:00:11. > :00:15.You thought giving was good? It is up to a point, but only up to a
:00:15. > :00:19.point determined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believes some
:00:19. > :00:23.rich people should give less to charity and more to the Treasury.
:00:23. > :00:27.They are paying money to charities, quite often that charity will be
:00:27. > :00:31.something that they control, it might even own their own company,
:00:31. > :00:34.which will then pass on from generation to generation
:00:35. > :00:40.inheritance tax. Is the charity sector being used as
:00:40. > :00:44.a tax dodge, and so what if it is. A philanthropist, MP, banker and
:00:44. > :00:47.trade unionists are here to tell us. Thank you all very much, God bless
:00:47. > :00:52.you. The Conservative, Rick Santorum
:00:52. > :00:59.gives up on becoming the Republican Party's candidate to unseat Barack
:00:59. > :01:02.Obama in November. Is the battle for the White House finally clear?
:01:02. > :01:08.This is how President Bashar al- Assad interprets calls for a
:01:08. > :01:11.ceasefire, is it now a struggle to the death in Syria.
:01:11. > :01:16.Foul language, free downloads, and fortunes to be made in youth
:01:16. > :01:21.culture, another rising star has an audience with Steve Smith.
:01:21. > :01:25.My lyrics, aren't, I don't know, I'm sorry if I keep talking, my
:01:25. > :01:28.lyrics aren't offensive. Aren't they, some people find them
:01:28. > :01:36.offensive, you have heard that before? Some people behind
:01:36. > :01:41.everything offensive. Some of the richest people in the
:01:41. > :01:45.country are paying tax at a lower rate than delivery drivers or
:01:45. > :01:47.school teachers, despite being hardly short of a bob or two
:01:47. > :01:51.himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists he has been
:01:51. > :02:00.astonished to discover some of the schemes being used by the very
:02:00. > :02:02.wealthy. He says that's why he's putting limits on giving to charity.
:02:03. > :02:10.Cue outrage recipients of charitable giving. Before we have
:02:10. > :02:14.this out, our Paul Mason was here. He was giving in the budget tax
:02:14. > :02:17.breaks to rich people, now he wants them to pay more in tax? The budget
:02:17. > :02:20.brought a controversial principle, that is, they think, the Treasury,
:02:20. > :02:24.impossible to raise money from rich people by raising the tax rate,
:02:25. > :02:29.because they change their behaviour, and the tax take falls off. There
:02:29. > :02:33.is a famous curve, controversial, that shows it falling off. Now the
:02:33. > :02:37.solution they have come up with, is to attack the behaviour, to attack
:02:37. > :02:41.the avoidance behaviour, which, as all good economicss or pond dents
:02:41. > :02:49.know, is legal, it is evasion that is illegal, so you change the
:02:49. > :02:53.behaviour by clamping down. As part of this on going battle, George
:02:53. > :02:59.Osborne briefed the newspapers this morning that he was shocked by
:02:59. > :03:05.these top 20 avoiders not paying much tax. The solution to it is to
:03:05. > :03:09.impose a tycoon tax, which actually says the amount of tax relief you
:03:09. > :03:13.get on charitable giving is capped. You can't just wipe out all your
:03:13. > :03:16.tax bill by giving more and more to your charities. Why are they
:03:16. > :03:21.attacking charitable giving? Because it is one of the most
:03:21. > :03:24.efficient ways to avoid paying tax. The charities have come out and say
:03:24. > :03:27.they have already seen people stop giving, people are putting
:03:27. > :03:31.donations on hold until they find out what is going on. The
:03:31. > :03:34.recipients, the good causes are up in arms. But Downing Street came
:03:34. > :03:39.out fighting today and actually said, we know of charities where
:03:39. > :03:44.there doesn't seem to be a lot of charitable work going on, but a lot
:03:44. > :03:48.of effect on individuals' tax bills is taking place. What is certain is
:03:48. > :03:52.that this issue, which was seen on the fringes when the UK Uncut
:03:52. > :03:57.movement started 18 months ago, has come, via this studio, Ken and
:03:57. > :04:04.Boris, right to the centre of the political mainstream.
:04:04. > :04:14.These are dark days for the rich. But one sanctuary remained.
:04:14. > :04:14.
:04:14. > :04:20.Until now. From Qatar, from Russia, the Greece, the hot money of the
:04:20. > :04:25.rich has one destination, Blighty. But now, with the resistance rising,
:04:25. > :04:29.the man in charge has called a halt. Everybody is to leave here
:04:29. > :04:33.immediately, this cafe is closed until further notice, clear the
:04:33. > :04:38.room. How can they close me up, on what grounds. I'm shocked, shocked,
:04:38. > :04:42.to find that gambling is going on in here. Your winnings, Sir. Thank
:04:42. > :04:45.you very much. Everybody out at once. Of all the rows of all the
:04:45. > :04:49.world, why did George Osborne have to walk into this one. The
:04:49. > :04:54.Chancellor said he was shocked at the scale of tax avoidance, but
:04:54. > :04:57.most tax experts are not shocked, in fact, some have been warning
:04:57. > :05:02.about Britain's conviviality for tax dodgers, for years. This
:05:02. > :05:08.accountant has waged a one-man campaign for tighter tax dodging
:05:08. > :05:12.laws. These people are earning figures of �15-�20 million a year.
:05:12. > :05:16.Who are they? They could be footballers, they could be bankers,
:05:16. > :05:20.they could be the directors of FTSE 100 companies, they are that sort
:05:20. > :05:25.of catagory of people. Or else it is inherited wealth. How do they do
:05:25. > :05:29.it? A number of ways. The biggest, perhaps, is to have enormous
:05:29. > :05:32.portfolios of buy-to-let property. They go and buy lots of houses,
:05:32. > :05:38.which they are letting, and they mortgage the whole lot, to the hilt,
:05:38. > :05:42.and so all of that portfolio of property, massive amount of rental
:05:42. > :05:46.income, is basically cancelled by the interest on the mortgages, we
:05:46. > :05:50.are subsidising their creation of a wealth portfolio. What else? They
:05:50. > :05:54.are borrowing, personally, and lending the money to their company.
:05:54. > :05:58.What else are they doing? They are paying money to charities, quite
:05:58. > :06:02.often that charity will be something that they control. It
:06:02. > :06:08.might even own their Owen company, which will then pass on from -- own
:06:08. > :06:15.their own company, which will then pass on from generation to
:06:15. > :06:18.generation. Osborne says he's shocked, having viewed these
:06:18. > :06:22.anonymous tax records, how shocked would you be if you could see them?
:06:22. > :06:28.Not at all shocked, I would say that's normal, that is what I would
:06:28. > :06:33.expect. I warned in 2008 that the tax gap was maybe �12 billion from
:06:33. > :06:38.individuals in the UK. The revenue have said for years it is �1.5
:06:38. > :06:42.billion, mass mum, that is utterly implausible, now they are saying 20
:06:42. > :06:46.people make up just 10% of their total tax gap. Shows how daft their
:06:46. > :06:49.estimate has been. To recap, to avoid tax on the scale of a
:06:49. > :06:54.superyacht, you have to give your money to your family, make a loss
:06:54. > :07:01.on some of your businesses, buy lots of houses and rent them out,
:07:01. > :07:05.and give a lot of money to charity. Hold on a minute, aren't some of
:07:05. > :07:10.these tax dodges actually useful to society, even if they do pull a
:07:10. > :07:15.fast one on the Exchequer. There is a very practical issue here about
:07:15. > :07:18.do you want to try to squeeze the rich as hard as you can to get
:07:19. > :07:22.every penny out of them, or create a climate in which more people
:07:22. > :07:26.become rich, more rich people move to the United Kingdom. If the UK is
:07:26. > :07:31.seen to be extremely bad place for tax reasons for millionaires to
:07:31. > :07:35.live, then you have actually got a revenue problem.
:07:35. > :07:39.The issue of tax avoidance has been rushing at politicians ever since
:07:39. > :07:43.the UK Uncot protest honed in on a controversial deal between
:07:43. > :07:49.Vodaphone and the Inland Revenue. And the row between Ken and Boris
:07:49. > :07:54.has given it added spleen. Which some on the right find unhelpful.
:07:54. > :07:57.I'm also concerned that some of this grandstanding, and screaming
:07:57. > :08:02.about the behaviour of the rich detracts from the actual facts. If
:08:02. > :08:08.we were to look at the top 1% of earners in the United Kingdom, that
:08:08. > :08:12.top 1% of earners earn about 12% of all income in the UK, and
:08:12. > :08:15.contribute about 28% of all income tax.
:08:15. > :08:25.We should be applauding this top 1%, they are providing the schools and
:08:25. > :08:26.
:08:26. > :08:31.hospitals that the rest of us use. On Budget Day, the argument for
:08:31. > :08:36.cutting the top rate of tax to 45p was that you just can't collect tax
:08:36. > :08:42.from the rich beyond a certain tax rate. Now, it seems, if you use
:08:42. > :08:46.brute force, you can. To discuss these issues we have the
:08:46. > :08:51.Conservative MP, Penny Mordaunt, form charity activist herself, the
:08:51. > :08:56.trade unionists, economist, Nicola Smith, Christine Ross from the
:08:56. > :09:01.private bank, and Sir Stephen Bubb, head of the Voluntary Organisations
:09:01. > :09:04.and chief executive there. You are surely not surprised that rich
:09:04. > :09:10.people can afford good accountants? We want people to give to charity,
:09:10. > :09:15.and in an efficient way. What is happening is aggressive avoidance.
:09:15. > :09:18.You are as surprised as George Osborne is? It does beg the
:09:18. > :09:21.question where have these tax returns been, in a drawer somewhere
:09:21. > :09:23.in the Treasury. It is a question of where the Chancellor of the
:09:23. > :09:29.Exchequer has been too isn't it? is an issue the coalition
:09:29. > :09:36.Government have tackled from the off. They have put �900 million
:09:36. > :09:42.into addressing tax avoidance and evasion, yielding �7 billion by
:09:42. > :09:48.2014. More needs to be done. And what will be introduced in the tax
:09:48. > :09:53.bill next year, is an anti- avoidance rule. Nothing illegal has
:09:53. > :09:57.taken place? The TUC has been worried that �13.8 billion a year
:09:57. > :10:00.is being lost in tax avoidance in the UK. Our worry is, when we have
:10:00. > :10:05.had lots of warm words from the Chancellor today, about the need to
:10:05. > :10:12.tackle the tax gap, we haven't had much action. I say again, nothing
:10:12. > :10:14.illegal has happened? Absolutely, but tax avoidance, whereby people,
:10:14. > :10:19.use legitimate loopholes to avoid paying tax rates that parliament
:10:19. > :10:22.would have intended, is not something that this country could
:10:22. > :10:26.currently afford, when we have a large deficit and poorest peoples
:10:26. > :10:29.are paying thousands in tax credits, is not what most people would think
:10:29. > :10:33.is particularly fair. Why is it fair that someone with an income of
:10:33. > :10:36.millions a year is paying a tax rate less than someone on the
:10:36. > :10:40.minimum wage. Answer that question? I completely agree. I can
:10:40. > :10:43.understand why the Chancellor takes the view about everyone wealthy and
:10:43. > :10:49.poor should make a contribution to the running of the country. I
:10:49. > :10:53.absolutely see that. But why should you put charitable giving in that
:10:53. > :10:58.same bracket? Charitable giving, rich people who make donations to
:10:58. > :11:02.charity, are not gaining personally. The whole point of the reliefs is
:11:02. > :11:05.to encourage more giving. For many charities, the health charities,
:11:05. > :11:12.the cancer charities, international development, rely on very big
:11:12. > :11:17.donations to do a lot of their work. If you have a cap, which stops that
:11:18. > :11:22.giving, and the consumate giving, that is damaging society. You know
:11:22. > :11:27.people who give more than �50,000 or a quarter of their salary?
:11:27. > :11:32.Absolutely. We know that. And actually, what's happened since,
:11:32. > :11:36.this was a bombshell for charities, what's happened is, since then, the
:11:37. > :11:40.big charities, many of the done nars that we know have been --
:11:40. > :11:48.donors we know have been saying this will affect giving now and in
:11:48. > :11:55.the future. Giving you an example, the cancer charities, I took the
:11:55. > :12:00.leaders of Macmillan Cancer Care and Cancer Research to see the
:12:00. > :12:06.minister, and they said for their big projects, the cancer institutes,
:12:06. > :12:11.80% would come from rich donors and 20% from general fundraising.
:12:11. > :12:14.Anything that hits the potential for wealthy people to give
:12:14. > :12:18.generously is damage to go charities. How does it look from
:12:18. > :12:21.where you are, you look after a lot of wealthy people's money? People
:12:21. > :12:27.plan and people are allowed to plan, we are talking about avoidance that
:12:27. > :12:33.is legitimate. The Chancellor himself said in the quote today in
:12:33. > :12:37.the Tell knows are the rules. Everyone -- The Telegraph, those
:12:37. > :12:41.are the rules. Everyone knows it is legal, but what effect will the
:12:41. > :12:47.change have? It will help people come to decisions about how to
:12:47. > :12:51.invest. Some of the ail veil bltd is riskier businesses, start-up
:12:51. > :12:54.businesses, if there is a loss, the rules say you can write that off
:12:54. > :12:58.against your income that year. That could be perhaps write off
:12:58. > :13:02.someone's total income, they have made a loss, they invested in
:13:02. > :13:05.something riskier, that helps to fuel the economy overall. You would
:13:05. > :13:09.accept as a woman of the world, that some people buy these
:13:09. > :13:13.businesss to write off tax? sure some people do, I wouldn't
:13:13. > :13:19.deny that. There might even be some charities that control things that
:13:19. > :13:22.are in the interests of those people who are seeking to put money
:13:22. > :13:26.away rather than paying tax? would find that difficult to
:13:26. > :13:30.believe. In which case they are acting fraudulently. Charity law,
:13:30. > :13:33.there is law that governs charities, they have to act for public benefit.
:13:33. > :13:35.This was the most remarkable in the justification by the Prime
:13:35. > :13:40.Minister's spokesman today, he said some of these charities didn't seem
:13:40. > :13:44.to be doing a lot of charitable activity, that is a matter for the
:13:45. > :13:50.Charity Commissioners isn't it? haven't seen the case studies that,
:13:50. > :13:53.none of us have. Unfortunately none of us has been allowed to, we have
:13:53. > :13:59.been told what the statement is? you are a major donor, and you are
:13:59. > :14:05.giving money now, you are making a loss. This is about encouraging
:14:05. > :14:08.donations. What we have got to be careful of, and Stephen is right,
:14:08. > :14:12.the cases that Stephen has raised are people worried about the
:14:12. > :14:17.uncertainty, it is not the policy. This is the Prime Minister's
:14:17. > :14:25.spokesman telling us that charities are behaving, by implication,
:14:25. > :14:29.uncharityably, dishonestly perhaps? -- unchairably? He didn't say all
:14:29. > :14:35.were doing that. He said some? have to be careful to get the
:14:35. > :14:39.message across to people who are genuine philanthropists and givers,
:14:39. > :14:43.that they should continue to do that. It is cracking down on people
:14:43. > :14:47.abusing the system. By giving a lot of money to charity, how are they
:14:47. > :14:50.abusing them? You don't know, you are guessing? I could speculate, it
:14:50. > :14:54.could be a corporation that has a charitable arm, that is using it to
:14:54. > :14:58.avoid national insurance contributions. Apparently these
:14:58. > :15:02.were individuals? It could be an individual who has a large business
:15:02. > :15:06.empire. I don't know the cases that these are referring to, clearly
:15:06. > :15:10.there are people who are very, very wealthy, and using this as part of
:15:10. > :15:16.a mechanism for paying no tax. That has got to be wrong. What we have
:15:16. > :15:19.got to do is tackle that, but we have to reassure genuine donors, as
:15:19. > :15:22.Stephen has said, that they can still carry on giving, and we need
:15:22. > :15:26.to provide the certainty, we need to provide the information for them
:15:26. > :15:30.to carry on doing that. The problem with what happened today, and it is
:15:31. > :15:34.a real shame, suggesting that there are some fraudulent charities, and
:15:34. > :15:39.actually not naming them, I mean, if the Prime Minister's spokesman
:15:39. > :15:42.wants to give me the names of these charities, I will give them to the
:15:42. > :15:47.Charity Commission and they will be investigated and deregistered.
:15:47. > :15:51.won't give them to you? I'm sure that's right. The wider issue we
:15:51. > :15:56.have to keep a focus on, is the level of tax relief people in the
:15:56. > :16:02.top 1% have access to. Our analysis is people earning over �150,000 a
:16:02. > :16:06.year, have the equivalent of �15,000 in charitable donations
:16:06. > :16:09.tax-free, that is more than some people in the private sector earn.
:16:09. > :16:12.What is wrong with an individual who has earned money, deciding that
:16:12. > :16:22.they would rather give it to a charity than have George Osborne
:16:22. > :16:23.
:16:23. > :16:27.decide to spend it on whatever the equivalent of the hot -- cones hot-
:16:28. > :16:30.line is? The individual's decision, what they do with the money they
:16:30. > :16:34.have earned, it goes to a common good, one way or another?
:16:34. > :16:38.Individuals have a right to do whatever they want. Not according
:16:38. > :16:42.to to you? Across the income speck trem people have the right to do
:16:42. > :16:46.what they want to do with the money once they have paid the tax
:16:46. > :16:50.parliament intends them to pavement that is true for all of us. We all
:16:50. > :16:53.pay a certain amount of tax to allow our public services to exist,
:16:53. > :16:56.hospitals and schools, beyond that people are allowed to do whatever
:16:56. > :17:02.they want with their income. We are arguing that people should pay a
:17:02. > :17:06.fair rate of tax, and at the time when the public finances are under
:17:06. > :17:10.strain. You haven't said what was wrong with the principle of
:17:10. > :17:15.somebody deciding what to do with their own money rather than George
:17:15. > :17:20.Osborne? People have the right to decide what to do with their money
:17:20. > :17:25.after they have made a legitimate rate of tax, by parliament, 40-50%.
:17:25. > :17:28.Let's look in a slightly broader context, what are your clients
:17:28. > :17:31.thinking about this country when they see these sorts of measures,
:17:31. > :17:35.alorpbg with the other measures in the budget? -- along with the other
:17:36. > :17:40.measures in the budget? I think there is huge relief the 50% rate
:17:41. > :17:43.is going. We knew it wouldn't collect the amount of tax it was
:17:43. > :17:49.intended to, it is just a psychological tipping point. Let's
:17:49. > :17:52.leave the question of whether it works or not aside, I'm asking what
:17:52. > :17:55.your clients think? They think there is an awful lot of tax. Most
:17:55. > :17:59.people aren't leaving, it is heavy, they are counting all the different
:17:59. > :18:03.taxes they pay. I think what will start to happen, contrary to what
:18:03. > :18:06.we are seeing now, in the same budget a few weeks ago, we saw a
:18:06. > :18:11.doubling of the Enterprise Investment Scheme, permissible
:18:11. > :18:13.investment. It was �500,000, now it is �1 million a year, there is
:18:13. > :18:17.healthy tax relief there, to sit that against the restriction on
:18:17. > :18:21.relief, it is saying to people if you guide your money this way you
:18:21. > :18:24.can have the reliefs, if you are having interest relief and trading
:18:24. > :18:27.loss relief, you can't have that. There are still reliefs for the
:18:27. > :18:31.people to use, but the Government is guiding them to particular areas.
:18:31. > :18:35.It is very, very hard to quite get a handle on this Government, it
:18:35. > :18:39.says it is business friendly and wants to encourage enterprise and
:18:39. > :18:43.wealth generation and all the other things it trots out, and yet acts
:18:43. > :18:47.like this against the interests of people likely to do that? We have
:18:47. > :18:51.to have much more clarity in the tax system. I think what I want to
:18:51. > :18:55.ensure is that bad communications don't get in the way of good policy
:18:55. > :18:59.S just to pick up on the point. That is precisely what we have got,
:18:59. > :19:02.we don't know any facts, we just know that the Chancellor of the
:19:02. > :19:06.Exchequer is apparently astonished that rich people have God
:19:06. > :19:11.accountants? I think what we do -- good accountants? I think what we
:19:11. > :19:15.do need to do, to bring it back to the charity point. There is lots of
:19:15. > :19:20.announcements in previous budgets to support high-value donors,
:19:20. > :19:24.leaving money in there as an inheritance and offsetting against
:19:24. > :19:28.inheritance tax, leaving it in the wills. But the charity sector wants
:19:28. > :19:33.there to be supported, a much broader way of giving. Charities, I
:19:33. > :19:37.know as a former charity director, we want to get our mits on money,
:19:37. > :19:43.not just in legacies, but also through the course of their life.
:19:43. > :19:47.What we are looking for, I think, is more clarity, from the Treasury,
:19:47. > :19:51.about the whole range of ways that people can give. And not just
:19:51. > :19:54.pushing them, as Christine says, into one particular direction.
:19:54. > :19:58.are sit anything the corner grunting, not just because you are
:19:58. > :20:01.the only male in this discussion, perhaps there were other reasons,
:20:01. > :20:06.why were you grunting, what was your point? What I kind exorderry I
:20:06. > :20:10.began by thinking that they had -- extraordinary, I began by thinking
:20:10. > :20:15.they made an honest mistake by including charity donations in the
:20:15. > :20:20.cap. It is beginning to looks a though that is not a mistake. It is
:20:20. > :20:24.deliberate. It runs counter to the Government's stated aim to
:20:24. > :20:28.encourage giving. Up until the budget, they had introduced
:20:28. > :20:32.measures to encourage giving, there was a giving White Paper, which was
:20:32. > :20:37.aimed at getting richer people to make a bigger contribution to
:20:37. > :20:42.society. And so, why, I don't understand why they have introduced
:20:42. > :20:46.a measure which will discourage that giving from philanthropists.
:20:46. > :20:51.Do you disagree with the basic principle that there is something
:20:51. > :20:54.healthy for a society, in trying to attract people who are likely to
:20:54. > :21:00.create businesses and generate wealth? Absolutely not. There is no
:21:00. > :21:02.evidence at all that the tax regime we currently have in the UK is
:21:02. > :21:07.having anything like that effect. Rich people in this country have
:21:07. > :21:12.seen their incomes go up by 56% over the last decade, that is far
:21:12. > :21:17.faster than anyone else. Even over the recession, the incomes of the
:21:17. > :21:22.top 1% rose by 13%, per hour worked. The rich in this country are doing
:21:22. > :21:27.better than they have done before, they can afford to make a better
:21:27. > :21:31.contribution to our public finances. The richest 10% of this country
:21:31. > :21:35.earn 100% more of the wealth of those at the bottom 10%. The wealth
:21:35. > :21:39.inequalities we have got, are comparable with those we saw over
:21:39. > :21:44.100 years ago. People at the top are doing extremely well, those at
:21:45. > :21:49.the bottom are being hard pressed by the cuts. You concede we haven't
:21:49. > :21:52.seen any real measures likely to significantly deter people from
:21:52. > :21:57.moving here and investing here? can't say who is not coming or say
:21:57. > :22:03.we have seen a mass exodus. We know firms are setting up businesses
:22:03. > :22:06.abroad. We can't see who hasn't arrived. I haven't seen a mass
:22:06. > :22:12.exodus, but at the same time I don't think, we have always allowed
:22:13. > :22:16.people to plan, to plan sensibly. What will solve this is the general
:22:16. > :22:21.anti-avoidance rule for next year. That will deal with abusive schemes.
:22:22. > :22:26.What we have now is interest on buy-to-let properties. When we know
:22:26. > :22:30.that we will reconvene. At last we know who Barack Obama
:22:30. > :22:37.will face in the race to become the most powerful man on earth. It will
:22:37. > :22:41.be the multi-millionaire and one- time Morman missionary, Mitt Romney.
:22:41. > :22:48.His opponent, long a long way behind, was until today, Rick
:22:48. > :22:53.Santorum, the enemy of gay marriage, abortion and climate change. He
:22:53. > :22:58.threw in the towel today. The podium with the uncontentious
:22:58. > :23:01.slogan, the flag the size of the tennis court, and the family
:23:01. > :23:06.assembling. It can only be American presidential politics. And today's
:23:06. > :23:10.big news, well, what everyone was predicting was going to happen, has,
:23:10. > :23:15.in fact, happened. We made a decision over the weekend, that,
:23:15. > :23:23.while this presidential race for us is over, for me, and we will
:23:23. > :23:27.suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done nighting.
:23:28. > :23:31.Rick Santorum was running a poor second in the race to become the
:23:31. > :23:35.Republican nominee, he has then decided to bow out. But, as is
:23:35. > :23:38.traditional on these occasions, he shall not, he says, be giving up
:23:38. > :23:43.the fight for the future of America. We are going to continue to go out
:23:43. > :23:48.there and fight to make sure that we defeat President Barack Obama,
:23:48. > :23:52.that we win the House back, and that we take the United States
:23:52. > :23:55.Senate and we stand for the values that make us Americans, that make
:23:55. > :24:00.us the greatest country in the history of the world, that shining
:24:00. > :24:05.city on the hill. To be a beacon for everybody for freedom around
:24:05. > :24:08.the world. Thank you all very much, God bless you.
:24:08. > :24:12.Rick Santorum is a social Conservative, with the kind of
:24:12. > :24:16.religious views that appeal to many Republicans. His problem, though,
:24:16. > :24:20.was there weren't enough of those voters to secure him the nomination.
:24:20. > :24:25.Plus, he couldn't compete with his rival's money or organisation. So,
:24:25. > :24:27.we can now be more or less certain that the Republican candidate, who
:24:27. > :24:31.will face Barack Obama in November's election, will be this
:24:31. > :24:36.man, Mitt Romney. Although, two other candidates are
:24:36. > :24:41.still in the race, they pose a negligible threat. Romney's firing
:24:41. > :24:45.his mud at Rick Santorum...Today's News should have a big imtact on
:24:45. > :24:52.the tone of this contest. We -- impact on the tone of this contest.
:24:52. > :24:56.We should see the end of negative ads of someone candidate attacking
:24:56. > :24:59.another, they can save their money for the attack on the democrats,
:24:59. > :25:04.and Mitt Romney can stop worrying about the right flank and nipping
:25:04. > :25:10.away of support. He can concentrate instead on trying to appeal to
:25:10. > :25:15.voters in the centre, especially women, whom he needs to connect
:25:15. > :25:19.with if he wants to become President. There is a struggle
:25:19. > :25:23.within the Republican Party over who is best equipped to lead the
:25:23. > :25:26.party in a next general election. Mitt Romney, the slightly more
:25:26. > :25:30.moderate candidate on most issues won this time around, he still has
:25:30. > :25:34.some fences to mend with the conservative base, by and large he
:25:35. > :25:38.has not been as damaged as he might have been. One encouraging sign for
:25:38. > :25:42.the Republicans, although they trail the President on who voters
:25:42. > :25:47.tell pollsters they would vote for, Mitt Romney has a small lead on who
:25:47. > :25:50.would be best for the economy. I think the White House may be a
:25:50. > :25:55.little overconfident at the moment. They see all these things trend
:25:56. > :25:59.anything their direction, but, not only has the Dow been down for the
:25:59. > :26:03.last five days in a row, but the unemployment numbers weren't as God
:26:03. > :26:08.as they might have been, and have been in the last three months.
:26:08. > :26:12.Democrats are celebrating a little early, Mitt Romney won't be an easy
:26:12. > :26:18.candidate to beat. Now it is time for the Republicans to start
:26:18. > :26:25.building, rather than tearing each other to pieces.
:26:25. > :26:27.I'm joined in Washington by the White House correspondent for
:26:27. > :26:31.Newsweek, Daniel Stone, and also the former member of President
:26:31. > :26:36.Bush's senior staff, Brad Blakeman. What do you think Rick Santorum has
:26:36. > :26:39.done to the presidential campaign? He has certainly brought to life
:26:39. > :26:43.the important issues that are important in the primary process,
:26:43. > :26:46.as well as the electoral process. Remember in America you must be
:26:46. > :26:50.selected by your party before you are elected by the people. Rick
:26:50. > :26:53.Santorum was an effective voice, but now he certainly doesn't have a
:26:53. > :26:58.chance to be nominated. He needs now to do good for the party. The
:26:58. > :27:02.way he can do that is work hard for the House and the Senate, and to
:27:02. > :27:08.get Romney, not only selected, but also elected in the fall. I think
:27:08. > :27:12.he can do that. What do you think he has done to Romney's campaign?
:27:12. > :27:17.Right now there isn't much that he has done to help it. It remains to
:27:17. > :27:21.be seen how he can add value to this campaign, now that he's not in
:27:21. > :27:25.contention for the nomination. me bring in Daniel Stone here, how
:27:25. > :27:30.does it look to you what Rick Santorum has done to the Republican
:27:30. > :27:34.campaign? It is remarkable, if you look at what this man has done.
:27:34. > :27:39.This was someone who was rebuked from his Senate seat in 2006,
:27:39. > :27:42.essentially fired by the people of Pennsylvania, his state, to become
:27:42. > :27:46.one of the most domnaint voices in the campaign over the last two
:27:46. > :27:50.months. He set the tone of this debate, he forced Mr Romney to tack
:27:50. > :27:56.towards the right. To really contend with him on social issues,
:27:56. > :28:00.on real fiscal conservative issues over the past couple of months,
:28:00. > :28:05.where as we know Mitt Romney has been a more conservative candidate
:28:05. > :28:09.and we can expect that in the next coming months. Looking ahead to the
:28:09. > :28:13.presidential campaign and how it will play out, what are the big
:28:13. > :28:18.issues, now we know there the two Titanic figures in it? What will
:28:18. > :28:23.happen now is, we have to lock up the nomination and get the 144
:28:23. > :28:28.delegates to put Romney over the top. -- 1144 delegates to put
:28:28. > :28:33.Romney over the state. Then we need the states to when the general
:28:33. > :28:36.election. Places like Wisconsin and New Hampshire, in order for Romney
:28:36. > :28:39.to be successful and become President, we are only talking
:28:39. > :28:44.about eight or nine states that will actually determine the
:28:44. > :28:51.presidency in 2012. What do you think will be the big
:28:51. > :28:54.battleground between the two men? Those battleground and swing states,
:28:54. > :28:59.they are the only place that it matters. We know Republicans and
:28:59. > :29:01.Conservatives will vote for whoever the nominee is, likely Mitt Romney,
:29:01. > :29:05.Democrats and liberal also go for President Obama. It is those folks
:29:05. > :29:08.in the middle that will be the only one who is matter over the next few
:29:08. > :29:12.months. As you see both candidates moving towards the middle, you hear
:29:12. > :29:15.both of their messages sort of converging, on issues like the
:29:15. > :29:19.economy and foreign policy, they are going to be singing the same
:29:19. > :29:24.tune. They want to go after the same voters. Those are the only
:29:24. > :29:28.ones that will matter. There is one figure we have forgotten in all
:29:28. > :29:33.this conversation, I have forgotten, it is Newt Gingrich, he's still
:29:33. > :29:37.there somewhere, there abouts? still in this race, and he wants to
:29:37. > :29:41.maintain a voice in this campaign. I mean, look, Newt Gingrich has
:29:41. > :29:45.been an influential person in the past. He has been function in this
:29:45. > :29:48.campaign. He has slowly petered off, he knows as soon as he leaves this
:29:48. > :29:52.campaign, as soon as he suspends his campaign, he will no longer be
:29:52. > :29:56.able to get media coverage. He won't be able to influence his
:29:56. > :30:00.supporters at this point. I think he's staying in until he can find
:30:00. > :30:04.an acceptable exit strategy. Brad Blakeman, the question also,
:30:04. > :30:07.the vexed question of which one appeals to the women voters?
:30:07. > :30:13.Clearly Obama has much more leverage with female voters than
:30:13. > :30:18.Mitt Romney does, is that right? That's true, but this too shall
:30:18. > :30:22.change, as the men go head-to-head against each other, we have yet to
:30:22. > :30:26.determine who Romney will pick as a VP which could help in that regard.
:30:26. > :30:29.The jury is out as to whether or not women are going to stick with
:30:29. > :30:34.Obama in light of his record and the economy, which has affected
:30:34. > :30:38.women just as much as men. How do you read it Daniel Stone?
:30:38. > :30:42.have six months at the very least to go before this election, which
:30:42. > :30:46.is a lifetime in politics. The situation now certainly women
:30:46. > :30:49.favour the President more than Mitt Romney. Anything can happen, many
:30:49. > :30:54.things can change, most significantly the economy. I think
:30:54. > :31:01.that's the thing more than any age or gender or class demographics.
:31:01. > :31:04.That will matter most. It was the outcome the cynics
:31:04. > :31:07.predicted and peace makers feared, the deadline for President Assad's
:31:07. > :31:12.troops to stop attacking civilians came and went today.
:31:12. > :31:16.With no let up in the killing, the former secretary-general of the
:31:16. > :31:22.United Nations, Kofi Annan, says he still hopes that peace may fall the
:31:22. > :31:27.day after tomorrow. Opposition leaders fear it may now be too late.
:31:27. > :31:29.This was supposed to be the day the guns fell silent, what happened?
:31:29. > :31:34.is difficult to get the full picture of what is going Onyango
:31:34. > :31:38.the ground in Syria. Syria claims it is complying, and Kofi Annan has
:31:38. > :31:44.said that troops have been withdrawn from some areas, he has
:31:44. > :31:48.also said that appears to be only a repositioning of forces. He says
:31:48. > :31:51.there is credible reports of rolling military operations in
:31:51. > :31:58.population centres. According to opposition activists, Government
:31:58. > :32:03.troops have moved into new areas. That appears to be the case in Homs.
:32:03. > :32:07.We have heard so much about that, a centre of resistance to the regime.
:32:07. > :32:10.Activists have given accounts of shelling in the districts of Bayada,
:32:10. > :32:20.and also in the district of Khalidiya, which we are just seeing
:32:20. > :32:22.
:32:23. > :32:27.up there on the map. Glk These are the latest pictures, we are told,
:32:27. > :32:32.of Homs, we can't verify them. Activists say dozens of people have
:32:32. > :32:36.been killed there, and reports of some of the discoveries of bodies,
:32:36. > :32:41.including two families. Hear you can hear people cursing the regime
:32:41. > :32:45.of Bashar al-Assad, you can hear them crying out "God is great".
:32:45. > :32:49.Tanks still here in populated areas. And still, as you can see and hear,
:32:49. > :32:56.actually firing. The violence has not been confined to Homs. There
:32:56. > :32:59.are reports of attacks in deaths of the town of Hama, Deraa, Idlib in
:32:59. > :33:03.the north, and the Government claims it has lost men too. And all
:33:03. > :33:08.this on the day we were supposed to see the beginning of the end of the
:33:08. > :33:15.fighting. Where does this leave Kofi Annan's supposed peace plan?
:33:15. > :33:18.He's been visiting Syrian refugees on a camp on the Sir January-
:33:18. > :33:22.Turkish border today -- Syrian- Turkish border today, he has been
:33:22. > :33:27.trying to sound upbeat. The plan calls for the Government to
:33:27. > :33:30.withdraw troops and heavy weapons, such as tanks, from populated areas.
:33:30. > :33:34.They were supposed to do that by today. That hasn't happened. In the
:33:34. > :33:38.next 48 hours, the ceasefire was supposed to be implemented on the
:33:38. > :33:43.ground. With the onus on the opposition to follow the
:33:43. > :33:49.Government's lead. And then, by 6.00am on Thursday, all forms of
:33:49. > :33:53.violence by all sides is supposed to have stopped. Well Kofi Annan is
:33:53. > :33:57.clearly extremely frustrated with the Syrian regime, he insists his
:33:57. > :34:03.plan is not dead yet. The plan is still on the table, and it is a
:34:03. > :34:06.plan we are all fighting to implement. It is a plan that
:34:06. > :34:10.council has endorsed and the Syrians have endorsed, and from the
:34:10. > :34:14.comments made by the opposition, they are also prepared to go along
:34:14. > :34:22.with it, if the Government makes commitments to pull the troops out.
:34:22. > :34:24.I think the plan is very much alive. If you want to take it off the
:34:24. > :34:28.table, what would you replace it with.
:34:28. > :34:34.That is exactly the problem. The international community really
:34:34. > :34:38.doesn't have anything else up its sleeve to end the fighting. What
:34:38. > :34:43.next? Andrew Green was the British ambassador to Syria, and has
:34:43. > :34:48.maintained a close interest in the country since. Do you think that
:34:48. > :34:51.President Assad's likely to accept Kofi Annan's plan? Not a snowball's.
:34:52. > :34:55.It is absolutely clear that the regime have decided they don't want
:34:55. > :34:57.a ceasefire. They have made a calculation, their calculation is
:34:58. > :35:02.that if there is a ceasefire it will help the opposition. And on
:35:02. > :35:05.the other hand, they think that they can continue to crush them.
:35:05. > :35:12.Brave though they are, the regime think they can crush them. Doesn't
:35:12. > :35:17.he care what the rest of the world thinks? No. Why not? Because his
:35:17. > :35:20.own survival, and the survival of his clan and his power, indeed his
:35:20. > :35:24.actual survival, depends on staying in power. There was a theory, at
:35:24. > :35:28.one point, that perhaps he basically was a decent guy, and he
:35:28. > :35:33.was a prisoner of all the security apparatus, the generals and the
:35:33. > :35:36.other around him, that your belief? Not entirely. I mean he has never
:35:36. > :35:40.run the country in the way his father did. He has always been a
:35:40. > :35:43.figurehead, and the real power has been with those who run the six
:35:43. > :35:47.Intelligence Services and the key military units. He has always been
:35:47. > :35:51.a figurehead, he has never had decisive power. I think nonetheless
:35:51. > :35:56.he made some serious mistakes. I think when this whole thing started
:35:56. > :36:01.he should have been much quicker in meeting the new situation. But he's
:36:01. > :36:05.not the key figure, the key figure is the generals who lie behind this
:36:05. > :36:09.regime. Given the position he's in now, if you think there is no
:36:09. > :36:16.chance of his accepting any kind of ceasefire plan, it's a struggle to
:36:16. > :36:18.the death isn't in? Yes, I'm afraid has exactly the situation. They
:36:18. > :36:22.know if they lose power they will lose their lives. And they will,
:36:22. > :36:27.therefore, continue to crush the opposition for as long as the army
:36:27. > :36:32.remains loyal. Now part of that army are from their own clique, the
:36:32. > :36:38.Alawites, part of them are Sunnis. But you see, even the Sunnis in the
:36:38. > :36:42.army now have a lot of blood on their hands. They must hesitate
:36:42. > :36:47.before they could contemplate a change of regime in Syria. It is
:36:47. > :36:52.going to have a violent end, then? I'm afraid that we are on a
:36:52. > :36:56.slippery slope towards civil war. And one that could indeed spread to
:36:56. > :37:00.Lebanon and perhaps Iraq. It is interesting, isn't it, when you see,
:37:00. > :37:04.I don't know, were you ambassador at the time when Jack Straw went
:37:04. > :37:08.there, he was just after you? was later, yes. When you remember
:37:08. > :37:13.those pictures, there clearly was a time when western Governments
:37:13. > :37:16.thought he was turnable, that he was perhaps a force for good. There
:37:16. > :37:20.was some potential there, was that just a misreading of everything, or
:37:20. > :37:24.what? Not entirely. I think there was a time, and there was some hope
:37:24. > :37:29.that Syria would very gradually change to a lighter regime. And it
:37:29. > :37:32.did, for a period. Years ago, before he came to power, you didn't
:37:32. > :37:36.even discuss politics, because it was too dangerous. After he had
:37:36. > :37:41.been in power about five years, you could discuss politics privately.
:37:41. > :37:45.The deal was that's OK, but you start organising and you're in jail
:37:45. > :37:48.and you will be beaten up. So there was some improvement. What has
:37:48. > :37:52.happened is when the Arab Spring started to take place, which nobody
:37:52. > :37:55.foresaw a year ago. Then their reaction to that, their defensive
:37:55. > :38:01.reaction to that has been absolutely vicious, as you have
:38:01. > :38:06.seen. Do you think, you would have to include yourself among them, the
:38:06. > :38:10.west was niave in characterising Bashar al-Assad as a person who was
:38:10. > :38:13.potentially a force for something other than the repression of his
:38:13. > :38:17.father? No, I don't think so. There was a time when there could have
:38:17. > :38:22.been, and indeed there was, some gradual progress towards a softer
:38:22. > :38:28.regime. They would always want to stay in power, qet is the
:38:28. > :38:34.viciousness that they needed d the question is the viciousness they
:38:34. > :38:37.needed to stay in power, what has changed is the threat tho their
:38:37. > :38:41.continued existence of the -- to their continued existence through
:38:41. > :38:45.the Arab Spring, has caused them to take the stand you see every night
:38:45. > :38:49.on the television. So they have changed? I don't think the people
:38:49. > :38:52.behind him have changed particularly, once threatened they
:38:52. > :38:57.have reacted with unspeakable viciousness.
:38:57. > :39:02.Thank you. Now, in youth culture, nothing
:39:02. > :39:07.succeeds like excess, from Elvis to Eminem, singers have grown rich by
:39:07. > :39:13.scandalising their elders to sell music to their children. The latest
:39:13. > :39:18.development from a gang of Los Angeles rappers called Oddie, or as
:39:18. > :39:22.their aunties know them, Oddie, is slight low different. They are
:39:22. > :39:30.gaifg their and I way their music and -- giving away their music and
:39:30. > :39:37.charging large amounts for merchandise. Is this the future of
:39:37. > :39:46.rock'n'roll? Hundreds of teenagers, forming an orderly queue, in order
:39:46. > :39:50.to go shopping. Maybe this is the future of
:39:50. > :39:54.rock'n'roll. Los Angeles rappers, Odd Future, the critics seem to
:39:54. > :39:57.think so. # Excuse the swag
:39:57. > :40:05.# I'm trying to tone it down # I guess we looking like the
:40:05. > :40:09.living dead Perhaps it is a bit of both.
:40:09. > :40:13.These are fans of Odd Future, who are waiting to moat their heros at
:40:13. > :40:18.a defunct store off Brick Lane in East London.
:40:18. > :40:25.For a couple of days only, while the band is in town, it is a pop-up
:40:25. > :40:30.shop, selling their merchandise. What are you selling today? Some
:40:30. > :40:36.jeans? There is a hoodie with my face on it, you should buy that.
:40:36. > :40:44.I did all of these in 24 hours, I did 300 T-shirts in 24 hours.
:40:44. > :40:50.All hand done. What will they be retailing at today? I think it is
:40:50. > :40:54.like �100. Are there any washing instructions here?
:40:54. > :40:58.# We open three hours. Odd Future are in the remarkable
:40:58. > :41:03.position of being a hit band who haven't sold any records, or hardly
:41:03. > :41:09.any. Instead they have given away 20 all comes worth of songs on-line,
:41:09. > :41:11.so the merch, as it is known, is a vital element of their income. You
:41:11. > :41:16.guys are pretty tired, you have been working hard and travelling a
:41:16. > :41:19.lot? We have been doing this every other day, these store openings and
:41:19. > :41:25.we have shows, it's all right though.
:41:25. > :41:32.# To have some type of knowledge # That is one perception
:41:32. > :41:37.# Knowing you own your opponent When they are not hucktering
:41:37. > :41:42.product, they write tracks that don't get played on the radio,
:41:42. > :41:45.their lyrics are too provocative or puerile, depending on what you
:41:46. > :41:50.think. Their young fans, who follow them on-line, seem to like it best
:41:50. > :41:53.about them. They are more aggressive, they
:41:53. > :41:58.don't care what they say, they say anything they feel like, and they
:41:58. > :42:03.get away with it. Why is that appealing to you, would you like to
:42:03. > :42:09.be able to do the same? I have heard a lot worse lyrics. Do you
:42:09. > :42:14.think it is tongue-in-cheek, or do they mean it? They don't mean it.
:42:14. > :42:23.Where do mum and dad think you are now? Geography trip. I'm on a
:42:23. > :42:27.geography trip right now. What are you studying? Urban...Renewal!
:42:28. > :42:31.Rebels or sell-outs, both? We explored the paradoxs of Odd Future
:42:31. > :42:39.on stage before a recent show in London.
:42:39. > :42:46.What about your lyrics? What about them? What are you saying your
:42:46. > :42:52.lyrics? Stuff to piss off old white people like you. I'm sorry, my
:42:53. > :42:58.lyrics aren't offensive. Some people find them offensive? Some
:42:58. > :43:02.people find everything offensive. OK. What about this hard sell you
:43:02. > :43:07.do with your merchandise, we were in that shop yesterday, you had
:43:07. > :43:13.kids queuing up since 4.00am, they couldn't take a picture of you, did
:43:13. > :43:20.you know that? They couldn't? Yes they could. I thought you had guys
:43:20. > :43:24.saying don't take any pictures? I don't care. He's just a hard ass,
:43:24. > :43:29.we take pictures with most of the kids in the shop. Some want four
:43:29. > :43:32.pictures and nine autographs. does the pop-up shop work, is the
:43:32. > :43:38.idea you can't necessarily make so much money from records? We pop up
:43:38. > :43:42.wherever we at, set up shop, slam, and make our money, and we dip,
:43:42. > :43:47.ain't nobody taking no taxs from us, no cuts.
:43:47. > :43:56.Not paying taxes, that is for rich, British people, do Odd Future pay
:43:56. > :43:59.tax or don't they? 100%. Check your account some day? Anybody can.
:43:59. > :44:05.There is no marketing, it is exposing it at the right place at
:44:05. > :44:09.the right time. When you have kids that are completely themselves, you
:44:09. > :44:17.don't necessarily market it, you take who they are and expose it, it
:44:17. > :44:21.is not like a push. A collectors item clean performance
:44:21. > :44:31.by Odd Future, haven't we been here before. Some say the band are a
:44:31. > :44:32.
:44:32. > :44:37.case of old wine in new bottles. Or maybe that's old dope in new bongs.
:44:37. > :44:43.We have been here throughout rock'n'roll history, it is only
:44:43. > :44:47.since Britpop it has been predicated on this all-ages-welcome
:44:47. > :44:55.philosophy, before that was it was pitting generations against each
:44:55. > :45:02.other. That dates back to Elvis upsetting people. In that sense,
:45:02. > :45:07.yeah, Odd Future exist in a tradition of creating outrage.
:45:07. > :45:12.Tomorrow morning's front pages, the Mail and the Telegraph, to follow
:45:12. > :45:14.in a a second or two, both lead with the story we were covering
:45:14. > :45:21.earlier which is restrictions on the amount of money rich people can
:45:21. > :45:25.give to charities. Other papers, the Times.
:45:25. > :45:31.It leads on news of a fascinating story in China. Paul Mason is here,
:45:31. > :45:35.what is it about? In November, a British businessman, Neil Heywood
:45:35. > :45:39.was found dead in a hotel room in China. Tonight the wife of probably
:45:39. > :45:46.the third most powerful politician in China has been charged with his
:45:46. > :45:53.murder, that third most powerful politician, the boss of the City of
:45:53. > :45:56.Chung ching has been sacked from the Polek Bureau, regard lisence of
:45:56. > :46:01.the rights and wrongs in the murder investigation, we have a power
:46:01. > :46:06.struggle at the very heart of the communist party in the second most
:46:06. > :46:11.powerful country in the world. power struggle which we know about
:46:11. > :46:14.zero? Not much, we can guess. We know for many years there has been
:46:14. > :46:19.two factions in the chuen niece communist party, the pro-market one
:46:19. > :46:25.and the socially democratic one, which is allowed to a called Maoist
:46:25. > :46:29.left, which he's the leading example. What he did was not be
:46:29. > :46:33.part of this faction struggle, he stepped out of the rules. The rules
:46:33. > :46:42.were you never appear over the heads of the party to the masses.
:46:42. > :46:48.He had been appealing to the masses in Chung Ching using rhetoric from
:46:48. > :46:52.the cultural revolution, he had some book stores and websites
:46:52. > :46:56.supporting him, they have closed down. I visited the book store.
:46:56. > :47:00.Anybody who knows about Stalinist purges, this is classic purge, the
:47:00. > :47:03.problem is, we don't know how these things end in the modern world, how
:47:03. > :47:07.do theyend? Thank you very much Paul. Also on the front pages of
:47:07. > :47:13.the FT and elsewhere. That is all from Newsnight tonight, time' told
:47:13. > :47:23.goodies tomorrow at the usual time. -- I'm told goodies tomorrow at the
:47:23. > :47:41.
:47:41. > :47:45.Good evening, a few showers would continue overnight, for many it
:47:45. > :47:51.would be a dry, chilly start for Wednesday morning. As temperatures
:47:51. > :47:55.rise under the largely bright continues, the shower clouds will
:47:56. > :47:59.build, some heavy and thundery. Persistent cloud and rain, it is
:47:59. > :48:02.inland we will start to see heavy and thundery showers develop,
:48:02. > :48:08.particularly from the Pennines, Midlands, eastwards, this is where
:48:08. > :48:11.the focus will be. The winds will be light and slow-moving.
:48:11. > :48:15.Variations in rainfall, across the south west and through western
:48:15. > :48:19.parts of Wales, I fancy very few showers into the afternoon, most
:48:19. > :48:22.staying dry and bright, with longer spells of sunshine by the coast.
:48:23. > :48:25.Temperatures with many 10-14, nice in the sunshine, cool when the
:48:25. > :48:28.showers go through. Scattering of showers through Wales, not the
:48:28. > :48:32.number we saw through Tuesday afternoon. While the showers are
:48:32. > :48:36.possible in Scotland, the-iest will be across central and eastern areas,
:48:36. > :48:39.wintry over the hills as well. Wednesday into Thursday, across
:48:39. > :48:43.northern areas, sunshine and showers mix, but across northern
:48:43. > :48:47.Scotland you can see in Inverness, thicker cloud bringing longer
:48:47. > :48:50.spells of rain. Further south the showers could get heavier Wednesday
:48:50. > :48:53.into Thursday, still very much hit and miss, some places staying