15/05/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Governor the Bank of England says he can't perform miracles to


Is the only answer to build more homes?


There's been no rush on Lamborghinis so far but will the Government's


radical reforms to pensions still be a crowd pleaser


David Cameron ventures north of the border to make the case


We'll speak to the SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon.


And Michael Gove and David Laws kiss and make up after their


We'll bring you the top political reconciliations.


Did they case, all you being metaphorical? I don't think it


wasn't literal. All that in the next hour and with


us for the duration, our go-to pensions expert,


Ros Altmann. First this morning, raising interest


rates is the last line of defence in controlling the housing market -


that's according to the governor Mark Carney used


his quarterly inflation report yesterday to say the bank couldn't


perform miracles, with house prices growing at their fastest rate


since the crash of 2008. The cost of housing looks set to be


one of the big issues As we all know the housing market is


all about supply and demand, and strong recent demand and limited


supply has pushed prices up by 11% over the last year, the biggest


annual jump since June 2007. It lead to the OECD warning that


Britain needs to take action of soaring prices, through monetary


policy tightening and scaling back Mark Carney said yesterday he was


likely to resist calls to put interest rates up this year


and told journalists rates would stay at historically low levels


for some time. But Mr Carney said the Bank of


England cannot perform miracles to deflate the housing bubble, pointing


out that Financial Policy Committee can't build a single one of the more


than 100,000 additional new homes Governments can build houses though,


and Labour have already nailed their colours to the mast ahead of


the next election by saying they'll be building 200,000 homes a year


by the end of the next parliament. But, as all governments find, saying


it is one thing, actually putting You found it that she sounded like


Bob the builder! With me now is


the housing minister Kris Hopkins, and hedge fund manager and author


of Planet Ponzi, Mitch Feierstein. Also joining us from our Birmingham


studio is the shadow housing Ali experiencing a housing bubble,


or is it a London housing bubble and the rest of the country is quite


normal? What we need to do is have an economic debate about the housing


prices going up. I think it all relates to inflation, the inflation


numbers. If you go back a little bit, to look at oil, or example, for


a 13 year period oil prices stayed flat or down, slightly. If you look


to 99, until 2014, they went up by a lot. If you look at the way


statistics are not related, you can make them say anything. Housing,


1999-2014, it has gone up over 900%. In every market, there is a


correlation between house prices and income. If you look at the inflation


adjustment, with real income, income has gone down while house prices


have gone up precipitously. It seems coincidental that Mark Carney has


been brought in as the head of the Bangkok England, and they are


pushing forward this help to buy scheme, which is more of a Ponzi


scheme. You've not answered my question, is the bubble a London


phenomenon, and in the rest of the country, it is not out of kilter?


There are five datasets you can look at. We don't have time for five. In


the north-east and Yorkshire there are no housing bubbles? There are


pockets in every bubble where you will not have prices exploding at


the same rate that they are exploding in central London. Central


London is a law unto itself, an international market. Property debt


has become a mixture of money-laundering and a new global


international currency. That has nothing to do with the people of


Manchester, Birmingham Glasgow? I would agree with you 100%. But


optimism bias is also part of it. You have extremely wealthy people


buying to let. Buy to let is part of this, perpetuating eight bubble that


will take down the banking system and cause financial havoc. When? I'm


surprised it's been going for so long. You can never tell how big it


is going to get. Either a market is undervalued, fairly valued,


overvalued or ridiculous. We reached ridiculous about one year ago.


Prices in the West Midlands, a key part of the country, they are lower


now than they were in 2008? I looked at a chart and took all the figures


from Nationwide and downloaded them. If you use an average of all prices


in England, excluding London, you can see we are almost back at a


cyclical peak. The graph shows a parabolic move. If you go back to


the beginning of where the datasets are formed, whenever you have a


parabolic move, it looks like this. You always have reversion back to


the norm, where the statistical average will be. I can't tell you


how big the bubble will get, but it will correct, and escape velocity


for Mark Carney means that he will be with his $6 million he is being


paid in Canada, watching that house bubble


paid in Canada, watching that house burst as well. It would not be a


bubble if you build more homes? I think that is the solution. In


London, you are right, there is an issue that is specific to London. It


is 9.1%, in the rest of the country it is 5.8%. In the rest of the


country we need to make more houses. We have the figures this morning and


we have seen a 31% increase on housing. Let me take you up on that.


Housing starts at about 133,000, up on the previous year. The crash


was... Let me get this right, it was six years ago. And you are still


nowhere near the level of house building before the crash. Why is it


taking you so long? There are two things, one final thing I would say


on house prices, we are nowhere near peak at the moment. We are not


expected to go past that peak price until 2018. It is still below peak


across the country. It is about taking an industry, food and 50,000


people were lost, the banking system ground to a halt, if you're going to


kick-start that community to find ways like a help to buy scheme, like


the ?300 million investment in council houses. It's taking a long


while? It does. The biggest number of council houses built since 1991,


1000 council houses. That is really important. 1000? I remember when


Harold Macmillan Ilton 300,001 year. That is only 300 times more? That is


a very low starting base. It will be the biggest number of affordable


houses built for 20 years. House numbers, construction is at a


massive high. Let me bring in Mitch Feierstein. If you look at


affordable housing, I can give you an example. In Wandsworth,


affordable housing was built and none of it was sold to key workers.


It turned into a big scandal that disappeared out of the papers. If


you look at job creation, in 2013, it was one in four or one in five in


the property sector. 89% of first-time buyers are in those


houses. A lot of them are being subsidised by the bank of mum and


dad. If you were the Government, what would you do? Stop stealing


from savers with zero interest rate policies, that helps nobody. You are


the Government, you don't have control over the interest rates. You


hire the people in the Bank of England so you have sway over that.


You would sack Mark Carney? I don't think I would sack him. You can't


tell him what to do. If you can't control interest rates, I think the


government has to rain in the banks. They have zero regulation on the


banks. How many bankers went to jail for the credit crisis? Zero. Royal


Bank of Scotland, in capitalism... What would you do with the banks? I


would regulate them seriously. What does that mean? Zero bankers went to


jail. But there is a difference between sending people to jail and


regulating them, or sending people to jail is the law of the land. I'm


still trying to find one thing that you would do that is practical. The


leveraged and debt structures that are dangerous to the financial


health of the system should be trimmed down. You should not have


500 times leveraged, with sympathetic, derivative products. A


bank like JPMorgan allowed to have 73 trillion on balance Street... I'm


not sure JPMorgan is that big in the British housing market. You were


promising to build 200,000 homes, but not until 2020, why should we


trust you, seeing as you never managed to get close to 20,000 homes


in power? Before the global financial crash, 170,000 homes were


built. We are on the right trajectory. Under this government,


frankly, they have been incredibly complacent. Mark Carney, the Bank of


England governor yesterday, he said that housing is the biggest threat


to economic stability. Kris Hopkins might put figures about house


prices, but there are pockets of the country, London and the south-east


in particular, pockets where this is a real concern. What would you do?


The Government needs to recognise that there are some pretty


fundamental problems with the land market in terms of availability. But


also in terms of the lack of competition from small house


builders in an industry that is now dominated by big house-builders. We


think the Government should get on and help small house-builders so


that we can have more competition in the industry. Would you scrap help


to buy in London? We would reduce the threshold from ?6,000 to


400,000. -- from ?600,000, down to ?400,000. Would you scrap it in


London? We think we should look closely at what is happening. We


would assume you were doing that with everything, otherwise you would


not be running the government. We're not saying we should scrap it, but


we are saying not saying we should scrap it, but


we are we should bring it down. And I just come back to the first point


that I made? Let's take you to 2008, everything went pear shaped after


that. In ten years of constant growth, plenty of money around,


public spending soaring until the year 2008, you never once got near


2000 homes. Why would we trust you at a time when there would be very


little money around and growth could be difficult, that he would get


anywhere near 200,000? We understand there are fundamental problems with


the housing industry. It is the case for three decades now that there has


been a growing gap between supply and demand. We think the Government


needs to get a grip on this. The Government needs to take


leadership. We would not, for example, in 2010, have cut the


Affordable Homes Budget, by a massive 60%. Kris Hopkins talks


about affordability. The Government is encouraging housing associations


and others to charge 80% of market rent. In Wandsworth and London that


is not affordable for key workers. Kris Hopkins? This Government has


built more social houses than they did in 13 years. To lecture us about


what we are doing, they were not building that houses. 445,000


houses, 170,000 by next year. The next programme of 100 and 5000 will


be out by 2014. We are committed to make sure that people get on the


housing ladder. Help to buy, 89% of them are first-time buyers. The


average price of those houses, on the guarantee scheme, it is


?145,000. On the equity scheme, it is 185,000. When the average house


price is ?250,000, this is not boosting a bubble. It is


facilitating first-time buyers to get on the market. Ros Altmann has


listened to this, what do you make of it? We are in a bubble, as far as


I can see. It is stimulated by policies that have boosted demand


without boosting supply. We need to look up the whole housing policy


across the piece. It is not just about building affordable homes,


small flats. We also need to build houses that older people will want


to downsize to, to free up the whole market. Have a real problem. House


price inflation may be good for people that own homes. What about


the younger generation, who are struggling to afford rent? Why is


this a problem outside London? If you look at some of the metropolitan


cities, they are doing very well. The economy is recovering strongly.


House prices are also going up. But they are not back to their peak? The


peak was based on ludicrous borrowing. 120% mortgages and that


sort of thing. We haven't done that, negative equity is still being paid


down. Why is there a bubble? In this particular housing cycle there has


been no increase in negative equity. But if you are at warehouse prices


are really arising. In London, that's the jobs are. So


who has got the better policy, Labour or Conservative 's? I'm not


sure what Labour would actually do. If they were going to be building


houses across the spectrum, I think that would help. The government's


policy now is kicking in, it would have been nice if this had happened


earlier. Which was my original point you have been slow at this. We know


when people build homes, people who buy them have to go and get fridges


and things. You make a strong argument. The thing about it is,


there isn't a press of the button on it. You have to make sure the bank


is going to loan, make sure you have the infrastructure. One of the


issues we have now is we talk about the top ten builders, they don't


have the capacity to go further than they are building at the moment.


They will have to recruit, train to get people in place. Their whole


resources and infrastructure, it takes time to put that in place but


it is there. I will give you the last word. I think the government


isn't doing enough and it didn't do enough at the beginning when they


were in government. I come back to what they did in 2010, which was to


cut the affordable homes budget by 60%. A lot of the affordable homes


that have been built in their first two years in government were homes


that we stimulated in order to come through what was a difficult time


for house-building. The truth is, we are not building half the number of


homes, we need to keep up with demand and we need radical


leadership that we are frankly not seeing. If we're not building half


the number of homes, then you are promising up to 200,000 homes by


2020, the figure you just gave us, you should be building 286,000? I


was talking about completions. I was talking about that because


completions is what you need in terms of output. The government's


own figures suggest there is a housing need of 230,000. We would


love to go beyond 200,000 but we know we're going to be starting from


a very low base. We certainly need central government to get a grip on


the issues that are affecting this industry and we know we're not


building anywhere near enough homes. I thank you all for


estimating discussion. The coalition government has embarked on the most


radical reform of pensions in a generation, with the aim of giving


people more freedom and responsible of the over their own plans for


retirement and to shake up the pensions industry with more com


petition. But is it a risky gamble? How old are you? The thought of a


decent pension has always made us smile and the threat of its loss or


degradation made us worried and angry. The concept is hundreds of


years old and even the principles of pensions today were there in 1946.


11p from your own pocket... The political parties have long known


pensions needed reforming, but in his last autumn statement and


subsequent budget, George Osborne bowled up an unexpected change. For


defined contributions pensions, once you have rolled up to 55, a way you


could go with your whole pension pot, and if you wished, by a


Lamborghini. Let's not that old chestnut out of the game right now.


The average pension pot in the UK is around ?25,000. I haven't bought a


Lamborghini recently but I expect around ?25,000. I haven't bought a


?25,000. People are more sensible than that. At the other end of the


changes, the annuity monopoly was being removed. Nobody will now be


forced into a system that pays a defined sum every month, though some


may still want that and can. But it's clear the changes were as much


about reforming the pensions market place as it was about us, who will


need the products. People would reach retirement and they would be


given an income amount and they would go for that, they wouldn't


look around. What has happened over the last few months with the budget


and also the reports from the ONS is that market has become more


efficient. The jury is still out to see what the industry comes up with


to make these products attractive to people, easily understood and


transparent when it comes to what the costs and charges might be and


what they might have to pay, and to get good quality professional


advice. That's not the government is offering, it's just guidance. They


have changed the word from advice to guidance. Pension changes caused


trouble in the 50s. Changes to pensions in the public sector have


sparked strikes and marches today. Already there have been heated


clashes between the Socialists and the Tories, both of whom accuse the


other of neglecting the old folk... 50 years on, it's clear people still


care about pensions, but the state's involvement is less and


less. The government want people to have pensions. Might they go the


extra step and make it compulsory for all of us to make our own


pension arrangements? I could see we get to a point where it is


compulsory saving but we had the choice at the other end with


education, and that is a sensible framework, really. Pensions are


different from savings, and my concern is that with the changes and


the ability to access our part at the age of 55, this is seen as a


savings product, not a pensions product. What pensions do that


savings don't is guarantee an income for the rest of 1's life. One


wonders if that is what he got. Increasingly, it is a hope that


previously disinterested young are worrying about today for themselves.


We have two pensions experts here. We talked about Lamborghinis, that


memorable quote yesterday, do you think Lamborghini sales will see a


massive increase, metaphorically if not literally? Somehow I doubt it.


The tax system will act as a natural break on people taking money out of


their pension funds, because if you want to take significant sums out


and you go into the price range of a Lamborghini, you would lease 45% of


your money in tax. Most people wouldn't sign up to losing that much


of their savings. If you take small amounts out over time, then you


either pay no tax, or basic rate, 20% tax. That would be more


attractive. If you have got a small pension pot, you might take it all


at once, but does that really matter? You would only get a few


pounds a week extra income. Why would you want to worry about that?


You might have more important things you want to do. What is happening


now, before April 2015, are people being forced to buy annuities


despite the fact they heard the measures being announced? Generally


not. In the past, people didn't literally have to buy an annuity,


they just didn't have much alternative. It was either by that


all go into something complicated that wasn't value for money. So what


is happening is people are waiting till 2015, then we will see a big


expansion of people taking cash, if that is what they want. For me,


letting people choose what they do with their own money, give them


guidance and help, but let them choose, is the right support. But


there is a real pub, pension providers are not letting people


take their tax-free cash -- a real problem. Some people are being


forced to buy an annuity or some other product that doesn't work well


for them. You sit generally, I have a quote here that says that the


reality is pension companies are not accommodating requests when people


say they want to draw down however much they want. You have signed a


contract with a pension provider, the rules of the scheme are tougher


than the rules of the land. the rules of the scheme are tougher


Until 2015, when we can change all these things, we are spending the


year making sure that next year, when these things come in, people


have the freedom, until then, their money is still as tied up. So they


are stuffed? No, no... They are delayed. They can't take the cash as


they want to now but by next April, people are saying to us, this is


break next speed, how can you do it by then? But they can't take any


cash, that's the problem. That is the law of the land. The pension


companies are saying, we're not going to let you, our systems can't


cope, there isn't a single pensions company that is enabling you to do


this. There is one that will let you have it within six months but then


you still have two either buy an annuity within six months or go into


another type of product. On the basis of that, was one of the


problems that you didn't actually consult properly or within enough


time, before you made your announcement, which was fairly


radical? We heard the lady say that she was in a board meeting


discussing pensions strategy during the budget and the announcement


changed everything and was on anticipated by the industry, which


is perhaps led to this situation? They were trapped anyway. If the


accusation is this was big, bold and radical, I plead guilty. We have had


decades of people being locked up, within 12 months, they will be free.


But you didn't know yourself beforehand? Bear in mind that we


have been talking about the failures of the market, people knew things


were changing, we went further than we expected, and on the day of the


budget, she said, this is fantastic reform. It takes 12 months to get it


all in, that is how long it takes. The pensions industry needs to play


its part. We would like to see them putting its customers at heart, and


one of the reasons the reforms were needed is that the pensions and


history itself seemed to worry about its own interests rather than those


of the customer, and we are still seeing that. But about the


face-to-face guidance, because that will be crucial? The quality of


advice people need? It is important. We automatically


enrolling people into pensions schemes. We need to make sure they


understand what to do with their money, and in the past, there has


been nothing to help them. What would you like the government to be


providing? This needs to be got right. Hopefully we will get it


right. Impartial, free, face-to-face guidance, I would prefer advice, but


some minimum standards where people know that somebody is going to help


them make these sessions. What are you going to provide? Face-to-face


guidance could cost up to ?340 million a year, who will pay for


that? First of all, it won't cost anything like that. You have the


right to a race to face conversation, many people may choose


phone -based, web based, they would all want it on the 6th of April, the


pension schemes will have illegals duty to make sure their members get


this guidance and pay for it. -- a legal duty. What we are saying is


that at the moment people have got nothing, they are making life


changing decisions, getting them wrong and there is no one there to


help them. This will equip a whole generation of people to be better


informed. The guidance will help you ask the right questions, you will


need advice to get the right answers. What about making tension


saving compulsory? The case for that is weaker than it was because we


have been doing this opt out business, nine out of ten workers


have stayed in, when nine at people are freely choosing to stay in


something and one in ten are they don't want it, making it compulsory


doesn't seem a good thing. So you are moving further away from calls


to say it should be compulsory. What do you say? That would be a


completely different landscape, we would have to get rid of tax relief,


which might be attractive to the Treasury... I actually want more of


the tax relief going to lower savers and Leicester people like me, I want


to rebalance... You want to cut it for the higher tax payers? And raise


it for the lower taxpayers. Some people probably shouldn't save for a


pension. If you are saving for a deposit for a house, maybe you


should be saving towards that, it may not overall be the optimal


outcome. A question we have had in a tweet, will our pension pots be seen


as an asset that we need to cash in if we need care later in life? The


intention is to maintain the status quo. Currently we don't say you have


to spend all your money on care, the idea is to maintain that intention.


There are a lot of ways that can be done but the intention is not to


bring lots of new people into means testing. This could work out better


for care because at the moment, if you have spent all your money on an


annuity, and you get ill in your 80s and you haven't had all the money


back, there will be some there to give you something to support


yourself with social care. We need incentives to help people use that


money, but the reform of social care won't start giving you any public


money, even if you qualify... You need to spend money on care if your


needs are less than substantial. We have been speaking to some of the


minor parties contesting the elections. One of the parties


involved is Plaid Cymru. Britain First.


Britain's latest addition to nationalist politics like, is a


dramatic video. It's all captions straight out of a film trailer. This


is their leader, Paul Golding, driving around Tower Hamlets in a


reinforced Land Rover, looking very tough. We have these Christian


patrol leaflets. Paul and his Christian patrol send their time


running out informative leaflets, having charming chats with Muslims.


If you want to live here, by by our laws. And drink lager in front of a


mosque. That's not their only attempt to get a bit of attention.


This weekend they launched a series of self-styled mosque innovations in


Glasgow and Bradford. It mostly seemed to consist of wandering


around uninvited, getting lost and doing some hectoring. Jesus Christ,


our Lord, he wants to save you from hell. The visits are being


investigated by the police and it will be the first time Paul Golding


has come to their attention. He's been arrested more than once,


accused of harassing religious extremists. Britain first also using


the slogan remember Lee Rigby on voting slips, which led to the


electoral commission having to apologise to the family of the


murdered soldier. We are joined by the leader of


Britain First, Paul Golding. You saw the EU style yourself as a patriotic


party and a street defence organisation. You are basically a


vigilante group? We are not, we are a street defence Association. We


oppose radical extremists, Muslim extremist 's, highlighting things


like female genital mutilation, the Muslim patrols in east London, the


nonaction by the Muslim community to highlight Muslim grooming gangs. You


look like vigilantes in that film? There will not be any charges, we


have not broken any laws. What we saw was low-level bullying and


intimidation? Not at all. We are there because those people have got


influence over the Muslim communities. They are not doing


anything regarding extremism in Islam, nothing regarding female


genital mutilation, Muslim grooming gangs, hate preachers, anything at


all like that. We are there to pressure them into action. Why do


you have these military style uniforms, the reinforced Land Rover?


It is playing soldiers? Just green activist jackets. Because we want to


stand apart from groups like the EDL, we want to stand apart from


them, so we were green activists jackets. Why did you leave that the


MP, was it not far right enough? That's not the reason, corruption,


stagnation, electoral nonperformance, all sorts of


shenanigans going on around me reckon. And the fact he had gone off


to enjoy the gravy train lifestyle in Europe. Me and hundreds of others


decided to resign from that organisation. And set up this


instead? Why did you turn up at the Mayor of Bradford's house with ten


men? That day, we was going to visit the imams in Bradford, handing out


Bibles and Muslim grooming leaflets, which is a free country, we can do


what we want. I asked him for a face-to-face meeting, he refused, so


we went to his home address. With ten men? Another form of


intimidation? It's not at all. We asked him for a meeting, we turned


up at his house, tried to give him some of our Muslim grooming leaflets


and ask him why he was not doing anything about the scourge of Muslim


grooming in the North of England. You describe Britain First as


wanting to restore justice to politics, but you are being


I was arrested for chasing a hate preacher down the street. For


chasing Anjem Choudary, he radicalised one of the killers of


Lee Rigby. For legal reasons, I can't go into the details of why you


have been arrested. You brought up my arrest. You have been arrested a


number of times, yet your proposal, you stand for principal and decency


in politics, that is all I am asking. The second time was for


exposing an Al-Qaeda training camp operator on terrorist living


anonymously in Essex. Those arrest, I am entirely proud of. Anjem


Choudary, for example, he radicalised one of the killers of


Lee Rigby. I don't care, if you stand up for your people in our


country, you face politically correct pressure from the state. I


am quoting from your website, you want to make Britain a beautiful


country once again where you can leave your door unlocked. But we


have seen a few leave your door unlocked, people like you walking to


it? Of course, if you are an Islamic hate preacher, you will find us on


your doorstep. But you walked in. You were not on the doorstep, you


walked into the mosques. It was a public mosque. You showed no


respect, filmed it, did not take your shoes off, which would have


been a sign of respect for people of a different religion. With people


like you around, why would you leave your door unlocked? You might want


to double bolted! We are not invading temples, because the Sikh


unity is showing respect. The Muslim community is not showing respect for


native traditions and cultures. Is that gives you the right to invade


their mosques? If the police don't take action, if politicians don't


take action, we will. We love our country, we defend our people. That


gives you the right to take the law into your own hands? What laws have


we broken? You have just invaded a mosque. That's not against the law.


You said if the laws didn't do it, you would do it yourself? You would


take the law into your own hands? And then there is Lee Rigby, who you


tried to hijack the murder of Lee Rigby, we saw that on the ballot


paper. Can I just quoted to you what Lee Rigby's mother has said?


Referring to your group, their views are not what he believed in, there


is no support from the family. Yet again, can any more heartbreak be


thrown at me and my family? What do you say I sympathise, she is a


grieving mother. Everybody in the country was appalled. It was the


most high-profile act of Islamic terrorism perpetrated.


But you shouldn't have put the name on the ballot paper, should you? You


asked me a question, allow me to finish. There is a fine line between


hijacking and highlighting. We are here to highlight what happened to


Lee Rigby. Our entire campaign in Britain First is to try and


suffocate Islamic extremism. His mother doesn't want you to, what is


your answer? We are the ones taking the fight to hate preachers and


Islamic preachers. I know what you're doing, I asked you what you


would say to the mother of Lee Rigby, who does not want you to do


this. We apologise to the mother of Lee Rigby, but it was a major act of


terrorism. It was a big public event. He was a serving soldier. A


public serving soldier. If you have so much respect for the this


country, I think we can show a picture, why did you turn up at the


Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday with a pair of underpants on your head?


Yes, this was when I was about 16 years old. I was 16 years old, my


family fought in the Second World War. My own family fought the Nazis.


Why did you do that? I didn't do it, somebody else did it. That is not


you? Somebody else put them on my head and I put them off very


quickly. That actually happened, somebody put it on my head,


conveniently a journalist was waiting with a camera. I think that


is suspicious. I would never, ever, disrespect the memory of my own


great-grandfather or any of the other war heroes. I understand


that, we all had relatives that fought in the Second World War. Can


we show the picture again? If somebody put this on your head, you


did not take it off, you are walking down the street. If you have


something on your head you don't want, you would take it off. You are


walking in a rather determined fashion. No, those were on my head


for about five seconds. Conveniently, there was a camera


present. That is one I was 16 years old. This is a bit silly, childish.


It is slightly strange? Next time you get Liberal Democrats, Tories or


labour, I'm sure you will be digging up stuff. I assure you we have had


Tories in that seal of films -- Nazi uniforms at Swiss parties.


David Cameron will invoke the memory of former Labour leader John Smith


on a visit to Scotland today to make the case for the Union.


Yesterday the Chancellor reiterated his opposition to monetary union


He was speaking to the Treasury select committee.


Let's have a listen to what he had to say.


I am absolutely clear there will not be a currency union if Scotland


votes to become independent. No ifs or buts. That is not just my


position, it is the position of the Labour Party and the Liberal


Democrats. Any combination you can imagine of a British government, for


the foreseeable future, has ruled this option out. Just on


sterlingisation, I still think people might be confused as to why


it is not feasible and what sterlingisation Woodlock like in an


independent Scotland. -- would look like. It means that you don't have


your own currency, you have another country's currency will stop you are


not printing banknotes. That would be the case, even though Scotland,


as we know, prints its own notes? They would not exist any more. Can I


just eat clear, and sterlingisation, Scottish banks would not be able to


print notes? They print their notes with the support and authority of


the Bank of England and Parliament, which has passed legislation to


support this. Let's go to Edinburgh, where the Deputy First Minister and


Deputy leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, is waiting for us. When


you launch the SNP European campaign, you expressed the fear


that UKIP in Scotland might stop you getting a third seat in the European


Parliament. Why are you so worried about them, since only a few years


ago your leader dismissed them as an irrelevance? That is not quite what


I said. I don't expect them to do well in Scotland of the European


elections. What I was saying is that the only way for people in Scotland


to ensure that Nigel Farage does not get a foothold in Scotland is to


vote SNP. If the SNP wins the final seat that everybody thinks is up for


grabs, a young Scottish Asian woman, I can't think of a better


rebuke to the politics of Nigel Farage. You have said that, do you


regard them as an irrelevance or could they stop you getting this


third seat? I don't think UKIP offers anything in Scotland. We have


had experiences in by-elections were UKIP have fielded candidates and


have not saved their deposit, they have done very badly. I don't expect


them to do well. I want to be absolutely sure we don't give Nigel


Farage any foothold in Scotland, that is why an SNP is the best way


to guarantee it. Alex Salmond said that Scotland was a country,


speaking of David Cameron, he said Scotland was a country that never


will elect people like him to govern us. What do you mean by people like


him? What he was saying is that Scotland does not vote for Tory


governments. I am 44 years old, almost. You might not think I like


that, but I am. Never once in my life has Scotland voted Tory. What


does he mean by people like him? Tories. That's it? Scotland doesn't


vote Tory, we don't vote for Tory prime ministers like David Cameron.


Yet we very often end up with Tory prime ministers. Independence would


put a stop to that and make sure it is the parties that win elections


that get to be in government. People like him just means Tories? I'm not


sure what else you are referring. I'm trying to find out, it has a


whiff of ethnic nastiness. For goodness sake, you know the SNP very


well, you know our brand of nationalism. I am not personalising


this to you. Everybody knows the SNP promotes civic nationalism. I just


mentioned to one of our European candidates, a young Scots Asian


woman that I hope to see elected to the European Parliament. The key


point that we argue is that if Scotland becomes independent we no


longer have to put up with a situation where we overwhelmingly


reject the Tories in general elections but have to put up with


Tory governments and Tory prime ministers imposing policies like the


bedroom tax. Other than assertion, can you present evidence to show


that the major Westminster parties are bluffing, as you claim, when it


comes to monetary union after independence? I could cite the


amendment estate in the Guardian who said, of course they would be a


currency union. I think that is a fairly strong evidence. You know


that unnamed minister was talking about a deal of fast lane for


monetary union, you have ruled out... What evidence do you have?


Our position on Trident is clear, but what that minister was saying is


that this position of George Osborne, that there will be no


negotiations over currency, is not true. Perhaps the stronger evidence


is the fact that many reasons, a currency union between an


independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would be as much in the


interests of the rest of the UK as it would be in the rest of


Scotland. It is that argument we will continue to push forward and


the polls suggest that the majority of people in Scotland also think


George Osborne is engaging in bluff and bluster. That is not evidence,


would respect. And if you understand that negotiations for independence,


if you vote yes on the 18th, would be underway when the British general


election comes on in 2015. And having voted for independence, what


would then be the English parties would come under a lot of pressure


to put no money to put no monetary union into their manifestoes. You


may find out they are not laughing at all. The point about the general


election is a good one, but for other reasons. It would be an odd


chancellor or aspiring Chancellor that turned round and said to


businesses in England and said, we're going to impose transaction


costs of ?500 million a year on you in order to allow you to trade with


your second biggest export market, which is Scotland. It would be an


odd chancellor or aspiring Chancellor to turn his back on


Scottish exports with the increase in Detroit ever said that would be


incurred. The arguments are basic common sense. You use this figure a


lot, and it is adjusting you are so concerned that English


entrepreneurs, but it will cost the government about ?20 billion to move


fast lane from Scotland to somewhere else in the UK. So why is ?500


million neither here nor there, in the trillion pound economy? It is


peanuts! I would hope that at some point, the UK would have a


government that sees sense and gets rid of Trident altogether. That


would be entirely up to UK governments, but I believe the


decision to spend ?100 billion replacing Trident is the wrong one


and one of the benefits of independence is we no longer have to


put up with Trident being based here. The people of Scotland have


put up with that for years. If it turns out they are not bluffing and


that all three parties right no monetary union into them and


investors, so no matter the result, there is no monetary union, what is


your fallback position? I don't believe that is the case, but with


that this discussion before, the fiscal commission have set out the


range of currency options that would be open to an independent Scotland,


but the recommended currency union, that is the common sense position


that we will continue to put forward. But if there is nothing to


stop using the pound even without monetary union, but if you did, you


would have no right... That is not my position. But it could be your


fallback position, you would have no right to print money, no right to


issue Scottish bonds and sterling, you wouldn't be independent? I am


not even go to get into the discussion... But you need need a


strategy in case you don't get it. I have cited the reasons I don't think


that is going to be the case. It may be hard for you to grasp that you


could be wrong, but if you are wrong, don't the Scottish people


have a simple right to know what is your alternative? The fiscal


commission report, which I have referred to before, is on the


website of the Scottish government, any member of the public, any


journalist, can go on to that website and read all of the currency


options, the pros and cons of each of them and why the Scottish


government recommends a monetary union, something we know that people


deep within the UK government think will be the case once the referendum


is over. What that doesn't give me is which when you would choose in


the event. I know you're not going to tell me so I guess we will leave


that there! Thank you very much. Plaid Cymru - the party of Wales -


currently have one MEP but are putting up a full slate


of candidates in Wales Their leader - Leanne Wood -


joins us now from Cardiff. What makes you think people will


listen to your campaign? 150,000 jobs in Wales and ?4 billion worth


of investment rely on Wales being a member of the European Union. Unlike


many other countries, Wales doesn't have a seat at the top table in the


Council of ministers, nor do we have a seat at the top table in the


to appoint any EU commissioners. So it is only through the four seats we


have in the European Parliament, that is the only direct voice Wales


has in the corridors of power in Brussels. That is why I am


has in the corridors of power in on people to do what they can to


make sure that they put the only party that will put Wales first into


this election, that they will vote for Plaid Cymru to maintain a strong


voice in Europe and sure that we put the national interest of Wales


first. If you were in control of Wales, would you give the Welsh


people a referendum on whether to stay or leave the EU? Yes, we are


relaxed about holding a referendum. I think that in such a referendum,


we would be putting forward the case that Wales should remain a member,


albeit we would want to change aspects of the EU. But it is in our


interests, and it is more clear for Wales and it is for the rest of the


British state, it isn't in our interest to be a member of the EU


because of all those jobs -- it is in our interest. That stance doesn't


seem to be doing you any good as far as the polls are concerned, they


suggest you are on the way to a very low share of the vote. Why is that?


We have very few polls in Wales that cover the whole of Wales, so it is


difficult to work out a pattern from those. They put you on 11 and 12%.


I'm aware of the polls and what they show but Plaid Cymru is determined


to do what we can to get our vote out. We are speaking to supporters


of other parties who are unlikely to win seats like the Lib Dems and the


Greens, and we have a prominent Lib Dems come out backing our campaign.


We are doing all we can, we have our troops out on the ground between now


and election day to ensure that the boat turns out. Our lead candidate


is returned to the European limit. This morning Michael Gove and


David Laws have penned a joint article in the Times insisting that


it's all sweetness and light in the Department for Education and there


are no disagreements on policy. They're not


the first politicians to engage Here's Giles with


the best political reconciliations . At five, the education secretary


and his Lib Dem deputy joining forces in a national newspaper to


declare they have made up despite a week of bare knuckle smiting over


policy. At four, David Cameron and Nick Clegg finding love in the


roses. At number three, stars and battle stripes in the 2008 five the


democratic presidential nation, the gloves came off between Barack Obama


and Hillary Clinton. In the end, diplomacy prevailed and Hillary


Clinton became secretary of state. A friendship still considered in the


loosest sense of the word. friendship still considered in the


two, Peter Mandelson's third time lucky in government, having twice


quit on the Blair, who would have thought it would be under Prime


Minister Brown? And a number one, Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley


discover an unlikely friendship as joint leaders in Northern Ireland,


earning the nickname the chuckle Brothers. Many on both sides found


the partnership decidedly unfunny. Let's pick up their film ended. That


was the most unlikely of reconciliations. The golf just


seemed too wide between Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, do you Greek


was Mac they were on different sides in what was effectively a civil war,


over 3000 people died. It was fantastic, and it did appear


genuine, both had to shift a lot of ground to get there. Is that the


prospect of power, is adjust the amount of time that has gone by,


when you realise you not go to achieve your individual games? I


think in Northern Ireland, they got the war weary. It had gone on for so


long, no one could win, they realised that. Paisley was thinking


about his place in history, did he want to go out as a figure divided


or somebody who'd united. Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson, bringing


him back into the government for yet another time, that was political


pragmatism, wasn't it? Gordon Brown blamed me for it, try to get me to


work for him and I said no! Thingies, that is why I have got


Mandelson! They did rub along OK for about 18 months, got frayed at the


end but nevertheless, it was sheer pragmatism. We always see splits in


part is, you don't have to be good friends, you just have to have a


common purpose. Except when it comes to the coalition. That is when you


have two parties and to look at David laws and Michael Gove, who


seem to share a sort of ideological common ground and it has gone. They


know that the elections are coming... You don't think it is


real, this split? Those of us have always been told how to behave with


other kids... ! Sent to the headmaster 's office! It won't


last. A lot of papers say this could be the more serious of the spats


within the coalition partners. They have both hoarded documents to leak


against the other side, because the Tories want to blamed the Liberals


for everything and the Lib Dems want to show they were stopping these


nasty Tories... They have huge files! The problem for Ed Miliband


and Labour is, how are they going to get a look in? That is it, we thank


you all. The one o'clock news is


starting over on BBC One now. I'll be on BBC One tonight for


This Week with TV teacher Mr Drew, actor Clarke Peters, and Sarah Smith


with a film from Edinburgh plus And I'll be here


at noon tomorrow with all the big Female artists have rocked the world


for centuries. Not only did she impress and surprise


Michelangelo, in her nineties,


she won the homage of van Dyck. So just how did they push the


boundaries and flout convention?


Download Subtitles