04/10/2013 Daily Politics

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.