:00:35. > :00:37.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:38. > :00:40.The Governor the Bank of England says he can't perform miracles to
:00:41. > :00:45.Is the only answer to build more homes?
:00:46. > :00:49.There's been no rush on Lamborghinis so far but will the Government's
:00:50. > :00:51.radical reforms to pensions still be a crowd pleaser
:00:52. > :00:57.David Cameron ventures north of the border to make the case
:00:58. > :01:03.We'll speak to the SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon.
:01:04. > :01:06.And Michael Gove and David Laws kiss and make up after their
:01:07. > :01:22.We'll bring you the top political reconciliations.
:01:23. > :01:26.Did they case, all you being metaphorical? I don't think it
:01:27. > :01:30.wasn't literal. All that in the next hour and with
:01:31. > :01:34.us for the duration, our go-to pensions expert,
:01:35. > :01:36.Ros Altmann. First this morning, raising interest
:01:37. > :01:39.rates is the last line of defence in controlling the housing market -
:01:40. > :01:42.that's according to the governor Mark Carney used
:01:43. > :01:45.his quarterly inflation report yesterday to say the bank couldn't
:01:46. > :01:50.perform miracles, with house prices growing at their fastest rate
:01:51. > :01:54.since the crash of 2008. The cost of housing looks set to be
:01:55. > :01:57.one of the big issues As we all know the housing market is
:01:58. > :02:05.all about supply and demand, and strong recent demand and limited
:02:06. > :02:12.supply has pushed prices up by 11% over the last year, the biggest
:02:13. > :02:17.annual jump since June 2007. It lead to the OECD warning that
:02:18. > :02:21.Britain needs to take action of soaring prices, through monetary
:02:22. > :02:25.policy tightening and scaling back Mark Carney said yesterday he was
:02:26. > :02:37.likely to resist calls to put interest rates up this year
:02:38. > :02:40.and told journalists rates would stay at historically low levels
:02:41. > :02:42.for some time. But Mr Carney said the Bank of
:02:43. > :02:45.England cannot perform miracles to deflate the housing bubble, pointing
:02:46. > :02:48.out that Financial Policy Committee can't build a single one of the more
:02:49. > :02:53.than 100,000 additional new homes Governments can build houses though,
:02:54. > :03:00.and Labour have already nailed their colours to the mast ahead of
:03:01. > :03:05.the next election by saying they'll be building 200,000 homes a year
:03:06. > :03:11.by the end of the next parliament. But, as all governments find, saying
:03:12. > :03:14.it is one thing, actually putting You found it that she sounded like
:03:15. > :03:31.Bob the builder! With me now is
:03:32. > :03:34.the housing minister Kris Hopkins, and hedge fund manager and author
:03:35. > :03:37.of Planet Ponzi, Mitch Feierstein. Also joining us from our Birmingham
:03:38. > :03:47.studio is the shadow housing Ali experiencing a housing bubble,
:03:48. > :03:51.or is it a London housing bubble and the rest of the country is quite
:03:52. > :03:58.normal? What we need to do is have an economic debate about the housing
:03:59. > :04:02.prices going up. I think it all relates to inflation, the inflation
:04:03. > :04:09.numbers. If you go back a little bit, to look at oil, or example, for
:04:10. > :04:16.a 13 year period oil prices stayed flat or down, slightly. If you look
:04:17. > :04:19.to 99, until 2014, they went up by a lot. If you look at the way
:04:20. > :04:26.statistics are not related, you can make them say anything. Housing,
:04:27. > :04:29.1999-2014, it has gone up over 900%. In every market, there is a
:04:30. > :04:35.correlation between house prices and income. If you look at the inflation
:04:36. > :04:40.adjustment, with real income, income has gone down while house prices
:04:41. > :04:43.have gone up precipitously. It seems coincidental that Mark Carney has
:04:44. > :04:48.been brought in as the head of the Bangkok England, and they are
:04:49. > :04:57.pushing forward this help to buy scheme, which is more of a Ponzi
:04:58. > :05:02.scheme. You've not answered my question, is the bubble a London
:05:03. > :05:08.phenomenon, and in the rest of the country, it is not out of kilter?
:05:09. > :05:14.There are five datasets you can look at. We don't have time for five. In
:05:15. > :05:19.the north-east and Yorkshire there are no housing bubbles? There are
:05:20. > :05:22.pockets in every bubble where you will not have prices exploding at
:05:23. > :05:29.the same rate that they are exploding in central London. Central
:05:30. > :05:34.London is a law unto itself, an international market. Property debt
:05:35. > :05:37.has become a mixture of money-laundering and a new global
:05:38. > :05:42.international currency. That has nothing to do with the people of
:05:43. > :05:47.Manchester, Birmingham Glasgow? I would agree with you 100%. But
:05:48. > :05:52.optimism bias is also part of it. You have extremely wealthy people
:05:53. > :05:57.buying to let. Buy to let is part of this, perpetuating eight bubble that
:05:58. > :06:02.will take down the banking system and cause financial havoc. When? I'm
:06:03. > :06:08.surprised it's been going for so long. You can never tell how big it
:06:09. > :06:11.is going to get. Either a market is undervalued, fairly valued,
:06:12. > :06:16.overvalued or ridiculous. We reached ridiculous about one year ago.
:06:17. > :06:21.Prices in the West Midlands, a key part of the country, they are lower
:06:22. > :06:27.now than they were in 2008? I looked at a chart and took all the figures
:06:28. > :06:32.from Nationwide and downloaded them. If you use an average of all prices
:06:33. > :06:37.in England, excluding London, you can see we are almost back at a
:06:38. > :06:41.cyclical peak. The graph shows a parabolic move. If you go back to
:06:42. > :06:46.the beginning of where the datasets are formed, whenever you have a
:06:47. > :06:49.parabolic move, it looks like this. You always have reversion back to
:06:50. > :06:54.the norm, where the statistical average will be. I can't tell you
:06:55. > :06:58.how big the bubble will get, but it will correct, and escape velocity
:06:59. > :07:05.for Mark Carney means that he will be with his $6 million he is being
:07:06. > :07:05.paid in Canada, watching that house bubble
:07:06. > :07:10.paid in Canada, watching that house burst as well. It would not be a
:07:11. > :07:15.bubble if you build more homes? I think that is the solution. In
:07:16. > :07:21.London, you are right, there is an issue that is specific to London. It
:07:22. > :07:27.is 9.1%, in the rest of the country it is 5.8%. In the rest of the
:07:28. > :07:31.country we need to make more houses. We have the figures this morning and
:07:32. > :07:38.we have seen a 31% increase on housing. Let me take you up on that.
:07:39. > :07:42.Housing starts at about 133,000, up on the previous year. The crash
:07:43. > :07:46.was... Let me get this right, it was six years ago. And you are still
:07:47. > :07:51.nowhere near the level of house building before the crash. Why is it
:07:52. > :07:56.taking you so long? There are two things, one final thing I would say
:07:57. > :08:03.on house prices, we are nowhere near peak at the moment. We are not
:08:04. > :08:09.expected to go past that peak price until 2018. It is still below peak
:08:10. > :08:17.across the country. It is about taking an industry, food and 50,000
:08:18. > :08:24.people were lost, the banking system ground to a halt, if you're going to
:08:25. > :08:28.kick-start that community to find ways like a help to buy scheme, like
:08:29. > :08:35.the ?300 million investment in council houses. It's taking a long
:08:36. > :08:40.while? It does. The biggest number of council houses built since 1991,
:08:41. > :08:48.1000 council houses. That is really important. 1000? I remember when
:08:49. > :08:58.Harold Macmillan Ilton 300,001 year. That is only 300 times more? That is
:08:59. > :09:05.a very low starting base. It will be the biggest number of affordable
:09:06. > :09:11.houses built for 20 years. House numbers, construction is at a
:09:12. > :09:17.massive high. Let me bring in Mitch Feierstein. If you look at
:09:18. > :09:20.affordable housing, I can give you an example. In Wandsworth,
:09:21. > :09:24.affordable housing was built and none of it was sold to key workers.
:09:25. > :09:31.It turned into a big scandal that disappeared out of the papers. If
:09:32. > :09:38.you look at job creation, in 2013, it was one in four or one in five in
:09:39. > :09:42.the property sector. 89% of first-time buyers are in those
:09:43. > :09:46.houses. A lot of them are being subsidised by the bank of mum and
:09:47. > :09:52.dad. If you were the Government, what would you do? Stop stealing
:09:53. > :09:57.from savers with zero interest rate policies, that helps nobody. You are
:09:58. > :10:01.the Government, you don't have control over the interest rates. You
:10:02. > :10:06.hire the people in the Bank of England so you have sway over that.
:10:07. > :10:12.You would sack Mark Carney? I don't think I would sack him. You can't
:10:13. > :10:17.tell him what to do. If you can't control interest rates, I think the
:10:18. > :10:21.government has to rain in the banks. They have zero regulation on the
:10:22. > :10:27.banks. How many bankers went to jail for the credit crisis? Zero. Royal
:10:28. > :10:31.Bank of Scotland, in capitalism... What would you do with the banks? I
:10:32. > :10:37.would regulate them seriously. What does that mean? Zero bankers went to
:10:38. > :10:39.jail. But there is a difference between sending people to jail and
:10:40. > :10:45.regulating them, or sending people to jail is the law of the land. I'm
:10:46. > :10:49.still trying to find one thing that you would do that is practical. The
:10:50. > :10:51.leveraged and debt structures that are dangerous to the financial
:10:52. > :10:57.health of the system should be trimmed down. You should not have
:10:58. > :11:01.500 times leveraged, with sympathetic, derivative products. A
:11:02. > :11:07.bank like JPMorgan allowed to have 73 trillion on balance Street... I'm
:11:08. > :11:10.not sure JPMorgan is that big in the British housing market. You were
:11:11. > :11:16.promising to build 200,000 homes, but not until 2020, why should we
:11:17. > :11:20.trust you, seeing as you never managed to get close to 20,000 homes
:11:21. > :11:31.in power? Before the global financial crash, 170,000 homes were
:11:32. > :11:35.built. We are on the right trajectory. Under this government,
:11:36. > :11:39.frankly, they have been incredibly complacent. Mark Carney, the Bank of
:11:40. > :11:44.England governor yesterday, he said that housing is the biggest threat
:11:45. > :11:51.to economic stability. Kris Hopkins might put figures about house
:11:52. > :11:53.prices, but there are pockets of the country, London and the south-east
:11:54. > :12:00.in particular, pockets where this is a real concern. What would you do?
:12:01. > :12:04.The Government needs to recognise that there are some pretty
:12:05. > :12:07.fundamental problems with the land market in terms of availability. But
:12:08. > :12:13.also in terms of the lack of competition from small house
:12:14. > :12:16.builders in an industry that is now dominated by big house-builders. We
:12:17. > :12:21.think the Government should get on and help small house-builders so
:12:22. > :12:25.that we can have more competition in the industry. Would you scrap help
:12:26. > :12:36.to buy in London? We would reduce the threshold from ?6,000 to
:12:37. > :12:42.400,000. -- from ?600,000, down to ?400,000. Would you scrap it in
:12:43. > :12:45.London? We think we should look closely at what is happening. We
:12:46. > :12:49.would assume you were doing that with everything, otherwise you would
:12:50. > :12:51.not be running the government. We're not saying we should scrap it, but
:12:52. > :12:59.we are saying not saying we should scrap it, but
:13:00. > :13:06.we are we should bring it down. And I just come back to the first point
:13:07. > :13:09.that I made? Let's take you to 2008, everything went pear shaped after
:13:10. > :13:16.that. In ten years of constant growth, plenty of money around,
:13:17. > :13:19.public spending soaring until the year 2008, you never once got near
:13:20. > :13:22.2000 homes. Why would we trust you at a time when there would be very
:13:23. > :13:30.little money around and growth could be difficult, that he would get
:13:31. > :13:33.anywhere near 200,000? We understand there are fundamental problems with
:13:34. > :13:36.the housing industry. It is the case for three decades now that there has
:13:37. > :13:41.been a growing gap between supply and demand. We think the Government
:13:42. > :13:45.needs to get a grip on this. The Government needs to take
:13:46. > :13:51.leadership. We would not, for example, in 2010, have cut the
:13:52. > :13:56.Affordable Homes Budget, by a massive 60%. Kris Hopkins talks
:13:57. > :14:00.about affordability. The Government is encouraging housing associations
:14:01. > :14:04.and others to charge 80% of market rent. In Wandsworth and London that
:14:05. > :14:11.is not affordable for key workers. Kris Hopkins? This Government has
:14:12. > :14:15.built more social houses than they did in 13 years. To lecture us about
:14:16. > :14:22.what we are doing, they were not building that houses. 445,000
:14:23. > :14:30.houses, 170,000 by next year. The next programme of 100 and 5000 will
:14:31. > :14:36.be out by 2014. We are committed to make sure that people get on the
:14:37. > :14:38.housing ladder. Help to buy, 89% of them are first-time buyers. The
:14:39. > :14:44.average price of those houses, on the guarantee scheme, it is
:14:45. > :14:50.?145,000. On the equity scheme, it is 185,000. When the average house
:14:51. > :14:54.price is ?250,000, this is not boosting a bubble. It is
:14:55. > :14:58.facilitating first-time buyers to get on the market. Ros Altmann has
:14:59. > :15:04.listened to this, what do you make of it? We are in a bubble, as far as
:15:05. > :15:07.I can see. It is stimulated by policies that have boosted demand
:15:08. > :15:11.without boosting supply. We need to look up the whole housing policy
:15:12. > :15:16.across the piece. It is not just about building affordable homes,
:15:17. > :15:20.small flats. We also need to build houses that older people will want
:15:21. > :15:25.to downsize to, to free up the whole market. Have a real problem. House
:15:26. > :15:30.price inflation may be good for people that own homes. What about
:15:31. > :15:36.the younger generation, who are struggling to afford rent? Why is
:15:37. > :15:40.this a problem outside London? If you look at some of the metropolitan
:15:41. > :15:44.cities, they are doing very well. The economy is recovering strongly.
:15:45. > :15:49.House prices are also going up. But they are not back to their peak? The
:15:50. > :15:56.peak was based on ludicrous borrowing. 120% mortgages and that
:15:57. > :16:02.sort of thing. We haven't done that, negative equity is still being paid
:16:03. > :16:09.down. Why is there a bubble? In this particular housing cycle there has
:16:10. > :16:11.been no increase in negative equity. But if you are at warehouse prices
:16:12. > :16:24.are really arising. In London, that's the jobs are. So
:16:25. > :16:31.who has got the better policy, Labour or Conservative 's? I'm not
:16:32. > :16:35.sure what Labour would actually do. If they were going to be building
:16:36. > :16:39.houses across the spectrum, I think that would help. The government's
:16:40. > :16:45.policy now is kicking in, it would have been nice if this had happened
:16:46. > :16:51.earlier. Which was my original point you have been slow at this. We know
:16:52. > :16:57.when people build homes, people who buy them have to go and get fridges
:16:58. > :17:01.and things. You make a strong argument. The thing about it is,
:17:02. > :17:06.there isn't a press of the button on it. You have to make sure the bank
:17:07. > :17:09.is going to loan, make sure you have the infrastructure. One of the
:17:10. > :17:12.issues we have now is we talk about the top ten builders, they don't
:17:13. > :17:16.have the capacity to go further than they are building at the moment.
:17:17. > :17:21.They will have to recruit, train to get people in place. Their whole
:17:22. > :17:25.resources and infrastructure, it takes time to put that in place but
:17:26. > :17:31.it is there. I will give you the last word. I think the government
:17:32. > :17:34.isn't doing enough and it didn't do enough at the beginning when they
:17:35. > :17:39.were in government. I come back to what they did in 2010, which was to
:17:40. > :17:43.cut the affordable homes budget by 60%. A lot of the affordable homes
:17:44. > :17:48.that have been built in their first two years in government were homes
:17:49. > :17:51.that we stimulated in order to come through what was a difficult time
:17:52. > :17:55.for house-building. The truth is, we are not building half the number of
:17:56. > :17:58.homes, we need to keep up with demand and we need radical
:17:59. > :18:05.leadership that we are frankly not seeing. If we're not building half
:18:06. > :18:10.the number of homes, then you are promising up to 200,000 homes by
:18:11. > :18:18.2020, the figure you just gave us, you should be building 286,000? I
:18:19. > :18:23.was talking about completions. I was talking about that because
:18:24. > :18:28.completions is what you need in terms of output. The government's
:18:29. > :18:32.own figures suggest there is a housing need of 230,000. We would
:18:33. > :18:37.love to go beyond 200,000 but we know we're going to be starting from
:18:38. > :18:41.a very low base. We certainly need central government to get a grip on
:18:42. > :18:44.the issues that are affecting this industry and we know we're not
:18:45. > :18:55.building anywhere near enough homes. I thank you all for
:18:56. > :18:58.estimating discussion. The coalition government has embarked on the most
:18:59. > :19:02.radical reform of pensions in a generation, with the aim of giving
:19:03. > :19:05.people more freedom and responsible of the over their own plans for
:19:06. > :19:12.retirement and to shake up the pensions industry with more com
:19:13. > :19:18.petition. But is it a risky gamble? How old are you? The thought of a
:19:19. > :19:22.decent pension has always made us smile and the threat of its loss or
:19:23. > :19:26.degradation made us worried and angry. The concept is hundreds of
:19:27. > :19:34.years old and even the principles of pensions today were there in 1946.
:19:35. > :19:38.11p from your own pocket... The political parties have long known
:19:39. > :19:43.pensions needed reforming, but in his last autumn statement and
:19:44. > :19:46.subsequent budget, George Osborne bowled up an unexpected change. For
:19:47. > :19:50.defined contributions pensions, once you have rolled up to 55, a way you
:19:51. > :19:56.could go with your whole pension pot, and if you wished, by a
:19:57. > :20:03.Lamborghini. Let's not that old chestnut out of the game right now.
:20:04. > :20:07.The average pension pot in the UK is around ?25,000. I haven't bought a
:20:08. > :20:14.Lamborghini recently but I expect around ?25,000. I haven't bought a
:20:15. > :20:21.?25,000. People are more sensible than that. At the other end of the
:20:22. > :20:25.changes, the annuity monopoly was being removed. Nobody will now be
:20:26. > :20:29.forced into a system that pays a defined sum every month, though some
:20:30. > :20:32.may still want that and can. But it's clear the changes were as much
:20:33. > :20:38.about reforming the pensions market place as it was about us, who will
:20:39. > :20:41.need the products. People would reach retirement and they would be
:20:42. > :20:44.given an income amount and they would go for that, they wouldn't
:20:45. > :20:49.look around. What has happened over the last few months with the budget
:20:50. > :20:56.and also the reports from the ONS is that market has become more
:20:57. > :20:59.efficient. The jury is still out to see what the industry comes up with
:21:00. > :21:04.to make these products attractive to people, easily understood and
:21:05. > :21:08.transparent when it comes to what the costs and charges might be and
:21:09. > :21:12.what they might have to pay, and to get good quality professional
:21:13. > :21:17.advice. That's not the government is offering, it's just guidance. They
:21:18. > :21:25.have changed the word from advice to guidance. Pension changes caused
:21:26. > :21:29.trouble in the 50s. Changes to pensions in the public sector have
:21:30. > :21:33.sparked strikes and marches today. Already there have been heated
:21:34. > :21:47.clashes between the Socialists and the Tories, both of whom accuse the
:21:48. > :21:49.other of neglecting the old folk... 50 years on, it's clear people still
:21:50. > :21:51.care about pensions, but the state's involvement is less and
:21:52. > :21:55.less. The government want people to have pensions. Might they go the
:21:56. > :22:00.extra step and make it compulsory for all of us to make our own
:22:01. > :22:05.pension arrangements? I could see we get to a point where it is
:22:06. > :22:09.compulsory saving but we had the choice at the other end with
:22:10. > :22:16.education, and that is a sensible framework, really. Pensions are
:22:17. > :22:19.different from savings, and my concern is that with the changes and
:22:20. > :22:24.the ability to access our part at the age of 55, this is seen as a
:22:25. > :22:27.savings product, not a pensions product. What pensions do that
:22:28. > :22:34.savings don't is guarantee an income for the rest of 1's life. One
:22:35. > :22:39.wonders if that is what he got. Increasingly, it is a hope that
:22:40. > :22:54.previously disinterested young are worrying about today for themselves.
:22:55. > :23:00.We have two pensions experts here. We talked about Lamborghinis, that
:23:01. > :23:03.memorable quote yesterday, do you think Lamborghini sales will see a
:23:04. > :23:11.massive increase, metaphorically if not literally? Somehow I doubt it.
:23:12. > :23:15.The tax system will act as a natural break on people taking money out of
:23:16. > :23:20.their pension funds, because if you want to take significant sums out
:23:21. > :23:25.and you go into the price range of a Lamborghini, you would lease 45% of
:23:26. > :23:29.your money in tax. Most people wouldn't sign up to losing that much
:23:30. > :23:34.of their savings. If you take small amounts out over time, then you
:23:35. > :23:41.either pay no tax, or basic rate, 20% tax. That would be more
:23:42. > :23:43.attractive. If you have got a small pension pot, you might take it all
:23:44. > :23:51.at once, but does that really matter? You would only get a few
:23:52. > :23:54.pounds a week extra income. Why would you want to worry about that?
:23:55. > :24:00.You might have more important things you want to do. What is happening
:24:01. > :24:04.now, before April 2015, are people being forced to buy annuities
:24:05. > :24:09.despite the fact they heard the measures being announced? Generally
:24:10. > :24:12.not. In the past, people didn't literally have to buy an annuity,
:24:13. > :24:17.they just didn't have much alternative. It was either by that
:24:18. > :24:23.all go into something complicated that wasn't value for money. So what
:24:24. > :24:27.is happening is people are waiting till 2015, then we will see a big
:24:28. > :24:31.expansion of people taking cash, if that is what they want. For me,
:24:32. > :24:34.letting people choose what they do with their own money, give them
:24:35. > :24:40.guidance and help, but let them choose, is the right support. But
:24:41. > :24:45.there is a real pub, pension providers are not letting people
:24:46. > :24:50.take their tax-free cash -- a real problem. Some people are being
:24:51. > :24:55.forced to buy an annuity or some other product that doesn't work well
:24:56. > :25:00.for them. You sit generally, I have a quote here that says that the
:25:01. > :25:04.reality is pension companies are not accommodating requests when people
:25:05. > :25:10.say they want to draw down however much they want. You have signed a
:25:11. > :25:12.contract with a pension provider, the rules of the scheme are tougher
:25:13. > :25:16.than the rules of the land. the rules of the scheme are tougher
:25:17. > :25:23.Until 2015, when we can change all these things, we are spending the
:25:24. > :25:27.year making sure that next year, when these things come in, people
:25:28. > :25:34.have the freedom, until then, their money is still as tied up. So they
:25:35. > :25:41.are stuffed? No, no... They are delayed. They can't take the cash as
:25:42. > :25:45.they want to now but by next April, people are saying to us, this is
:25:46. > :25:54.break next speed, how can you do it by then? But they can't take any
:25:55. > :25:57.cash, that's the problem. That is the law of the land. The pension
:25:58. > :26:03.companies are saying, we're not going to let you, our systems can't
:26:04. > :26:07.cope, there isn't a single pensions company that is enabling you to do
:26:08. > :26:10.this. There is one that will let you have it within six months but then
:26:11. > :26:16.you still have two either buy an annuity within six months or go into
:26:17. > :26:19.another type of product. On the basis of that, was one of the
:26:20. > :26:24.problems that you didn't actually consult properly or within enough
:26:25. > :26:29.time, before you made your announcement, which was fairly
:26:30. > :26:32.radical? We heard the lady say that she was in a board meeting
:26:33. > :26:37.discussing pensions strategy during the budget and the announcement
:26:38. > :26:41.changed everything and was on anticipated by the industry, which
:26:42. > :26:47.is perhaps led to this situation? They were trapped anyway. If the
:26:48. > :26:52.accusation is this was big, bold and radical, I plead guilty. We have had
:26:53. > :26:58.decades of people being locked up, within 12 months, they will be free.
:26:59. > :27:04.But you didn't know yourself beforehand? Bear in mind that we
:27:05. > :27:06.have been talking about the failures of the market, people knew things
:27:07. > :27:12.were changing, we went further than we expected, and on the day of the
:27:13. > :27:18.budget, she said, this is fantastic reform. It takes 12 months to get it
:27:19. > :27:22.all in, that is how long it takes. The pensions industry needs to play
:27:23. > :27:29.its part. We would like to see them putting its customers at heart, and
:27:30. > :27:33.one of the reasons the reforms were needed is that the pensions and
:27:34. > :27:39.history itself seemed to worry about its own interests rather than those
:27:40. > :27:44.of the customer, and we are still seeing that. But about the
:27:45. > :27:49.face-to-face guidance, because that will be crucial? The quality of
:27:50. > :27:52.advice people need? It is important. We automatically
:27:53. > :27:56.enrolling people into pensions schemes. We need to make sure they
:27:57. > :28:01.understand what to do with their money, and in the past, there has
:28:02. > :28:05.been nothing to help them. What would you like the government to be
:28:06. > :28:12.providing? This needs to be got right. Hopefully we will get it
:28:13. > :28:17.right. Impartial, free, face-to-face guidance, I would prefer advice, but
:28:18. > :28:23.some minimum standards where people know that somebody is going to help
:28:24. > :28:28.them make these sessions. What are you going to provide? Face-to-face
:28:29. > :28:32.guidance could cost up to ?340 million a year, who will pay for
:28:33. > :28:36.that? First of all, it won't cost anything like that. You have the
:28:37. > :28:40.right to a race to face conversation, many people may choose
:28:41. > :28:47.phone -based, web based, they would all want it on the 6th of April, the
:28:48. > :28:51.pension schemes will have illegals duty to make sure their members get
:28:52. > :28:58.this guidance and pay for it. -- a legal duty. What we are saying is
:28:59. > :29:01.that at the moment people have got nothing, they are making life
:29:02. > :29:05.changing decisions, getting them wrong and there is no one there to
:29:06. > :29:11.help them. This will equip a whole generation of people to be better
:29:12. > :29:14.informed. The guidance will help you ask the right questions, you will
:29:15. > :29:21.need advice to get the right answers. What about making tension
:29:22. > :29:24.saving compulsory? The case for that is weaker than it was because we
:29:25. > :29:29.have been doing this opt out business, nine out of ten workers
:29:30. > :29:32.have stayed in, when nine at people are freely choosing to stay in
:29:33. > :29:39.something and one in ten are they don't want it, making it compulsory
:29:40. > :29:42.doesn't seem a good thing. So you are moving further away from calls
:29:43. > :29:47.to say it should be compulsory. What do you say? That would be a
:29:48. > :29:51.completely different landscape, we would have to get rid of tax relief,
:29:52. > :29:57.which might be attractive to the Treasury... I actually want more of
:29:58. > :30:01.the tax relief going to lower savers and Leicester people like me, I want
:30:02. > :30:07.to rebalance... You want to cut it for the higher tax payers? And raise
:30:08. > :30:13.it for the lower taxpayers. Some people probably shouldn't save for a
:30:14. > :30:19.pension. If you are saving for a deposit for a house, maybe you
:30:20. > :30:24.should be saving towards that, it may not overall be the optimal
:30:25. > :30:28.outcome. A question we have had in a tweet, will our pension pots be seen
:30:29. > :30:33.as an asset that we need to cash in if we need care later in life? The
:30:34. > :30:40.intention is to maintain the status quo. Currently we don't say you have
:30:41. > :30:44.to spend all your money on care, the idea is to maintain that intention.
:30:45. > :30:47.There are a lot of ways that can be done but the intention is not to
:30:48. > :30:53.bring lots of new people into means testing. This could work out better
:30:54. > :30:58.for care because at the moment, if you have spent all your money on an
:30:59. > :31:03.annuity, and you get ill in your 80s and you haven't had all the money
:31:04. > :31:08.back, there will be some there to give you something to support
:31:09. > :31:13.yourself with social care. We need incentives to help people use that
:31:14. > :31:21.money, but the reform of social care won't start giving you any public
:31:22. > :31:25.money, even if you qualify... You need to spend money on care if your
:31:26. > :31:44.needs are less than substantial. We have been speaking to some of the
:31:45. > :32:00.minor parties contesting the elections. One of the parties
:32:01. > :32:14.involved is Plaid Cymru. Britain First.
:32:15. > :32:20.Britain's latest addition to nationalist politics like, is a
:32:21. > :32:23.dramatic video. It's all captions straight out of a film trailer. This
:32:24. > :32:29.is their leader, Paul Golding, driving around Tower Hamlets in a
:32:30. > :32:36.reinforced Land Rover, looking very tough. We have these Christian
:32:37. > :32:39.patrol leaflets. Paul and his Christian patrol send their time
:32:40. > :32:46.running out informative leaflets, having charming chats with Muslims.
:32:47. > :32:50.If you want to live here, by by our laws. And drink lager in front of a
:32:51. > :32:53.mosque. That's not their only attempt to get a bit of attention.
:32:54. > :32:59.This weekend they launched a series of self-styled mosque innovations in
:33:00. > :33:01.Glasgow and Bradford. It mostly seemed to consist of wandering
:33:02. > :33:09.around uninvited, getting lost and doing some hectoring. Jesus Christ,
:33:10. > :33:12.our Lord, he wants to save you from hell. The visits are being
:33:13. > :33:17.investigated by the police and it will be the first time Paul Golding
:33:18. > :33:26.has come to their attention. He's been arrested more than once,
:33:27. > :33:32.accused of harassing religious extremists. Britain first also using
:33:33. > :33:36.the slogan remember Lee Rigby on voting slips, which led to the
:33:37. > :33:39.electoral commission having to apologise to the family of the
:33:40. > :33:45.murdered soldier. We are joined by the leader of
:33:46. > :33:50.Britain First, Paul Golding. You saw the EU style yourself as a patriotic
:33:51. > :33:55.party and a street defence organisation. You are basically a
:33:56. > :34:00.vigilante group? We are not, we are a street defence Association. We
:34:01. > :34:05.oppose radical extremists, Muslim extremist 's, highlighting things
:34:06. > :34:12.like female genital mutilation, the Muslim patrols in east London, the
:34:13. > :34:17.nonaction by the Muslim community to highlight Muslim grooming gangs. You
:34:18. > :34:24.look like vigilantes in that film? There will not be any charges, we
:34:25. > :34:26.have not broken any laws. What we saw was low-level bullying and
:34:27. > :34:31.intimidation? Not at all. We are there because those people have got
:34:32. > :34:35.influence over the Muslim communities. They are not doing
:34:36. > :34:40.anything regarding extremism in Islam, nothing regarding female
:34:41. > :34:44.genital mutilation, Muslim grooming gangs, hate preachers, anything at
:34:45. > :34:49.all like that. We are there to pressure them into action. Why do
:34:50. > :34:55.you have these military style uniforms, the reinforced Land Rover?
:34:56. > :34:59.It is playing soldiers? Just green activist jackets. Because we want to
:35:00. > :35:04.stand apart from groups like the EDL, we want to stand apart from
:35:05. > :35:08.them, so we were green activists jackets. Why did you leave that the
:35:09. > :35:12.MP, was it not far right enough? That's not the reason, corruption,
:35:13. > :35:17.stagnation, electoral nonperformance, all sorts of
:35:18. > :35:21.shenanigans going on around me reckon. And the fact he had gone off
:35:22. > :35:27.to enjoy the gravy train lifestyle in Europe. Me and hundreds of others
:35:28. > :35:32.decided to resign from that organisation. And set up this
:35:33. > :35:36.instead? Why did you turn up at the Mayor of Bradford's house with ten
:35:37. > :35:44.men? That day, we was going to visit the imams in Bradford, handing out
:35:45. > :35:48.Bibles and Muslim grooming leaflets, which is a free country, we can do
:35:49. > :35:53.what we want. I asked him for a face-to-face meeting, he refused, so
:35:54. > :35:57.we went to his home address. With ten men? Another form of
:35:58. > :36:01.intimidation? It's not at all. We asked him for a meeting, we turned
:36:02. > :36:05.up at his house, tried to give him some of our Muslim grooming leaflets
:36:06. > :36:11.and ask him why he was not doing anything about the scourge of Muslim
:36:12. > :36:21.grooming in the North of England. You describe Britain First as
:36:22. > :36:27.wanting to restore justice to politics, but you are being
:36:28. > :36:35.I was arrested for chasing a hate preacher down the street. For
:36:36. > :36:41.chasing Anjem Choudary, he radicalised one of the killers of
:36:42. > :36:47.Lee Rigby. For legal reasons, I can't go into the details of why you
:36:48. > :36:52.have been arrested. You brought up my arrest. You have been arrested a
:36:53. > :36:55.number of times, yet your proposal, you stand for principal and decency
:36:56. > :37:00.in politics, that is all I am asking. The second time was for
:37:01. > :37:03.exposing an Al-Qaeda training camp operator on terrorist living
:37:04. > :37:08.anonymously in Essex. Those arrest, I am entirely proud of. Anjem
:37:09. > :37:11.Choudary, for example, he radicalised one of the killers of
:37:12. > :37:15.Lee Rigby. I don't care, if you stand up for your people in our
:37:16. > :37:19.country, you face politically correct pressure from the state. I
:37:20. > :37:22.am quoting from your website, you want to make Britain a beautiful
:37:23. > :37:26.country once again where you can leave your door unlocked. But we
:37:27. > :37:30.have seen a few leave your door unlocked, people like you walking to
:37:31. > :37:35.it? Of course, if you are an Islamic hate preacher, you will find us on
:37:36. > :37:42.your doorstep. But you walked in. You were not on the doorstep, you
:37:43. > :37:45.walked into the mosques. It was a public mosque. You showed no
:37:46. > :37:48.respect, filmed it, did not take your shoes off, which would have
:37:49. > :37:53.been a sign of respect for people of a different religion. With people
:37:54. > :37:57.like you around, why would you leave your door unlocked? You might want
:37:58. > :38:07.to double bolted! We are not invading temples, because the Sikh
:38:08. > :38:12.unity is showing respect. The Muslim community is not showing respect for
:38:13. > :38:18.native traditions and cultures. Is that gives you the right to invade
:38:19. > :38:22.their mosques? If the police don't take action, if politicians don't
:38:23. > :38:26.take action, we will. We love our country, we defend our people. That
:38:27. > :38:32.gives you the right to take the law into your own hands? What laws have
:38:33. > :38:37.we broken? You have just invaded a mosque. That's not against the law.
:38:38. > :38:41.You said if the laws didn't do it, you would do it yourself? You would
:38:42. > :38:45.take the law into your own hands? And then there is Lee Rigby, who you
:38:46. > :38:49.tried to hijack the murder of Lee Rigby, we saw that on the ballot
:38:50. > :38:53.paper. Can I just quoted to you what Lee Rigby's mother has said?
:38:54. > :38:56.Referring to your group, their views are not what he believed in, there
:38:57. > :39:01.is no support from the family. Yet again, can any more heartbreak be
:39:02. > :39:06.thrown at me and my family? What do you say I sympathise, she is a
:39:07. > :39:09.grieving mother. Everybody in the country was appalled. It was the
:39:10. > :39:13.most high-profile act of Islamic terrorism perpetrated.
:39:14. > :39:20.But you shouldn't have put the name on the ballot paper, should you? You
:39:21. > :39:26.asked me a question, allow me to finish. There is a fine line between
:39:27. > :39:32.hijacking and highlighting. We are here to highlight what happened to
:39:33. > :39:36.Lee Rigby. Our entire campaign in Britain First is to try and
:39:37. > :39:40.suffocate Islamic extremism. His mother doesn't want you to, what is
:39:41. > :39:45.your answer? We are the ones taking the fight to hate preachers and
:39:46. > :39:48.Islamic preachers. I know what you're doing, I asked you what you
:39:49. > :39:52.would say to the mother of Lee Rigby, who does not want you to do
:39:53. > :39:59.this. We apologise to the mother of Lee Rigby, but it was a major act of
:40:00. > :40:04.terrorism. It was a big public event. He was a serving soldier. A
:40:05. > :40:08.public serving soldier. If you have so much respect for the this
:40:09. > :40:12.country, I think we can show a picture, why did you turn up at the
:40:13. > :40:18.Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday with a pair of underpants on your head?
:40:19. > :40:27.Yes, this was when I was about 16 years old. I was 16 years old, my
:40:28. > :40:32.family fought in the Second World War. My own family fought the Nazis.
:40:33. > :40:37.Why did you do that? I didn't do it, somebody else did it. That is not
:40:38. > :40:46.you? Somebody else put them on my head and I put them off very
:40:47. > :40:49.quickly. That actually happened, somebody put it on my head,
:40:50. > :40:55.conveniently a journalist was waiting with a camera. I think that
:40:56. > :40:59.is suspicious. I would never, ever, disrespect the memory of my own
:41:00. > :41:03.great-grandfather or any of the other war heroes. I understand
:41:04. > :41:06.that, we all had relatives that fought in the Second World War. Can
:41:07. > :41:09.we show the picture again? If somebody put this on your head, you
:41:10. > :41:13.did not take it off, you are walking down the street. If you have
:41:14. > :41:16.something on your head you don't want, you would take it off. You are
:41:17. > :41:21.walking in a rather determined fashion. No, those were on my head
:41:22. > :41:24.for about five seconds. Conveniently, there was a camera
:41:25. > :41:33.present. That is one I was 16 years old. This is a bit silly, childish.
:41:34. > :41:36.It is slightly strange? Next time you get Liberal Democrats, Tories or
:41:37. > :41:43.labour, I'm sure you will be digging up stuff. I assure you we have had
:41:44. > :41:47.Tories in that seal of films -- Nazi uniforms at Swiss parties.
:41:48. > :41:50.David Cameron will invoke the memory of former Labour leader John Smith
:41:51. > :41:54.on a visit to Scotland today to make the case for the Union.
:41:55. > :41:57.Yesterday the Chancellor reiterated his opposition to monetary union
:41:58. > :42:01.He was speaking to the Treasury select committee.
:42:02. > :42:07.Let's have a listen to what he had to say.
:42:08. > :42:13.I am absolutely clear there will not be a currency union if Scotland
:42:14. > :42:16.votes to become independent. No ifs or buts. That is not just my
:42:17. > :42:20.position, it is the position of the Labour Party and the Liberal
:42:21. > :42:24.Democrats. Any combination you can imagine of a British government, for
:42:25. > :42:33.the foreseeable future, has ruled this option out. Just on
:42:34. > :42:40.sterlingisation, I still think people might be confused as to why
:42:41. > :42:46.it is not feasible and what sterlingisation Woodlock like in an
:42:47. > :42:53.independent Scotland. -- would look like. It means that you don't have
:42:54. > :42:59.your own currency, you have another country's currency will stop you are
:43:00. > :43:03.not printing banknotes. That would be the case, even though Scotland,
:43:04. > :43:11.as we know, prints its own notes? They would not exist any more. Can I
:43:12. > :43:17.just eat clear, and sterlingisation, Scottish banks would not be able to
:43:18. > :43:21.print notes? They print their notes with the support and authority of
:43:22. > :43:33.the Bank of England and Parliament, which has passed legislation to
:43:34. > :43:36.support this. Let's go to Edinburgh, where the Deputy First Minister and
:43:37. > :43:42.Deputy leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, is waiting for us. When
:43:43. > :43:47.you launch the SNP European campaign, you expressed the fear
:43:48. > :43:52.that UKIP in Scotland might stop you getting a third seat in the European
:43:53. > :43:56.Parliament. Why are you so worried about them, since only a few years
:43:57. > :44:01.ago your leader dismissed them as an irrelevance? That is not quite what
:44:02. > :44:04.I said. I don't expect them to do well in Scotland of the European
:44:05. > :44:09.elections. What I was saying is that the only way for people in Scotland
:44:10. > :44:13.to ensure that Nigel Farage does not get a foothold in Scotland is to
:44:14. > :44:18.vote SNP. If the SNP wins the final seat that everybody thinks is up for
:44:19. > :44:22.grabs, a young Scottish Asian woman, I can't think of a better
:44:23. > :44:26.rebuke to the politics of Nigel Farage. You have said that, do you
:44:27. > :44:30.regard them as an irrelevance or could they stop you getting this
:44:31. > :44:35.third seat? I don't think UKIP offers anything in Scotland. We have
:44:36. > :44:39.had experiences in by-elections were UKIP have fielded candidates and
:44:40. > :44:43.have not saved their deposit, they have done very badly. I don't expect
:44:44. > :44:46.them to do well. I want to be absolutely sure we don't give Nigel
:44:47. > :44:51.Farage any foothold in Scotland, that is why an SNP is the best way
:44:52. > :44:54.to guarantee it. Alex Salmond said that Scotland was a country,
:44:55. > :45:00.speaking of David Cameron, he said Scotland was a country that never
:45:01. > :45:07.will elect people like him to govern us. What do you mean by people like
:45:08. > :45:10.him? What he was saying is that Scotland does not vote for Tory
:45:11. > :45:15.governments. I am 44 years old, almost. You might not think I like
:45:16. > :45:20.that, but I am. Never once in my life has Scotland voted Tory. What
:45:21. > :45:27.does he mean by people like him? Tories. That's it? Scotland doesn't
:45:28. > :45:30.vote Tory, we don't vote for Tory prime ministers like David Cameron.
:45:31. > :45:35.Yet we very often end up with Tory prime ministers. Independence would
:45:36. > :45:39.put a stop to that and make sure it is the parties that win elections
:45:40. > :45:44.that get to be in government. People like him just means Tories? I'm not
:45:45. > :45:49.sure what else you are referring. I'm trying to find out, it has a
:45:50. > :45:54.whiff of ethnic nastiness. For goodness sake, you know the SNP very
:45:55. > :45:57.well, you know our brand of nationalism. I am not personalising
:45:58. > :46:03.this to you. Everybody knows the SNP promotes civic nationalism. I just
:46:04. > :46:08.mentioned to one of our European candidates, a young Scots Asian
:46:09. > :46:13.woman that I hope to see elected to the European Parliament. The key
:46:14. > :46:16.point that we argue is that if Scotland becomes independent we no
:46:17. > :46:20.longer have to put up with a situation where we overwhelmingly
:46:21. > :46:23.reject the Tories in general elections but have to put up with
:46:24. > :46:30.Tory governments and Tory prime ministers imposing policies like the
:46:31. > :46:34.bedroom tax. Other than assertion, can you present evidence to show
:46:35. > :46:37.that the major Westminster parties are bluffing, as you claim, when it
:46:38. > :46:43.comes to monetary union after independence? I could cite the
:46:44. > :46:48.amendment estate in the Guardian who said, of course they would be a
:46:49. > :46:55.currency union. I think that is a fairly strong evidence. You know
:46:56. > :46:57.that unnamed minister was talking about a deal of fast lane for
:46:58. > :47:05.monetary union, you have ruled out... What evidence do you have?
:47:06. > :47:09.Our position on Trident is clear, but what that minister was saying is
:47:10. > :47:13.that this position of George Osborne, that there will be no
:47:14. > :47:19.negotiations over currency, is not true. Perhaps the stronger evidence
:47:20. > :47:21.is the fact that many reasons, a currency union between an
:47:22. > :47:25.independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would be as much in the
:47:26. > :47:28.interests of the rest of the UK as it would be in the rest of
:47:29. > :47:31.Scotland. It is that argument we will continue to push forward and
:47:32. > :47:35.the polls suggest that the majority of people in Scotland also think
:47:36. > :47:42.George Osborne is engaging in bluff and bluster. That is not evidence,
:47:43. > :47:47.would respect. And if you understand that negotiations for independence,
:47:48. > :47:53.if you vote yes on the 18th, would be underway when the British general
:47:54. > :47:59.election comes on in 2015. And having voted for independence, what
:48:00. > :48:02.would then be the English parties would come under a lot of pressure
:48:03. > :48:04.to put no money to put no monetary union into their manifestoes. You
:48:05. > :48:10.may find out they are not laughing at all. The point about the general
:48:11. > :48:14.election is a good one, but for other reasons. It would be an odd
:48:15. > :48:18.chancellor or aspiring Chancellor that turned round and said to
:48:19. > :48:23.businesses in England and said, we're going to impose transaction
:48:24. > :48:27.costs of ?500 million a year on you in order to allow you to trade with
:48:28. > :48:33.your second biggest export market, which is Scotland. It would be an
:48:34. > :48:36.odd chancellor or aspiring Chancellor to turn his back on
:48:37. > :48:40.Scottish exports with the increase in Detroit ever said that would be
:48:41. > :48:48.incurred. The arguments are basic common sense. You use this figure a
:48:49. > :48:51.lot, and it is adjusting you are so concerned that English
:48:52. > :48:55.entrepreneurs, but it will cost the government about ?20 billion to move
:48:56. > :49:05.fast lane from Scotland to somewhere else in the UK. So why is ?500
:49:06. > :49:10.million neither here nor there, in the trillion pound economy? It is
:49:11. > :49:14.peanuts! I would hope that at some point, the UK would have a
:49:15. > :49:19.government that sees sense and gets rid of Trident altogether. That
:49:20. > :49:23.would be entirely up to UK governments, but I believe the
:49:24. > :49:26.decision to spend ?100 billion replacing Trident is the wrong one
:49:27. > :49:28.and one of the benefits of independence is we no longer have to
:49:29. > :49:36.put up with Trident being based here. The people of Scotland have
:49:37. > :49:41.put up with that for years. If it turns out they are not bluffing and
:49:42. > :49:45.that all three parties right no monetary union into them and
:49:46. > :49:50.investors, so no matter the result, there is no monetary union, what is
:49:51. > :49:54.your fallback position? I don't believe that is the case, but with
:49:55. > :49:57.that this discussion before, the fiscal commission have set out the
:49:58. > :50:03.range of currency options that would be open to an independent Scotland,
:50:04. > :50:07.but the recommended currency union, that is the common sense position
:50:08. > :50:13.that we will continue to put forward. But if there is nothing to
:50:14. > :50:18.stop using the pound even without monetary union, but if you did, you
:50:19. > :50:23.would have no right... That is not my position. But it could be your
:50:24. > :50:29.fallback position, you would have no right to print money, no right to
:50:30. > :50:35.issue Scottish bonds and sterling, you wouldn't be independent? I am
:50:36. > :50:40.not even go to get into the discussion... But you need need a
:50:41. > :50:48.strategy in case you don't get it. I have cited the reasons I don't think
:50:49. > :50:52.that is going to be the case. It may be hard for you to grasp that you
:50:53. > :50:56.could be wrong, but if you are wrong, don't the Scottish people
:50:57. > :51:01.have a simple right to know what is your alternative? The fiscal
:51:02. > :51:06.commission report, which I have referred to before, is on the
:51:07. > :51:10.website of the Scottish government, any member of the public, any
:51:11. > :51:15.journalist, can go on to that website and read all of the currency
:51:16. > :51:18.options, the pros and cons of each of them and why the Scottish
:51:19. > :51:23.government recommends a monetary union, something we know that people
:51:24. > :51:27.deep within the UK government think will be the case once the referendum
:51:28. > :51:32.is over. What that doesn't give me is which when you would choose in
:51:33. > :51:34.the event. I know you're not going to tell me so I guess we will leave
:51:35. > :51:44.that there! Thank you very much. Plaid Cymru - the party of Wales -
:51:45. > :51:47.currently have one MEP but are putting up a full slate
:51:48. > :51:50.of candidates in Wales Their leader - Leanne Wood -
:51:51. > :52:01.joins us now from Cardiff. What makes you think people will
:52:02. > :52:07.listen to your campaign? 150,000 jobs in Wales and ?4 billion worth
:52:08. > :52:11.of investment rely on Wales being a member of the European Union. Unlike
:52:12. > :52:14.many other countries, Wales doesn't have a seat at the top table in the
:52:15. > :52:20.Council of ministers, nor do we have a seat at the top table in the
:52:21. > :52:25.to appoint any EU commissioners. So it is only through the four seats we
:52:26. > :52:29.have in the European Parliament, that is the only direct voice Wales
:52:30. > :52:32.has in the corridors of power in Brussels. That is why I am
:52:33. > :52:36.has in the corridors of power in on people to do what they can to
:52:37. > :52:41.make sure that they put the only party that will put Wales first into
:52:42. > :52:46.this election, that they will vote for Plaid Cymru to maintain a strong
:52:47. > :52:52.voice in Europe and sure that we put the national interest of Wales
:52:53. > :52:55.first. If you were in control of Wales, would you give the Welsh
:52:56. > :53:02.people a referendum on whether to stay or leave the EU? Yes, we are
:53:03. > :53:06.relaxed about holding a referendum. I think that in such a referendum,
:53:07. > :53:09.we would be putting forward the case that Wales should remain a member,
:53:10. > :53:16.albeit we would want to change aspects of the EU. But it is in our
:53:17. > :53:20.interests, and it is more clear for Wales and it is for the rest of the
:53:21. > :53:25.British state, it isn't in our interest to be a member of the EU
:53:26. > :53:32.because of all those jobs -- it is in our interest. That stance doesn't
:53:33. > :53:37.seem to be doing you any good as far as the polls are concerned, they
:53:38. > :53:43.suggest you are on the way to a very low share of the vote. Why is that?
:53:44. > :53:47.We have very few polls in Wales that cover the whole of Wales, so it is
:53:48. > :53:55.difficult to work out a pattern from those. They put you on 11 and 12%.
:53:56. > :54:02.I'm aware of the polls and what they show but Plaid Cymru is determined
:54:03. > :54:06.to do what we can to get our vote out. We are speaking to supporters
:54:07. > :54:11.of other parties who are unlikely to win seats like the Lib Dems and the
:54:12. > :54:17.Greens, and we have a prominent Lib Dems come out backing our campaign.
:54:18. > :54:20.We are doing all we can, we have our troops out on the ground between now
:54:21. > :54:24.and election day to ensure that the boat turns out. Our lead candidate
:54:25. > :54:29.is returned to the European limit. This morning Michael Gove and
:54:30. > :54:35.David Laws have penned a joint article in the Times insisting that
:54:36. > :54:38.it's all sweetness and light in the Department for Education and there
:54:39. > :54:41.are no disagreements on policy. They're not
:54:42. > :54:44.the first politicians to engage Here's Giles with
:54:45. > :54:56.the best political reconciliations . At five, the education secretary
:54:57. > :55:02.and his Lib Dem deputy joining forces in a national newspaper to
:55:03. > :55:09.declare they have made up despite a week of bare knuckle smiting over
:55:10. > :55:22.policy. At four, David Cameron and Nick Clegg finding love in the
:55:23. > :55:27.roses. At number three, stars and battle stripes in the 2008 five the
:55:28. > :55:32.democratic presidential nation, the gloves came off between Barack Obama
:55:33. > :55:38.and Hillary Clinton. In the end, diplomacy prevailed and Hillary
:55:39. > :55:39.Clinton became secretary of state. A friendship still considered in the
:55:40. > :55:46.loosest sense of the word. friendship still considered in the
:55:47. > :55:50.two, Peter Mandelson's third time lucky in government, having twice
:55:51. > :55:56.quit on the Blair, who would have thought it would be under Prime
:55:57. > :55:59.Minister Brown? And a number one, Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley
:56:00. > :56:02.discover an unlikely friendship as joint leaders in Northern Ireland,
:56:03. > :56:13.earning the nickname the chuckle Brothers. Many on both sides found
:56:14. > :56:17.the partnership decidedly unfunny. Let's pick up their film ended. That
:56:18. > :56:22.was the most unlikely of reconciliations. The golf just
:56:23. > :56:27.seemed too wide between Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, do you Greek
:56:28. > :56:34.was Mac they were on different sides in what was effectively a civil war,
:56:35. > :56:39.over 3000 people died. It was fantastic, and it did appear
:56:40. > :56:44.genuine, both had to shift a lot of ground to get there. Is that the
:56:45. > :56:47.prospect of power, is adjust the amount of time that has gone by,
:56:48. > :56:52.when you realise you not go to achieve your individual games? I
:56:53. > :56:55.think in Northern Ireland, they got the war weary. It had gone on for so
:56:56. > :57:00.long, no one could win, they realised that. Paisley was thinking
:57:01. > :57:05.about his place in history, did he want to go out as a figure divided
:57:06. > :57:11.or somebody who'd united. Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson, bringing
:57:12. > :57:17.him back into the government for yet another time, that was political
:57:18. > :57:21.pragmatism, wasn't it? Gordon Brown blamed me for it, try to get me to
:57:22. > :57:29.work for him and I said no! Thingies, that is why I have got
:57:30. > :57:32.Mandelson! They did rub along OK for about 18 months, got frayed at the
:57:33. > :57:38.end but nevertheless, it was sheer pragmatism. We always see splits in
:57:39. > :57:41.part is, you don't have to be good friends, you just have to have a
:57:42. > :57:46.common purpose. Except when it comes to the coalition. That is when you
:57:47. > :57:50.have two parties and to look at David laws and Michael Gove, who
:57:51. > :57:55.seem to share a sort of ideological common ground and it has gone. They
:57:56. > :58:03.know that the elections are coming... You don't think it is
:58:04. > :58:09.real, this split? Those of us have always been told how to behave with
:58:10. > :58:16.other kids... ! Sent to the headmaster 's office! It won't
:58:17. > :58:22.last. A lot of papers say this could be the more serious of the spats
:58:23. > :58:25.within the coalition partners. They have both hoarded documents to leak
:58:26. > :58:28.against the other side, because the Tories want to blamed the Liberals
:58:29. > :58:32.for everything and the Lib Dems want to show they were stopping these
:58:33. > :58:39.nasty Tories... They have huge files! The problem for Ed Miliband
:58:40. > :58:42.and Labour is, how are they going to get a look in? That is it, we thank
:58:43. > :58:45.you all. The one o'clock news is
:58:46. > :58:51.starting over on BBC One now. I'll be on BBC One tonight for
:58:52. > :58:54.This Week with TV teacher Mr Drew, actor Clarke Peters, and Sarah Smith
:58:55. > :58:58.with a film from Edinburgh plus And I'll be here
:58:59. > :59:10.at noon tomorrow with all the big Female artists have rocked the world
:59:11. > :59:12.for centuries. Not only did she impress and surprise
:59:13. > :59:18.Michelangelo, in her nineties,
:59:19. > :59:21.she won the homage of van Dyck. So just how did they push the
:59:22. > :59:26.boundaries and flout convention?