:00:00. > :00:08.Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics and a windy Westminster,
:00:09. > :00:15.where earlier the storm of St Jude hit the heart of Government. A
:00:16. > :00:18.collapsed crane on the roof of the Cabinet Office caused the Deputy
:00:19. > :00:29.Prime Minister to cancel his monthly press conference. St Jude's the
:00:30. > :00:30.patron saint for lost causes. But don't worry, today's programme
:00:31. > :01:04.isn't. -- isn't one of them. Afternoon, we've made it on air,
:01:05. > :01:07.despite the travel disruption. Many commuters today are facing hellish
:01:08. > :01:11.delays which, coincidently, is what they could be condemned to if the
:01:12. > :01:16.proposed High Speed 2 rail line is not built. That's the finding of a
:01:17. > :01:23.government-commissioned report out this week. MPs are due to vote on
:01:24. > :01:26.the project on Thursday. The trial's begun of former Sun
:01:27. > :01:28.editor Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron's former communications
:01:29. > :01:41.chief, Andy Coulson, over phone hacking charges.
:01:42. > :01:46.I'm a person with crazy hair, quite a good sense of humour, don't know
:01:47. > :01:51.much about politics, I'm ideal. We will ask if anyone cares what this
:01:52. > :01:55.man thinks about politics. And will the advent of Mystic Ed and
:01:56. > :01:58.his Crystal Balls herald the arrival of American-style attack
:01:59. > :02:02.advertising? All that in the next hour. And with
:02:03. > :02:05.us for the first half of today's programme is Liz Peace, who's chief
:02:06. > :02:08.executive of the British Property Federation. Liz has battled her way
:02:09. > :02:17.through the storm all the way from Hampshire to make it here. We are
:02:18. > :02:20.very grateful. You are welcome. Now, first today, let's talk about the
:02:21. > :02:23.weather, because you're lucky we're on air today if the rest of
:02:24. > :02:26.Westminster is anything to go by. Here's Whitehall just before nine
:02:27. > :02:30.o'clock this morning. Not a mandarin in sight after that collapsed crane
:02:31. > :02:33.on the roof of the Cabinet Office. And it's not just Westminster that's
:02:34. > :02:36.faced stormy conditions. Tragically, two people have died as a result of
:02:37. > :02:40.the bad weather, both killed by falling trees Over a quarter of a
:02:41. > :02:42.million homes are without power, rail services across much of
:02:43. > :02:45.southern Britain have been cancelled, houses have been flooded
:02:46. > :02:51.and the helter-skelter at Clacton Pier in Essex has blown down. Winds
:02:52. > :02:54.of 99 miles per hour were recorded at Needles Old Battery, Isle of
:02:55. > :02:58.Wight. Weather forecasters say the storm is almost over in the UK.
:02:59. > :03:05.Earlier the Prime Minister had this to say.
:03:06. > :03:10.Everyone has two act on the basis of the evidence they are given and the
:03:11. > :03:14.information they are given, everyone has two work closely together to
:03:15. > :03:17.deal with the storm. We will be able to look back afterwards and see if
:03:18. > :03:22.people made the right decisions, but what matters now is working together
:03:23. > :03:29.and getting things back to normal. Lives, how did you get here? I
:03:30. > :03:35.normally rely on South West trains, and they were absolutely stuffed
:03:36. > :03:38.this morning. What I did discover, looking at their first rate Twitter
:03:39. > :03:47.feed, there were 29 trees across the network. I woke up thinking, what
:03:48. > :03:52.storm? I was one of the doubters. But I realised that it probably was
:03:53. > :03:55.a storm. I feel sorry for these people trying to run the
:03:56. > :03:59.infrastructure, because they can't afford to take risks. If they ran a
:04:00. > :04:04.train prematurely and something went wrong, they would be purely and, so
:04:05. > :04:09.I don't blame them for playing it safe, so we battled in by car where,
:04:10. > :04:17.by and large, the roads were well at a very quiet. And the winds were not
:04:18. > :04:24.too high? -- the roads were relatively quiet. On the roads, lots
:04:25. > :04:28.of loose branches, but I suspect the railways are in cuttings with a lot
:04:29. > :04:34.of overhanging trees, if you get a bit of wind, they come down. Even if
:04:35. > :04:38.you predict the storm, you can't predict where trees are going to
:04:39. > :04:42.fall, you can't have somebody standing with a chainsaw along
:04:43. > :04:49.hundreds of miles of train truck, so you have to react when it happens.
:04:50. > :04:54.-- hundreds of miles of train track. I listen to interviews yesterday
:04:55. > :04:56.with people from energy companies or in the industry, they hoped there
:04:57. > :05:02.would not be widespread loss of power, there are 270,000 homes. You
:05:03. > :05:10.think more should be done to protect power lines? I think it is part of a
:05:11. > :05:14.broader infrastructure debate. A lot of UK infrastructure is extremely
:05:15. > :05:19.creaky. The more modern power supplies are underground cables.
:05:20. > :05:24.Touch wood, that is what we have, and it is fine. It is about how you
:05:25. > :05:28.pay with the replacement of the infrastructure. But on the whole, we
:05:29. > :05:32.don't get extreme weather events that often compared to other places
:05:33. > :05:41.in the world, so how much money are we prepared to spend two in sure
:05:42. > :05:50.against a one in 300 days event. -- to spend to ensure against? I have
:05:51. > :05:56.heard people moaning about how badly at airports function, and somebody
:05:57. > :05:59.who is American said that Chicago closes down when there is no.
:06:00. > :06:02.On Thursday MPs will vote again on the High Speed Rail Bill. There's
:06:03. > :06:05.talk of a significant Conservative rebellion and, whilst Labour say
:06:06. > :06:08.they'll support the bill at this stage, they're worried about the
:06:09. > :06:11.escalating costs. So is there an alternative which would be better
:06:12. > :06:14.value for money? In June the Transport Secretary announced that
:06:15. > :06:19.the overall cost of HS2 would be higher than previously expected. The
:06:20. > :06:22.estimated maximum price has gone up from ?34.2 billion to ?42.6 billion,
:06:23. > :06:33.plus a further ?7.5 billion for new trains. That has led Labour to
:06:34. > :06:37.question its support for the scheme. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls says he
:06:38. > :06:41.is not prepared to write a blank cheque, and David Cameron said at
:06:42. > :06:46.the weekend that it might not go ahead without cross-party support.
:06:47. > :06:49.But now a new report for Network Rail has warned that the
:06:50. > :06:53.alternatives to a new high speed line would have their own problems.
:06:54. > :06:56.Upgrading the East and West Coast lines, along with the Midlands
:06:57. > :06:59.mainline, would be expensive and would cause massive disruption There
:07:00. > :07:07.would have to be weekend line closures for approximately 14 years
:07:08. > :07:18.whilst the work was done. Supporters of HS2 say this bolsters the case
:07:19. > :07:25.for the Government plan. We are joined now by Conservative MP
:07:26. > :07:31.Nadhim Zahawi, and hopefully Kelvin Hopkins from Labour. What do you
:07:32. > :07:36.think about these alternatives? If we look at the details, and we will
:07:37. > :07:42.get more this week, the job you would need to do would mean 14 years
:07:43. > :07:46.of weekend closures, journeys to Leeds increasing from two hours to
:07:47. > :07:53.four and a half hours, journeys from Huntington to Peterborough doubling
:07:54. > :07:58.to an hour. Even the alternatives require knocking down some homes.
:07:59. > :08:04.What about the cost? It could be much cheaper. They are talking about
:08:05. > :08:10.?20 billion. The less time West Coast Main Line was patched up cost
:08:11. > :08:16.about ?7 billion, the ?20 billion would probably only by you about a
:08:17. > :08:21.third more capacity. We have gone up to 125 million train journeys in
:08:22. > :08:25.recent years, a significant row. We have to make hard choices. We have
:08:26. > :08:30.to go for more capacity. This is where I find the Labour position be
:08:31. > :08:35.be puzzling, Lord Dyson, who delivered the Olympics, is in
:08:36. > :08:40.charge. -- I find the Labour position really puzzling. He says
:08:41. > :08:45.that, like with the Olympics, what UK firms can do to benefit from this
:08:46. > :08:51.investment, as there is more investment in the rest of the road
:08:52. > :08:56.and transport. The arguments seem to be with the Labour, let's see if we
:08:57. > :09:02.can make political mileage in the short-term. I think that is very
:09:03. > :09:08.unwise. Is it really neutral? It was a government commissioned report by
:09:09. > :09:15.network rail. People will view it as home-grown and scare tactics? Atkins
:09:16. > :09:18.is a serious company with an international reputation, I don't
:09:19. > :09:22.think they would put their name to a study of this kind without doing
:09:23. > :09:26.some of the work properly. All I can say to you is that from previous
:09:27. > :09:31.experience of the West Coast Main Line upgrade, these things cost
:09:32. > :09:36.money and it is massive disruption, 14 years of weekend disruption. If
:09:37. > :09:41.you take one train where you will have to provide a bus service, 500
:09:42. > :09:46.passengers, that is about eight or nine coaches, just imagine what that
:09:47. > :09:52.would do. There is a trade-off here. What do we want, how do we wanted? I
:09:53. > :09:57.think the North/ South high-speed lane is the thing, it will benefit
:09:58. > :10:01.eight of our most important cities. Of course, by definition, when you
:10:02. > :10:06.have a new high-speed rail line, inward investment would follow that
:10:07. > :10:10.transport upgrade and you would get some winners and losers. But the
:10:11. > :10:14.winners in the West Midlands and the North are bigger than down in London
:10:15. > :10:21.and the south-east. The Government will publish the business case
:10:22. > :10:26.tomorrow. Why so late? Why are we hearing all the arguments so late in
:10:27. > :10:32.the day? I think Patrick McLoughlin has tried to do a rigorous job. He
:10:33. > :10:35.was white to say that with these massive ambitious projects you are
:10:36. > :10:42.right to kick the tires. Let's not abuse the way we try to kick the
:10:43. > :10:46.tyres, let's have a debate that is constructive and objective. He has
:10:47. > :10:51.gone out of his way to make sure that the data is robust. Nobody is
:10:52. > :10:55.arguing against the capacity argument, not even Labour. Labour
:10:56. > :11:02.has to decide whether it wants to play politics or behave responsibly
:11:03. > :11:07.with cross-party consensus. Liz Peace, are you a fan of high-speed
:11:08. > :11:13.rail? I am a fan of additional capacity. So far the case has been
:11:14. > :11:16.very badly made. The fact that it is called high-speed, nobody is that
:11:17. > :11:21.fussed about knocking ten or 20 minutes off the time to Birmingham,
:11:22. > :11:24.it is important that we have new infrastructure. We can't go into the
:11:25. > :11:28.next 50 years with the railway lines we have, we need new ones. It makes
:11:29. > :11:31.sense to me that if you are building new ones you build them
:11:32. > :11:37.state-of-the-art, not to yesterday 's technology. Looking at the
:11:38. > :11:40.numbers, the incremental cost of moving to a high-speed system as
:11:41. > :11:45.opposed to patching up the old one or building a company can lead new
:11:46. > :11:50.parallel one is only about ten percentage difference. -- or
:11:51. > :11:55.building a completely new parallel one. I think High Speed 2 is the way
:11:56. > :12:00.to go. It is connecting the north and the South. You can come up with
:12:01. > :12:06.the rebranding. Is it worth the money? Yes. Alternatives outlined
:12:07. > :12:11.today like upgrading the other three main lines, would that not be
:12:12. > :12:19.viable? Depends how you assess viability. The idea of disrupting
:12:20. > :12:23.trouble for however long... Over 14 years, it beggars belief. We like to
:12:24. > :12:31.think of ourselves as a leading, modern country with technology, if
:12:32. > :12:36.we don't have a rail system, what will the rest of the world think?
:12:37. > :12:41.There is a risk of the project range are old, because within your own
:12:42. > :12:48.party perhaps up to 60 Conservative MPs will not back this. There is not
:12:49. > :12:53.cross-party support for this. The ball is firmly in Labour 's court.
:12:54. > :13:00.It is difficult for many of my colleagues. But they are wrong? They
:13:01. > :13:03.are right to fight for their constituents and to make the
:13:04. > :13:06.arguments to say, have we done enough tunnelling and cutting, have
:13:07. > :13:11.we made sure the compensation is adequate? These are people 's lives
:13:12. > :13:17.and properties, let's make sure that we do it properly. I have no truck
:13:18. > :13:22.with my colleagues standing up and speaking for constituents, I would
:13:23. > :13:27.do exactly the same. But Labour need to make their mind up. Are we going
:13:28. > :13:30.to be ambitious in delivering these big infrastructure projects for the
:13:31. > :13:34.UK, or will we say, we don't need that, we don't need better airport
:13:35. > :13:41.infrastructure, we don't need shale, let's just do non-that and
:13:42. > :13:48.let's be something different? -- let's do non-flat. Unfortunately
:13:49. > :13:54.there are technical problems with the line. Surprise, surprise. We
:13:55. > :13:58.could not get a Labour spokesperson. They are there, there are just
:13:59. > :14:02.technical problems. Don't say it is not because they will not come on.
:14:03. > :14:05.If you can't convince your own colleagues and you just want to
:14:06. > :14:10.blame Labour, the argument is not strong enough? The estimates are
:14:11. > :14:15.that between 30 and 60 colleagues will decide to vote against this.
:14:16. > :14:23.There are over 306 in the Conservative Party Conference so the
:14:24. > :14:27.majority think this is right. -- in the Conservative Party, so the
:14:28. > :14:31.majority think this is right. Lord Dyson, who delivered the Olympics,
:14:32. > :14:36.says he can deliver this within the envelope, which means within the
:14:37. > :14:46.budget. He is probably the best man equipped at two deliver such a
:14:47. > :14:50.project after the Olympics. Looking ahead, it will take a long time
:14:51. > :14:55.before it is online, won't this new high-speed rail be redundant? It is
:14:56. > :15:01.very difficult to envisage a country in which we don't want good rail
:15:02. > :15:07.travel. But we could have upgraded other connections. Will that line be
:15:08. > :15:13.the priority then? It is not shaving off 20 minutes that is important,
:15:14. > :15:16.the capacity is important. The single line that goes up to
:15:17. > :15:20.Manchester is bursting. It frequently gets a problem on it,
:15:21. > :15:23.once you have a problem there are delays. You need the capacity and I
:15:24. > :15:28.don't see how we can have a modern country without a modern railway.
:15:29. > :15:37.Even the Americans are going for high speed. We now have the Labour
:15:38. > :15:42.MP. You may or may not have been able to hear what Nadhim Zahawi was
:15:43. > :15:46.saying, but he says that without cross-party support, HS2 is
:15:47. > :15:52.derailed? Hello? I have lost you, I am afraid. Can usually me now? I can
:15:53. > :16:00.hear you, but you are breaking up. What is Labour going to do? Should
:16:01. > :16:03.Labour support the line? I have come here to support the freight route
:16:04. > :16:10.scheme which will take freight off the main lines and 5 million lorries
:16:11. > :16:14.off the road as well each year. That will free up those lines for more
:16:15. > :16:18.passengers. On the West Coast Main Line, my engineer friends tell me
:16:19. > :16:21.that modernised signalling would allow for more passenger routes
:16:22. > :16:26.through, more passenger frequency, and the other lines are easily
:16:27. > :16:31.modifiable in a relatively short time as well. The report here
:16:32. > :16:37.clearly says that any alternative to HS2 is actually not all it is
:16:38. > :16:40.cracked up to be, you would have to thousands 700 weekend closures
:16:41. > :16:44.lasting 14 years, and there would still be billions in terms of costs
:16:45. > :16:50.of the upgrades. That 2700. That is nonsense, it is just a scare story.
:16:51. > :16:52.The East Coast Main Line could be modernised without interrupting
:16:53. > :17:00.traffic at all. We want to build another viaduct, a flyover at
:17:01. > :17:07.Peterborough, and another at Newark, increasing the line from two up two
:17:08. > :17:11.four tracks between Huntingdon and Peterborough. That is what needs to
:17:12. > :17:16.be done, then we could get 140 mph working for most of the route and do
:17:17. > :17:20.London to Edinburgh in a shorter time than is proposed for HS2. Do
:17:21. > :17:25.you want and are you lobbying Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to withdraw
:17:26. > :17:30.support from this scheme? Well, I am just expressing a view, I am not
:17:31. > :17:33.lobbying them about that. What I am lobbying about is the freight route,
:17:34. > :17:39.which is a dedicated route from the Channel Tunnel to the Glasgow. What
:17:40. > :17:43.is your problem with HS2? I think it is a necessary and extremely
:17:44. > :17:48.expensive, and the money would be much better spent investing in all
:17:49. > :17:52.sorts of other railway projects, including GB Freight, and
:17:53. > :17:54.modernising the East Coast, west coast and Midland mainline is, and
:17:55. > :18:00.indeed promoting another line from Paddington to Birmingham to make
:18:01. > :18:04.extra capacity on that route. So it is just a scare tactic, Nadhim
:18:05. > :18:07.Zahawi, saying we would have to spend equal amounts of money and
:18:08. > :18:11.have all that disruption when you could just upgrade the lines without
:18:12. > :18:17.HS2. Well, Kilburn talks about Huntingdon to Peterborough, and that
:18:18. > :18:21.would double the time to get there in terms of an hour while the
:18:22. > :18:26.upgrades are taking place. According to a serious firm, Atkins, and
:18:27. > :18:30.Network Rail, to get a third of the capacity, which does not address the
:18:31. > :18:34.problem, we have already begun investment. The Manchester to
:18:35. > :18:39.Scotland line is being electrified, we are spending an additional 56
:18:40. > :18:43.billion on top of the 17 billion that will be spent up to 2021 on
:18:44. > :18:47.HS2. That is on other transport upgrades. The idea that you could
:18:48. > :18:51.spend more money differently, I think, is wrong. Labour need to put
:18:52. > :18:55.up a better spokesman and come and explain why they are, you know,
:18:56. > :18:59.effectively casting a shadow over a very important project for business.
:19:00. > :19:04.Hard-working businessmen and women watching a programme of thinking,
:19:05. > :19:08.why Labour doing this? He said he was not lobbying, that is just his
:19:09. > :19:09.view. Thank you very much, Kelvin Hopkins, for getting onto the
:19:10. > :19:17.programme. The trial has begun of Rebekah
:19:18. > :19:21.Brooks and Andy Coulson. Both face charges, which they deny, arising
:19:22. > :19:24.from the phone hacking affair. Our correspondent Robin Brant is outside
:19:25. > :19:30.the Old Bailey, what is happening today, then, Robin? Well, it is
:19:31. > :19:36.technically the beginning of the trial, a trial that, we are told,
:19:37. > :19:39.could last some time. The two people you just mentioned arrived here at
:19:40. > :19:43.the entrance to the Old Bailey about three hours ago, they arrive
:19:44. > :19:47.separately, of course, Rebekah Brooks arriving with her husband,
:19:48. > :19:52.also one of the people facing trial today, and a little later Andy
:19:53. > :19:56.Coulson arrived on foot. They are among the eight people facing trial
:19:57. > :20:01.here. The others are Ian Edmondson, Stuart Kuttner, Clive Goodman,
:20:02. > :20:05.Cheryl Carter and Mark Hanna. They face an array of charges. For
:20:06. > :20:10.Rebekah Brooks, formerly the editor of the News of the World, for three
:20:11. > :20:14.years until 2003, and went on to be in charge of News International, she
:20:15. > :20:18.faces conspiracy to intercept communications, she faces two
:20:19. > :20:22.charges of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office in
:20:23. > :20:25.relation to allegations of corrupt payments to people in public
:20:26. > :20:30.office, and she also faces two charges of conspiracy to pervert the
:20:31. > :20:32.course of justice. That is in relation to allegations of
:20:33. > :20:36.concealing or removing potential evidence. When it comes to Andy
:20:37. > :20:41.Coulson, the man who was also the editor of the News of the World for
:20:42. > :20:44.four years until 2007, and went on to be the Prime Minister's director
:20:45. > :20:48.of communications, both in opposition and in Downing Street, he
:20:49. > :20:53.also faces that overarching charge of conspiracy to intercept
:20:54. > :20:57.communications, and then two separate charges of conspiracy to
:20:58. > :21:01.commit misconduct in a public office. So the trial starts today,
:21:02. > :21:05.technically, although I think what we have today is the selection of
:21:06. > :21:09.the jury from a vast pool of up to about 80 people, and then the
:21:10. > :21:13.proceedings proper, I suppose, as we would refer to it, with opening
:21:14. > :21:18.statements and the prosecution may start tomorrow, but probably more
:21:19. > :21:21.likely Wednesday. Now, it is becoming harder and
:21:22. > :21:25.harder to get on the property ladder in London. In the past year alone,
:21:26. > :21:29.house prices in the capital increased by almost 9%, and many
:21:30. > :21:33.blaming foreign investors for pricing ordinary families out of
:21:34. > :21:41.housing market. Overseas buyers see London real estate as a safe place
:21:42. > :21:45.to invest their cash. So our foreign investors to blame for house price
:21:46. > :21:51.inflation? If so, what should be done about it? Eleanor Garnier has
:21:52. > :21:57.been investigating. This is luxury living, high
:21:58. > :22:01.ceilings, a touch of marble, slumped to perfection. London properties
:22:02. > :22:06.like this are a place for the world's millionaires to move their
:22:07. > :22:09.money and make more, a safe investment in a turbulent economic
:22:10. > :22:16.world, and it is turning property in our capital into a global reserve
:22:17. > :22:21.currency. We have just bought this house onto the market at ?6.75
:22:22. > :22:25.million. We marketed one year ago, we would have been asking closer to
:22:26. > :22:30.6 million, perhaps 6.25 million. The reason is that we have seen prices
:22:31. > :22:37.going up by around 7%. It is a familiar story across the capital.
:22:38. > :22:41.Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in the
:22:42. > :22:47.year to August, house prices in the capital shot up by 8.7%. One agency
:22:48. > :22:52.is recently reported that asking prices went up by more than 10% in a
:22:53. > :22:57.month. It is fuelling fears of a housing bubble and making London
:22:58. > :23:02.increasingly unaffordable for many. A high level of international
:23:03. > :23:05.interest, some agents report 50% of purchases coming from overseas. With
:23:06. > :23:08.their affordability being greater than the domestic buyer, that is
:23:09. > :23:11.pushing up prices, so the choice for the domestic buyers are to move
:23:12. > :23:15.further out or really stretched their levels of borrowing to the
:23:16. > :23:19.levels that are unsustainable. It is not just the influence of foreign
:23:20. > :23:24.buyers and the influx of immigrants that is sucking up supply. There are
:23:25. > :23:29.many factors - strong cultural desire to own homes rather than
:23:30. > :23:33.rent, more people living alone, and the Help To Buy scheme are all
:23:34. > :23:37.sighted. Close to the capital, in the south-east, the ripple effect is
:23:38. > :23:42.being felt. Elsewhere across England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
:23:43. > :23:48.house prices are rising, albeit far more slowly. In Scotland, they are
:23:49. > :23:51.falling. London's mayor, Boris Johnson, welcomes overseas
:23:52. > :23:57.investment. He believes the solution to high prices and short supply is
:23:58. > :24:03.to build more. But there is pressure on politicians for radical steps to
:24:04. > :24:06.help average income earners. We need restrictions on foreign capital
:24:07. > :24:09.coming in, as they have in Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland,
:24:10. > :24:13.many countries, and we need to make sure that council tax is much more
:24:14. > :24:17.applicable compares to how much house prices actually are, because a
:24:18. > :24:21.mansion in Kensington and Chelsea pays less council tax than an
:24:22. > :24:27.ordinary house in Stoke-on-Trent, that is not acceptable. New homes
:24:28. > :24:30.are still springing up across the capital's skyline. The concern,
:24:31. > :24:34.though, is that they are serving the appetite of rich investors, rather
:24:35. > :24:40.than helping to meet the drastic shortage of affordable housing.
:24:41. > :24:44.And the Shadow Housing Minister, Emma Reynolds, is here, welcome to
:24:45. > :24:50.the programme. Is foreign ownership to blame for the recent house price
:24:51. > :24:53.inflation? It probably is contributing, but actually I do not
:24:54. > :24:56.think in the end it is something that we are going to be able to curb
:24:57. > :25:00.or limit, because the problem is, if you did not have this foreign
:25:01. > :25:03.investment, a lot of the schemes would not get off the ground, so we
:25:04. > :25:07.would be building even less than we do at the moment. I think a lot of
:25:08. > :25:11.the foreign investment is far more of an issue in the very centre of
:25:12. > :25:17.London, and in the goober prime, rather than some of the... Although
:25:18. > :25:21.it is having a ripple effect, pushing prices to the outer boroughs
:25:22. > :25:25.as well. I am not sure we have got fully another evidence of that. The
:25:26. > :25:30.obsession with London is very much in the centre for overseas buyers.
:25:31. > :25:34.There are other things that are driving up house prices elsewhere,
:25:35. > :25:39.you know, lack of supply, the Help To Buy scheme up to a point. I think
:25:40. > :25:43.it is a very complex picture, it is too quick and simple to say, blame
:25:44. > :25:48.the overseas buyers, do something to curb them. Although in that film,
:25:49. > :25:53.one of the contributors said 50% of interest in homes in central London,
:25:54. > :25:57.over the ?2 million mark, came from overseas, so the anecdotal evidence
:25:58. > :26:01.is there. But that is not going to hugely affect the first-time buyer,
:26:02. > :26:05.like my young son, looking for a house. He's not looking for a ?2
:26:06. > :26:10.million flat, he is looking for a much more reasonable level.
:26:11. > :26:16.Interestingly, about 49% of the over ?1 million properties go to overseas
:26:17. > :26:20.buyers, and 28% of them, only 28% are not resident in London. They may
:26:21. > :26:24.be foreign buyers, but they are in London. But you accept the analysis
:26:25. > :26:28.that for ordinary families, it is extremely difficult to buy a home in
:26:29. > :26:33.London. I absolutely accept that, and we have to look at ways of
:26:34. > :26:40.making it easier. Do you want to take action against foreign
:26:41. > :26:42.investors? There is more concerned about foreign investment and
:26:43. > :26:45.ownership, particularly when flats or houses are being built, and in
:26:46. > :26:49.some cases, not all, as Liz has said, being left empty, and there is
:26:50. > :26:53.a chronic shortage of supply in London, but across the country, and
:26:54. > :26:57.that is the really big issue that the Government has failed to tackle.
:26:58. > :27:00.There is a chronic shortage of supply, supply is outstripping
:27:01. > :27:05.demand, and therefore house prices are going up. We understand what the
:27:06. > :27:09.problem is, how many of these properties are being left empty,
:27:10. > :27:13.bought up by foreign investors and left empty? I think Estimates vary,
:27:14. > :27:17.so we need a more accurate assessment of the facts in terms of
:27:18. > :27:22.how many properties are being left empty. You said you could not curb
:27:23. > :27:27.it, but you could if you wanted to, you could introduce taxes or levies
:27:28. > :27:30.of foreign investors - would you like to do that? In terms of the
:27:31. > :27:34.empty properties, which is a problem, but we have to understand
:27:35. > :27:37.the percentage of the problem that is caused by that, but councils
:27:38. > :27:41.already have the power to increase the rate of council taxes on these
:27:42. > :27:45.empty properties, and Camden Council, for example, earlier this
:27:46. > :27:49.year as the Secretary of State whether they could increase that
:27:50. > :27:52.council tax even further for empty properties. Empty properties and
:27:53. > :27:57.some of those are owned by foreign investors, it is a particular
:27:58. > :28:00.problem in some areas in London. Was that a good idea? I agree that we
:28:01. > :28:04.are not clear how many are empty, I suspect it is rather less than
:28:05. > :28:08.people think. We were involved in some work in 2007 by a reputable
:28:09. > :28:12.independent researcher who said that he felt that all this business about
:28:13. > :28:17.lots of FT properties was a bit of a fallacy, something like 5% are
:28:18. > :28:23.empty. Wood July to see boroughs and councils... What I would like to see
:28:24. > :28:27.the changes to the other end of council tax. This is a sensible way
:28:28. > :28:31.of getting the right level of tax levied on the higher, more expensive
:28:32. > :28:36.properties. Is it fair that someone living in Kensington pays more
:28:37. > :28:40.council tax -- less council tax than someone living in Stoke-on-Trent?
:28:41. > :28:46.Should be councils carry out a rebranding exercise? In an ideal
:28:47. > :28:50.world, you would have that exercise, but we are not living in an ideal
:28:51. > :28:53.world, and the problem is that it costs a lot of money to revalue
:28:54. > :28:58.properties, and you would have to do it across the country, and councils
:28:59. > :29:03.are seeing very large cuts to the government grant they get, so it
:29:04. > :29:07.would have to be... Is that going to continue? We have to look at that
:29:08. > :29:10.new to the time of the general election in terms of the budget that
:29:11. > :29:21.we put forward, you know, in terms of what is in the pot, but all I am
:29:22. > :29:24.saying is that it would be great if we could do that, but it is a costly
:29:25. > :29:26.exercise. Is there something we could do like a mansion tax that
:29:27. > :29:28.would not require... That would still require rebranding, wouldn't
:29:29. > :29:34.it? You have got properties that have not been looked at for years.
:29:35. > :29:37.Only at the other end. My constituency is in Wolverhampton,
:29:38. > :29:41.and I would wager there is not a house in Wolverhampton that is over
:29:42. > :29:46.?2 million in terms of its work. Property speculation tax, that is
:29:47. > :29:51.the other thing. My concern with this is that if you take a sort of
:29:52. > :29:54.knee-jerk reaction into some sort of mansion tax, properties regulation
:29:55. > :29:57.tax, something that is aimed at overseas buyers, which would be very
:29:58. > :30:03.difficult... Or even wealthy home-grown, you will actually simply
:30:04. > :30:09.drive away a whole load of the investment. Would that really
:30:10. > :30:12.happen? Absolutely, if we do not have a degree of overseas investment
:30:13. > :30:15.in a lot of these large schemes, they won't even get off the table,
:30:16. > :30:19.because the problem is, when the companies are looking at whether to
:30:20. > :30:22.do them, they have to do an investment appraisal, they have to
:30:23. > :30:26.assess how many they will sell at what price. The fact that they can
:30:27. > :30:29.pre-sell-off plan a percentage of them is what allows them to get the
:30:30. > :30:39.finance and crack on with the scheme. If they can't do that, they
:30:40. > :30:46.won't do it. I'm not convinced. Developers and the like are driven
:30:47. > :30:50.by profit. But the Government has relaxed section 106, which means
:30:51. > :30:57.that councils can no longer demand a high percentage or a substantial
:30:58. > :31:03.amount... Demand is outstripping supply in London, why is it that
:31:04. > :31:07.there are developers sitting on land with planning permission and not
:31:08. > :31:12.building houses? Even Boris Johnson says it is a problem. That is one of
:31:13. > :31:18.the problems we need to look at. I am not convinced that foreign owners
:31:19. > :31:22.need to commence to boost things. The developers sitting on land and
:31:23. > :31:26.not using it, a game, that is something I would like to see
:31:27. > :31:29.evidence of all stop I think you will find there are parts of the
:31:30. > :31:34.house building community that would not be averse to seeing things done
:31:35. > :31:38.to tackle that. But you can't make somebody build if they are going to
:31:39. > :31:41.lose money. They are businesses, they do their investment appraisal
:31:42. > :31:45.and they must be clear that they will be able to sell and make a
:31:46. > :31:50.profit. Nothing wrong with that, if they can't make a profit they will
:31:51. > :31:54.not be in business. Thank you both. Liz Peace, I hope your journey home
:31:55. > :31:56.is not as horrendous as the journey in.
:31:57. > :32:02.So what's the political forecast for the week ahead? Better weather, I
:32:03. > :32:05.help! -- I hope! Well, this afternoon, and by pure coincidence,
:32:06. > :32:08.the transport select committee meet to discuss the UK's resilience to
:32:09. > :32:11.winter weather. All eyes will be on the Energy and Climate Change
:32:12. > :32:14.Committee tomorrow when bosses from the big six energy companies give
:32:15. > :32:17.evidence. On Wednesday, the Privy Council meets to approve a royal
:32:18. > :32:20.charter on press regulation agreed by the main political parties. On
:32:21. > :32:24.Thursday High Speed Two faces a commons vote. And on Friday the
:32:25. > :32:26.firefighters are due to strike in their dispute with the Government
:32:27. > :32:29.over pensions. I'm joined now by James Lyons from
:32:30. > :32:38.the Daily Mirror and Tamara Cohen from the Daily Mail. Welcome, both.
:32:39. > :32:42.James Lyons, energy bills continue to dominate the political agenda as
:32:43. > :32:47.energy companies continue to increase prices. MPs will be willing
:32:48. > :32:51.the energy companies, seen as the ogres in this drama. Will it be a
:32:52. > :32:56.case of them trying to outstrip each other in terms of who can be most
:32:57. > :33:01.tough? They will be turning up the heat on energy bosses, if you
:33:02. > :33:04.forgive the pun. There will be some very interesting statistics
:33:05. > :33:08.discussed which Ofgem has come up with today, which shows that four of
:33:09. > :33:12.the big six have put their prices up by an average of 9.1 present. They
:33:13. > :33:18.blame wholesale energy prices for this. In fact, Ofgem is saying that
:33:19. > :33:28.the price at which they are buying energy before they sell it has only
:33:29. > :33:32.gone up by 1.7 percentage. -- 1.7%. The plan to move part of the green
:33:33. > :33:36.levies from bills onto general taxation, that would be welcomed by
:33:37. > :33:42.the energy companies, no doubt. But the taxpayer will still be paying,
:33:43. > :33:46.whichever way you cut it? David Cameron has said he would roll back
:33:47. > :33:50.the green taxes on energy bills, and the criticism is that the government
:33:51. > :33:54.is saying that they are aggressive and the burden falls equally on
:33:55. > :33:59.everybody, whereas if part of it was brought under general taxation then
:34:00. > :34:03.it would mean that people who earn more would pay more. They say it
:34:04. > :34:08.would be more fair. The difficulty is getting this past the Liberal
:34:09. > :34:13.Democrats. The part of the green taxes that the Government is talking
:34:14. > :34:16.about is ?47 which goes to what is called the energy company
:34:17. > :34:20.obligation, which is too insulated homes which are not very
:34:21. > :34:27.energy-efficient. But there has been criticism that a lot of the money is
:34:28. > :34:31.not going to the fuel poor. There is consensus between Labour and the
:34:32. > :34:35.Liberal Democrat that the whole of the programme needs reviewing,
:34:36. > :34:40.perhaps. Games, what about the coalition? Nick Clegg seemed to
:34:41. > :34:43.suggest he would agree with part of the green levy going onto general
:34:44. > :34:51.taxation, but are there problems further down the line? -- games,
:34:52. > :34:58.what about the coalition? Interestingly, yesterday, Simon
:34:59. > :35:04.Hughes floated the idea of some sort of rebate for poorer households. I
:35:05. > :35:07.don't know whether that is something they can sign George Osborne up to
:35:08. > :35:11.win the autumn statement, that I suspect there will be something like
:35:12. > :35:18.that, something that the Lib Dems can display as a win in terms of
:35:19. > :35:23.backing down. HS2, Tamara Cohen, do you think it will go ahead or be
:35:24. > :35:29.derailed? They are voting on a paving bill -- paving bill, which
:35:30. > :35:33.allocates the money for the project. It is not the major vote when the
:35:34. > :35:36.construction begins. I suspect the Government will win the vote on
:35:37. > :35:41.Thursday, but Labour is tightening the screws in the costs and a
:35:42. > :35:45.timeline of the project, and it looks increasingly like they are
:35:46. > :35:49.looking for an excuse to pull out and have the opportunity to allocate
:35:50. > :35:53.some of that money for other project in the next manifesto, whether that
:35:54. > :36:00.be housing, social care or something else. Labour is seeing this as a
:36:01. > :36:05.political opportunity to cause maximum embarrassment to the
:36:06. > :36:09.Government? I think Tamara is right, I think the bill will go through on
:36:10. > :36:14.Thursday. But you could well see next year and opportune moment,
:36:15. > :36:18.Labour pulling the plug, people talking about maybe during the
:36:19. > :36:23.European elections, which will be tough for all three main parties. It
:36:24. > :36:28.would cause David Cameron a lot of problems if Labour pulled support
:36:29. > :36:34.them. This is a vast sum of money, ?50 billion. If you look at, for
:36:35. > :36:38.example, the social care plans that the Labour Party comes up with, that
:36:39. > :36:41.is ?2 billion a year, so Labour could fund social care for 25 years
:36:42. > :36:44.with this money. And we're joined now by three
:36:45. > :36:48.knights in shining armour who've ridden to our rescue at short notice
:36:49. > :36:51.and through the storm to be our Monday political panel - the
:36:52. > :36:57.Conservative MP Mark Field, Labour's David Lammy and the Liberal Democrat
:36:58. > :36:59.MP Tom Brake. Welcome to you all. Now to welfare, because the national
:37:00. > :37:07.roll-out of the Government's flagship welfare reform, universal
:37:08. > :37:10.credit, reaches London today. It is being introduced in Hammersmith and
:37:11. > :37:12.Fulham and replaces six existing benefits. Universal credit is being
:37:13. > :37:21.phased in more slowly than ministers planned because of IT problems. Are
:37:22. > :37:26.you disappointed? A little, but nobody said it would be easy. We all
:37:27. > :37:31.knew the sort of welfare required... Reforms that would be
:37:32. > :37:35.required, I think the public and the whole political class knew that we
:37:36. > :37:41.could not go on spending that money, so I am happy delaying it. I am
:37:42. > :37:45.happier that it is delayed and we are getting it right rather than
:37:46. > :37:50.rushing into it with all sorts of problems. And you accept that the
:37:51. > :37:58.Shadow Minister Chris Bryant described universal credit as being
:37:59. > :38:02.in total chaos? It is not. We will be getting on later to why people
:38:03. > :38:07.are so detached from the political process, this name-calling is daft.
:38:08. > :38:10.Nobody said it would be easy, we would like to see things move
:38:11. > :38:15.forward more quickly and we would like to see computer systems working
:38:16. > :38:20.entirely smoothly, but a better idea is that we move ahead with what we
:38:21. > :38:23.have done on the pilot project, then we can learn some lessons for
:38:24. > :38:28.rolling this out in the years to come. Mark Field, this was the
:38:29. > :38:34.centrepiece of the welfare programme, and just 1000 people have
:38:35. > :38:37.claimed universal credit so far. For a project that will eventually
:38:38. > :38:42.include 8 million people, it sounds like we are years away? I suspect we
:38:43. > :38:46.are years away from getting it across the country, but filtering
:38:47. > :38:52.down six credits into a universal credit, making it worth your while
:38:53. > :38:57.to work - and the welfare trap is something that we feel very acutely
:38:58. > :39:01.in our constituencies in London - I hope we get it right rather than
:39:02. > :39:08.rushing it with some artificial timetable. But tens of millions have
:39:09. > :39:11.now been wasted, says the National Audit Office. Hundreds of millions
:39:12. > :39:15.are at risk of being written off because they have lost a grip on the
:39:16. > :39:22.whole project. In fairness, the National Audit Office said the money
:39:23. > :39:27.had been spent. A rather larger group of councils will be taking
:39:28. > :39:32.this forward. Hopefully we can learn a lot from the pilot process in
:39:33. > :39:36.Hammersmith and Fulham. Are you worried about what is going on in
:39:37. > :39:41.the department? Are you reassured that they have a grip? The National
:39:42. > :39:45.Audit Office said there was a good news culture, ministers not been
:39:46. > :39:49.told exactly what was going on by civil servants and them not being
:39:50. > :39:56.told about problems. Are you worried? We have some good ministers
:39:57. > :40:01.in that department. Are you being given the full picture? One MP knows
:40:02. > :40:05.a whole deal about pension reform. I hope they are drilling down and
:40:06. > :40:10.asking the difficult questions. Isn't it right to take time? Yeah,
:40:11. > :40:14.that they said it was overambitious and badly managed, they have wasted
:40:15. > :40:24.millions. They should have gone with a phased approach should, benefit by
:40:25. > :40:27.benefit. That is the intention. But six benefits are still being changed
:40:28. > :40:30.with a few hundred thousand people as a pilot, which makes me very
:40:31. > :40:32.with a few hundred thousand people worried, given we have seen the
:40:33. > :40:37.mistakes with the benefit cap and we have seen that in one area only ten
:40:38. > :40:44.percentage people have gone into work. -- only 10% of people. I would
:40:45. > :40:51.be worried about whether ministers have a grip. But you are not against
:40:52. > :40:55.the idea of the universal credit? Nobody is against simplifying the
:40:56. > :41:00.system, but it is how you do it and how fast we might get to it. It
:41:01. > :41:06.seems a long way away at the moment. Do you wanted to speed up or be
:41:07. > :41:08.phased-in? They are changing disability living allowance at the
:41:09. > :41:13.same time, changing the benefits caps. Right across the board, every
:41:14. > :41:18.benefit that the Department is giving out, they are changing and
:41:19. > :41:25.there are huge problems in the system. I would not say they are
:41:26. > :41:29.huge problems. Sorry, Tom. It was always the Government 's intention
:41:30. > :41:36.to roll this out, it is on target to be completed by 2017, a long-time
:41:37. > :41:43.friend to do -- a long time frame to deliver it. If we wanted a big bang
:41:44. > :41:48.approach, as happened with the Child Support Agency, I think people would
:41:49. > :41:53.be tearing their hair out. We are doing a gradual roll-out, we have
:41:54. > :41:56.trialled it in Manchester, we are trialling it in Hammersmith and
:41:57. > :42:00.Fulham. We will be able to learn from those trials. In our
:42:01. > :42:04.constituencies we have all had to deal with the fact that people,
:42:05. > :42:14.until now, were better off on benefits than in work. How much will
:42:15. > :42:19.it cost? You have missed -- messed up disability living allowance.
:42:20. > :42:24.Those in receipt of benefits at the moment have them capped by 1%
:42:25. > :42:27.following George Osborne 's Budget, it is a tough time for people and
:42:28. > :42:32.they want to know what will happen to them, unticketed if they have a
:42:33. > :42:36.disability. It is not good enough to spend millions and then slow down
:42:37. > :42:40.the process, sending confusion into the system. People don't know when
:42:41. > :42:47.they will be the next tranche of people being put onto this benefit.
:42:48. > :42:52.People fear change, as you know. Of course they do, that is exactly why
:42:53. > :42:57.the Government is right to make sure the roll-out happens gradually and
:42:58. > :43:00.is fully tested, so all of those people do not experience disasters
:43:01. > :43:05.with their benefits, that actually things happen in a smooth way so
:43:06. > :43:11.they do not then find there are multiple corrections taking place. I
:43:12. > :43:14.think this is very sensible. The former Prime Minister, John Major,
:43:15. > :43:18.gave a very clear warning as to the group of people he saw as the
:43:19. > :43:23.millions of silent have not locked into lace curtain property, you said
:43:24. > :43:30.the Conservatives were not doing enough. I share his view, I don't
:43:31. > :43:34.like some of the rhetoric, the skivers against rises, it is
:43:35. > :43:42.unhelpful. We have to make this work. -- the skivers against
:43:43. > :43:47.strivers. But one would argue that this announcement today goes along
:43:48. > :43:54.with what John Major has said. We have to be careful about rushing it
:43:55. > :43:57.through. We are 17 or 18 months away from a general election, I don't
:43:58. > :44:01.think we will see any thing radical happening within welfare other than
:44:02. > :44:06.the plans already afoot, and insofar as this will be rolled out in a
:44:07. > :44:11.significant way it will probably be after 2015. It was always going to
:44:12. > :44:17.be difficult, Labour did not exactly have great experience when it came
:44:18. > :44:22.to big IT project? I will not pretend that IT projects are easy,
:44:23. > :44:25.but every single benefit is being changed. It was incredibly
:44:26. > :44:30.overambitious, they brought this on themselves. That out there there are
:44:31. > :44:35.some very vulnerable people reliant on their support and they need the
:44:36. > :44:43.system to work. -- but out there. I wrote about this in my book. Very
:44:44. > :44:47.complicated. They also need a system which enabled them to have their
:44:48. > :44:53.situation reviewed on a regular basis where we did not face a
:44:54. > :44:58.situation, for instance, with regards to DLA, where people had had
:44:59. > :45:01.benefits and reviewed since the 1990s. Let's leave it there.
:45:02. > :45:04.Now he's never voted and apparently he never will. And, for the record,
:45:05. > :45:08.he thinks the political system in the UK is, well, pretty rubbish. Who
:45:09. > :45:11.am I talking about? Russell Brand. He guest edited the New Statesman
:45:12. > :45:15.last week and subsequently gave an interview to BBC Newsnight, which
:45:16. > :45:23.has been a bit of hit worldwide hit with millions watching it on
:45:24. > :45:28.YouTube. Here's a flavour of it. It is not that I am not putting out of
:45:29. > :45:31.apathy, it is out of absolute indifference and weariness and
:45:32. > :45:34.exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of a political class that
:45:35. > :45:39.has been going on for generations now, and which has reached fever
:45:40. > :45:42.pitch, where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned,
:45:43. > :45:45.despondent underclass that are not represented by the system, so voting
:45:46. > :45:50.for it is tacit complicity with that system, and that is not something I
:45:51. > :46:00.am up for. Why don't you change it? I am trying to! Why don't you start
:46:01. > :46:02.by voting? I don't think it works, this has created the current
:46:03. > :46:06.paradigm. You have never voted? Do you think that is bad? So before the
:46:07. > :46:11.age of 18... I was busy being a drug addict, because I came from the
:46:12. > :46:13.social conditions that are exacerbated by the system which
:46:14. > :46:17.administrator for large corporations... You are blaming the
:46:18. > :46:23.political class for that you had a drug problem? No, I was part of the
:46:24. > :46:25.social and economic class that is underserved by the current system,
:46:26. > :46:29.and drug addiction is one of the problems it creates, when you have
:46:30. > :46:34.huge underserved impoverished populations, people get drug
:46:35. > :46:37.problems and do not feel like they are engaged with the political
:46:38. > :46:40.system because they see it does not work for them. They see that it
:46:41. > :46:45.makes no difference, that they are not served. Of course it doesn't, if
:46:46. > :46:48.they don't bother to vote. Jeremy, my darling, the apathy comes from
:46:49. > :46:54.the politicians, they are apathetic to our needs.
:46:55. > :46:58.News Statesman deputy editor Helen Lewis is with us, what was it like
:46:59. > :47:02.working with Russell Brand? Everything you would imagine and
:47:03. > :47:06.more! He came into the editorial conference and delivered this sort
:47:07. > :47:09.of flawless monologue that had us all sitting there going, right, that
:47:10. > :47:13.is interesting! The fundamental point he made is that he goes to
:47:14. > :47:17.football matches and sees people on the terraces, they are excited and
:47:18. > :47:21.passionate, he sees people campaign against the closure of an A
:47:22. > :47:24.department or a library, they are passionate. But in national they
:47:25. > :47:28.feel are not involved, they do not have any say in it, and that is the
:47:29. > :47:33.key problem. I believe it to you guys to address that. Why did you
:47:34. > :47:37.ask him? We like finding people of whom the perception is not what they
:47:38. > :47:41.actually are, and slightly changed, and the same thing with happened
:47:42. > :47:45.with Jemima Khan, who had great thoughts about free speech that we
:47:46. > :47:49.wanted to get across, and she changed the reception of herself.
:47:50. > :47:54.Russell Brand had been seen, we last remembered him as this kind of guy
:47:55. > :47:58.who hosted big brother, but he has got some fantastic pieces in there,
:47:59. > :48:01.Rupert Everett writing on gay rights is a revelation, a beautiful piece
:48:02. > :48:06.of writing that I would never have read or we would not have been able
:48:07. > :48:10.to commission otherwise. Tom Brake, man of the people, are you going to
:48:11. > :48:15.read it? This is a copy of the edition, will you read it? Yes, I
:48:16. > :48:19.will, although from the interview I think it is clear that he wants a
:48:20. > :48:21.revolution, but what is not clear is what the Revolution looks like and
:48:22. > :48:27.how it is going to happen and what it would mean in practical terms. I
:48:28. > :48:31.think the issue about making a connection between voters and local
:48:32. > :48:37.issues, maybe A campaigns, and national issues, it can be done. One
:48:38. > :48:43.example - a national issue about improving access to train stations,
:48:44. > :48:45.a couple of days ago I found out that Carshalton was on a list of
:48:46. > :48:50.stations which might receive funding to be fully accessible or start by
:48:51. > :48:54.e-mail, I contacted a certain number of people, and within two days we
:48:55. > :48:58.had over 400 people who have signed up to a campaign to support making
:48:59. > :49:02.that accessible. You can, using technology, make that connection
:49:03. > :49:06.between local and national campaigns. It is about cutting
:49:07. > :49:10.through, isn't it? You think we take Russell Brand too seriously, or
:49:11. > :49:15.politics does, looks at them and thinks, how can he reach the parts
:49:16. > :49:18.that we don't? What is successful is speaking for a bunch of young people
:49:19. > :49:22.who feel very disillusioned with the system. They have not got free
:49:23. > :49:25.education, they are not going to get full employment, many are
:49:26. > :49:30.unemployed, they cannot buy a house, and if they get to work, they will
:49:31. > :49:34.be working well past 70. That is a completely different settlements to
:49:35. > :49:38.the baby boomers and Generation X. They are sitting pretty pretty. That
:49:39. > :49:43.means that David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, they all have
:49:44. > :49:47.to reach out and speak for these people. Not always easy to do, when
:49:48. > :49:52.you have come out of Oxford with your PDA, but come a researcher and
:49:53. > :49:58.inherited a political party. In that sense, Russell Brand is right. Do
:49:59. > :50:02.you agree? Not entirely, we had Occupy London in my constituency two
:50:03. > :50:07.years ago, and it struck a chord beyond just the usual sort of group
:50:08. > :50:11.of perhaps anarchists on the left, increasingly, dare I say it,
:50:12. > :50:17.middle-class Tory voters. How frightening for you! In a way,
:50:18. > :50:20.frightening for the whole political class. The capitalist system seems
:50:21. > :50:25.to be working against them, and David is right that we are of a
:50:26. > :50:28.generation of having a free university education, being able to
:50:29. > :50:33.get on the housing ladder, which is incredibly difficult now. Russell
:50:34. > :50:37.Brand's answer to that is do not vote. That is the problem. All that
:50:38. > :50:41.will mean is that the political class, they will think, we have to
:50:42. > :50:46.put all of our attention into people over the age of 55, and a lot of
:50:47. > :50:51.those people... He says he has been underserved by the political class.
:50:52. > :50:56.Low blow it may well be that David and Mark are doing it as well. I am
:50:57. > :50:59.doing some work with Fight the Ballot, which campaigns to get
:51:00. > :51:03.people registered. Before they even vote, they need to be registered, so
:51:04. > :51:08.make that first step, because if they do not, if they do not get
:51:09. > :51:12.registered and vote in elections, as Mark has said, politicians
:51:13. > :51:14.generally, they know who votes in their constituencies, and they tend
:51:15. > :51:19.to try to establish a relationship with them. If people are not voting,
:51:20. > :51:24.there is a problem. A pessimistic view of life for young people. It
:51:25. > :51:28.may be true, but it seems pessimistic. I would not advocate
:51:29. > :51:31.not voting. We should think about compulsory voting and then at least
:51:32. > :51:34.we could see who destroyed their ballot and was upset with the
:51:35. > :51:40.system. At the moment, the elderly are protected in our system, no-one
:51:41. > :51:44.is attacking their TV licence, their fuel allowance. Young people not
:51:45. > :51:51.voting are left out of the system. That was a mistake by David Cameron,
:51:52. > :51:57.to make that commitment? We moving away from the paradigm of classless
:51:58. > :52:01.politics, we moved into generational groups pitted against each other,
:52:02. > :52:04.and my biggest worry is that the brightest and best young people,
:52:05. > :52:11.young graduates in this country will think, there -- their future is best
:52:12. > :52:14.served elsewhere. There is a workless core across the country,
:52:15. > :52:17.who Russell Brand is also supporting, who was shot out of the
:52:18. > :52:23.Westminster based politics that commits us to sound bites, usually
:52:24. > :52:28.through the news, but does not seem to really speak genuinely about
:52:29. > :52:31.people's problems. Do you agree, broadly, with the discussion that
:52:32. > :52:38.the political class needs to engage with younger people and participate
:52:39. > :52:42.in large numbers with those people? It is a completely vicious cycle.
:52:43. > :52:46.Young people vote less, they are served less, therefore they vote
:52:47. > :52:50.less. Your film about housing at this exactly. The one people that
:52:51. > :52:54.preoccupies people in London under the age of 35 is the rising age of
:52:55. > :52:57.first-time buyers. Help to buy will help a tiny number of people at the
:52:58. > :53:01.expense of others who will see prices escalate further out their
:53:02. > :53:05.reach. But with the exception of Labour and the jobs guarantee, what
:53:06. > :53:09.party has a specific offer for young people? I think something that is
:53:10. > :53:12.very concrete is the fact that we have a record number of
:53:13. > :53:18.apprenticeships, and that is helping a very large number of young people.
:53:19. > :53:23.Oh, God! Spare as! I am sorry that David thinks... That is quite
:53:24. > :53:26.insulting for the young people who are undertaking these
:53:27. > :53:33.apprenticeships. They are getting jobs as a result. What we need to do
:53:34. > :53:37.is make sure that, traditionally, the wood for young people has been
:53:38. > :53:41.about university education, and what is patronising, David, is saying
:53:42. > :53:46.that all apprenticeships are useless. I am not saying that,
:53:47. > :53:50.customer services, six weeks, no quality? We are providing young
:53:51. > :53:56.people with the experience they need to then take up jobs that are there,
:53:57. > :53:59.because their jobs in London. There is this mantra, all political
:54:00. > :54:02.parties, get them into apprenticeships, we need more.
:54:03. > :54:07.Nobody is talking about quality, the length, whether you can get jobs at
:54:08. > :54:10.the end, the fact that there are adults doing these apprenticeships.
:54:11. > :54:14.Speak to young people in their bedrooms not doing apprenticeships.
:54:15. > :54:20.We need quality opportunities, not this Mickey Mouse stuff.
:54:21. > :54:25.We preview did last week, and this week it is out. The Conservative
:54:26. > :54:31.Party's YouTube attack on Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, branding them
:54:32. > :54:32.mystic Ed and his crystal Balls, predicting Britain's economic slump
:54:33. > :55:11.would get worse. And here it is. Well, Halloween is coming soon,
:55:12. > :55:16.isn't it? Is it a work of art? Listen, it is funny, we are all
:55:17. > :55:20.talking about it, and in many ways because we have so little of this at
:55:21. > :55:26.the moment, you know, I think it is making a bit of an impact. The truth
:55:27. > :55:32.is that once everyone has stuff like this on YouTube, it will die loot
:55:33. > :55:39.its impact, but at the moment... How are you measuring the impact that is
:55:40. > :55:46.well above my pay grade! Does it work to Mack I think it is mildly
:55:47. > :55:51.entertaining, and I think it what is does is end use the supporters,
:55:52. > :55:58.Conservative Party supporters, but at the bottom of it there is a
:55:59. > :56:00.serious message, and that is that Ed Miliband and the Labour Party
:56:01. > :56:04.predicted that growth would go down, but it has gone up, that jobs would
:56:05. > :56:12.go down, but they have gone up. There is a serious basis for what is
:56:13. > :56:15.a mildly humorous piece. What is the Labour response? What creative
:56:16. > :56:21.response are you going to have to mystic Ed and his crystal Balls? I
:56:22. > :56:27.think this is shockingly bad! It is puerile, it lacks innovation, it
:56:28. > :56:31.speaks down to people. There are some serious issues out here. The
:56:32. > :56:35.idea that people sat in Conservative Central Office have come up with
:56:36. > :56:39.is... They are taking it too seriously. Try being one of the
:56:40. > :56:43.people in my constituency, this is what you might dream up in a pub.
:56:44. > :56:50.The fact that we are talking about it shows it is successful. Oh, God!
:56:51. > :56:56.In the United States, a lot of this, the attack adverts are de rigueur,
:56:57. > :57:01.and thankfully we don't have that. Will we see more of that? We are not
:57:02. > :57:06.allowed to get in that way. There are very strict financial limits.
:57:07. > :57:10.That was the very purpose of the transparency bill through the House
:57:11. > :57:14.of Commons, that was about stopping super packed style campaigning that
:57:15. > :57:17.they have in the United States, where organisations that are not
:57:18. > :57:21.accountable put a huge amount of money into the political campaigns
:57:22. > :57:27.of one or other of the parties, and thanks to that bill, that will not
:57:28. > :57:34.happen here. It is on YouTube. So what?! Is that the future? There is
:57:35. > :57:38.a lot of rubbish on YouTube! I think that the Conservatives spent money
:57:39. > :57:42.on this, presumably, and they expected it to go viral. It might go
:57:43. > :57:46.viral for the wrong reasons. But really this kind of politics is
:57:47. > :57:50.precisely why Russell Brand has said what he said. Labour would do
:57:51. > :57:54.something similar. We have done things that have been shopping as
:57:55. > :57:59.well, but I don't think we should treat the electorate like this. Does
:58:00. > :58:03.it go down well, all that negative advertising? I don't like that,
:58:04. > :58:06.party should be able to put out a more positive message, but the
:58:07. > :58:10.American evidence suggests that it works, that is the depressing side
:58:11. > :58:16.of it, and I suspect we have not seen the last of it. What will you
:58:17. > :58:19.come up with? As I said, I think it is mildly humorous, and in terms of
:58:20. > :58:24.the political impact, it is extremely limited. It is very rare
:58:25. > :58:30.for a short clip to have an impact. Perhaps the one example might be the
:58:31. > :58:34.Neil Kinnock walking down the beach and being washed away by an incoming
:58:35. > :58:38.wave, that has an impact, but I do not think this will have any
:58:39. > :58:41.impact. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your predictions! Thank you
:58:42. > :58:45.for coming in at the very last minute, that was very good of you
:58:46. > :58:49.and we appreciated. Thank you to my guests for battling in against the
:58:50. > :58:53.storm. The one o'clock news is starting on BBC One. I will be here
:58:54. > :58:54.at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the day.
:58:55. > :58:56.Bye-bye.