04/10/2013 Daily Politics


04/10/2013

Jo Coburn is joined by journalists Anne Diamond and Kevin Maguire to discuss the latest political news.


Similar Content

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

Transcript


LineFromTo

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

:00:38.:00:44.

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

:00:44.:00:50.

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

:00:50.:00:54.

increase in tuition fees for students in England, undergraduate

:00:54.:00:59.

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

:00:59.:01:06.

new-slimmed-down England rules opposed by environmentalists working

:01:06.:01:11.

out? We report from the frontline battle between conversation and

:01:11.:01:14.

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

:01:14.:01:21.

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

:01:21.:01:30.

Britain's top hair stylist, Kenneth Clarke.

:01:30.:01:38.

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

:01:38.:01:42.

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

:01:42.:01:48.

is taking Government comun kags Government Communication

:01:48.:01:50.

Headquarters to the European Court of Human Rights over allegations

:01:50.:01:54.

that it has been illegally intercepting and analysing millions

:01:54.:01:57.

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

:01:57.:02:09.

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

:02:10.:02:16.

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

:02:16.:02:22.

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

:02:22.:02:26.

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

:02:26.:02:29.

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

:02:30.:02:36.

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

:02:36.:02:39.

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

:02:39.:02:44.

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

:02:44.:02:49.

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

:02:49.:02:53.

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

:02:53.:03:06.

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

:03:06.:03:10.

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

:03:10.:03:16.

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

:03:16.:03:20.

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

:03:20.:03:25.

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

:03:25.:03:29.

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

:03:29.:03:32.

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

:03:32.:03:36.

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

:03:36.:03:40.

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

:03:40.:03:45.

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

:03:45.:03:48.

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

:03:48.:03:53.

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

:03:53.:03:57.

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

:03:57.:04:01.

Atlantic have been used and developed in absolute secrecy. Now

:04:01.:04:05.

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

:04:05.:04:12.

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

:04:12.:04:18.

unconstitutional because it had been kept secret from its oversight court

:04:18.:04:22.

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

:04:22.:04:26.

worried about the access that security forces might have over your

:04:26.:04:30.

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

:04:30.:04:34.

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

:04:34.:04:41.

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

:04:41.:04:48.

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

:04:48.:04:52.

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

:04:52.:04:56.

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

:04:57.:05:00.

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

:05:00.:05:05.

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

:05:05.:05:08.

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

:05:08.:05:12.

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

:05:12.:05:17.

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

:05:17.:05:22.

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

:05:22.:05:26.

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

:05:26.:05:31.

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

:05:31.:05:34.

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

:05:34.:05:40.

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

:05:40.:05:44.

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

:05:44.:05:48.

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

:05:48.:05:54.

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

:05:54.:05:58.

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

:05:58.:06:04.

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

:06:04.:06:08.

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

:06:08.:06:12.

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

:06:12.:06:18.

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

:06:18.:06:23.

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

:06:23.:06:28.

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

:06:28.:06:32.

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

:06:32.:06:37.

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

:06:37.:06:46.

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

:06:46.:06:50.

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

:06:50.:06:56.

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

:06:56.:07:03.

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

:07:03.:07:07.

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

:07:07.:07:13.

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

:07:13.:07:23.

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

:07:23.:07:28.

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

:07:28.:07:30.

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

:07:30.:07:35.

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

:07:35.:07:39.

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

:07:39.:07:44.

claiming that his father hated Britain. The Labour leader

:07:44.:07:47.

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

:07:47.:07:52.

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

:07:52.:07:58.

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

:07:58.:08:02.

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

:08:02.:08:05.

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

:08:05.:08:13.

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

:08:13.:08:19.

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

:08:19.:08:25.

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

:08:25.:08:28.

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

:08:28.:08:35.

of the paper has unreservedly apologised for the episode. Speaking

:08:35.:08:41.

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

:08:41.:08:46.

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

:08:46.:08:52.

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

:08:52.:08:57.

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

:08:57.:09:01.

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

:09:01.:09:05.

things are happening. It says something about the way they

:09:05.:09:09.

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

:09:09.:09:12.

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

:09:12.:09:20.

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

:09:20.:09:27.

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

:09:27.:09:32.

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

:09:32.:09:36.

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

:09:36.:09:39.

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

:09:39.:09:45.

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

:09:45.:09:53.

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

:09:53.:09:58.

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

:09:58.:10:06.

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

:10:06.:10:11.

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

:10:11.:10:16.

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

:10:16.:10:20.

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

:10:21.:10:29.

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

:10:29.:10:33.

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

:10:33.:10:38.

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

:10:38.:10:43.

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

:10:43.:10:47.

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

:10:47.:10:59.

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

:10:59.:11:02.

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

:11:02.:11:08.

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

:11:08.:11:14.

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

:11:14.:11:19.

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

:11:19.:11:24.

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

:11:24.:11:29.

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

:11:29.:11:33.

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

:11:33.:11:40.

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

:11:40.:11:44.

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

:11:44.:11:48.

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

:11:48.:11:54.

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

:11:54.:11:57.

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

:11:57.:12:01.

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

:12:02.:12:07.

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

:12:07.:12:13.

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

:12:13.:12:23.

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

:12:23.:12:27.

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

:12:27.:12:33.

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

:12:33.:12:38.

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

:12:38.:12:42.

though that that was also the motivation, partly behind the

:12:42.:12:48.

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

:12:48.:12:52.

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

:12:52.:12:58.

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

:12:58.:13:03.

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

:13:03.:13:12.

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

:13:12.:13:17.

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

:13:17.:13:22.

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

:13:22.:13:28.

is an agenda there that Ed Miliband has replied robustly.

:13:28.:13:33.

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

:13:33.:13:37.

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

:13:37.:13:42.

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

:13:42.:13:47.

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

:13:47.:13:50.

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

:13:50.:13:54.

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

:13:54.:14:00.

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

:14:01.:14:14.

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

:14:14.:14:19.

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

:14:19.:14:26.

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

:14:26.:14:31.

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

:14:31.:14:35.

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

:14:35.:14:39.

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

:14:39.:14:43.

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

:14:43.:14:48.

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

:14:48.:14:53.

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

:14:53.:14:56.

cruel and it continues the whole story.

:14:56.:15:04.

This is just the cynical opportunities of hacked off hacks

:15:04.:15:15.

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

:15:15.:15:23.

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

:15:23.:15:31.

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

:15:31.:15:38.

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

:15:38.:15:48.

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

:15:48.:15:59.

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

:15:59.:16:10.

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

:16:10.:16:14.

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

:16:14.:16:24.

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

:16:24.:16:28.

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

:16:28.:16:30.

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

:16:30.:16:38.

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

:16:38.:16:44.

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

:16:45.:16:49.

will overshadow what is said next week. The independent press

:16:49.:16:57.

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

:16:57.:17:01.

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

:17:01.:17:11.

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

:17:11.:17:16.

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

:17:16.:17:21.

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

:17:21.:17:25.

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

:17:25.:17:33.

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

:17:33.:17:44.

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

:17:44.:17:49.

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

:17:49.:17:57.

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

:17:57.:18:01.

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

:18:01.:18:08.

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

:18:08.:18:16.

public confidence, yes. The newspaper industry has shot itself

:18:16.:18:21.

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

:18:21.:18:27.

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

:18:27.:18:33.

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

:18:33.:18:43.

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

:18:43.:18:48.

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

:18:48.:18:52.

to the public. Nothing being proposed would have prevented the

:18:52.:19:02.

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

:19:02.:19:09.

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

:19:09.:19:14.

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

:19:15.:19:18.

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

:19:18.:19:24.

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

:19:24.:19:31.

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

:19:31.:19:34.

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

:19:34.:19:41.

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

:19:41.:19:49.

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

:19:49.:20:07.

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

:20:07.:20:13.

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

:20:13.:20:19.

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

:20:19.:20:24.

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

:20:24.:20:29.

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

:20:29.:20:34.

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

:20:34.:20:45.

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

:20:45.:20:49.

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

:20:49.:20:59.

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

:20:59.:21:06.

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

:21:06.:21:14.

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

:21:14.:21:20.

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

:21:20.:21:27.

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

:21:27.:21:34.

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

:21:34.:21:38.

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

:21:38.:21:44.

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

:21:44.:21:52.

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

:21:52.:21:56.

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

:21:56.:22:04.

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

:22:04.:22:08.

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

:22:08.:22:11.

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

:22:11.:22:14.

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

:22:14.:22:20.

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

:22:20.:22:23.

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

:22:24.:22:35.

The University of Greenwich. A traditional setting with modern

:22:35.:22:44.

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

:22:44.:22:46.

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

:22:46.:22:52.

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

:22:52.:22:58.

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

:22:58.:23:03.

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

:23:03.:23:09.

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

:23:09.:23:14.

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

:23:14.:23:19.

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

:23:19.:23:25.

parsec -- package is better understood and students are applying

:23:25.:23:29.

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

:23:29.:23:36.

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

:23:36.:23:38.

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

:23:38.:23:47.

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

:23:47.:23:49.

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

:23:49.:23:55.

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

:23:55.:23:59.

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

:23:59.:24:06.

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

:24:06.:24:12.

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

:24:12.:24:18.

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

:24:18.:24:23.

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

:24:23.:24:26.

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

:24:26.:24:33.

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

:24:33.:24:38.

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

:24:38.:24:45.

that will have a real impact on the financial sustainability of

:24:45.:24:47.

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

:24:47.:24:55.

the income from student loans has replaced direct government funding.

:24:55.:25:00.

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

:25:00.:25:04.

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

:25:04.:25:11.

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

:25:11.:25:16.

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

:25:16.:25:19.

universities, politicians and students.

:25:19.:25:21.

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

:25:21.:25:24.

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

:25:24.:25:28.

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

:25:28.:25:38.

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

:25:38.:25:42.

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

:25:42.:25:46.

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

:25:46.:25:53.

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

:25:53.:25:57.

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

:25:57.:26:02.

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

:26:02.:26:08.

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

:26:08.:26:14.

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

:26:14.:26:21.

campaigned against tuition fees. You said students from disadvantaged

:26:21.:26:25.

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

:26:25.:26:32.

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

:26:33.:26:37.

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

:26:37.:26:41.

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

:26:41.:26:46.

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

:26:46.:26:49.

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

:26:49.:26:57.

There were people who claimed there was scaremongering going on and

:26:57.:27:01.

there was an initial fall because many students believed they would

:27:01.:27:03.

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

:27:03.:27:11.

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

:27:11.:27:17.

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

:27:17.:27:22.

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

:27:22.:27:29.

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

:27:29.:27:32.

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

:27:32.:27:37.

see the impact it might have particularly in the economic

:27:37.:27:42.

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

:27:42.:27:48.

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

:27:48.:27:54.

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

:27:54.:27:59.

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

:27:59.:28:03.

disadvantaged backgrounds have increased more in their numbers. I

:28:03.:28:08.

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

:28:08.:28:13.

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

:28:13.:28:18.

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

:28:18.:28:25.

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

:28:25.:28:31.

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

:28:31.:28:34.

we would solve this problem of getting more disadvantaged students

:28:34.:28:38.

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

:28:38.:28:49.

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

:28:49.:28:52.

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

:28:52.:28:57.

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

:28:57.:29:02.

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

:29:02.:29:08.

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

:29:09.:29:12.

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

:29:12.:29:18.

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

:29:18.:29:23.

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

:29:23.:29:28.

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

:29:28.:29:33.

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

:29:33.:29:39.

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

:29:39.:29:44.

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

:29:44.:29:49.

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

:29:49.:29:56.

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

:29:56.:30:01.

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

:30:01.:30:07.

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

:30:07.:30:11.

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

:30:11.:30:15.

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

:30:15.:30:18.

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

:30:18.:30:23.

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

:30:23.:30:30.

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

:30:30.:30:33.

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

:30:33.:30:42.

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

:30:42.:30:49.

Group universities provide, chemistry, physics - engineering,

:30:50.:30:55.

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

:30:55.:31:02.

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

:31:02.:31:09.

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

:31:09.:31:14.

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

:31:14.:31:20.

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

:31:20.:31:26.

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

:31:26.:31:31.

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

:31:31.:31:37.

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

:31:37.:31:41.

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

:31:42.:31:47.

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

:31:47.:31:52.

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

:31:52.:32:03.

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

:32:03.:32:06.

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

:32:06.:32:11.

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

:32:11.:32:15.

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

:32:15.:32:18.

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

:32:18.:32:22.

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

:32:22.:32:27.

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

:32:27.:32:30.

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

:32:30.:32:36.

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

:32:36.:32:39.

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

:32:39.:32:44.

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

:32:45.:32:50.

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

:32:50.:32:55.

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

:32:55.:33:01.

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

:33:01.:33:05.

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

:33:05.:33:09.

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

:33:09.:33:14.

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

:33:15.:33:19.

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

:33:19.:33:22.

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

:33:23.:33:26.

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

:33:26.:33:31.

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

:33:31.:33:35.

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

:33:35.:33:42.

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

:33:42.:33:50.

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

:33:50.:33:55.

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

:33:55.:34:02.

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

:34:02.:34:06.

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

:34:06.:34:11.

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

:34:11.:34:16.

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

:34:16.:34:20.

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

:34:20.:34:24.

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

:34:24.:34:29.

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

:34:29.:34:35.

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

:34:35.:34:40.

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

:34:40.:34:44.

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

:34:44.:34:48.

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

:34:48.:34:53.

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

:34:53.:34:58.

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

:34:58.:35:04.

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

:35:04.:35:12.

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

:35:12.:35:18.

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

:35:18.:35:21.

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

:35:21.:35:25.

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

:35:25.:35:29.

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

:35:29.:35:34.

to get the message across that going to university is absolutely

:35:34.:35:38.

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

:35:38.:35:43.

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

:35:43.:35:47.

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

:35:48.:35:51.

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

:35:51.:35:57.

Thank you very much. Last year, the Government replaced

:35:57.:36:01.

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

:36:01.:36:05.

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

:36:06.:36:09.

sustainable development, which minister said would boost the

:36:09.:36:13.

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

:36:13.:36:17.

groups who claimed the changes threatened England's countryside.

:36:17.:36:20.

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

:36:20.:36:23.

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

:36:24.:36:29.

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

:36:29.:36:39.

woodland. Majestic and awe-inspiring. This

:36:39.:36:43.

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

:36:43.:36:47.

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

:36:47.:36:52.

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

:36:52.:36:57.

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

:36:57.:37:02.

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

:37:02.:37:06.

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

:37:06.:37:10.

presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are concerned that

:37:10.:37:14.

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

:37:14.:37:17.

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

:37:17.:37:22.

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

:37:22.:37:27.

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

:37:27.:37:31.

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

:37:32.:37:38.

policy. Conservationists say nothing can make up for destroying the

:37:39.:37:44.

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

:37:44.:37:49.

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

:37:49.:37:52.

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

:37:52.:37:56.

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

:37:56.:38:02.

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

:38:02.:38:07.

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

:38:07.:38:10.

economic development. This fight is not just a matter of

:38:11.:38:15.

protecting the environment. There is an argument that wood lands

:38:15.:38:19.

themselves bring their own economic benefits. There were 30 million

:38:19.:38:26.

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

:38:26.:38:32.

Natural England estimates that £180 million was spent during those

:38:32.:38:37.

visits. Here in the southeast we have four

:38:37.:38:45.

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

:38:45.:38:49.

concern about other ancient wood lands. In Maidstone this month

:38:49.:38:55.

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

:38:55.:38:59.

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

:38:59.:39:03.

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

:39:03.:39:09.

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

:39:09.:39:14.

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

:39:14.:39:18.

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

:39:18.:39:23.

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

:39:23.:39:27.

economic interests will always take priority over the environment

:39:27.:39:31.

however rare and irreplaceable it may be?

:39:31.:39:37.

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

:39:37.:39:45.

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

:39:45.:39:51.

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

:39:51.:39:56.

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

:39:56.:40:00.

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

:40:00.:40:05.

a greater attention towards delive raibility and greater attention to

:40:05.:40:09.

the viability of the sites that local authorities are putting

:40:09.:40:13.

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

:40:13.:40:18.

local authorities think very carefully about meeting their object

:40:18.:40:23.

objective, assessing the need for housing and doing proper

:40:23.:40:25.

calculations and bringing forward sites that they can deliver within

:40:25.:40:30.

the next five years to ensure those planning objectives are being

:40:30.:40:33.

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

:40:33.:40:37.

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

:40:37.:40:40.

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

:40:41.:40:46.

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

:40:46.:40:49.

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

:40:49.:40:53.

builder toss bring those sites forward. The greater attention on

:40:53.:40:58.

deliverability under the new regime, with local authorities giving much

:40:58.:41:02.

more attention to viability is starting to yield results, with

:41:02.:41:07.

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

:41:07.:41:12.

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

:41:12.:41:16.

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

:41:16.:41:22.

how the wider southeast and Greater London actually meets its

:41:22.:41:26.

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

:41:26.:41:30.

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

:41:30.:41:33.

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

:41:33.:41:41.

surrunneding some green -- surrending green field sites. There

:41:41.:41:46.

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

:41:46.:41:52.

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

:41:52.:41:56.

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

:41:56.:42:00.

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

:42:00.:42:05.

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

:42:05.:42:09.

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

:42:09.:42:13.

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

:42:13.:42:16.

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

:42:16.:42:21.

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

:42:21.:42:25.

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

:42:25.:42:29.

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

:42:29.:42:33.

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

:42:33.:42:36.

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

:42:36.:42:38.

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

:42:38.:42:42.

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

:42:42.:42:48.

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

:42:48.:42:53.

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

:42:53.:42:57.

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

:42:57.:43:00.

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

:43:00.:43:05.

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

:43:05.:43:11.

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

:43:11.:43:18.

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

:43:18.:43:24.

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

:43:24.:43:28.

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

:43:28.:43:31.

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

:43:31.:43:34.

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

:43:34.:43:39.

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

:43:39.:43:42.

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

:43:42.:43:48.

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

:43:48.:43:52.

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

:43:52.:43:56.

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

:43:56.:44:01.

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

:44:02.:44:07.

of delivery in the past of brownfield sites were predicated on

:44:07.:44:11.

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

:44:11.:44:18.

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

:44:18.:44:25.

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

:44:25.:44:30.

sites. Should economic interests trump environmental ones when it

:44:30.:44:31.

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

:44:31.:44:45.

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

:44:45.:44:52.

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

:44:52.:44:57.

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

:44:57.:45:03.

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

:45:03.:45:12.

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

:45:12.:45:15.

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

:45:15.:45:24.

local authorities identifying Brownfield sites. Some people are

:45:24.:45:33.

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

:45:33.:45:36.

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

:45:36.:45:43.

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

:45:43.:45:54.

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

:45:54.:45:59.

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

:45:59.:46:04.

field than decontaminate some industrial land, I understand that.

:46:04.:46:09.

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

:46:09.:46:16.

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

:46:16.:46:21.

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

:46:21.:46:28.

is a principle of planning, technical think local authorities

:46:28.:46:35.

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

:46:35.:46:42.

idea the industry is withholding land from development is not the

:46:42.:46:49.

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

:46:49.:46:57.

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

:46:57.:47:01.

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

:47:01.:47:08.

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

:47:08.:47:13.

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

:47:13.:47:20.

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

:47:20.:47:31.

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

:47:31.:47:37.

prices. Latest estimates by London councils suggest they need to

:47:37.:47:44.

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

:47:44.:47:54.

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

:47:54.:48:00.

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

:48:00.:48:06.

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

:48:06.:48:11.

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

:48:11.:48:14.

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

:48:14.:48:17.

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

:48:17.:48:20.

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

:48:20.:49:04.

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

:49:04.:49:14.

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

:49:14.:49:21.

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

:49:21.:49:26.

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

:49:26.:49:33.

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

:49:33.:49:40.

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

:49:40.:49:43.

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

:49:43.:49:48.

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

:49:48.:49:54.

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

:49:54.:50:04.

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

:50:04.:50:13.

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

:50:13.:50:19.

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

:50:19.:50:28.

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

:50:28.:50:37.

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

:50:37.:50:39.

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

:50:39.:50:46.

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

:50:46.:50:52.

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

:50:52.:50:58.

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

:50:58.:51:04.

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

:51:04.:51:11.

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

:51:11.:51:20.

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

:51:20.:51:26.

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

:51:26.:51:32.

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

:51:32.:51:38.

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

:51:38.:51:45.

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

:51:45.:51:49.

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

:51:49.:51:55.

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

:51:55.:52:05.

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

:52:05.:52:13.

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

:52:14.:52:21.

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

:52:21.:52:29.

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

:52:30.:52:34.

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

:52:34.:52:46.

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

:52:46.:52:54.

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

:52:54.:52:58.

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

:52:58.:53:02.

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

:53:02.:53:17.

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

:53:17.:53:24.

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

:53:24.:53:31.

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

:53:31.:53:37.

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

:53:37.:53:42.

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

:53:42.:53:49.

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

:53:49.:53:54.

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

:53:54.:54:02.

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

:54:02.:54:08.

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

:54:08.:54:13.

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

:54:13.:54:17.

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

:54:17.:54:24.

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

:54:24.:54:30.

succeed without a beard. Another person said, you cannot

:54:30.:54:37.

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

:54:37.:54:41.

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

:54:41.:54:45.

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

:54:45.:54:56.

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

:54:56.:55:02.

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

:55:02.:55:09.

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

:55:09.:55:17.

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

:55:17.:55:23.

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

:55:23.:55:28.

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

:55:28.:55:34.

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

:55:34.:55:38.

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

:55:38.:55:43.

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

:55:43.:55:49.

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

:55:49.:55:55.

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

:55:55.:56:03.

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

:56:03.:56:12.

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

:56:12.:56:19.

said nervously Tuesday Wednesday, others said Thursday. Does Ed

:56:19.:56:24.

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

:56:24.:56:29.

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

:56:29.:56:33.

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

:56:33.:56:37.

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

:56:37.:56:44.

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

:56:44.:56:48.

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

:56:48.:56:53.

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

:56:53.:56:59.

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

:56:59.:57:06.

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

:57:06.:57:12.

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

:57:12.:57:19.

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

:57:19.:57:28.

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

:57:28.:57:31.

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

:57:31.:57:38.

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

:57:38.:57:41.

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

:57:41.:57:47.

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

:57:47.:57:49.

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

:57:49.:57:55.

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

:57:55.:57:58.

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

:57:58.:58:04.

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

:58:04.:58:08.

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

:58:08.:58:19.

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

:58:19.:58:25.

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

:58:25.:58:29.

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

:58:29.:58:32.

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

:58:32.:58:45.

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

:58:45.:58:51.

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

:58:51.:58:55.

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

:58:55.:58:58.

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

:58:58.:59:01.

good weekend. Goodbye.

:59:01.:59:02.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS