:00:36. > :00:42.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. The EU and Ukraine
:00:43. > :00:45.sign a new deal to forge closer ties. It comes after new sanctions
:00:46. > :00:48.were announced against the Russian regime. But as EU leaders gather in
:00:49. > :00:54.Brussels, there are still differences over how to respond to
:00:55. > :01:00.the Russian annexation of Crimea. Is now the time to get tough on Putin?
:01:01. > :01:03.We'll be joined by Poland's ambassador to the UK. Is George
:01:04. > :01:09.Osborne developing "bad habits" when it comes to looking after the public
:01:10. > :01:12.finances? Heaven forbid! But the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinks
:01:13. > :01:18.so. We'll discuss that and all the other fallout from the budget. Ed
:01:19. > :01:21.Miliband says a vote for independence in Scotland and a
:01:22. > :01:25.Conservative victory in the General Election would mean a "race to the
:01:26. > :01:28.bottom" across the country. You But will Labour's plan for more
:01:29. > :01:31.devolution be tempting enough for Scotland's voters? And, did anyone
:01:32. > :01:35.predict this would be the outcome of the last General Election? We'll be
:01:36. > :01:36.gazing into our crystal ball and trying to figure out what might
:01:37. > :01:53.happen in 2015. All that in the next hour, and with
:01:54. > :01:56.us for the duration two of the most upstanding and loyal members of Her
:01:57. > :02:00.Majesty's press corps, Sam Coates from the Times and Beth Rigby from
:02:01. > :02:06.the Financial Times. Welcome to the show. Now if you have any thoughts
:02:07. > :02:09.or comments on anything we're discussing then you can send them to
:02:10. > :02:10.us daily.politics@bbc.co.uk or tweet your comments using the hashtag
:02:11. > :02:19.#bbcdp. Let's start with the Budget again
:02:20. > :02:23.because this morning's papers aren't quite as kind to George Osborne as
:02:24. > :02:27.yesterday's. Beth's paper, the FT, has a headline saying: "Osborne
:02:28. > :02:30.chided for 'bad habits'". This is in response to the post-budget briefing
:02:31. > :02:36.given by the independent think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
:02:37. > :02:40.The IFS is particularly concerned that Mr Osborne is making permanent
:02:41. > :02:45.giveaways but not being clear about how they will be funded. Here's what
:02:46. > :02:53.the IFS director Paul Johnson had to say. The Chancellor has tried to pay
:02:54. > :02:57.for some permanent tax cuts and permanent spending increases by one
:02:58. > :03:00.or two small things which are just being brought forward a bit so might
:03:01. > :03:05.cost him money in the long run, all look a bit less permanent Thomas so
:03:06. > :03:13.the long-term effect will be to have a small but negative impact on
:03:14. > :03:22.public finances -- a bit less permanent to me. He is a kind of
:03:23. > :03:26.independent analysis of budget figures. There was criticism is Tom
:03:27. > :03:32.about as criticism goes, it was a slap on wrist. The ISS go straight
:03:33. > :03:43.to the heart of the budget. -- the REF S. -- IFS he did manage to find
:03:44. > :03:48.pension money without having to put any taxes up, so he has brought
:03:49. > :03:53.loads of money forward and there was a bit for everyone in it. You have
:03:54. > :03:57.the bingo tax, the fuel duty and then this pensions revolution which
:03:58. > :04:05.took everybody by surprise and has taken time to digester. My sense of
:04:06. > :04:10.this is that machine was taken off. As time goes on and people look at
:04:11. > :04:15.the ramification of the pension reform, then there might be more
:04:16. > :04:21.criticism because it throws up people using it to avoid tax,
:04:22. > :04:28.whether you're already fuel is a booming housing market. -- whether
:04:29. > :04:35.it already fuels. He's had a good response, but in the cold light of
:04:36. > :04:40.day, the sheen. , . -- the sheen will come off. The papers are full
:04:41. > :04:45.of the pension announcements, and people are just beginning to grapple
:04:46. > :04:50.with the incredible implications. George Osborne had a very clear idea
:04:51. > :04:54.in this budget, he wanted to do everything he could to make people
:04:55. > :04:59.feel better off the big the pensions this week were one arm of that. We
:05:00. > :05:05.saw two things in the paper this morning will stop first there was
:05:06. > :05:10.the initial look by the public, and at first glance they seemed to greet
:05:11. > :05:14.the pension changes favourably. There are big questions about
:05:15. > :05:17.whether it will discourage people from saving and start people dipping
:05:18. > :05:20.into their saving pots. But the current system wasn't working and
:05:21. > :05:24.George Osborne was onto something when he suggested the reform.
:05:25. > :05:30.Whether this will work all the wheels come off remains to be seen.
:05:31. > :05:36.The narrative of Budget has not been set, I would argue. Labour says it
:05:37. > :05:40.was not a game changing Budget. They said they would still go on the cost
:05:41. > :05:45.of living. I think we have to wait and see about that. The first two
:05:46. > :05:49.polls we have seen since the Budget has seen the Labour Party go up, but
:05:50. > :05:55.when people digester big changes people might just offer documents --
:05:56. > :05:58.digester their big changes, and people might dust off their big
:05:59. > :06:04.changes, and people might just offer documents and it might give the more
:06:05. > :06:08.money than they thought. George Barker in the Financial Times has a
:06:09. > :06:14.quote from an anonymous Labour MP wondering aloud if the cost of
:06:15. > :06:22.living crisis narrative that Ed Miliband this stock with in his
:06:23. > :06:27.response has got legs? -- that Ed Miliband has stuck with. If the obi
:06:28. > :06:35.are saying wages will overtake prices and every year for the next
:06:36. > :06:39.five -- the OBR say wages will overtake prices, then it might run
:06:40. > :06:44.out of steam. If household incomes start rising the key argument about
:06:45. > :06:50.winning the 2015 election falls away. What is it got left? The
:06:51. > :06:57.problem for the Labour Party is that they have this one trick pony, and
:06:58. > :07:00.other elements of the debate are set by the Conservatives, the economic
:07:01. > :07:05.debate, the welfare debate and they need to start coming up with a
:07:06. > :07:09.broader set of selling points to the electorate and being more creative.
:07:10. > :07:14.People in the office of Ed Miliband know that his response was a bit
:07:15. > :07:20.weak. He seems to be responding to the 2012 budget rather than the 2014
:07:21. > :07:23.budget that has caused some upset. Labour have a big decision to make.
:07:24. > :07:29.Do they back and vote for the big pension changes or do they say that
:07:30. > :07:32.we reject those changes because they will mean that some people will
:07:33. > :07:43.spend their money and be left in January. They can't be left in pen
:07:44. > :07:51.Yuri, because they will store have the state pension. -- they can't be
:07:52. > :07:54.left penniless. These are the unanswered questions. Yesterday it
:07:55. > :08:04.was pointed out that although pensions or the state pension,
:08:05. > :08:08.there's that, but 20% claim housing benefit, so if we end up with
:08:09. > :08:13.pensioners who have spent their pensions, what happens to the
:08:14. > :08:17.housing bill? It doesn't really quantify what the knock-on effect
:08:18. > :08:21.is, but it does say that most means tested benefits have gone so it
:08:22. > :08:26.makes it more realistic to expect people to live on the state
:08:27. > :08:32.pension, and if you spend all your money, then so be it. You could be
:08:33. > :08:37.claiming housing benefit in the Costa Del Sol. There will still be
:08:38. > :08:42.something like a third of pensioners on means tested benefits in 2030. We
:08:43. > :08:46.will have to move on, because that will be in the debate tomorrow. EU
:08:47. > :08:49.leaders, gathering for their spring summit in Brussels, have signed an
:08:50. > :08:51.agreement on closer relations with Ukraine, in a show of support
:08:52. > :08:58.following Russia's annexation of Crimea. However, it comes as the
:08:59. > :09:01.upper house of the Russian Parliament - the Duma - unanimously
:09:02. > :09:06.approved the treaty on Crimea joining the Russian Federation. The
:09:07. > :09:09.EU this morning announced sanctions on another 12 Russian individuals
:09:10. > :09:11.and warned that further destabilisation in Ukraine would
:09:12. > :09:25.have "far-reaching consequences" for Russia. Of course, the Kremlin has
:09:26. > :09:29.heard that before. But how far are EU leaders prepared to go? William
:09:30. > :09:31.Hague vowed to fight for the strongest sanctions available,
:09:32. > :09:39.possibly Russia's exclusion from the G8, but will be aware of London's
:09:40. > :09:42.reliance on Russian money. France is taking a cautious approach, as
:09:43. > :09:45.they've signed a 1.2 billion euro deal with Russian for two warships.
:09:46. > :09:48.German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the Crimean invasion as
:09:49. > :09:52."the law of the jungle", though Germany relies on 36 billion euros
:09:53. > :09:53.of exports to Russia, and almost the same amount of imported Russian
:09:54. > :10:07.energy. But it's Poland who seem most
:10:08. > :10:11.determined to impose harsh sanctions, despite their dependence
:10:12. > :10:19.on Russian energy and a 30 billion euro trade relationship. Joining me
:10:20. > :10:27.now from Brussels is our political correspondent Iain Watson. What is
:10:28. > :10:33.the latest at the summit? The latest is we expect some of the press
:10:34. > :10:37.conferences to begin soon -- soon. The list of the 12 Russians has
:10:38. > :10:40.still not been published and we are told it will not be published until
:10:41. > :10:44.later this afternoon so if we wanted to ask David Cameron and Angela
:10:45. > :10:49.Merkel about it, we can't. But I have been told there are no Russian
:10:50. > :10:52.oligarchs on the list. We thought it would be a high-powered list but it
:10:53. > :10:57.was slightly less high-powered than the American one issued yesterday.
:10:58. > :11:01.It seems to be tweaking the tale of Vladimir Putin but he is still
:11:02. > :11:06.strutting around and endorsing the annexation of Crimea. What we
:11:07. > :11:12.expect, if anything, will come out of the summit today? I think there
:11:13. > :11:16.will be two things. First of all, you have the political agreement
:11:17. > :11:23.signed with the Ukraine and then the prospect of signing an economic
:11:24. > :11:27.agreements after May, that is what many people thought sparked the
:11:28. > :11:31.argument from Vladimir Putin when it was mooted in the autumn. We will
:11:32. > :11:35.also see a statement on energy policy, so in the short term we have
:11:36. > :11:44.the sanctions discussion but in the medium and longer term -- it is how
:11:45. > :11:51.you get countries less dependent on Russian oil and gas. Germany is 30
:11:52. > :11:55.or 40% dependent. So there will be a move to recast the trading
:11:56. > :12:00.relationship with Russia and make the EU diversify its energy supply,
:12:01. > :12:06.and Britain has been circulating ideas on that. The next stage is
:12:07. > :12:09.drawing up a list from the European Commission on future sanctions if
:12:10. > :12:14.there is any further ones to come and any further destabilisation I've
:12:15. > :12:18.played it -- President Putin. But the rub is this, what does
:12:19. > :12:23.destabilisation mean? Does that mean Russian tanks going to eastern
:12:24. > :12:32.Ukraine? Is it short of that? So the consensus on drawing up the list
:12:33. > :12:36.will be nonexistent. While we were talking we learn that the US is
:12:37. > :12:40.preparing military exercises in Poland involving the Czech Republic,
:12:41. > :12:44.Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states. That is
:12:45. > :12:52.according to Polish radio quoting the US ambassador to Warsaw. With us
:12:53. > :12:54.now is Richard Ottaway, Conservative MP and Chairman of the Foreign
:12:55. > :13:01.Affairs Select Committee, and Polish Ambassador Witold Sobkow. Wellcome,
:13:02. > :13:08.ambassador. Let me come to you first. Presumably these exercises,
:13:09. > :13:12.they are a signal to the Kremlin that those states that are members
:13:13. > :13:18.of NATO and have the protection of NATO and are also in the EU, they
:13:19. > :13:24.are an entirely different league than Ukraine Crimea. Poland has been
:13:25. > :13:34.a member since 1999, so this is something that should be natural.
:13:35. > :13:37.There are no two classes of membership, so this is another
:13:38. > :13:44.exercise we have already had with our allies. But the timing is
:13:45. > :13:46.significant. Yes, but it is also a strengthening of the bilateral ties
:13:47. > :13:50.with the USA. We have been talking with the Ministry of Defence, and
:13:51. > :13:56.NATO countries, and we are preparing for the summit to talk about in --
:13:57. > :14:00.many things including Afghanistan and strengthening defences there.
:14:01. > :14:03.This is in the context of what is going on in Eastern Europe of
:14:04. > :14:12.course, but it is not only a response to the crisis, this is
:14:13. > :14:19.another symptom of our stronger relationships with NATO members. And
:14:20. > :14:23.that includes the UK. Do you think that the member states of the
:14:24. > :14:30.European Union have the stomach for tougher sanctions against Russia? I
:14:31. > :14:35.do. We have a lot of unity at the moment. It's not easy. You have 28
:14:36. > :14:39.members of the European Union, and it it's different from the USA where
:14:40. > :14:46.you have decisions taken from the top. Of course, it was mentioned in
:14:47. > :14:49.your report that when it comes to oligarchs, for example, we have
:14:50. > :14:55.different legal regulations. But we have a lot of unity with the USA.
:14:56. > :15:00.The deputy president has just visited Poland and Lithuania. The
:15:01. > :15:06.Americans are taking tougher sanctions than the EU. Because it is
:15:07. > :15:15.easier. Yes, and it is easier to take decisions, and we do not have
:15:16. > :15:21.to think about the other 28. How tough and United would Europe remain
:15:22. > :15:27.if and when Mr Putin retaliates, which he almost certainly will? I
:15:28. > :15:31.think a lot of people get it wrong, that this is just about economic
:15:32. > :15:41.matters. It's about values and red lines and the world order. I have a
:15:42. > :15:46.symbol of a Polish group that fought during the Battle of Britain and it
:15:47. > :15:48.is symbolic. It is about values. We can do anything that is in
:15:49. > :15:54.accordance with international law but we cannot allow things happening
:15:55. > :15:59.at the peril of Russian guns. I understand that. I would suggest
:16:00. > :16:03.that most people in Europe, although they don't like what the Russians
:16:04. > :16:07.have been doing in Crimea, don't actually think it's a huge deal.
:16:08. > :16:10.They think it's a done deal. They regret it but it's not something
:16:11. > :16:18.they want to have a fight over, even in sanctions. And the Kremlin is
:16:19. > :16:23.able, in the short run, to withstand a lot more pain of any sanctions we
:16:24. > :16:26.impose than the West is prepared to do the moment they start cutting the
:16:27. > :16:32.gas supplies to countries like yours. It's two-way traffic. They
:16:33. > :16:36.need to earn money and they need to have profits and I think it's also
:16:37. > :16:43.important that we should think about the implications. What about
:16:44. > :16:47.countries like Iran and North Korea? If we think about the memorandum
:16:48. > :16:53.from Budapest, it was a kind of guarantee for Ukraine, for a country
:16:54. > :16:58.that got rid of nuclear weapons, that those who signed the memorandum
:16:59. > :17:02.- including Russia - guaranteed the sovereignty of the country. What
:17:03. > :17:07.about the applications around the world? Richard Ottaway, we
:17:08. > :17:12.understand that but what I'm trying to establish is, what is the
:17:13. > :17:18.appropriate EU response and if it is to be a tough one, do we have the
:17:19. > :17:24.stomach for it? You have to remember that the EU has to work with what we
:17:25. > :17:28.can agree. Some countries want to go further, some don't want to go so
:17:29. > :17:36.far. Some countries are impacted more by the behaviour. Including
:17:37. > :17:40.Poland. There is no such thing as cost free sanctions. They're
:17:41. > :17:43.knock-on consequences and I think the measured and calibrated
:17:44. > :17:49.diplomatic response is the right way to go. A very firm statement that if
:17:50. > :17:54.this gets any worse, it will get worse from our point of view. Are we
:17:55. > :18:00.right to be taking sanctions against what has happened in Crimea? Does
:18:01. > :18:05.that make sense? They are fairly limited at the moment. There has to
:18:06. > :18:08.be a Western response. This is a breach of international law and the
:18:09. > :18:16.agreement in Budapest. You can't just ignore it. It is relatively
:18:17. > :18:20.token at the moment. The big issue will be if there is further
:18:21. > :18:28.intervention in eastern Ukraine. What would we do them? I think the
:18:29. > :18:33.only way is economic and financial measures. What's changed now is that
:18:34. > :18:38.Russia is now more integrated into the world economy. Their companies
:18:39. > :18:43.rely on capital provided here in the city of. We actually do have quite a
:18:44. > :18:49.lot of financial leverage. -- the city of London. Germany has
:18:50. > :18:55.Volkswagen operating in Russia, we have BP operating in Russia, and Mr
:18:56. > :18:59.Putin, being an autocrat, will not hesitate, I would suggest, to move
:19:00. > :19:05.against them if we move against his people and his assets. You are right
:19:06. > :19:10.to bring up BP. Don't forget, there are millions of British pensioners
:19:11. > :19:14.with their money in BP at the moment so this isn't just a City problem.
:19:15. > :19:20.It affects my constituents and everybody. I think the Russian
:19:21. > :19:25.economy is in fairly bad shape. Take away their oil and gas exports,
:19:26. > :19:29.they're in a poor position and I think this call sanctions will
:19:30. > :19:35.really hit their much harder. -- fiscal sanctions. That may be true
:19:36. > :19:41.in the long run at in the short run - I put this to the Ambassador - if
:19:42. > :19:49.the EU toughens up the sanctions, what happens to Poland if Mr Putin
:19:50. > :19:54.says he's turning off the gas? It isn't just gas. Just stick with
:19:55. > :20:00.that. We're going to suffer and we're going to sacrifice for this.
:20:01. > :20:04.What would be the consequences? You one of the countries that most
:20:05. > :20:08.dependent on Russia. What would be the consequences if gas was turned
:20:09. > :20:16.off or, at least, severely restricted? We can cope with this
:20:17. > :20:20.situation. I would rather concentrate on things like
:20:21. > :20:25.agriculture. Our exports to Russia - beef, pork, apples, pears - because
:20:26. > :20:37.this is a huge loss for Polish producers. Oil is easier. We can get
:20:38. > :20:43.oil from anywhere. Gas wouldn't be so easy. No, but we can cope with
:20:44. > :20:49.this. We have some Polish gas. Are you up for some hardship on this? We
:20:50. > :20:58.can buy gas from other sources so we can cope. You are building an energy
:20:59. > :21:01.terminal. Richard, is it wise for the EU at the moment, when we don't
:21:02. > :21:09.know what the Kremlin's next move will be now that it has voted that
:21:10. > :21:13.Crimea is part of the Russian Federation... Is it wise to talk
:21:14. > :21:19.about a trade agreement with Ukraine, still trying to be lowering
:21:20. > :21:22.there? Haven't we overreached ourselves in the past in the
:21:23. > :21:31.European Union and NATO and angered Putin? Personally, I think we are
:21:32. > :21:37.right to go on talking about an association agreement because it
:21:38. > :21:40.isn't an either or. If Ukraine signs and Association agreement it does
:21:41. > :21:47.not protrude it from trading openly with Russia. -- preclude it. We've
:21:48. > :21:53.fallen out with the Kremlin so let's not worry too much about their
:21:54. > :21:57.sensitivities about this. The important point is what Ian Watson
:21:58. > :22:02.alluded to, which is that we have to look much more into the long-term.
:22:03. > :22:09.Let's remove our dependency on Russian oil and gas. More emphasis
:22:10. > :22:15.on shale gas in Poland? Why has it taken the Ukraine crisis for
:22:16. > :22:17.Europe's leaders to confront the bleeding obvious, which is that
:22:18. > :22:24.they're far too dependent on Russian gas? Well, when they went into
:22:25. > :22:27.Georgia... The Russians are still occupying 20% of Georgia. That
:22:28. > :22:32.should have been the wake-up call and nothing seems to have happened.
:22:33. > :22:36.There are companies now looking quite actively at building those
:22:37. > :22:40.pipelines across Ukraine and further south, which are going to be very
:22:41. > :22:48.important. Beth, what are your thoughts? I wonder, given that it is
:22:49. > :22:52.so hard to get agreement within the European Union - 28 countries - how
:22:53. > :22:58.much would Europe like the US to lead this in terms of the economic
:22:59. > :23:03.and financial tensions? And not be involved themselves? Yes, that's
:23:04. > :23:08.what interests me. The fact that the Americans put those sanctions in
:23:09. > :23:15.yesterday, the Russian stock market fell today. They targeted the
:23:16. > :23:19.plutocracy around Mr Putin. That would be my question. Would it be
:23:20. > :23:26.easier if the US just did this? Let that hang in the air and bring Sam
:23:27. > :23:30.in. He wants to look like he is at the most hawkish end of the European
:23:31. > :23:35.market but within the foreign office there are elements in the foreign
:23:36. > :23:37.office but want to slow our response and the business department are
:23:38. > :23:44.concerned about the economic impacts so there is the dead weight of the
:23:45. > :23:49.machine holding Cameron back. Richard Ottaway, if you can address
:23:50. > :23:51.that, then a final word from the Ambassador. I think the prime
:23:52. > :23:55.minister has produced a balanced response but I think, in answer to
:23:56. > :24:00.Beth, this is going to be a wake-up call for Europe. This is not
:24:01. > :24:06.Georgia. This has got right into the political system. There's a meeting
:24:07. > :24:10.going on in Brussels today and that illustrates that we now have to work
:24:11. > :24:15.out the alternatives and it's going produce long-term strategies with
:24:16. > :24:20.Europe in the lead. Ambassador, final question. What will happen
:24:21. > :24:24.next? It seems to me that Crimea is a done deal, is now part of the
:24:25. > :24:31.Russian Federation and that will not be reversed by the Ukrainians or by
:24:32. > :24:37.Europe. How at risk, either from an intervention or from simply becoming
:24:38. > :24:44.a sphere of influence, to the Kremlin, is the east of Ukraine? We
:24:45. > :24:48.are watching it with caution and that is why, in the European Union,
:24:49. > :24:55.we are preferring for the third stage of sanctions. -- preparing
:24:56. > :25:00.for. We are thinking of what we can do in the future if it happens. We
:25:01. > :25:05.hope it will never happen but then we will have new economic sanctions
:25:06. > :25:10.and financial sanctions. Tougher sanctions? Yes, the third energy
:25:11. > :25:16.package and some exemptions. We have Gazprom and other things. We hope
:25:17. > :25:22.it's not going to happen. It could, though, could it not? We must be
:25:23. > :25:28.prepared for anything. The red line is NATO countries. In your view, has
:25:29. > :25:32.NATO and the United States made it clear enough to the Kremlin that
:25:33. > :25:40.NATO countries, the Baltic states included, are a different ball game?
:25:41. > :25:44.I think so, yes. There is Article five of the Washington Treaty and I
:25:45. > :25:51.think it's pretty clear. That is the common defence. Yes, the common
:25:52. > :25:59.defence. Thank you both for being with us.
:26:00. > :26:02.Now you lot probably think Parliament has its fair share of
:26:03. > :26:05.berks, but one MP is certain there's rarely been a smarter one than
:26:06. > :26:08.Edmund Burke. The 18th-century MP, philosopher and political thinker
:26:09. > :26:12.created the blueprint for what an MP should be. And when we say blue, he
:26:13. > :26:17.was also arguably the founder of modern Conservatism. And he was an
:26:18. > :26:20.Irishman. In another of our Great Political Thinkers series, Giles has
:26:21. > :26:22.been looking into the life and thoughts of a Burke who was far from
:26:23. > :26:45.stupid. It's fair to say the 18th-century
:26:46. > :26:50.political philosopher Edmund Burke, who lived in this street, wouldn't
:26:51. > :26:54.recognise it today. It is the heart of London's Chinatown. But he would
:26:55. > :26:58.recognise the British Glasgow system as it is today because, according to
:26:59. > :27:04.a Conservative MP and his biographer, he's the man who shaped
:27:05. > :27:09.it. Edmund Burke didn't start out in politics but studied law at the
:27:10. > :27:15.Middle Temple, mainly to please his father. How are you? Good to see
:27:16. > :27:20.you. We are here in this magnificent Middle Temple Hall, which is where
:27:21. > :27:26.Edmund Burke arrives in London studying law. Why do you like him? I
:27:27. > :27:29.love him because he's an extraordinary writer and political
:27:30. > :27:34.thinker and a terrific campaign against social injustice. In short,
:27:35. > :27:40.he writes a textbook for what a good MP should be. He's also, of course,
:27:41. > :27:45.first Conservative, if you like. Yes, the first man who mulls
:27:46. > :27:50.conservatism into a body of thought. He studies law like lots of MPs but
:27:51. > :27:54.doesn't really like it. No, he loves the law but isn't keen at all on the
:27:55. > :27:59.Middle Temple and seems to have found it a try, narrow Temple. He
:28:00. > :28:02.has a lovely simile. He that lives in a college after his mind is
:28:03. > :28:07.sufficiently stocked with learning is like having a man who, built,
:28:08. > :28:13.rigged and bejewelled ship, is locked in a dry dock. And he's very
:28:14. > :28:19.keen to get out into London and explore and expand but he finds some
:28:20. > :28:24.influential friends. Yes, London is going through a sexual and artistic
:28:25. > :28:31.revolution and he's keen to get out and explore.
:28:32. > :28:39.So, we're talking about Burke. Why have you brought me here? Well,
:28:40. > :28:43.doctor Johnson and Burke are two of the great beasts of 18th-century
:28:44. > :28:50.London so I thought we should see Dr John Simm's house. The man who says
:28:51. > :28:58.that when a man is tired of London he is tired of life lives are just
:28:59. > :29:05.of Fleet get inside. What has Johnson got to do with Berg? Johnson
:29:06. > :29:09.is Burke's ticket to the centre of London and it's an amazing moment
:29:10. > :29:12.when Britain is exploding with talent and thought. You've got Adam
:29:13. > :29:18.Smith recognising and revolutionising economic. Burke is
:29:19. > :29:24.determined to leave his own imprint. He comes up with the first
:29:25. > :29:28.theory of representative government and of party politics and the duties
:29:29. > :29:31.of an MP and what is extraordinary is, he doesn't just talk about it
:29:32. > :29:35.but really puts it into practice himself. There's a great moment
:29:36. > :29:40.where he says to his constituents, " I'm not going to kiss your boots.
:29:41. > :29:44.What really matters is that I act on your behalf according to my best
:29:45. > :29:47.judgement and not simple it on your instructions" . That's become the
:29:48. > :29:56.great doctrine of the way an MP thinks today. A reader in politics
:29:57. > :30:01.at Oxford University says that Burke runs into trouble with two very
:30:02. > :30:04.different revolutions. At the time, he was horribly criticised by people
:30:05. > :30:09.who felt very let down by him because he had a reputation of being
:30:10. > :30:14.a reformer, of being progressive, and his reaction to the French
:30:15. > :30:18.Revolution was simply reactionary. Very, very extreme. He went from one
:30:19. > :30:24.extreme to the other and people were shocked. So we've come to this club
:30:25. > :30:30.just in the heart of Saint James's. Burke becomes a member here. We are
:30:31. > :30:33.not allowed to film inside. But Burke is in favour of the American
:30:34. > :30:41.Revolution but not the French Revolution. You don't see a contrary
:30:42. > :30:44.action? -- contradiction. He's but from the wrong side of the tracks so
:30:45. > :30:52.he's thrilled by the social acceptance. What is fascinating is
:30:53. > :30:55.that this is the home of the reformers and Burke really believes
:30:56. > :30:59.in reform and not Revolution and the reason why he's supported the
:31:00. > :31:03.Americans is that he thinks their way of life needs to be observed
:31:04. > :31:07.against crown imperial power. The reason he's against the French
:31:08. > :31:12.Revolution is because he thinks it is being overturned by a violent
:31:13. > :31:16.upheaval and that's what he opposes. Reform is important because we don't
:31:17. > :31:21.have a revolution. No, we come close to one in the 1820s but we never
:31:22. > :31:26.have it. We have the great reform act in 1832 and then the second
:31:27. > :31:31.reform act in 1867 and those are the two great steps towards modern
:31:32. > :31:34.Parliamentary democracy. Let's go to the heart of modern Parliamentary
:31:35. > :31:42.democracy and find out what his relevance is today.
:31:43. > :31:49.So we started in a magnificent hall and we are ending in one. Why have
:31:50. > :31:57.you brought us to Westminster great Hall? And why in relation to Burke?
:31:58. > :32:01.It is in this building he drags back the Governor general of India in the
:32:02. > :32:06.mid-1780s, they have been filling their boots in the company and he's
:32:07. > :32:09.determined to put them on trial for public accountability. What
:32:10. > :32:14.relevance does Burke have what happens in chamber today? He drives
:32:15. > :32:20.the line between state intervention we can't afford and cutting loose
:32:21. > :32:22.markets that damage society. It's through him we understand social
:32:23. > :32:28.renewal and without and we cannot understand modern politics at all.
:32:29. > :32:40.And we can speak now to Jesse Norman, who's in Worcester for us.
:32:41. > :32:44.Welcome to the Daily Politics. One man described Burke as the most
:32:45. > :32:54.eloquent and rational madman I've ever known. He right? There is a
:32:55. > :32:58.grain of truth. As Burke, who spends most of his life in opposition,
:32:59. > :33:03.continues, he does become more extreme and more intemperate at
:33:04. > :33:08.times. There are moments when he does start to sound a little crazy.
:33:09. > :33:12.He's saying things that are so far ahead of their time that they do
:33:13. > :33:15.sound a little mad. He denounces the French Revolution while everyone
:33:16. > :33:21.else's massa rating themselves in self regard with joy at the
:33:22. > :33:27.possibility of constitutional change -- massa rating. That made him look
:33:28. > :33:35.to some a little mad but he turned out to be right all along. In his
:33:36. > :33:38.day, as these French revolution -- the French Revolution took a wrong
:33:39. > :33:44.turn or two, was it recognised he was right on the cheerleaders were
:33:45. > :33:49.wrong? -- and the cheerleaders. Yes, there was a way that public
:33:50. > :33:54.opinion adjusts itself to the way that Burke was right all along. He
:33:55. > :33:57.was so early and extremely strong in his condemnation that that process
:33:58. > :34:04.takes time. But the effect is to split politics because Whigs split,
:34:05. > :34:12.and then became ardent supporters of William Pitt. I think your professor
:34:13. > :34:14.is quite wrong. Burke is not a reactionary but is intensely
:34:15. > :34:20.concerned about the overturning of a society. He said that the French
:34:21. > :34:24.Revolution would ending bloodshed, international war and tyranny, and
:34:25. > :34:30.all those things taking place, the last of them happened after he died.
:34:31. > :34:34.Let me give you this quote. " Society is indeed a contract, a
:34:35. > :34:41.partnership between those who are living, those who are dead and those
:34:42. > :34:50.who are to be born" . Do you think modern conservatism has taken that
:34:51. > :34:55.on board? Not enough, in my view. All politics has become a little too
:34:56. > :34:58.dominated by what you might call utilitarianism and neoliberalism. We
:34:59. > :35:03.need to recover a proper conservative understanding. In the
:35:04. > :35:08.view of Burke, an individual is not a compendium of wants. The function
:35:09. > :35:12.of politics is not to satisfy those once, it is to create a social order
:35:13. > :35:18.in which generations past present and future can live freely and
:35:19. > :35:21.well. So I think the longer term perspective is something that people
:35:22. > :35:24.are desperately crying out for in politics, and the mechanisms that
:35:25. > :35:30.put it in place are to be welcomed and supported. You said in the film
:35:31. > :35:35.that the role of a constituency MP is to act on your behalf, according
:35:36. > :35:40.to your best judgement. Do you believe that MPs today following
:35:41. > :35:47.that? Or are they largely doing what the whips tell them. It's always a
:35:48. > :35:54.delicate balance. That was a delicate answer. Good MPs should be
:35:55. > :35:57.respectful of their loyalty to the party as well as to the issues
:35:58. > :36:03.involved. A good MP will strike a balance. The interesting thing about
:36:04. > :36:06.Burke is that he does not do any enormously effective working his
:36:07. > :36:09.constituency. He barely goes there having been elected to Bristol,
:36:10. > :36:15.which was the number two constituency in the country, so that
:36:16. > :36:17.is one aspect of what a good MP should be doing that Burke doesn't
:36:18. > :36:26.do, but nearly everything else good comes out of Burke. Beth, what do
:36:27. > :36:31.you think? The point made about society is prescient in that the
:36:32. > :36:35.whole big society idea from David Cameron was tapping into that, but
:36:36. > :36:43.unfortunately all of the polling suggests that we're becoming more
:36:44. > :36:46.individualistic. One thing that made Burke potent and remains so is that
:36:47. > :36:52.he was a really good writer. He wrote very clearly, didn't he? Yes,
:36:53. > :36:56.and you don't get that kind of clarity of speech in much of modern
:36:57. > :37:01.politics. I think the whole question of political philosophy is really
:37:02. > :37:08.interesting. In the last Parliament, Jessye Norman was the writer of some
:37:09. > :37:12.of the capacitive conservative ideas for David Cameron. I wonder if he
:37:13. > :37:17.thinks those kind of guiding principles are the ones that David
:37:18. > :37:20.Cameron follows today? We assume you would have put some of the
:37:21. > :37:28.principles of Burke into the road map you made for Mr Cameron? It is
:37:29. > :37:32.not really my road map, it is an attempt to backfill some of the
:37:33. > :37:37.story of what I think the party leader and now Prime Minister was
:37:38. > :37:41.trying to do. This is a thoroughly unpopular view, but I think the big
:37:42. > :37:45.society as a concept is alive and well. People don't care for the
:37:46. > :37:48.words but the idea is vital. If you think of the thing clearly, you will
:37:49. > :37:53.see the idea of empowering individuals and institutions and
:37:54. > :37:56.taking the state out of certain areas and, at the same time,
:37:57. > :38:02.allowing institutions to develop is something that is a great linking
:38:03. > :38:12.theme behind the government policy. Can we say that the Chancellor's
:38:13. > :38:16.pension reforms are Burkian? In some ways they are. They are giving you
:38:17. > :38:19.the safety net of the basic state pension but that is the limit of the
:38:20. > :38:23.state's willingness to underwrite you and you need to save more if
:38:24. > :38:26.you're going to do better than that. We will give you the autonomy to
:38:27. > :38:30.decide how to spend your pension, knowing that you have that fallback,
:38:31. > :38:38.but no more than that. That is a brave thing to do and a small sea
:38:39. > :38:44.conservative and Burkian thing to do as well. Now, Labour have been
:38:45. > :38:47.consistently ahead in the polls for some time now, the party's lead
:38:48. > :38:54.fluctuating anywhere from one point to 12 points. But does that mean Ed
:38:55. > :39:00.Miliband is a shoo-in for Number Ten? Well, not so fast. One expert
:39:01. > :39:03.has come up with a new method for predicting the outcome of the next
:39:04. > :39:07.General Election. We'll speak to him in just a moment. But, first, what
:39:08. > :39:10.do the bookmakers think will happen in 2015? Alex Donohue is from
:39:11. > :39:19.Ladbrokes, and he's on College Green with his blackboard. We actually
:39:20. > :39:25.have been doing predictions of our own and we make the Tory overall
:39:26. > :39:32.majority one of the outsiders. Tory most seats is 11/8. We do really
:39:33. > :39:36.fancy the Labour Party getting most seats, but will they convert it into
:39:37. > :39:40.a majority? I couldn't resist it today, Boris Johnson in the news, we
:39:41. > :39:46.have slashed the odds as he is the 5/1 favourite to be the next
:39:47. > :39:52.Conservative leader. He won't become Tory leader before the next
:39:53. > :39:57.election? With his popularity, with him in the party. I miss worded
:39:58. > :40:02.that. You think Mr Johnson could be a game changer on this? If he was
:40:03. > :40:06.confirmed as a runner at the next election in some shape or form, we
:40:07. > :40:11.think the odds would change. His popularity is soaring, we think. I
:40:12. > :40:15.notice you have the Liberal Democrats at 150/1 for the most
:40:16. > :40:20.seats and I think you should widen those odds are little. What odds are
:40:21. > :40:25.you giving on how many seats the Liberal Democrats will win next time
:40:26. > :40:29.around? We know that they are going to be in for lower the last time and
:40:30. > :40:33.we think the last count was between 20 or 30, and looking at those odds,
:40:34. > :40:42.we think Japan maybe have a better chance of winning the World Cup. The
:40:43. > :40:47.Liberal Democrats a -- 100 to get the most seats. The most likely
:40:48. > :40:51.result then is labour that most seats. And then the next with Labour
:40:52. > :40:56.having an overall majority? That is correct. Thank you for that.
:40:57. > :41:00.Fascinating. That's what the bookies think but what about the experts?
:41:01. > :41:02.Joining me from Oxford is Dr Stephen Fisher. He's a lecturer in political
:41:03. > :41:20.sociology at Oxford University. How does your methodology work? My
:41:21. > :41:24.methodology is all about comparing previous election results with polls
:41:25. > :41:27.at the same distance from the general election. So we are about 14
:41:28. > :41:33.months away from the general election in May 2015. If you look
:41:34. > :41:36.back at previous elections we can say what happened in those final 14
:41:37. > :41:41.months in each cycle. Typically what happens is that governments have
:41:42. > :41:45.lost support since the previous general election or regain some of
:41:46. > :41:52.their losses, and conversely, the opposition parties, who typically go
:41:53. > :41:58.up after the election, we'll come back down again and they will lose
:41:59. > :42:01.some of their games. -- gains. We see that in the first part of this
:42:02. > :42:08.cycle, and the other thing that the model considers is how accurate the
:42:09. > :42:13.polls have been on average. On average since 1974, the polls have
:42:14. > :42:16.tended to underestimate the Conservative Party vote and
:42:17. > :42:21.overestimate the Labour Party vote. So when we take into account all of
:42:22. > :42:24.these different factors and we run those numbers, it looks like the
:42:25. > :42:30.Conservative Party will actually emerge as the leaders both in terms
:42:31. > :42:35.of votes and even in terms of seats in the May 2015 general election.
:42:36. > :42:40.About 61% chance of being the largest party. The probability
:42:41. > :42:45.depends very heavily on uncertainty. There's a lot of uncertainty in that
:42:46. > :42:49.prediction because we are so far away from the general election. And
:42:50. > :42:56.that uncertainty in the show of the vote, which can be up or down 8%.
:42:57. > :43:02.You've given yourself a big margin of error. It is not me giving it, it
:43:03. > :43:06.is the variant in the previous election cycles. The patterns I have
:43:07. > :43:11.talked about our average patterns. They are not consistent and not
:43:12. > :43:14.always the same size. To be clear, unlike the bookies, who think it
:43:15. > :43:20.will be Labour largest or Labour overall, you think as it stands at
:43:21. > :43:25.the moment, your prediction is the Conservative Party as the largest
:43:26. > :43:31.party but not an overall majority? That's right. We agree with the
:43:32. > :43:35.bookies. The chance of a hung parliament is about 40 or 45%, but
:43:36. > :43:40.in terms of the probabilities of different parties being in the
:43:41. > :43:43.lead, Labour or Conservative, the bookies odds at the minute are about
:43:44. > :43:50.the opposite of the ones from this model. What would you say, and it is
:43:51. > :43:54.a cheap debating point, so I'll use it, people will think that the
:43:55. > :44:01.bookies have got a much better idea of what's going on than an Oxford
:44:02. > :44:04.academic? I would disagree. As far as I understand it, the bookies odds
:44:05. > :44:10.are driven heavily by what the punters think. The punters are not
:44:11. > :44:15.always terribly well-informed. They are the ones with the votes. Mostly
:44:16. > :44:22.the ones with the money and the interest. The other thing to bear in
:44:23. > :44:27.mind is, I've been talking about a model based solely on past election
:44:28. > :44:35.results. What about UKIP? Why do they fit into this? You don't tip --
:44:36. > :44:37.UKIP doesn't have a long track record of running post-war election
:44:38. > :44:41.campaigns, but I have got an estimate for the show and they are
:44:42. > :44:44.currently running at about 12% in the opinion polls, and the model
:44:45. > :44:54.suggests that they will get about 10%. Don't go away. Sam, what you
:44:55. > :44:57.make of this? I'd be concerned about any model that relies on past
:44:58. > :45:09.election results. We are in a different situation. I think that,
:45:10. > :45:14.in past elections what we've seen is a swing towards the government as
:45:15. > :45:17.polling day approaches. I'm just not sure that you can be confident that
:45:18. > :45:38.will happen this time. My question is, would you put 100 quid of your
:45:39. > :45:47.own money on your mod -- your own model. I'm worried about my family
:45:48. > :45:54.and friends losing their money. But I would say that I would prefer my
:45:55. > :45:58.model over the bookmakers'. Used by your model otherwise all that
:45:59. > :46:03.researchers they waste of time. -- you stick by your model. He's thrown
:46:04. > :46:08.it on its head for me. The conventional wisdom is that the
:46:09. > :46:15.Tories have to poll 6% ahead of Labour to even be the biggest party.
:46:16. > :46:19.OK, we have to be that there but I think we'll come back to you, Steven
:46:20. > :46:24.Fisher, as the model develops and the election approaches. Great,
:46:25. > :46:32.thank you very much. Thank you for joining us.
:46:33. > :46:35.The Labour leader addresses his Scottish conference today, where he
:46:36. > :46:39.will tell the party faithful they can fight for social justice better
:46:40. > :46:42.if they stay together. In the run up to the conference the party's
:46:43. > :46:45.devolution commission reported back on proposals for further devolution
:46:46. > :46:48.in the event of a "no" vote. It includes a further devolution of
:46:49. > :46:50.income tax and housing benefit. Joining me to discuss these
:46:51. > :46:54.proposals is Margaret Curran, the Shadow Secretary of State for
:46:55. > :46:59.Scotland. Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Isn't it true that these
:47:00. > :47:06.proposals have been watered down a bit from the original? No, what we
:47:07. > :47:09.have done in the devolution commission is look extensively at
:47:10. > :47:15.what the argument is that we get the balance between a sharing union and
:47:16. > :47:19.also a strong Scottish Parliament and powers to the Scottish people.
:47:20. > :47:23.Its powers for a purpose and that's what we're trying to achieve. Ed
:47:24. > :47:27.Miliband is coming here this afternoon. This is a very particular
:47:28. > :47:33.conference for Scottish Labour. We are conscious of the magnitude of
:47:34. > :47:38.the decision that we will make in September and we are thinking about
:47:39. > :47:42.empowering the Scottish people but also making sure we get the benefits
:47:43. > :47:44.of partnership within the union. The feelings are good and very positive
:47:45. > :47:50.and the proposals have just been given unanimous support by the
:47:51. > :47:57.delegates. The proposals to devolve three quarters of income tax
:47:58. > :48:05.revenues to a Scottish parliament - why not go the whole hog? Why just
:48:06. > :48:09.three quarters? As you will know, we have really passed more powers to
:48:10. > :48:14.the Scottish Parliament more where a separate portion of income tax will
:48:15. > :48:18.now be devolved. Since the parliament was set up, Scotland
:48:19. > :48:25.having some share of its income tax... It's never used it income tax
:48:26. > :48:28.powers. Why are you giving it more? When you look at the Cameron
:48:29. > :48:32.proposals, they have to use that. They have to make decisions about
:48:33. > :48:37.tax because the argument is, are we getting the balance between
:48:38. > :48:45.accountability and also getting the benefits of the sharing union? The
:48:46. > :48:51.whole message - and Mr Miliband is going to repeat it today - is that
:48:52. > :48:53.for Labour's fight for what it believes to be social justice, the
:48:54. > :48:57.country is better together because you have the whole might of the
:48:58. > :49:04.British state to go behind your plans for social justice. That
:49:05. > :49:07.includes a very strong tax base so why are you dividing the tax base up
:49:08. > :49:14.in this way? It would seem that you are undermining the whole purpose of
:49:15. > :49:18.being better together. On the contrary, that's exactly what we
:49:19. > :49:21.looked at in great depth and it's an evidence led commission and we've
:49:22. > :49:25.got a very strong set of appraisals. It is about getting that balance
:49:26. > :49:31.right between accountability and the Scottish Parliament. -- very strong
:49:32. > :49:34.set of proposals. That's where you get the 40% bracket you were
:49:35. > :49:41.referring to earlier. It's also being part of the union. We do get
:49:42. > :49:45.benefits out of our partnership, ?1200 better off Scots are because
:49:46. > :49:49.of being part of the union. We think the commission doesn't strike that
:49:50. > :49:54.balance. A strong Scottish Parliament working together. You
:49:55. > :49:58.will be aware, more than I am, that a number of your Scottish colleagues
:49:59. > :50:06.in Westminster are not that happy about this proposal and some of them
:50:07. > :50:10.think that it undermines the case against independence. No, I would
:50:11. > :50:16.have to correct you on that. That's not the case. I think some MPs were
:50:17. > :50:21.perhaps concerned some time ago but they're very satisfied with the
:50:22. > :50:29.proposals we've got now. Let me quote Michael McCann MP, your MP for
:50:30. > :50:33.East Kilbride... Let me put directly to you I had to give you the quote
:50:34. > :50:36.before you can reply. In the independence referendum, we are
:50:37. > :50:42.better when we pool our resources together in the UK. By proposing to
:50:43. > :50:47.devolve income tax we defeat our own argument. And he's the man that is
:50:48. > :50:52.tipped to be new leader of the Labour Party's Scottish MPs in
:50:53. > :50:55.Parliament. I can say directly to you I'm very close to Michael and
:50:56. > :51:01.he's very satisfied with the proposals. Why did he say this? That
:51:02. > :51:08.was the previous set of proposals, I think. Has he had the thumbscrews on
:51:09. > :51:12.him? Not at all. I wouldn't dream of doing anything like that. He is
:51:13. > :51:15.persuaded that we have got the balance right between powers for the
:51:16. > :51:19.Scottish parliament, a strong Scottish parliament accountable for
:51:20. > :51:25.the spending that it delivers, but also the benefits of the union. Did
:51:26. > :51:30.you think it is conceivable that Scotland - save a Scottish
:51:31. > :51:34.parliament controlled by the Labour Party or the Nationalists in
:51:35. > :51:40.Scotland - could have a much higher top rate of tax than England? I
:51:41. > :51:43.think, as you know, one of the proposals that is within the
:51:44. > :51:49.commission is the progressive tax, as we've framed it, that will allow
:51:50. > :51:53.Scotland... I know it will be allowed but do you think it is
:51:54. > :51:58.practical? Do you think that if the top rate of tax in a Tory England
:51:59. > :52:04.was 40%, do you think it's conceivable that Scotland could have
:52:05. > :52:08.a top rate of tax of 50%? Well, as you know, Labour's position is that
:52:09. > :52:13.we think there should be a top rate of 50%. With respect, that's not
:52:14. > :52:18.what I'm asking. What's the answer to my question? Is it conceivable
:52:19. > :52:22.that if England has a 40% top tax rate under a future Tory
:52:23. > :52:26.government, you would give the Scottish Parliament more powers, but
:52:27. > :52:32.is it practical politics to have a top rate of 50% when the top rate in
:52:33. > :52:37.England is 40%? What the commission is doing is giving powers to the
:52:38. > :52:41.Scottish Parliament about... We know that. About the taxes we've
:52:42. > :52:44.discussed. But the policy around those tax powers will be a matter
:52:45. > :52:48.for the administration that the Scottish people elect and it will be
:52:49. > :52:54.the Scottish people who determine what is a popular tax rate for them
:52:55. > :52:58.to pay. The fact is, if you are Scottish and left of centre and you
:52:59. > :53:02.want higher rates of tax on the better off, the best way to secure
:53:03. > :53:07.that is to have an independent Scotland controlled by a left of
:53:08. > :53:12.centre Parliament. No, not at all because then we would lose all the
:53:13. > :53:15.advantages of the sharing union we believe in so strongly and I know
:53:16. > :53:19.from a Scottish Labour point of view that we would always work to
:53:20. > :53:23.balance. We want people to give as much of their resources as they can
:53:24. > :53:26.but we also want to contribute to the collective good of society and
:53:27. > :53:30.distribute those resources for the benefit of us all and buyers are
:53:31. > :53:39.balance to be struck. -- there is a balance. We will always seek to
:53:40. > :53:44.strike that balance. Why did Mr Miliband, in his response to Mr
:53:45. > :53:48.Osborne's budget - and it was quite a long response - fail to mention a
:53:49. > :53:56.single Budget measure that had just been announced? I think what Ed
:53:57. > :54:00.Miliband gave was a very enthusiastic response. It was
:54:01. > :54:04.enthusiastically received by the Labour benches because I think he
:54:05. > :54:08.really focused on some of the key issues of concern about the Tory
:54:09. > :54:12.government. For example, how out of touch they are, that they seemed
:54:13. > :54:16.more concerned... But he didn't comment on what the Chancellor just
:54:17. > :54:20.announced. He'd said all that before. We know that's what he
:54:21. > :54:24.thinks. Why not tell us what he thought about the Budget? Well,
:54:25. > :54:28.Budget statement had just been announced and you need to look
:54:29. > :54:32.through the detail. We need to look at what was announced in relation to
:54:33. > :54:39.pensions. He should be able to think on his feet. I can tell you that it
:54:40. > :54:42.wouldn't be the first Budget in history, particularly from Mr
:54:43. > :54:46.Osborne, that has unravelled as soon as you look at the detail. I think
:54:47. > :54:50.Mr Miliband was very wise to make sure he took his time to look at
:54:51. > :54:54.that detail. But he was quite right too absolutely point out how out of
:54:55. > :54:58.touch the Tories were and that they had failed to address the cost of
:54:59. > :55:02.living crisis. We didn't hear what we needed to hear in the Budget and
:55:03. > :55:14.that's what Ed Miliband pointed out. Thank you for joining us. Enjoy
:55:15. > :55:17.yourself in Perth. I will. So the Budget was obviously the big
:55:18. > :55:21.story in Westminster this week. But what else has happening in the world
:55:22. > :55:23.of politics? Adam takes us through the week in just 60 seconds.
:55:24. > :55:26.In the Crimean referendum, the process was not transparent,
:55:27. > :55:30.according to Foreign Secretary William Hague. This is a referenda
:55:31. > :55:36.which doesn't meet any international standards. The do nothing, not
:55:37. > :55:40.really bothered Budget turned into quite a big deal, with reform of the
:55:41. > :55:45.entire pensions industry. Two thirds of a million pensioners will be
:55:46. > :55:51.helped. Critics of Ed Miliband's response asked what he was on about.
:55:52. > :55:59.Come on. Come on. Just nod your head. The Tory twit advert celebrity
:56:00. > :56:04.cuts to be attacks and bingo tax was dubbed patronising bite Labour. This
:56:05. > :56:07.was how is Aida Waseem responded to comments about the government's old
:56:08. > :56:10.attorney Cannes. And the comments celebrated the life
:56:11. > :56:16.of Tony Benn with a particularly moving moment from his son Hilary.
:56:17. > :56:27.His blood was never blue. It was the deepest red throughout his life.
:56:28. > :56:30.Beth, the prime minister gives an interview to the Sun he wants Boris
:56:31. > :56:36.back to fight an election in 2015. Will he? This is deja vu because we
:56:37. > :56:44.had this conversation back at the Tory conference. This isn't actually
:56:45. > :56:49.knew. The key thing is whether Boris does or doesn't have to be an MP to
:56:50. > :56:54.stand for the leadership. But will he? Not stand for the leadership but
:56:55. > :57:00.will he fight the election as an MP? I think we're getting to the point
:57:01. > :57:02.where he probably will. David Cameron and George Osborne and
:57:03. > :57:05.Michael Gove are desperate to get this idea up and running and I think
:57:06. > :57:07.it's getting a bit of momentum behind it, in order to put Boris on
:57:08. > :57:10.the spot. Now, I know you're counting down the
:57:11. > :57:15.days to the European Parliamentary Elections. We are! That's right -
:57:16. > :57:18.just 62 days to go! But to get you in the mood, the BBC will be hosting
:57:19. > :57:28.a little pre-election debate. Here's a taster.
:57:29. > :57:33.Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome leader of the Liberal Democrats and
:57:34. > :57:38.Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Give a fantastic welcome to Nigel
:57:39. > :57:44.Farage. I will challenge Nigel Farage to a public, open debate.
:57:45. > :57:49.About whether we should be in or out of the EU. The answer is yes, I'll
:57:50. > :57:55.do it for Nick Clegg. But the other two, I would like to see them go.
:57:56. > :57:58.UKIP leaders don't turn up to vote in the European Parliament. I have
:57:59. > :58:04.taken part in 45% votes of the European Parliament since 2009.
:58:05. > :58:10.Nigel Farage hasn't tabled a single amendment since July 2009. Mr Clegg
:58:11. > :58:19.has only taken part in 22% of the vote in the House of commons.
:58:20. > :58:27.I bet the debate won't be as good as that Trail! It's at 7pm on the 2nd
:58:28. > :58:34.of April here on BBC Two. Put it in your diary. What would you ask of
:58:35. > :58:38.them? For your chance to be part of the studio audience on the night and
:58:39. > :58:40.put your question to the two party leaders, email the question you
:58:41. > :58:44.would like to ask to europedebate@bbc.co.uk or tweet it
:58:45. > :58:48.using the #europedebate. That's it for today. Thanks to Sam
:58:49. > :58:52.and Beth for keeping me on the straight and narrow. The news that
:58:53. > :58:53.one is starting on BBC One and I'll be back on BBC One on Sunday.
:58:54. > :58:57.Goodbye.