:00:36. > :00:40.Good afternoon and welcome to The Daily Politics. Russia's takeover of
:00:41. > :00:43.Crimea continues as troops mass on Ukraine's eastern border - what
:00:44. > :00:49.action should the West take, and will Vladimir Putin take any notice?
:00:50. > :00:53.The Budget causes trouble for Miliband as think-tanks say the
:00:54. > :00:58.party needs to have a bold and distinctive offer for voters.
:00:59. > :01:03.Is England's green and pleasant land in peril? Campaigners say new
:01:04. > :01:09.planning regulations are destroying the green belt.
:01:10. > :01:12.There's a penny off duty on a pint of beer from today. But are the
:01:13. > :01:15.savings being passed on to customers?
:01:16. > :01:24.All that in the next hour. And with us for the first half of the show
:01:25. > :01:28.today is Rick Nye of the polling firm Populus. Welcome to the
:01:29. > :01:31.programme. First this morning, David Cameron has been taking questions
:01:32. > :01:34.from an audience of older voters in Sussex, promoting some of the
:01:35. > :01:39.policies on pensions and savings announced in last week's Budget. The
:01:40. > :01:43.big pension reforms have gone down well in the papers, but Mr Cameron
:01:44. > :01:44.was challenged on another issue - the party's promise to increase the
:01:45. > :01:59.inheritance tax threshold. When the limit was ?300,000 or so,
:02:00. > :02:03.quite a lot of hard-working families, who had worked hard and
:02:04. > :02:07.saved and put their money into their house, were being caught by
:02:08. > :02:11.inheritance tax. Inheritance tax should only really be paid by the
:02:12. > :02:16.rich, not by people who have worked hard, saved and bought a family
:02:17. > :02:20.house. So, the ambition is still there. I would like to go further.
:02:21. > :02:24.It is better than it was, but it did not make it into the coalition
:02:25. > :02:28.agreement, but it is something we will have to address in our
:02:29. > :02:33.manifesto. It is a bit deja vu, isn't it, this, for the
:02:34. > :02:39.Conservatives? The Tories won the over 65 vote by about 13% last time.
:02:40. > :02:45.Around half of Tory supporters are over 65, but three in five UKIP
:02:46. > :02:49.supporters are over 65. So you can see David Cameron trying to be tough
:02:50. > :02:55.on the causes of Nigel Farage, as it wow! Certainly, and many thought
:02:56. > :03:00.that was the case in the Budget as well. But the Tories did not win an
:03:01. > :03:06.overall majority, despite dominating in that age group. How important our
:03:07. > :03:10.pensioners as a voting group in themselves? Very important. Three
:03:11. > :03:16.quarters of them vote, compared with two thirds for the whole of the
:03:17. > :03:19.population. They are quite set in the way that they vote. There was a
:03:20. > :03:24.slight swing from Labour to to the Conservatives among the over 65 in
:03:25. > :03:28.the last election, but that was the second smallest swing across any age
:03:29. > :03:33.group. So it is quite important that the Conservatives manage to
:03:34. > :03:37.consolidate their appeal for the over-65s, particularly if you have
:03:38. > :03:42.got a rival like UKIP. Is there a worry for the Conservatives that if
:03:43. > :03:46.they continue to target their core vote, overwhelmingly, that they will
:03:47. > :03:50.alienate other groups, preventing them from winning an overall
:03:51. > :03:54.majority? It depends how you target them. If you are trying to give out
:03:55. > :03:58.signals to one part of your support, which alienates another
:03:59. > :04:02.part of... But if you are under the age of 45, why would you be against
:04:03. > :04:08.annuity reform, or in inheritance tax reform? The key is that the
:04:09. > :04:12.whole package needs to sound greater than the sum of the individual
:04:13. > :04:18.parts. You do not want to be able to see the joins. So, how would you
:04:19. > :04:24.assess the Budget? The papers were broadly favourable. If it was deemed
:04:25. > :04:30.a Budget for savers, was it however aimed primarily at people who are
:04:31. > :04:35.slightly better off, alienating the younger generation, many of whom are
:04:36. > :04:38.struggling? I do not think it is necessarily a zero-sum game
:04:39. > :04:45.rewarding savers, or hard workers, as politicians like to talk about,
:04:46. > :04:48.does not necessarily alienate other people by definition. The key with
:04:49. > :04:52.the Budget was that it showed that there was a time when you could
:04:53. > :04:55.reward some elements of the older part of the population, who may be
:04:56. > :05:00.felt as though they were being bypassed, in terms of spreading
:05:01. > :05:04.around the proceeds of an economic recovery, when it comes. What about
:05:05. > :05:08.UKIP? There is nothing wrong with trying to blunt the attraction of
:05:09. > :05:12.UKIP. There are different ways of doing that, some of which are more
:05:13. > :05:16.likely to alienate other parts of your coalition. I think this is
:05:17. > :05:19.probably the least harmful way of trying to blunt the appeal of UKIP,
:05:20. > :05:27.by appealing to all people who want a centre of financial security. --
:05:28. > :05:31.who want a sense. Do you think it will probably be the case in 2015,
:05:32. > :05:36.that once people have decided how they will vote, they will stay that
:05:37. > :05:40.way? It is difficult to tell. In previous elections, UKIP have done
:05:41. > :05:43.very well in European elections 12 months before the general election,
:05:44. > :05:47.and then have come right back down to less than 3%. This time they are
:05:48. > :05:51.starting from a higher base. They may do better at the European
:05:52. > :05:55.elections. So the key for the Conservatives will be, how far and
:05:56. > :05:56.how fast does that sure of the vote come back down for the general
:05:57. > :06:03.election? Now - leaders of the G7 group of
:06:04. > :06:06.nations are gathering in the Netherlands, where they will discuss
:06:07. > :06:10.what further action to take against Russia. The country's forces have
:06:11. > :06:13.been completing their takeover of the Crimea - ejecting Ukrainian
:06:14. > :06:20.forces from their base on the penninsula. Just two ships are still
:06:21. > :06:23.flying the Ukrainian flag. They are also reported to be massing on
:06:24. > :06:26.Ukriane's eastern border - though President Putin has said that there
:06:27. > :06:32.are no plans for further incurssions. A little earlier, I
:06:33. > :06:39.spoke to our correspondent there. I asked him how much further the G7
:06:40. > :06:43.were to go against Russia. It is not something they can do overnight. In
:06:44. > :06:47.terms of heavier sanctions, I was at the summit in Brussels last week,
:06:48. > :06:51.and the EU leaders made it clear that they had gone as far as they
:06:52. > :06:54.were going to do at this stage on sanctions unless and until Russia
:06:55. > :06:59.does something else, in other words, moves forces into Eastern
:07:00. > :07:02.Ukraine. If that does not happen, I do not think these sanctions are
:07:03. > :07:12.going to be toughened up. They also made it clear in terms of the energy
:07:13. > :07:14.dependency that they want to reduce their dependency on Russian oil and
:07:15. > :07:16.gas. That is a project for the next few years, rather than weeks and
:07:17. > :07:19.months. It involves building terminals in America which can start
:07:20. > :07:23.exporting, and terminals here which can start importing. It involves
:07:24. > :07:28.reworking the economics of energy supply in Europe. If they are
:07:29. > :07:35.serious about it, and it is a big if, because these sort of a rock --
:07:36. > :07:38.visa sort of ideas were around in 2008, after the conflict between
:07:39. > :07:43.Georgia and Russia, and they came to nothing. I put this to Jose Manuel
:07:44. > :07:46.Barroso last week and he says he thinks things are different this
:07:47. > :07:51.time. He thinks there is more of a head of steam to start to try to
:07:52. > :07:56.diversify the energy market of Europe. If they are serious about
:07:57. > :07:59.it, then in the coming years, they will be able to reassess their
:08:00. > :08:03.entire relationship with Moscow. What is the assessment about the
:08:04. > :08:07.military threat from Russia? There are certainly those who want to see
:08:08. > :08:11.NATO take a robust approach to this, to be seen to be protecting NATO
:08:12. > :08:21.member states, certainly those which have borders with Russia. The United
:08:22. > :08:24.States, Britain and others are increasing their military personnel
:08:25. > :08:30.on the ground in some of those states. Poland is especially
:08:31. > :08:35.worried. There is, it seems, from the NATO perspective, and also from
:08:36. > :08:41.the US and European perspective, the desire to at least put in place
:08:42. > :08:44.military personnel on the ground in order to try and make sure that
:08:45. > :08:50.those states like Poland and the Baltic states, feel secure. There is
:08:51. > :08:55.no question of course of invading Russia, of having boots on the
:08:56. > :09:02.ground in Ukraine. It is about making those states feel secure, and
:09:03. > :09:07.also at the same time writing in the Daily Telegraph today, the former
:09:08. > :09:11.head of the army, General Richard damn it, argued that Britain needed
:09:12. > :09:16.to boost its troop numbers and keep soldiers in Germany to show that
:09:17. > :09:18.Britain takes its defence responsibilities seriously.
:09:19. > :09:24.Speaking earlier this morning, David Cameron gave his view. I do not
:09:25. > :09:28.think it is necessary to change our plans to base British soldiers. But
:09:29. > :09:31.I think it is important to send a clear message to our NATO partners
:09:32. > :09:35.and allies that we believe in NATO, and we believe in their security.
:09:36. > :09:39.That is why we are helping some of the Baltic states, for instance,
:09:40. > :09:43.with their defence. That is what we should be doing, and we are
:09:44. > :09:45.committed to doing. With us now, the former Shadow Defence Secretary the
:09:46. > :09:51.Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin and former Security Minister under the
:09:52. > :09:58.last Labour government, Lord West. Welcome to both of you. Do you agree
:09:59. > :10:02.with Lord Dannatt in terms of trying to boost troop numbers? I agree in a
:10:03. > :10:08.general sense that I think we are spending too little on defence left
:10:09. > :10:16.this is a decision we can make in the scope of the next dimple
:10:17. > :10:20.security strategy. In that sense, I agree. I disagree entirely about
:10:21. > :10:24.trying to keep troops in Germany. We need to stick with the plans and get
:10:25. > :10:28.out of there. It has cost us a great deal of money over the years. It has
:10:29. > :10:32.been helpful for the German economy, which was very nice, but I believe
:10:33. > :10:36.we need them out of there. I do believe we need to be very hard line
:10:37. > :10:39.on warning Russia again, making it clear that if there is any
:10:40. > :10:44.encroachment at all on NATO territory, that breaks Article five,
:10:45. > :10:51.and that would mean war. And I think we should be clear on that. But I do
:10:52. > :10:54.not leave that the fact of increasing a few troop numbers is
:10:55. > :11:00.going to make a difference to what is happening in Ukraine. I think we
:11:01. > :11:05.have been bad at understanding how Crimea is so important to Russia. If
:11:06. > :11:08.we had acted quicker, and had contact, we could have come to some
:11:09. > :11:13.decisions. I certainly do not think we should do anything militarily
:11:14. > :11:16.about this. I have real concerns about the status of Ukraine, and how
:11:17. > :11:20.it is going to keep going in the future. You think Western leaders
:11:21. > :11:24.have been engaging in too much posturing? I think initially there
:11:25. > :11:28.were some very silly things Stead. John Kerry and other people made
:11:29. > :11:33.some statements without really understanding the history of Crimea.
:11:34. > :11:38.-- things said. Sevastopol is a Russian town. I have been there
:11:39. > :11:41.several times. If there had been a very early meeting, understanding
:11:42. > :11:44.their position, we could have maybe come to a different status for
:11:45. > :11:50.Crimea, and avoided some of this tension, and let Putin get over the
:11:51. > :11:56.shock. He was caught out totally, one of his intelligence agencies
:11:57. > :11:58.were caught out. I spoke to the person who used to run the
:11:59. > :12:02.intelligence in Ukraine. He was caught out totally be what happened
:12:03. > :12:08.in Ukraine. We should have understood that and dealt with it
:12:09. > :12:12.much more subtly. There were statements made which really could
:12:13. > :12:15.not be backed up, by various leaders in the West, promising that tough
:12:16. > :12:21.action would be taken against Russia if they did X, why NZ, when in fact,
:12:22. > :12:25.there really was not that kind of strength behind the rhetoric, was
:12:26. > :12:30.there a? It is very important that the West absolutely and
:12:31. > :12:34.unequivocally condemns what Putin is doing in Crimea. There is no
:12:35. > :12:38.question about that. The modest but painful sanctions being applied to
:12:39. > :12:44.certain Russian individuals will have an effect. But what we should
:12:45. > :12:49.focus on now, and I agree with a great deal of what Alan has said, we
:12:50. > :12:53.should focus on, what is our real objective? I cannot see how we are
:12:54. > :12:57.going to get Russia out of Crimea. That is not go to happen. They have
:12:58. > :13:03.been there for 500 years. We fought a war in the last century to try to
:13:04. > :13:09.get them out of Crimea, and we failed. I am not prepared to
:13:10. > :13:14.validate that phoney referendum, but the point is, what are we trying to
:13:15. > :13:18.achieve? Surely, very big threat to the stability of Eastern Europe is a
:13:19. > :13:23.civil war breaking out in Ukraine. Ukraine is a very divided country,
:13:24. > :13:27.it has historically been very close to Russia, dependent on vast
:13:28. > :13:31.quantities of aid from Russia, and cheap gas. Is the West really trying
:13:32. > :13:36.to say, we are going to take that over? We have got these association
:13:37. > :13:40.agreements with the EU, they are on a long track which will eventually
:13:41. > :13:43.mean they are members of the European Union. One half of Ukraine
:13:44. > :13:47.might want that, but the other half does not necessarily want that. By
:13:48. > :13:51.taking this very aggressive stance, the danger is that the EU is
:13:52. > :13:54.dividing Ukraine, and we could finish up with a civil war in
:13:55. > :13:59.Ukraine. That cannot be our objective. How likely do you think
:14:00. > :14:06.it is, the splitting up of Ukraine, and that Russia might look to go
:14:07. > :14:08.further in? I think the EU and others have been guilty of
:14:09. > :14:11.encouraging them rather more than we should have done. I like the
:14:12. > :14:16.Ukrainian people, I have been there a lot of times. There is quite a
:14:17. > :14:19.difference of view. Even when Ukraine first got its independence,
:14:20. > :14:26.there was a very strong Russian link, there were a number of people
:14:27. > :14:29.who did not want it to change. Ukraine was reliant on oil and gas
:14:30. > :14:33.from Russia. They are so closely linked. I think we have encouraged
:14:34. > :14:38.them. Some of these people have said, great, we can join the EU. You
:14:39. > :14:41.cannot just do that. The EU cannot possibly afford to sort this out. We
:14:42. > :14:47.have encouraged them when we shouldn't. I was at the Budapest
:14:48. > :14:49.NATO summit in the 1980s, when there was a terrible argument about
:14:50. > :14:54.whether Georgia and Ukraine should be put in a process eventually to
:14:55. > :14:59.become members of NATO. And the most was over as member of NATO against
:15:00. > :15:04.this policy was Germany, closely backed by France. Now, the two
:15:05. > :15:07.countries, because it is about the EU and not NATO, are very in favour
:15:08. > :15:12.of pursuing these association agreements with the EU. These are
:15:13. > :15:17.not just little friendly agreements, they are 500 pages of documents
:15:18. > :15:22.about defence relationships, security relationships, trade and
:15:23. > :15:27.finance. Are we really going to match the kind of commitment that
:15:28. > :15:31.Russia... ? Russia has put in billions and billions of aid into
:15:32. > :15:42.Ukraine. Does the public really care about this issue, in the UK? A lot
:15:43. > :15:47.of them don't. I think there is general support for the steps that
:15:48. > :15:52.have been taken so, in terms of sanctions and travel bans. Anything
:15:53. > :15:58.more expansive than that, the UK public will run a mile. Do you think
:15:59. > :16:02.we should just stay out of this? I have to agree with what Bernard
:16:03. > :16:06.said. We have to be clear that that behaviour breaks a treaty and it was
:16:07. > :16:10.wrong what they did but I think we were very naughty earlier, not
:16:11. > :16:13.understanding them. We certainly shouldn't get involved militarily. I
:16:14. > :16:19.think what we've done is probably appropriate. They will put pressure
:16:20. > :16:28.on Putin. But tough economic sanctions? I wouldn't go for any big
:16:29. > :16:31.hard, tough ones. The Russians clearly believe in hard power as
:16:32. > :16:36.well as soft power because they've had soft power in the Ukraine but
:16:37. > :16:40.they use hard power. We've got to understand that if you're going to
:16:41. > :16:46.use hard power -- soft power, you've got to have hard power to back it
:16:47. > :16:52.up. Let's come back to spending - are we spending enough on defence?
:16:53. > :16:59.If we're only going to spend 2% of GDP on defence we should be spending
:17:00. > :17:02.it very differently. How? Or the language about agile capability
:17:03. > :17:13.means you've got far too much committed to some very large
:17:14. > :17:17.projects. What about Trident? You've even got me in Campbell now saying
:17:18. > :17:28.he never thought Russia would look like this. -- Menzies Campbell. As I
:17:29. > :17:32.and others have said, we are in a very chaotic, dangerous world that
:17:33. > :17:37.can change like that. To try to give away something like that would be a
:17:38. > :17:45.madness. In last week's Budget, we were all only halfway through the
:17:46. > :17:50.spending cuts. We are the sixth richest nation in the world. It's up
:17:51. > :17:56.to us when we look at defence and security to see how important it is.
:17:57. > :18:03.Our defence spending is going down from 2% to 1.8% in 2016. So we need
:18:04. > :18:08.to spend more. That is below the NATO minimum. So the government is
:18:09. > :18:12.making a mistake? The government is going to have to spend more on
:18:13. > :18:16.defence and incidentally, cutting Trident would say that very little
:18:17. > :18:21.in the long-term because it is only a tiny proportion of the defence
:18:22. > :18:32.budget overall. 6% of the defence budget. 6% of what will be 1.8%.
:18:33. > :18:41.That is about 0.08% of GDP. You are losing me on the percentages! The
:18:42. > :18:45.Green MP Caroline Lucas has arrived at court this morning charged with a
:18:46. > :18:47.public order offence and obstructing a highway during anti-fracking
:18:48. > :18:50.protests in Balcombe last summer. She denies the charges. Thousands of
:18:51. > :18:53.demonstrators camped out in the Sussex village as the company
:18:54. > :18:57.Cuadrilla started test drilling for oil. Rebecca Williams is at Brighton
:18:58. > :19:02.magistrates Court for us. We can see the protesters or supporters behind
:19:03. > :19:07.you. Caroline Lucas arrived to cheering crowds of around 100
:19:08. > :19:13.people. Many of them are waving placards. There has been music and
:19:14. > :19:17.general support for the green MP. She admits to taking part in a
:19:18. > :19:21.peaceful anti-fracking protest in Balcombe last summer but denies the
:19:22. > :19:26.public order offence and obstructing a public highway. Around 30 people
:19:27. > :19:32.were arrested last summer, including Caroline Lucas and her son. In
:19:33. > :19:36.January it was revealed that these demonstrations cost the taxpayer
:19:37. > :19:40.around ?4 million. The energy company Cuadrilla has since said
:19:41. > :19:44.that it has no intention of fracking in Balcombe now or in the future and
:19:45. > :19:49.in a statement this morning read on behalf of the Green MP, it was said
:19:50. > :19:53.that Balkan was the start of a major struggle for the exportation of
:19:54. > :19:59.fossil fuels and the stakes could not be higher. How long will the
:20:00. > :20:02.case go on for? It could last up to five days. Caroline Lucas is
:20:03. > :20:06.standing trial along with four others. We expect proceedings to
:20:07. > :20:11.start in the next few minutes. This morning she spoke only to confirm
:20:12. > :20:14.her name, her date of birth and her address but on her website last
:20:15. > :20:18.night she said she'd been very touched by all the messages of
:20:19. > :20:23.support from her constituents and once again confirmed that she denies
:20:24. > :20:28.all the charges against her. Thank you very much.
:20:29. > :20:32.Now, feel like you're being targeted? Well, don't worry - you're
:20:33. > :20:34.not paranoid. Political parties are targeting voters like never before,
:20:35. > :20:43.honing their message to get through to different types of voters. Here's
:20:44. > :20:48.Adam to explain how. One of the most famous political
:20:49. > :20:53.figures in history lived here. She's called Worcester woman. She wasn't a
:20:54. > :20:57.real person, just a label for a type of aspirational new Labour voter.
:20:58. > :21:04.The technique, called segmentation, was used in a big way by George Bush
:21:05. > :21:09.in 2004. It was then refined by Barack Obama. Rather than focusing
:21:10. > :21:14.on crude measures like cars or hometowns, they delved into voters'
:21:15. > :21:17.minds. It's not just women or people who live in cities but now if you
:21:18. > :21:23.start to put together these attitudinal clusters of peoples, you
:21:24. > :21:27.can start to, even in an anecdotal way, start to imagine who they are,
:21:28. > :21:33.what types of words, language, imagery anecdotes, vignettes, photo
:21:34. > :21:38.opportunities might relate to them. We've been given access to a new
:21:39. > :21:42.polling model being used here by the firm Populus, which is pretty close
:21:43. > :21:47.to the one we're told is being used by the Tories. It casts the country
:21:48. > :21:52.into six personality types and we're trying it out on - you guessed it -
:21:53. > :21:56.Worcester woman and Worcester man. We are using an online quiz to work
:21:57. > :22:03.out who is in which segment. Meet new mums Susie. Savour or spend a?
:22:04. > :22:08.Oh, no! But she does feel well represented. I know that with the
:22:09. > :22:13.Budget and the increases to tax free childcare for parents, I do think I
:22:14. > :22:19.am slightly more represented. Which puts her firmly in the category
:22:20. > :22:25.called "optimistic contentment". Terry, on the other hand, just isn't
:22:26. > :22:39.happy about Britain today. Health and say and all that! He's Mr
:22:40. > :22:45.Comfortable Nostalgia. That sums me up. Tony is worried, too, but feels
:22:46. > :22:51.much less secure. I look forward to the future with optimism or with
:22:52. > :22:59.anxiety? Anxiety. And so his category is... Labour picks up a lot
:23:00. > :23:02.of these voters. Then we get Paul, who feels even gloomier. Over the
:23:03. > :23:08.last few years, with things that are going on, I am feeling more towards
:23:09. > :23:15.the despair side. Things are just getting to the generally? Yes. It
:23:16. > :23:20.puts him in the segment called "long-term despair", people who feel
:23:21. > :23:26.really quite left out. Finally, this is ever thoughtful Carol. I'm a bit
:23:27. > :23:33.of an idealist, as you can see. Her idealism makes her a "Cosmopolitan
:23:34. > :23:37.critic". There is one group of voters we've not come across. They
:23:38. > :23:41.are people who show calm persistence. They hope things get
:23:42. > :23:44.better but don't expect them to. They're coping, rather than
:23:45. > :23:50.comfortable. Presumably, they're all out at work. But which category are
:23:51. > :23:55.you in? Head to the politics pages of the BBC News website to find out
:23:56. > :23:59.how to take the quiz. In the coming weeks, we're going to do our own
:24:00. > :24:01.polling using the six segments to see if the politicians really have
:24:02. > :24:05.worked out how we all think. And Rick Nye from Populus, the
:24:06. > :24:09.polling firm behind this type of voter segmentation, is here. We know
:24:10. > :24:12.who to blame! We're also joined for the rest of the programme by a bevy
:24:13. > :24:20.of Baronesses - Patience Wheatcroft, Angela Smith and Susan
:24:21. > :24:24.Kramer. Welcome to the programme. Patients, which of those
:24:25. > :24:29.segmentation groups would you put yourself in? I did the test and came
:24:30. > :24:36.out as optimistic contentment, which sounds horribly complacent! Do you
:24:37. > :24:41.feel that was right? Relatively upbeat is what I'd hoped it would
:24:42. > :24:45.come at us. I was optimistic contentment, as well. This must say
:24:46. > :24:50.something about our generation, pubs with a little bit of Cosmopolitan.
:24:51. > :24:58.Cosmopolitan critic, not long-term despair! What about you, Angela? I
:24:59. > :25:02.came out as a Cosmopolitan critic, which surprised me and others. I'm
:25:03. > :25:07.probably quite a stereotype. I worked in the public sector and want
:25:08. > :25:15.improvements in the economy and jobs and that suits me. We use a or was
:25:16. > :25:21.not pretty but it to call -- predictable? It doesn't surprise me
:25:22. > :25:25.that if you have three members of the House of lords two of them would
:25:26. > :25:30.be optimistic contentment because part of that is that you've made a
:25:31. > :25:34.success of your life and are optimistic about the country's
:25:35. > :25:41.future and are upwardly mobile. When we've done this among MPs, you do
:25:42. > :25:46.find quite large chunks of all three parties who end up as optimistic
:25:47. > :25:54.contentment, even though the Tories would like to pretend they were
:25:55. > :26:01.comfortable optimism on one hand and labour would like to say that they
:26:02. > :26:04.were cosmopolitan critics. Do you think it is actually worthwhile
:26:05. > :26:10.having these sort of segmentation is to define voters? I think it is
:26:11. > :26:13.useful to find ways of looking at the electorate but you have to be
:26:14. > :26:18.very careful as to how narrow those descriptions are and how much faith
:26:19. > :26:21.you put in them. Angela said she was very interested in creating more
:26:22. > :26:26.jobs and improving the economy. That's what I want, as well, and
:26:27. > :26:32.that doesn't mean I'm not an optimistic, contented person. I was
:26:33. > :26:37.for % optimistic contented but 96% was cosmopolitan critics. I double
:26:38. > :26:39.in the descriptions and they said people who come up in this category
:26:40. > :26:45.were more likely to be those who think in this way. I wouldn't have
:26:46. > :26:48.put myself down as a cosmopolitan critic. I answered as truthfully as
:26:49. > :26:53.you possibly can and that's what it found out. Would it help in terms of
:26:54. > :26:58.parties targeting voters in these particular groups? I get puzzled at
:26:59. > :27:06.this point on how you use all of this but I think it said in part of
:27:07. > :27:10.the blurb that many people who vote Conservative are in the optimistic
:27:11. > :27:15.contented category. That is already looking a little strange from our
:27:16. > :27:19.sample here. If you were in despair you voted Labour, which strikes me
:27:20. > :27:22.as a bit odd as well. But the Lib Dems were scattered across all of
:27:23. > :27:27.the categories and that, frankly, is always our history. People ask who
:27:28. > :27:32.our stereotype Liberal Democrat voter is and there aren't
:27:33. > :27:39.stereotypes. How does this help the parties? It doesn't divide. It isn't
:27:40. > :27:43.supposed to divide by party politics. It recognises that all
:27:44. > :27:47.politics is Coalition politics, whether you have a Coalition
:27:48. > :27:53.government or not. And to win elections, you have to build from
:27:54. > :27:56.different parts of society, as large a voting bloc as you can and that
:27:57. > :28:01.means the most successful politicians in recent history -
:28:02. > :28:05.whether they are Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher - have gone beyond
:28:06. > :28:09.their heartland in order to get other people to support their party.
:28:10. > :28:13.But aren't they difficult to identify? When you're targeting
:28:14. > :28:18.voters, people talk about marginal constituencies, which is
:28:19. > :28:21.understandable, but you talk about Worcester woman, Mondeo man. Where
:28:22. > :28:28.are they easier in terms of targeting? I'm a bit surprised
:28:29. > :28:32.sometimes. I'm not sure targeting is as sophisticated as we think it is.
:28:33. > :28:36.When you knock on the door, people don't see themselves in those
:28:37. > :28:39.categories. You get what might be a typical Worcester woman or Basildon
:28:40. > :28:44.man and they say something quite wacky and out of context. You have
:28:45. > :28:48.to look at people as individuals. You get a rough idea and it's a bit
:28:49. > :28:51.of fun but if you put too much store by it, it could lead you in the
:28:52. > :28:55.wrong direction. You stop listening to people and start looking at
:28:56. > :28:58.categories. I think you are listening to people as much as ever
:28:59. > :29:04.but the conversation is about what they want to talk about, rather than
:29:05. > :29:10.what you as politicians want. It should be anyway. But it isn't. You
:29:11. > :29:15.have to be a bit careful because you end up constantly watching the polls
:29:16. > :29:20.and saying, "that's where I'll go," rather than looking at problems.
:29:21. > :29:24.Some of that might be difficult and painful. We've got to be wary about
:29:25. > :29:31.this motion that we should be in poll lead politics. We have to
:29:32. > :29:35.listen. You have to listen to the people. I think there's very little
:29:36. > :29:40.respect for politicians who simply seem to have read a pole and that's
:29:41. > :29:43.what they do. What they do do is listen to focus groups, around which
:29:44. > :29:49.you could put a lot of the segmentation. The Budget was a game
:29:50. > :29:57.changer. Absolutely. I think it was. It explains in part why the
:29:58. > :30:00.Guardian has a letter today from many left-leaning people saying that
:30:01. > :30:07.the Labour Party had better change its ideas and put up -- puck up
:30:08. > :30:10.because George Osborne's budget had a very positive effect on the
:30:11. > :30:16.electorate. And that's because he was looking specifically at, critics
:30:17. > :30:19.say, UKIP voters. I don't think he geared the budget towards UKIP
:30:20. > :30:22.supporters but he geared it towards the majority of the people in the
:30:23. > :30:30.country who want a bit more say over their own resources. I think the key
:30:31. > :30:34.there is that it was a Budget for the polls and the election, not for
:30:35. > :30:39.the economy. That's one of the problems. So much in politics is
:30:40. > :30:43.very short-term. A lot of these changes, particularly pensions, we
:30:44. > :30:51.won't see the results until 15 years. The big parts of the budget
:30:52. > :30:55.were lifting the tax threshold. When that was tested on polls before we
:30:56. > :30:58.made it our core policy, it went nowhere. That has been introduced
:30:59. > :31:05.and turned out to be popular but it has been very much led by my party
:31:06. > :31:10.thinking that it's the way you get a fairer society. With pensions,
:31:11. > :31:13.that's a long-standing policy but what has happened is, with Steve
:31:14. > :31:17.Webb able to create a basic state pension that at least means you
:31:18. > :31:22.aren't in dire poverty, giving people flexibility to use their
:31:23. > :31:27.pensions as they will has now been possible. I don't think this was
:31:28. > :31:31.driven by the polls. It's a budget for the next election. It was an
:31:32. > :31:33.inevitable decision that was possible because of previous
:31:34. > :31:43.programmes that had been put in place.
:31:44. > :31:50.This morning, it got worse for Ed Miliband. The letter which we were
:31:51. > :31:53.talking about, published in the Guardian newspaper, has criticised
:31:54. > :31:58.the strategic direction Labour are taking. It has been signed by party
:31:59. > :32:02.intellectuals. It says labour should be more bold in its messaging and
:32:03. > :32:07.should not be relying on Tory unpopularity. We can speak to one of
:32:08. > :32:13.the signatories now, Mark Ferguson, also editor of Labour List. Should
:32:14. > :32:16.Labour be more radical going into the next election? I think there is
:32:17. > :32:20.a need for boldness, and I think there is a lot of scope within the
:32:21. > :32:24.Labour Party for doing that. There is some good work which Jon Cruddas
:32:25. > :32:27.has been doing around the manifesto, some good ideas which Ed Miliband
:32:28. > :32:31.and it wars have been kicking around. 14 months till the election,
:32:32. > :32:35.I think it is time to start rolling them out. Do you think this is a bit
:32:36. > :32:47.of a knee jerk reaction to the Budget, running scared? No, this was
:32:48. > :32:55.drafted a couple of weeks ago. This is about something much bigger, not
:32:56. > :32:58.just about how Labour runs itch -- runs its election campaign, this is
:32:59. > :33:03.about what Labour would look like. Does this mean that for some time
:33:04. > :33:07.there has been some unrest and unhappiness with the direction the
:33:08. > :33:10.Labour leadership has been taking? I think a lot of people within the
:33:11. > :33:15.Labour Party want to see greater radicalism, a bolder, bigger vision.
:33:16. > :33:18.I would not call it unhappiness. It is the nature of the five year
:33:19. > :33:22.parliament, it means that the natural rhythm and cadence of the
:33:23. > :33:25.Parliamentary term has been disrupted. Normally, four years in,
:33:26. > :33:31.the opposition would be talking about the next general election,
:33:32. > :33:36.calling for an election. Now, we know it is at least another year
:33:37. > :33:40.away. That means there is a tendency towards caution in party politics.
:33:41. > :33:47.However, I think that caution can go too far, because you do not have
:33:48. > :33:54.enough time to explain any big, bold, radical vision. What should
:33:55. > :33:58.that big, bold message be? I would love to see things around housing. I
:33:59. > :34:01.know there will be a speech by Labour on housing tomorrow, but I
:34:02. > :34:05.would like them to go further, I would like to see us talking about
:34:06. > :34:09.more than 1 million affordable homes in the next Parliament. I would like
:34:10. > :34:14.to see us talking about devolving housing benefit to local councils. I
:34:15. > :34:17.would like to see us talking about childcare, releasing the potential
:34:18. > :34:22.of British society by allowing more people to get to work, and talking
:34:23. > :34:26.about social care, particularly as we are about to see a massive social
:34:27. > :34:28.care crunch in the coming decades, where people who have saved their
:34:29. > :34:33.whole lives cannot afford high-quality care, and people start
:34:34. > :34:37.having to pay for their parents, whilst also having to start funding
:34:38. > :34:41.mortgages for their kids. Do you think Labour has been relying too
:34:42. > :34:45.much on what it sees as Tory unpopularity? I think there is a
:34:46. > :34:48.risk that you rely on the Conservatives tripping over their
:34:49. > :34:51.own shows. There has been a debate going on within the Labour Party for
:34:52. > :34:54.a long time about how much you can rely on things like the
:34:55. > :34:58.Conservatives rather foolishly getting rid of the 50p tax rate, or
:34:59. > :35:06.things like the beer and Ingo affair. But I think what you run the
:35:07. > :35:11.risk of doing is stepping away from the plate and hoping that they are
:35:12. > :35:13.going to blow up. Frankly, the Conservative Party has never been
:35:14. > :35:20.consistently hopeless for five years, not even when they lost the
:35:21. > :35:23.1997 election. Whilst I would love to think that they are going to keep
:35:24. > :35:26.on doing hopeless thing is, there are signs that they are getting
:35:27. > :35:31.their act together, and we have to be prepared for that. Angela Smith,
:35:32. > :35:35.listening to that, should Labour not be more bold, going into the
:35:36. > :35:38.election? Well, I think it is an interesting look at things. You look
:35:39. > :35:44.at the letter in the Guardian newspaper today, and looking towards
:35:45. > :35:48.manifesto times, everybody is setting their stall out, there is a
:35:49. > :35:52.whole series of meetings and debates within the Labour Party, but the
:35:53. > :35:56.idea that somehow Ed Miliband is not a bold leader is quite a curious
:35:57. > :36:01.accusation. If you look at the way he has led the party, energy
:36:02. > :36:05.prices, criticised, but he was out there doing it. He was the first
:36:06. > :36:09.party leader to take on Murdoch. He has been bold in his own party. The
:36:10. > :36:13.idea that there are not any bold ideas in the manifesto is wrong. It
:36:14. > :36:17.is a curious allegation to make. Having said that, the kind of issues
:36:18. > :36:20.they are talking about are exactly the kind of debates we will have in
:36:21. > :36:27.the Labour Party for our next manifesto. To some extent, Labour
:36:28. > :36:30.did lead the debate on what it has labelled the cost of living crisis.
:36:31. > :36:35.Of course the Government would deny it was a crisis. But do you admit
:36:36. > :36:38.that the Budget along with other policies has stolen your thunder,
:36:39. > :36:43.they have answered quite a lot of those things that you have put up?
:36:44. > :36:47.Do you think so and I did not get that from people I was talking to at
:36:48. > :36:52.the weekend. People who are feeling the pinch, worried about paying
:36:53. > :36:57.their mortgage, their rent, the kids need new school clothes. But
:36:58. > :37:04.interest rates are low, wages are about to go ahead of prices... Many
:37:05. > :37:08.people are only in part-time work, on low-paid jobs. They want other
:37:09. > :37:12.work. The cost of energy, the cost of housing. How many families are
:37:13. > :37:15.having to think about what is gone to happen to their children and
:37:16. > :37:23.their housing needs? People do not feel better off. Is Labour's
:37:24. > :37:26.narrative too negative one rather than a broad vision? It feels as
:37:27. > :37:31.though they are 1-0 up, with 15 minutes left, they have got it by
:37:32. > :37:35.their own corner flag, and they are trying to kick it out. There is a
:37:36. > :37:38.degree of frustration, which I understand, within the Labour Party.
:37:39. > :37:42.It is going to be a tough couple of days for Labour. We have got a poll
:37:43. > :37:48.out this morning which also has the lead down to 1%. The Budget has
:37:49. > :37:51.always been a strong suit for the Tories, economic management for the
:37:52. > :37:57.country as a whole. Omnishambles, wasn't it?! Even then, Osborne and
:37:58. > :38:01.Cameron were ahead of Miliband and Ed Balls. That is how entrenched it
:38:02. > :38:07.has been. The next election not be about that. It will be about
:38:08. > :38:10.people's own personal circumstances and how they feel, and whether they
:38:11. > :38:13.think the recovery is for them, rather than just for the country,
:38:14. > :38:19.and they are not part of it. I think that is right. The other letters
:38:20. > :38:23.were about housing for young people, childcare for young people, who
:38:24. > :38:26.wants to go out to work. Those are the kind of issues which really
:38:27. > :38:30.matter to people. I think what you will see coming through in our
:38:31. > :38:35.manifesto tackles those really serious issues, which affect
:38:36. > :38:39.families. I have to say, you are starting to make some Lib Dem
:38:40. > :38:46.policies, like mansion tax and childcare, which is quite
:38:47. > :38:49.interesting. But the issue I think which is absolutely crucial for
:38:50. > :38:54.Labour is, can they run the economy? Of course we can. I sit in
:38:55. > :38:59.the House of Lords, I still hear their front bench arguing for
:39:00. > :39:02.increased gross borrowing, because it will somehow reduce net
:39:03. > :39:07.borrowing. It still comes up. What is quite scary for the country is
:39:08. > :39:11.the feeling that they do not accept that when a financial crisis came,
:39:12. > :39:15.there was no cushion, because of the way they ran the country, we were
:39:16. > :39:22.desperately overspent. You left office, leaving a massive deficit,
:39:23. > :39:26.and the message that was left was, there is no more money. That was
:39:27. > :39:32.exactly correct. But you have never learned the lesson. You keep going
:39:33. > :39:38.to repeat exactly what you did. No. It is not... I totally refute that.
:39:39. > :39:44.Every country in the world suffered, their economy suffered. We suffered
:39:45. > :39:47.worse. Slightly worse, and we got back into the right position better
:39:48. > :39:59.and more quickly than we did under the Conservatives. Ed Balls and Ed
:40:00. > :40:04.Miliband have never been able to overtake David, and, on the economy.
:40:05. > :40:07.One thing I think Labour did wrong after the last election was, we
:40:08. > :40:11.conceded the ground, and we should never have done so. Our record on
:40:12. > :40:16.the economy was good. If you look at the growth in the economy... We did
:40:17. > :40:20.actually fix the roof while the sun shone. Under the Conservatives, the
:40:21. > :40:24.cuts have been so deep and so fast, it has choked off growth. We would
:40:25. > :40:29.have been in a better position now if we had continued to stimulate the
:40:30. > :40:33.economy. There are Conservatives who say the cuts have not actually been
:40:34. > :40:37.as severe as the rhetoric stated at the beginning, and that a lot of
:40:38. > :40:41.those cuts are still to come. Even Ed Balls has at last admitted that
:40:42. > :40:45.he made mistakes. That is an understatement. He made a mess of
:40:46. > :40:51.the economy, and the electorate knows it. You mentioned Brown and
:40:52. > :40:55.Bulls, it is the best advertisement for the Conservative Party that we
:40:56. > :40:59.have got. They made an absolute Horlicks of the con, and the public
:41:00. > :41:04.knows it. Is that in your view what they should do, just keep going on
:41:05. > :41:10.about Labour's poor economic record, as they see it? I think we should
:41:11. > :41:15.not allow anyone to lose sight of it, but I was struck watching the
:41:16. > :41:17.last clip of film, and the things which missed Ferguson thought the
:41:18. > :41:20.Labour Party should be talking about. Actually, those are all
:41:21. > :41:24.things which are being addressed by the Government. The Government is
:41:25. > :41:29.dealing with childcare, the Government has dealt with housing,
:41:30. > :41:32.at least made a start. Only up until now have they really started to say
:41:33. > :41:37.they are going to build the sort of numbers which are needed. But the
:41:38. > :41:41.planning changes have been put in place. The social care issue has
:41:42. > :41:46.been addressed, far more than it had been before. With a cap on what
:41:47. > :41:50.people will have to spend on social care. One of these things are being
:41:51. > :41:55.addressed. The most interesting thing in the letter, actually, was
:41:56. > :41:59.the phrase at the start which talked about a Labour government, or a
:42:00. > :42:05.Labour led government. We will come to a coalition and all of the things
:42:06. > :42:09.these ladies agree on, in terms of things like Mansion tax.
:42:10. > :42:12.Time now to look at some of the events in the political week ahead.
:42:13. > :42:15.On Tuesday, the Deregulation Bill Committee will discuss plans -
:42:16. > :42:19.supported by the Government - to decriminalise nonpayment of the BBC
:42:20. > :42:22.licence fee. On Wednesday, MPs will vote on Budget proposals to
:42:23. > :42:30.introduce a cap on welfare spending - excluding pensions - of ?119.5
:42:31. > :42:34.billion in 2015-16. And Nick Clegg will debate EU membership with UKIP
:42:35. > :42:41.leader Nigel Farage on LBC radio - a televised debate will be on BBC Two
:42:42. > :42:43.on Wednesday of next week. And on Thursday, Westminster will say their
:42:44. > :42:47.farewells to the former Labour cabinet minister Tony Benn - his
:42:48. > :42:54.funeral will take place in St Margaret's Church, just opposite
:42:55. > :42:58.Parliament. I'm joined now by Alison Little from The Express and George
:42:59. > :43:06.Parker from the FT, who are on a sunny College Green for us. Welcome
:43:07. > :43:11.to both of you. George Parker, first of all, the polls closing within a
:43:12. > :43:17.point, say two of them, why is that? The polls move around. The unusual
:43:18. > :43:21.thing for this Budget is that it seems to have given a real lift to
:43:22. > :43:25.George Osborne and the Conservative Party, bringing them very close to
:43:26. > :43:27.the Labour Party. That seems to have changed the mood. Tory MPs are
:43:28. > :43:32.telling me today that it has given their party a lead. They are hoping
:43:33. > :43:36.talk about a phantom leadership contest in the future might start to
:43:37. > :43:41.dissipate. Momentum is a really important thing in politics. The
:43:42. > :43:46.polls are now showing just a 1% gap, which puts pressure on the Labour
:43:47. > :43:53.leadership. Alison Little, in terms of the changes to pensions and
:43:54. > :43:58.savers, how well has it gone down? It seems to have gone down very
:43:59. > :44:06.well, widespread support for them. Labour is in a mess, and one reason
:44:07. > :44:10.for that, actually, is its apparent complete inability to make a firm
:44:11. > :44:14.decision. They are about as indecisive as me, which is really
:44:15. > :44:19.bad for a political party! On the pension reforms, Labour took 48-hour
:44:20. > :44:23.to say, we support them 48 hours after the budget. But over the
:44:24. > :44:27.weekend, they have been saying, oh, but we cannot decide, we have to see
:44:28. > :44:36.the detailed. It might be a rational human response, to say that, but it
:44:37. > :44:41.is an example of how they are just not decisive enough, and not fleet
:44:42. > :44:44.of foot enough, with just over a year to go until the general
:44:45. > :44:47.election. They should be coming up with their own policies now, to make
:44:48. > :44:52.the Tories do the running, and the Lib Dems. But instead, it is all
:44:53. > :44:58.about labour, and how they are responding to these big, bold ideas
:44:59. > :45:02.from the Conservatives. Let's have a look at the licence fee,
:45:03. > :45:11.decriminalising nonpayment, is it a good thing or a bad thing? I suppose
:45:12. > :45:15.it depends whether you work for the BBC not! The Govan has given support
:45:16. > :45:26.for this but essentially the thing has been kicked into the long grass.
:45:27. > :45:29.-- the Govan. You start to see governments putting the BBC on its
:45:30. > :45:33.mettle. There are warning shots across the bow is to make sure the
:45:34. > :45:38.BBC is on good behaviour. And the other side is that as soon as you
:45:39. > :45:47.start to talk about being nasty to the BBC it's great for those papers
:45:48. > :45:52.who don't mind the BBC. Whether it actually happens or not is a
:45:53. > :45:59.different question. What about the fact that it will lead to more fee
:46:00. > :46:03.evasion, according to the BBC? The BBC said five per cent increase in
:46:04. > :46:10.the invasion would lose them ?200 million. Which is the dent to your
:46:11. > :46:15.salary, Jo! I think, essentially, this has to happen with more people
:46:16. > :46:18.paying for subscription TV and watching on iPlayer, its financial
:46:19. > :46:22.facts catching up with the technology. Your row Norman Smith
:46:23. > :46:28.reminds us today that the Daily Express was the first paper to call
:46:29. > :46:34.for the abolition of the licence fee in 1923 when you had to have a
:46:35. > :46:37.licence if you run a radio on mains at Christie! Readers of papers like
:46:38. > :46:46.the Daily Express and the Daily Mail are often bigger fans of the BBC
:46:47. > :46:51.than their proprietors. Thank you for mentioning it! Let's move on to
:46:52. > :46:56.the debate between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg. Who is going to win? My
:46:57. > :46:59.gut feeling is that Nick Clegg will probably win because the British
:47:00. > :47:03.public have been exposed to the arguments on the EU, or at least the
:47:04. > :47:08.facts, in a full and honest way over the years. Nick Clegg performs well
:47:09. > :47:12.in these debates - we saw that at the last general election - and he
:47:13. > :47:17.feels, I think, that Nigel Farage, once presented with a load of facts,
:47:18. > :47:22.starts to look a bit rattled aunt gets a bit tetchy. I think he's got
:47:23. > :47:29.a reasonable chance. The question is what winning looks like. For Nigel
:47:30. > :47:33.Farage, it will be a test - a whole hours. Nick Clegg has experience of
:47:34. > :47:40.these things. And our is a long time to keep going. But it might look
:47:41. > :47:45.like how much of a bounce you get. They might both get a bounce because
:47:46. > :47:50.of the higher profile. If you are - as my newspaper is - all for Britain
:47:51. > :47:55.leaving the EU, you won't have your mind changed and will probably say
:47:56. > :48:02.hooray for Farage. I think on the bike ability point, Farage has got -
:48:03. > :48:08.he will win on that because Clegg can be a bit prickly. When he's
:48:09. > :48:13.being challenged by people he thinks are bit less enlightened than Tim,
:48:14. > :48:18.he can be a bit prickly. We will all be listening and watching and we can
:48:19. > :48:20.hear from you about your thoughts afterwards.
:48:21. > :48:23.The countryside is under siege from developers - or at least that's the
:48:24. > :48:26.claim from the Campaign for Rural England. In a new report, they
:48:27. > :48:28.criticise the Government's National Planning Policy Framework for
:48:29. > :48:31.forcing rural councils to accept major developments that they are
:48:32. > :48:35.opposed to - destroying the green belt. According to the CPRE,
:48:36. > :48:38.green-belt land has been allocated for around 190,000 new homes already
:48:39. > :48:42.- and they predict around 700,000 new houses in the green belt over
:48:43. > :48:50.the next 20 years, based on current council plans. Part of the problem,
:48:51. > :48:54.they say, is that local authorities' plans are being undermined. Last
:48:55. > :48:58.year Government granted permission for two thirds of major housing
:48:59. > :49:02.developments that went to appeal. Planning minister Nick Boles hasn't
:49:03. > :49:09.taken the report too kindly - he dismissed it as a spurious analysis
:49:10. > :49:12.of the facts. But it may well be that the green belt will lose
:49:13. > :49:15.whoever is in power. Labour has pledged to build 200,000 new homes a
:49:16. > :49:26.year, five new garden cities, and promised to give urban local
:49:27. > :49:30.authorities a right to grow. Patience, do you think we're in
:49:31. > :49:34.danger of seeing the green belt massively eroded? We are clearly in
:49:35. > :49:38.danger of seeing it eroded slightly but I think what's happening is that
:49:39. > :49:43.builders are being allowed to build on the green belt where they should
:49:44. > :49:49.be actually building on brown field sites. Not enough local authorities
:49:50. > :49:53.are releasing Brownfield as the main source of building land and they
:49:54. > :49:58.should be. I think only a quarter of local authorities have designated
:49:59. > :50:03.brown field land as being their priority for development. Isn't that
:50:04. > :50:09.because the new planning framework has taken away this banning of
:50:10. > :50:12.building there. There should be an assumption that brown field should
:50:13. > :50:18.be built on first but you don't have to. That has opened the door to more
:50:19. > :50:21.applications on green belt. There was a belief, as I understand it,
:50:22. > :50:27.that local authorities would be far more proactive. They have the
:50:28. > :50:30.jurisdiction to designate building land they have been surprisingly lax
:50:31. > :50:35.in this and it may be that we have to look at the legislation again. Do
:50:36. > :50:38.you think local authorities can be trusted or have the ability,
:50:39. > :50:47.actually, to turn down those sorts of applications? I'm very much in
:50:48. > :50:54.favour of giving power to local communities and to local people, who
:50:55. > :50:57.are very engaged - or ought to be - in developing their local plans. I
:50:58. > :51:04.think there's quite a bit of scaremongering in the numbers that
:51:05. > :51:08.we've seen. The number of homes marked for green belt has increased
:51:09. > :51:10.to 200,000. The bigger numbers are the ones that have got everybody
:51:11. > :51:15.scared, which are future projections. I think there is a way
:51:16. > :51:19.to do most of this on brown field sites, or significantly. We'll
:51:20. > :51:24.probably be looking at some new garden cities. Ebbsfleet, for
:51:25. > :51:28.example, is overwhelmingly on a brown field site, so there are ways
:51:29. > :51:33.to do garden cities that aren't necessarily green belt. A lot of the
:51:34. > :51:36.work that I'm in on HS2 is to get economic wealth fired up in the
:51:37. > :51:40.Midlands and the north, where there is a lot of capacity for new
:51:41. > :51:45.housing, but it needs to be underpinned by new jobs and new
:51:46. > :51:50.businesses, so getting HS2 up their - and then the conductivity between
:51:51. > :51:55.all of those cities. -- connectivity. An awful lot of people
:51:56. > :51:58.feel forced to come to the south-east but would much rather
:51:59. > :52:00.stay in the Midlands on the north and we got to create the
:52:01. > :52:11.infrastructure and the jobs to let that happen. Well, there's a housing
:52:12. > :52:16.crisis now. We can't wait for HS2. A real housing crisis is happening
:52:17. > :52:21.now. One of the problems for local authorities is that whenever they
:52:22. > :52:25.dedicate any land for building, a lot of local people will complain
:52:26. > :52:31.about that. Or is it the type of application? It sometimes can be
:52:32. > :52:34.think we've got to be very much more intelligent in the type of
:52:35. > :52:40.applications. Garden cities are, I think, the way forward. I was born
:52:41. > :52:44.in and grew up in a new town. What we have to do with garden cities is
:52:45. > :52:49.not just look at housing but look at the infrastructure, the roast other
:52:50. > :52:54.areas, the jobs, the schools. If we only build on brown field sites in
:52:55. > :52:57.urban built-up areas, we create other problems, like congestion,
:52:58. > :53:01.like not enough schools or hospitals. It has to be an
:53:02. > :53:07.intelligently, well thought out process. What I'd like to see is
:53:08. > :53:12.where green belt land is. What we did in the last government is that
:53:13. > :53:16.the overall amount of green belt land stayed the same but a lot of
:53:17. > :53:18.green belt land that you can't build on is actually quite ugly and we
:53:19. > :53:21.could replace it with land people use.
:53:22. > :53:26.Now, in last week's Budget, duty on a pint beer was cut by 1p. Loud
:53:27. > :53:30.cheers for that! The cut comes in today - but will it be passed on to
:53:31. > :53:33.customers? Well, pubs are just opening their doors but guess who's
:53:34. > :53:34.first inside! Giles has visited a few local hostelries for this
:53:35. > :53:57.oh-so-scientific survey. Once again I have been dispatched to
:53:58. > :54:02.the public houses of Westminster. It's a hard life! But there is a
:54:03. > :54:05.question that is raised out of the budget. All chancellors like to give
:54:06. > :54:10.a little bit to those hard drinking... I mean hard-working
:54:11. > :54:13.people who enjoy their leisure time, so he knocked a penny of beer.
:54:14. > :54:18.Outside the Palace of Westminster, in the pubs nearby, a pint costs
:54:19. > :54:21.quite a lot so a penny off is not a whole hill of beans. But have they
:54:22. > :54:34.even been passing that on? Well, the answer, as it turns out is
:54:35. > :54:37.no. We asked about two lagers and a bitter and neither of them had the
:54:38. > :54:42.penny off but they assure me they're going to. This one is called The
:54:43. > :54:49.Speaker. Let's see what they've got to say. It turns out with this one
:54:50. > :54:53.that they round up, like a lot of pubs, to the nearest 5p. So you
:54:54. > :54:59.wouldn't even notice the penny off. Let's see about the last one. With
:55:00. > :55:04.the Treasury situated just opposite, we don't even need to go into the
:55:05. > :55:08.red Lion in Whitehall to notice that they've already cut a penny of a
:55:09. > :55:12.pint of beer and, given the fact that Treasury officials are
:55:13. > :55:14.sometimes pop in for a drink, it's not surprisingly because they'd
:55:15. > :55:20.probably be reminded if they hadn't! But it is only a penny off
:55:21. > :55:25.the duty of beer. Breweries are not obliged to pass it onto us and, as
:55:26. > :55:30.we've seen, some of haven't yet. Giles Dilnot there. Well, it's not
:55:31. > :55:33.just beer - duty on wine and spirits was frozen too. That was something
:55:34. > :55:36.which Peter Richards - wine expert from the Saturday Kitchen programme
:55:37. > :55:45.- was advocating on this programme just a few weeks ago. The Chancellor
:55:46. > :55:50.has said that he wants to support growth and employment so he should
:55:51. > :55:55.be toasting this vibrant sector. But instead, with every Budget, he
:55:56. > :55:59.raises the amount of tax we pay on wines and spirits through and
:56:00. > :56:02.alcohol duty escalator, effectively punishing business, the wider
:56:03. > :56:07.economy and you and me, the consumers. It's time for government
:56:08. > :56:14.to take a sober look at the facts and call time on duty. Well, Peter
:56:15. > :56:19.is back here no doubt to perform a victory lap! Was he listening to you
:56:20. > :56:22.on the Daily Politics? I hope so and I hope Eric Pickles fed something
:56:23. > :56:27.back. I think there's a lot to celebrate here. I'd like to
:56:28. > :56:30.personally celebrate and congratulate the Chancellor. He is
:56:31. > :56:36.listened to the evidence, he's listened to his MPs. Over 90% of MPs
:56:37. > :56:39.got a letter from their constituents advocating scrapping the duty
:56:40. > :56:42.escalator so it's a brilliant step in the right direction but I will
:56:43. > :56:46.pick you up on one thing. Wine has been left out in the colder bit.
:56:47. > :56:52.Spirit duty has been frozen, beer has been cut, cider has been frozen
:56:53. > :56:55.but wine is still up with escalation -- inflation. So while the duty
:56:56. > :57:04.escalator has been scrapped... You still want more. Is that for the
:57:05. > :57:09.Chancellor? This is for you, Jo! I know about the BBC rules but this
:57:10. > :57:14.isn't a gift but educational tool. You teased me last time for being a
:57:15. > :57:18.wine expert without any wine. The serious point is that we make some
:57:19. > :57:21.fantastic wines in this country. It's a nascent industry that needs
:57:22. > :57:25.help and support so for the Chancellor to support it, I think
:57:26. > :57:29.freezing wind duty in the next Budget would be the way. But who
:57:30. > :57:36.does that benefit? Producers, or would it actually help consumers?
:57:37. > :57:44.Both. It would be passed on, would it? Good question. In this country,
:57:45. > :57:51.a lot of wine sold in this country is made abroad. But the industry
:57:52. > :57:56.itself... We bottle a lot of wine from abroad here. There's a lot of
:57:57. > :58:00.jobs associated with this economy in this country. Quite apart from the
:58:01. > :58:04.consumers who buy into it. I was a bit mystified as to why wine was
:58:05. > :58:08.left out but it's a significant step forward. It does raise quite a lot
:58:09. > :58:14.of money and if you're freezing or cutting duty on beer, we lose the
:58:15. > :58:18.dosh. I think there's a very good argument for treating wine in the
:58:19. > :58:20.same way as beer, though. So he could blew those who favour one or
:58:21. > :58:30.the other shouldn't be discriminated against. Who do you favour? I don't
:58:31. > :58:36.prefer one or the other. Hopefully we'll find other ways to get the
:58:37. > :58:39.money. What I am pleased about is whether people pass it on or not,
:58:40. > :58:45.I'd like to see our pubs saved and a lot of them are financially
:58:46. > :58:48.fragile. They are a community asset. We'll drink to that, I suppose!
:58:49. > :58:53.That's all for today. Thanks to all my guests. The one o'clock news is
:58:54. > :58:56.starting over on BBC One now. I'll be back tomorrow. Bye-bye.