforms, which set out a


presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are concerned that


this will set a precedent for other schemes, where there are other


options, the destruction is avoidable. So, we don't want to see


too many decisions coming out that lead people down this route to think


the easy option is to destroy the ancient woodland. We are worried it


is a soft target because of this focus on the national planning


policy. Conservationists say nothing can make up for destroying the


woodland habitat as it has taken centuries to evolve. Those in favour


of the road expansion believe it is a necessary sacrifice as it could


bring £400 million of economic benefits. What we need to look at is


what we have at the moment. There is a very, very strong case for dualing


the A 21 on this four-mile stretch. Congestion is a significant problem.


In itself, that is a barrier to economic activity and future


economic development. This fight is not just a matter of


protecting the environment. There is an argument that wood lands


themselves bring their own economic benefits. There were 30 million


visits to wood lands and forests in the south-east last year.


Natural England estimates that £180 million was spent during those


visits. Here in the southeast we have four


times more ancient woodland than the national average. There is a growing


concern about other ancient wood lands. In Maidstone this month


resident residents met to discuss risks to a dozen other sites in the


borough. I think we are going to lose a lot of the green space. It is


supposed to be the garden of England, Kent. We are just worried


that all our green spaces are being swal lowed up. The final decision


over the A 21 expansion is due in the next few months. In the mean


time, campaigners say the fate of the country's ancient wood lands


hangs in the balance. Will the Government's planning reforms mean


economic interests will always take priority over the environment


however rare and irreplaceable it may be?


And we have been joined by James Stevens, strategic planner at the


home builders' federation and Shaun Spiers from the Campaign To Protect


Rural England. James Stevens, one year on, have the Government's


planning reforms made a difference? It is a system bedding in. While we


have been very pleased to see certain measures put in place about


a greater attention towards delive raibility and greater attention to


the viability of the sites that local authorities are putting


forward for development, I - it is starting to actually, I think, make


local authorities think very carefully about meeting their object


objective, assessing the need for housing and doing proper


calculations and bringing forward sites that they can deliver within


the next five years to ensure those planning objectives are being


secured. So, you will be able to build more and it is easier? I think


it is helping the industry to provide more. Compared to the


previous planning regime of the last Government, which tended to but a


great emphasis on the development of brownfield sites, even when some of


those sites were not economically viable, it was difficult for house


builder toss bring those sites forward. The greater attention on


deliverability under the new regime, with local authorities giving much


more attention to viability is starting to yield results, with


sites coming forward. We saw that reform could affect ancient woodland


by the A 21. Does that set a precedent for other projects? And


there'll be more green space lost? I think there is a big question about


how the wider southeast and Greater London actually meets its


development needs. Particularly how it meets housing needs. It would


have to lose more green space? Rationally, realistically, the only


way that London and the southeast will meet the needs is by


surrunneding some green -- surrending green field sites. There


is, some politicians argue, there is a housing crisis? We would argue


there. And we have to build some on green space. There is suitable


brownfield land sufficient for one million new homes. Look first at the


brownfield land. The reforms work well for James's members. They will


build a number of houses they can sell profitability and it has made


it easier for them to build on green field sites rather than brownfield


sites. They will not build more houses because it is weaker, they


will build more when the economy gets stronger. Let's look at the


brownfield site issue. Everyone says why don't you build more on


brownfield sites, you say there were policies put forward that were not


appropriate. Is that really true? Brownfield sites in the southeast


and London will come forward. It is probably brownfield development is


not a problem in London. In the southeast, brownfield sites will


come forward. They will not necessarily come forward in the next


five to ten years. Local authorities need to have a mixed portfolio of


sites. It is about sustaining delivery, not about saying we will


ignore brownfield sites. It is being realistic over the next five to ten


years. Otherwise we will lose the opportunities. Inertia will hold


back the much-needed development. We need to build everywhere, to build


200,000 new homes a year in London alone, we have to build pretty well


everywhere. Who will build nem? Two-thirds are build -- build them?


Two-thirds are built by the big ones. If you look at the annual


reports of James's members they are looking at increasing profitability


per site. They will not build 250,000 houses. They will build a


number of houses they can sell profitably. If policy directs it to


towns and cities, they will build there. If what is happening now is


they are allowed to go in to the countryside, they will go into the


countryside. They are in denial about it. That is Ed Miliband saying


use it or lose it. They have to make a profit. It is about recognising


that and actually having a balance. Brownfield sites will come forward.


There might be a question of the need for more Government subsidy to


enable more sites to come forward, particularly in the in order. A lot


of delivery in the past of brownfield sites were predicated on


large amounts of Government subsidy. In order to actually provide about


200,000 homes a year, with I is what the being aimed at, we need to be


pragmatic about that and it is about providing a mixed portfolio of


sites. Should economic interests trump environmental ones when it


comes to this issue? We do need houses. It is about as


moaning about the price of petrol but we like our cars. Maybe if we


could force developers perhaps to ensure they have this balance of the


portfolio. Armed they already required to do that? Have a balanced


portfolio building on brown field sites, building on new stocks? It


has gone. I was in Manchester last week at the Conservative conference.


I started working there 15 years ago and what a transformation. You have


local authorities identifying Brownfield sites. Some people are


saying it is not a viable, so the house-builders are saying, build on


Greenfield. Giving back to local communities, do you agree with


that? It would be good if it was happening. There should be a use it


or lose it. Land grabbing? There should be some compensation, but you


have to use that land. It will be cheaper to build on a farmer 's


field than decontaminate some industrial land, I understand that.


If the land was decontaminated, the houses are built and we don't lose a


farmer 's field. I think the land banking question is a red herring.


We need to be providing 200 thousand homes a year. Local authorities, it


is a principle of planning, technical think local authorities


have to maintain. We need a land bank of about 1 million homes. The


idea the industry is withholding land from development is not the


case at all. There are some sites lying empty for a long time will


stop and wait for values to go up or drive up opposing sides by buying


the land around it and not using it. Half of the sites they say are being


banked are in the process of being billed out. 250,000 of those units


are in the process of being built out. There is plenty of good


Brownfield land in London. At least 400,000. Sustainability? There is no


problem building site in London because people will come and pay the


prices. Latest estimates by London councils suggest they need to


provide 53,000 homes a year. London only has the capacity for 40,000 a


year. So to me London's needs... And also, international investors. Hair


today, gone tomorrow. It certainly was the George Osborne this week as


he unveiled his new look at the Tory party conference. There might have


been no U-turn on the economy, but his hairstyle has done an abrupt


turnaround and it was the talk of Manchester. We will find out his


secret, but first let's look at a Manchester. We will find out his


few other political bonnets. And we've been joined by top hair


stylist, Nicky Clarke. Welcome to the Daily Politics. It is good to be


here. What did you think of George Osborne's new hairstyle? Did you


notice? You could not help notice. Maybe he will grow into it. I love


the way we are doing the heavyweight pieces. These are the popular bits


of the programme. Appearances seem to be crucial in describing yourself


as a politician. There has been the suggestions he is preparing for his


role as taking over from the Prime Minister. All of the jokes,


recession proof and things like that. Anybody who has been slightly


losing their hair, they know it is best to have a tucked in haircut.


This is what it looks like before. Does it make him look more


approachable? It is fine both ways. Because he is blessed with having


dark hair, it does have a tendency of looking like a wig. Yours is all


genuine? Mine is real, yes. It makes him look distinguished. Do you not


like it? George Osborne could not have had flat hair when the economy


like it? George Osborne could not was flat. Do you look at things like


that? Yes you do, you notice. There are some politicians who look a bit


like public school, never had to bother with my hair. It just looks


awful. What is your opinion of Boris Johnson's her? No one cuts his hair.


It is wonderful, isn't it? Would you Johnson's her? No one cuts his hair.


like to get your hands on his? It is great he does his own thing. It is


deliberate. He actually does this... With his hair. David Cameron


has a huge bald patch when he looks down. I suspect when he is in the


shower his hair is all the way down his back and he weaves it round.


What we have learnt is we don't want to be emulating the Bobby Charlton


of this world with the comb over. So the idea of cutting it short is a


good thing to do. What about embracing baldness? Let's have a


look at some. Chuka Umunna, who is very young. It helps having a great


shaped head. Also having darker skin also helps. The same if you were to


take that on maybe... Here we go. There is William Hague. It is better


than it was when he was 12 years old. It suits him. If he had those


hair is long, he would look like Arthur Scargill or Bobby Charlton.


What about a Prime Minister who does not have hair, Anne Diamond? Who was


the last one? Do you think people who think about that? Have we really


come to that? Not entirely. You see the politician first before you hear


them. I would rather they wore a better suit. Then they think they


are trying too hard wearing something that is to stylish. Let's


looking at these politicians. Is that Lord Lucan? Have we found him?


There is David Heath. What do you think about beards and moustaches.


He looks very left wing. You think it does immediately pointed in a


certain political direction? You cannot help it. In the old days,


Michael foot wore the donkey jacket. It is certainly denoting that kind


of hair, that style of dress. It was eight car coat from Harrods. It is


in the people 's history Museum in Manchester. What about a moustache.


There aren't many around? They took them off in the new Labour era.


Alistair Darling, they all went. Is it too left wing? It is amazing how


much of the socialist party did have. Through the 80s, it wasn't the


right wing politicians that had them. They would be looking like


they were part of the gentry. Someone says, nope profit cannot


succeed without a beard. Another person said, you cannot


trust a politician with a beard. Where would you find Nigel Farage,


Boris Johnson and Elvis all at the same event? At the Tory Party


Conference of course! Here's the week in 60 seconds.


It is the Tory party conference in Manchester, so what on earth is he


doing here? I am here to have a dropper debate. Perhaps someone you


would expect to be at any blue gathering is this man. Not that he


would be up to any mischief. When he was Prime Minister... On Wednesday


it was David Cameron's keynote speech and an intriguing offer the


Ed Miliband. You keep your shirt on, I will keep the lights on. Away from


Manchester, Ed Miliband was in a battle with the Daily Mail claiming


his father hated Britain. But the Daily Mail did say sorry when it was


reported one of their reporters gate-crashed a memorial for the


Labour leader's uncle. No conference would be complete with out an


appearance from this man. Not Alastair Campbell, but Elvis.


Anything to get on television. Now, let's look ahead. When do we think


the reshuffle is will be happening? This coming week, some ministers


said nervously Tuesday Wednesday, others said Thursday. Does Ed


Miliband go before or after? I think sensibly he goes after. Put your


players against the team in government, rather than try and do


it the other way round. Everyone is thinking about it. David Cameron


sees reshuffles as a sign of weakness. He kept his team together


for quite a while. It is difficult with a coalition because of the


numbers of ministers. You move one out, it is hard to move another one


in. At this stage, could it be seen as a sign of weakness. His message


is, we are doing everything right. He has 80 posts to play with. You


want the next generation. Going to the next general election saying, we


want to be refreshed. The ones who get the sack... Are the ones whose


names we cannot remember. Andy Burnham? Will he be moved? There is


thought of that, he does not want to go. He is putting up a rearguard


action. I think he has done very well. Jeremy Hunt, they have thrown


the kitchen sink at him and he is still standing. But some of the


older ones, they will be looking for new things to do by the end of next


week. Anybody you would like to see go on David Cameron's site? You said


week. Anybody you would like to see you said it was a sign of weakness.


Bearing in mind the election is 18 months away, would this be the team


to take you into that general election? Given what else he has


got, I don't know. He might go for the thing, he is doing everything


right at the moment, all he has got to do is continue. Maria Miller,


Culture Secretary? Who knows, she can't get on a bus and nobody would


recognise her. We need good women. There's just time before we go to


find out the answer to our quiz. The question was what creature was


Speaker John Bercow compared to by a mum in Chelsea after a row about


parking? Was it: Answer: A weasel. That's all for today. Thanks to Anne


Diamond, Kevin Maguire and all my guests. Andrew will be back on BBC


One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics from 11:00am, and I'll be


here on BBC Two with more Daily Politics on Monday at midday. Have a


good weekend. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles